free will: yep, another thread about 'that'...

[henry quirk]

This...

(I)f all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom(?) There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

...is the assertion from the opening.

Anyone have any thoughts on it?

[Age]

-----

Any soul gonna actually tackle the subject: or did I just add one more dead-end thread to the pile?

What is there to 'tackle' here, EXACTLY?

'Free will' AND 'determinism' BOTH exist EQUALLY within 'you', human beings. As can be and will be PROVEN absolutely AND irrefutably True.

EVERY one of 'you', posters, says some Falsehoods and says some IRREFUTABLE Truths. Just being ABLE to SPOT and SEE the DIFFERENCES is ENLIGHTENING.

There is NOTHING REALLY to 'tackle' here. Just CHANGE the way you LOOK AT and SEE things, then ALL can become CRYSTAL CLEAR.

[henry quirk]

This...

(I)f all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom(?) There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

...is the assertion from the opening.

Anyone have any thoughts on it?

[Age]

yeah, so, what are your thoughts on what my fellow tin foil hat wearer asserts in his little story?

If that fellow asserted instead something along the lines of 'meaning', 'understanding', and/or 'free will' are 'non visible things' to the human eyes, then, to me, that would be MUCH BETTER than "asserting" that those things are 'not material things'.

The reason WHY this would be MUCH BETTER, to me, is because that they are NOT visible is IRREFUTABLY True. This is a Fact, which can NOT be refuted. Whereas, how does that person KNOW those things are 'not material'? Is there PROOF for this, or is that just an ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF of theirs, which they are HOLDING ONTO and MAINTAINING STRONGLY WITHOUT ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE, let alone ANY ACTUAL PROOF, of ALL. I suggest people assert what they can PROVE True and NOT just what they ASSUME or WISH is true, which they then so DESPERATELY 'try to' 'fight for'?

But each to their own.

[promethean75]

If a set of four wheels, a radiator, exhaust pipe, distributor cap, carburator, axel, etc., are unable to drive to the store individually, how then can a car do so when these things are combined to form the object that is the car?

Discuss this most perplexing of questions.

[Walker]

This...

(I)f all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom(?) There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

...is the assertion from the opening.

Anyone have any thoughts on it?

The assertion hinges on an assumption that “non-material,” exists.
Only the physical exists, invalidates that assertion.

For example:

- Thoughts exist, therefore thoughts are physical.

- Therefore, thoughts are of a physicality excluded by current assumptions.

- Like phenomena that doesn’t fit what’s known of physics, what doesn't fit assumptions about physicality gets tossed into a similar “dark matter,” fudge-factor category that folks call, “non-material.”

- The fact that definitions of “materialism,” exclude thoughts as “non-material,” is merely evidence of incomplete knowledge concerning:
- the nature of physicality,
- what it is that we are,
- what happens to each of us, us defined as awareness.

- This incomplete knowledge is understandable.
- After all, what human can claim complete knowledge about anything let alone physicality, when some questions are unanswerable, and when a dog will insist that invisible-to-human-senses odors are in fact tangible and physical?

[Walker]

… continued.

The solution to the artificial metaphysical crossroad of material/non-material is simple.
Simply, improve the definition of “material,” to more accurately describe reality.

Change the definition of material to include that which has material effects, and say hello to physical thoughts.

By this improved and more accurate definition, thoughts cause physical effects and therefore thought is a physical phenomena. Thought can create material statues and thought can tear them down. Thought can feed a world population once thought unfeedable. Thought can give every beauty contestant an answer to achieving world peace, and thus assuage the thought-guilt of privileged opulence with the knowledge that at least ostensible, peaceful motives for rolling out of bed every day pass the woke test.

Thought can even toss heavy material objects into space. Ain’t this the darndest thing you’ve ever seen? (Could the launch date be April 1?)
https://www.aerotime.aero/29421-america ... satellites

[henry quirk]

If a set of four wheels, a radiator, exhaust pipe, distributor cap, carburator, axel, etc., are unable to drive to the store individually, how then can a car do so when these things are combined to form the object that is the car?

A car can be understood and described from the subatomic level of electrons, protons, and neutrons thru the parts level of plugs, timing chain, and alternator to the car level as assembled vehicle that Mallory directs to convey herself from home to work and back again.

The car, at any level, is insensate, dumb matter that is part of what fictional ghost Einstein called an unending stream of cause and effect.

No such understanding and description exists for Mallory, who (like the person readin' this post; like the person who wrote this post), while composed of insensate, dumb matter, is most decidedly not insensate, not dumb, and not merely a link in causal chains.

And the question and assertion...

If all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain and body, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can those particles give birth to understanding and freedom?

There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

...stand.

[Age]

He's insane.

He might be. Not sure what his sanity has to do with his assertion.

Let's review that.

This lil sequence covers it...


Q: Sir, would you say that the underlying nature of physical reality is atomic?

But the Truly UNDERLYING nature of Reality, Itself, is NOT just 'atomic'. But, OF COURSE, the underlying nature of 'physical reality', or of the physical (part of) Reality is 'atomic', 'particles', or 'particles of matter'. This goes without saying.

A: If you’re asking me whether atoms and smaller particles exist everywhere in the universe, then of course, yes.

But, OBVIOUSLY, particles (of matter) do NOT exist EVERY where. To suggest this, or to even just think this, is absolutely ABSURD and RIDICULOUS.

Q: And are you satisfied that, wherever they are found, they are the same? They exhibit a uniformity?

A: Surely, yes.

Q: Regardless of location.

A: Correct.

Q: So, for example, if we consider the make-up of the brain, those atoms are no different in kind from atoms wherever in the universe they are found.

All of this can be explained in a much simpler, easier, and more thorough way. Atoms are made up of 'particles', themselves. The Universe is therefore fundamentally made up of 'particles', AND because there is obviously NOT just one piece or one particle, of matter, there MUST therefore be different pieces, or particles of, matter. Which then means there HAS TO BE a distance between or around those particles, of physical matter.

The Universe MUST therefore be, fundamentally, made up of 'physical matter', or visible objects, which is separated by a distance, which is more commonly known as 'space', which would obviously NOT be made up of 'physical matter' and which is, itself, not visible, although the distance can be visibly observed. Now, these two things, combined together, HAVE TO BE Everywhere, or, in other words, just limitless and unbounded spatially.

So, ANY and EVERY visibly seen object is just made up of the EXACT SAME particles of physical matter, no matter what that visible object is.

A: That’s true. The brain is composed entirely of these tiny particles. And the particles, everywhere in the universe, without exception, flow and interact and collide without any exertion of free will. It’s an unending stream of cause and effect.

But, the physical object can be and is moved, or influenced, by 'free will'.

Q: And when you think to yourself, “I’ll get breakfast now,” what is that?

A: The thought?

Q: Yes.

A: Ultimately, it is the outcome of particles in motion.

But, the outcome of particles, in motion, does NOT lead to ANY conclusion that 'thought', itself, is made up particles of matter.

Q: You were compelled to have that thought.

A: As odd as that may seem, yes. Of course, we tell ourselves stories to present ourselves with a different version of reality, but those stories are social or cultural constructs.

This is False or Wrong, and when 'you' uncover and discover what the 'you' is EXACTLY, then 'you' will also understand WHY this is False or Wrong.

Q: And those “stories” we tell ourselves—they aren’t freely chosen rationalizations, either. We have no choice about that.

A: Well, yes. That’s right.

Q: So there is nothing in the human brain that allows us the possibility of free will.

A: Nothing at all.

OF COURSE NOT.

The human brain is just made up physical matter, which like ALL other physical matter, itself, is NOT able to think, comprehend, reason, understand, et cetera.

Q: And as we are sitting here right now, sir, looking at each other, sitting and talking, this whole conversation is spooling out in the way that it must. Every word. Neither you nor I is really choosing what we say.

The 'you' can NOT and does NOT choose, but 'I' CAN and DO.

Once who and what the 'you' is, or refers to, and who and what 'I' am, is KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD, then this ALL makes PERFECT SENSE.

A: I may not like it, but yes, it’s deterministic destiny. The particles flow.

OF COURSE ALL physical particles flow in a deterministic way, and they will ALL continue to flow towards the deterministic destiny that I am creating HERE, NOW.

Q: When you pause to consider a question I ask you…even that act of considering is mandated by the motion of atomic and sub-atomic particles. What appears to be you deciding how to give me an answer…that is a delusion.

This is only because the 'you', as some say, "is an illusion or a delusion", but, more correctly, because of who and what the 'you' IS, EXACTLY, there is just a False illusion and False sense of 'reality' existing, which explains the continual bickering and arguing over which 'view' of Reality, or which one of 'you', is Right.

A: The act of considering? Why, yes, that, too, would have to be determined. It’s not free. There really is no choice involved.

REALLY? So, who, EXACTLY, is make this decision, view, and CHOICE, that; "There really is no choice involved".

Q: And the outcome of this conversation, whatever points we may or may not agree upon, and the issues we may settle here, about this subject of free will versus determinism…they don’t matter at all, because, when you boil it down, the entire conversation was determined by our thoughts, which are nothing more than atomic and sub-atomic particles in motion—and that motion flows according to laws, none of which have anything to do with human choice.

1. Of course EVERY entire conversation is determined by 'thoughts', just like EVERY human behavior is determined by 'thoughts', but this does NOT mean that the EACH and EVERY 'thought' is WHOLLY deterministic without ANY free will taking place AT ALL.

2. "our thoughts". Think about who or what the 'our' IS, EXACTLY, and how that 'one'/that 'our' relates to 'thoughts', themselves.

3. Is there ANY proof AT ALL that 'thoughts', themselves, are atomic or sub-atomic particles, in motion or not? If yes, then WHERE, EXACTLY, is that 'proof'?

4. There is NO ACTUAL free will VERSUS determinism subject, discussion, NOR debate. This is because BOTH, equally, exist.

A: The entire flow of reality, so to speak, proceeds according to determined sets of laws. Yes.

Q: And we are in that flow.


A: Most certainly we are.

Really?

Who and/or what does the 'we' word refer to here, EXACTLY?

Work that out FULLY, then 'you' will SEE and UNDERSTAND how 'we' are NOT necessarily in that 'flow' the way 'you' are envisioning that 'flow' here.

Q: The earnestness with which we might try to settle this issue, our feelings, our thoughts, our striving—that is irrelevant. It’s window dressing. This conversation actually cannot go in different possible directions. It can only go in one direction.

A: That would ultimately have to be so.

Q: Now, are atoms and their components, and any other tiny particles in the universe…are any of them conscious?

A: Of course not. The particles themselves are not conscious.

Q: Some scientists speculate they are.

A: Some people speculate that the moon can be sliced and served on a plate with fruit.

Q: What do you think “conscious” means?

A: It means we participate in life. We take action. We converse. We gain knowledge.

Q: Any of the so-called faculties we possess—are they ultimately anything more than particles in motion?

A: Well, no, they aren’t. Because everything is particles in motion. What else could be happening in this universe? Nothing.

Q: All right. I’d like to consider the word “understanding.”

A: It’s a given. It’s real.

Q: How so?

A: The proof that it’s real, if you will, is that we are having this conversation. It makes sense to us.

Q: Yes, but how can there be understanding if everything is particles in motion? Do the particles possess understanding?

A: No they don’t.

Q: To change the focus just a bit, how can what you and I are saying have any meaning?

A: Words mean things.

Q: Again, I have to point out that, in a universe with no free will, we only have particles in motion. That’s all. That’s all we are. So where does “meaning” come from?

A: “We understand language” is a true proposition.

Q: You’re sure.

A: Of course.

Q: Then I suggest you’ve tangled yourself in a contradiction. In the universe you depict, there would be no room for understanding. Or meaning. There would be nowhere for it to come from. Unless particles understand. Do they?

A: No.

Q: Then where do “understanding” and “meaning” come from? Furthermore, sir, if we accept your depiction of a universe of particles, then there is no basis for this conversation at all. We don’t understand each other. How could we?

A: But we do understand each other.

Q: And therefore, your philosophic materialism (no free will, only particles in motion) must have a flaw.

A: What flaw?

Q: Our existence contains more than particles in motion.

A: More? What would that be?

Q: Would you grant that whatever it is, it is non-material?

A: It would have to be, but…

Q: Then, driving further along this line, there is something non-material which is present, which allows us to understand each other, which allows us to comprehend meaning. We are conscious. Puppets are not conscious. As we sit here talking, I understand you. Do you understand me?

A: Of course.

Q: Then that understanding is coming from something other than particles in motion. Without this non-material quality, you and I would be gibbering in the dark.

A: You’re saying that, if all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom. There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

Q: Yes. That’s what I’m saying.


If you missed the money shot, here it is again...

(I)f all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom. There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

And here is what is NOT being FULLY UNDERSTOOD, YET - there is NO 'necessity' that just because particles (of matter), themselves, do NOT possess consciousness, understanding, comprehension of meaning, nor freedom, then the 'other factor' in HOW those things ACTUALLY EXIST means that 'that factor' is non-material at all. The case that they are non-material SEEMS to be a forgone conclusion, BUT they may well be 'matter' in some other form, shape, or way other than 'particles'. We just do NOT KNOW, FOR SURE, YET.

Is this an insane assertion?

If so: why?

I would NOT say that that assertion is an 'insane' assertion. That assertion is in fact a very easy one to arrive at and come to. However, that assertion does NOT allow for 'other possibilities'. So, what I will say, and suggest, here is to just remain Truly OPEN rather than JUMPING to a conclusion and asserting ANY thing of which there is NOT irrefutable proof for, YET.

[Age]

Insane is boring by definition. If you have to sift through a mountain of shit to find a nugget of truth then what's the point? Listen to a real scientific educator. Every word holds the attention.

ONLY to those who are Truly INTERESTED, and 'words holding the attention' does NOT necessarily mean that they are logically sound, valid, accurate, and correct either.

[Age]

Okay, then let's ignore the mountain of shit and look at the assertion all by its lonesome...

(I)f all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom.

How 'understanding' AND 'freedom' exist is ALREADY well understood, and KNOWN.

'birth' is also an Incorrect word in relation to 'freedom' AND 'understanding', in the universal sense, by the way.

There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

Is this an unreasonable assertion?

If so: why?

This is an unreasonable assertion because the words 'have to be' means there is NO other way.

And, without ACTUAL PROOF asserting ANY thing is just an assertion of what one thinks or BELIEVES is true, but WITHOUT thee proof, which is, OBVIOUSLY, 'unreasonable', to say the least.

That physical particles (of matter) do NOT possess 'consciousness', 'understanding', 'comprehension of meaning', AND 'freedom' can be and is ALREADY PROVED True. What has ALSO ALREADY been PROVED True is that 'consciousness', 'understanding', 'comprehension of meaning', AND 'freedom' ALREADY ACTUALLY EXIST. But, there is NO proof YET that 'consciousness', 'understanding', 'comprehension of meaning', AND 'freedom' are 'non-material', (nor were given 'birth' to).

Unless, OF COURSE, there is ALREADY KNOWN ACTUAL PROOF, ALREADY EXISTING, and, if there is, will you be PROVIDING that 'proof' for us to be able to LOOK AT and SEE, and then DISCUSS?

If no, then WHY NOT?

By the way, considering this, ANOTHER, thread about 'free will' would it not be helpful to those who adamantly REFUSE to accept and acknowledge that 'free will' could NEVER exist, nor could EVER be even a possibility to argue or show what 'free will' IS, EXACTLY, and HOW that 'thing' ACTUALLY DOES EXIST, FIRST, BEFORE 'trying to' argue/assert that 'free will' (among other things) is 'non-material' in nature?

[Age]

?

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of just thinking or BELIEVING some thing is true, while doing so without absolutely ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE nor PROOF AT ALL for.

And as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, when CHALLENGED, to back up and support THEIR CLAIMS, absolutely NOTHING of ANY substance AT ALL is provided.

[Age]

What else were you EXPECTING from me?

nuthin' at all

Okay.

[Age]

This...

(I)f all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom(?) There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

...is the assertion from the opening.

Anyone have any thoughts on it?

Yes, already provided.

Did you already respond to the thoughts that I already provided on it?

[Age]

If a set of four wheels, a radiator, exhaust pipe, distributor cap, carburator, axel, etc., are unable to drive to the store individually, how then can a car do so when these things are combined to form the object that is the car?

Discuss this most perplexing of questions.

There is only ONE question here.

WHY do you consider that ONE question 'perplexing'?

An answer to the clarifying question you posed here would just be 'by a human being'.

Also, let us NOT forget that those things combined to form the object that is known as 'car' STILL is unable to drive to the store 'individually' WITHOUT the 'human being', again.

By the way, what, EXACTLY, has this got to do with what "henry quirk" has written above in this thread?