The Democrat Party Hates America

[Gary Childress]

Oh, come on now, guys.

Now of course it's silly to think of quantifying (assigning a parameter of measurement) to free will, however, to go with Alexis' playful terminology, here...



...is how a "cubic centimeter" of something non-material (free will) interacts with physical matter without violating any laws of physics.
_______

I don't interact with matter. My body does. I just watch while it does it.

Seriously, Gary?

Do I have to explain to you that your body is made of "matter," and that every time you move your arm down to scratch your material butt, your inner "I Am-ness"...

(that non-material, qualia sensing [in this case, an itch] aspect of your inner being - the thing you call your "I")

...most definitely "interacts" with the matter of your body via the free will decision to move your material arm for the express purpose of dealing with the qualia of an itch?
_______

But my decision to move my material arm is not one of "free will" according to Big Mike. He says it's "deterministic". I (=my physical body) don't make choices, I (=my physical body) act according to a pre-determined (hence the term "determinism") script that dictates what my body will do.

[Impenitent]

lobotomies work...

-Imp

[BigMike]

Now, on the question of responsibility: I’m not suggesting that we’re unaware of our actions or incapable of avoiding harm. Our consciousness allows us to process information, weigh options, and respond to stimuli—like avoiding an oncoming truck. But the point is that these responses are products of our brain’s physical processes, which are in turn shaped by prior influences and environmental conditioning. In other words, while we feel we’re making free choices, every thought and decision is the result of complex interactions within the brain, bound by physical laws.

Factually, even in our ultra-modern 2024, the “mechanism” through which or by which humankind act, think, reason and discern, is debated and undecided.

But curiously, you have re-roped in the fact of the realness of consequential choices that each of us can and do make, within our cultural and temporal matrixes, and within our biological matrix, except you cannot refer to any evidence of a metaphysical agent.

However, you are not the only one to have concerned himself with the •psychic• factor (the psyche is what I mean) and the issue and question of human consciousness.

I think that ultimately I resist your spiel in some way similar to my resistance of a dreary poem. I do not mean this personally though. I do not disagree that material science (scientism more properly) presents strong arguments (for determinism), but the way it is handled or wielded is to me far too constraining.

As Basil Willey has suggested a “master metaphysician” is needed to explore even the most convincing, and devastating, materialist argument.

I myself do not desire to tie myself up in those knots …

Alexis, let me ask—do you see how memories and learning, both of which are hardwired into our physical brain through our history of influences, could account for the sense of agency or “selfness” you’re seeking, even within a deterministic framework? These memories, experiences, and learned responses aren’t just passing phenomena; they create enduring, physical changes in our neural pathways and become an integral part of who we are. They shape our perceptions, preferences, and responses, giving rise to a personal narrative that feels distinctly “us.”

This deeply ingrained history essentially defines our identity, our values, and our unique way of interacting with the world. So, in that sense, couldn’t this framework of memories and influences be enough to account for the sense of agency and individuality you’re talking about, even if it doesn’t imply an external metaphysical agent?

It might not satisfy the notion of metaphysical free will, but doesn’t it provide a substantial, scientifically grounded form of self that still respects our lived experience of choice and individuality?

[Alexis Jacobi]

But my decision to move my material arm is not one of "free will" according to Big Mike. He says it's "deterministic". I (=my physical body) don't make choices, I (=my physical body) act according to a pre-determined (hence the term "determinism") script that dictates what my body will do.

No, he had modified his assertions just recently under logical pressure: choice exists but it is only the physical biological entity that does things within the biological-material structure.

His position is perhaps a more simple anti-metaphysical one, certainly anti-theistic.

[Gary Childress]

But my decision to move my material arm is not one of "free will" according to Big Mike. He says it's "deterministic". I (=my physical body) don't make choices, I (=my physical body) act according to a pre-determined (hence the term "determinism") script that dictates what my body will do.

No, he had modified his assertions just recently under logical pressure: choice exists but it is only the physical biological entity that does things within the biological-material structure.

His position is perhaps a more simple anti-metaphysical one, certainly anti-theistic.

OK. So if choice exists, then he must mean there is free will (=our acts are not pre-determined). Otherwise, he's using the word "determinism" in a sense other than how it is typically used in philosophical discussion.

[BigMike]

But my decision to move my material arm is not one of "free will" according to Big Mike. He says it's "deterministic". I (=my physical body) don't make choices, I (=my physical body) act according to a pre-determined (hence the term "determinism") script that dictates what my body will do.

I get the irony you’re pointing to, and I can see how determinism can sound like it’s reducing human experience to a script with no input from our consciousness. But here’s the nuance: it’s not that consciousness doesn’t exist or that it doesn’t play a role in our experiences. Rather, consciousness itself—the sensation of awareness, the processing of qualia like itching or hunger—is also a product of physical processes in the brain. It’s like the theater of the mind, where we “watch” events unfold, but the underlying decisions are shaped by prior conditions and causes.

When I say actions are deterministic, I mean that what we perceive as choices—like moving your arm to scratch an itch—are responses that emerge from the complex interaction of neurons, sensory inputs, and past experiences. Consciousness experiences these choices as though they’re free, but they’re built on layers of causation we don’t control. So, while it feels like “you” are making a choice, that sensation itself is part of the deterministic process.

[Alexis Jacobi]

OK. So if choice exists, then he must mean there is free will (=our acts are not pre-determined). Otherwise, he's using the word "determinism" in a sense other than how it is typically used in philosophical discussion.

Mais oui, monsieur, je suis d’accord à cent percent.

[seeds]

But my decision to move my material arm is not one of "free will" according to Big Mike. He says it's "deterministic".

What the heck, Gary, are we considering BigMike to be an infallible authority on this issue?

Of course it's an act of free will. Indeed, you have the free will to scratch your butt or to not scratch your butt. It's your choice, enjoy the wild freedom.

And to be honest, I'm a little disappointed in BigMike, for it seems as if he is going to completely ignore my post regarding "Strong Emergence" - https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewto ... 98#p739298 - which, in my opinion, offers a reasonable challenge to his stance on determinism.

What's up with that, BigMike? Why the non-response?

I (=my physical body) don't make choices, I (=my physical body) act according to a pre-determined (hence the term "determinism") script that dictates what my body will do.

You have the free will to think and believe anything you wish, as do I, to which I say back to you that your body is not your "I".

I'm afraid to ask, but do you honestly believe that your "body" experiences the 3-D phenomenal features of your dreams, or is it something internal and unmeasurable?
_______

[Gary Childress]

But my decision to move my material arm is not one of "free will" according to Big Mike. He says it's "deterministic". I (=my physical body) don't make choices, I (=my physical body) act according to a pre-determined (hence the term "determinism") script that dictates what my body will do.

I get the irony you’re pointing to, and I can see how determinism can sound like it’s reducing human experience to a script with no input from our consciousness. But here’s the nuance: it’s not that consciousness doesn’t exist or that it doesn’t play a role in our experiences. Rather, consciousness itself—the sensation of awareness, the processing of qualia like itching or hunger—is also a product of physical processes in the brain. It’s like the theater of the mind, where we “watch” events unfold, but the underlying decisions are shaped by prior conditions and causes.

When I say actions are deterministic, I mean that what we perceive as choices—like moving your arm to scratch an itch—are responses that emerge from the complex interaction of neurons, sensory inputs, and past experiences. Consciousness experiences these choices as though they’re free, but they’re built on layers of causation we don’t control. So, while it feels like “you” are making a choice, that sensation itself is part of the deterministic process.

When you say actions are determined, what would the opposite of the word "determined" be? It's almost like you're saying, "yes we have free will" and "Yes our decisions are determined". It's like saying something is both true and false. I mean, it's fair to say, "I'm not sure if our actions or choices are determined or else free". Or if you simply mean we are bound by what is possible, then that's kind of a given. I don't think any person who believes in Free Will would say, "gee, Gary. Instead of drowning in the flood you could simply have willed yourself wings and flown over the raging torrents".

[Gary Childress]

I (=my physical body) don't make choices, I (=my physical body) act according to a pre-determined (hence the term "determinism") script that dictates what my body will do.

You have the free will to think and believe anything you wish, as do I, to which I say back to you that your body is not your "I".

I'm afraid to ask, but do you honestly believe that your "body" experiences the 3-D phenomenal features of your dreams, or is it something internal and unmeasurable?
_______

It seems to me like there may be something unmeasurable in "me". But I'm not an expert on it. I mean, maybe someone would pop my head open and there would be a little Gary in there waving "hello" under the microscope (or whatever it is that reductionists think separates a conscious being from an adding machine). Otherwise, I don't see how radical reductionism is the absolute last word on things.

[BigMike]

When you say actions are determined, what would the opposite of the word "determined" be? It's almost like you're saying, "yes we have free will" and "Yes our decisions are determined". It's like saying something is both true and false. I mean, it's fair to say, "I'm not sure if our actions or choices are determined or else free". Or if you simply mean we are bound by what is possible, then that's kind of a given. I don't think any person who believes in Free Will would say, "gee, Gary. Instead of drowning in the flood you could simply have willed yourself wings and flown over the raging torrents".

I see what you’re getting at—saying actions are “determined” can feel like it’s denying any experience of choice, which seems contradictory. So let’s clarify: when I say actions are determined, I mean they follow from prior causes in a way that’s consistent with the laws of physics. It’s not that we’re conscious robots reading off a script; it’s that our “choices” are shaped by a web of influences we don’t consciously control, like genetics, environment, and our brain’s physical processes.

The opposite of “determined” in this context would be “independent” or “uncaused.” For free will to be truly free, it would need to operate independently of these prior causes, allowing the mind to act without being influenced by physical states or past experiences. But here’s the catch: in a universe governed by cause and effect, such independence doesn’t fit. Every action, even those we experience as conscious decisions, has a chain of causes behind it, making it “determined” in a scientific sense.

[Gary Childress]

The opposite of “determined” in this context would be “independent” or “uncaused.” For free will to be truly free, it would need to operate independently of these prior causes, allowing the mind to act without being influenced by physical states or past experiences. But here’s the catch: in a universe governed by cause and effect, such independence doesn’t fit. Every action, even those we experience as conscious decisions, has a chain of causes behind it, making it “determined” in a scientific sense.

OK. So you are a determinist who doesn't believe in Free Will. Is that correct?

[Dubious]

We are to an extent designed to be free based, not least, on the intelligence of the individual; beyond that any notion of free will is ultra vires devoid of all content. The physical brain is mostly independent of any free will supervision.

[Gary Childress]

We are to a extent designed to be free based, not least, on the intelligence of the individual; beyond that any notion of free will is ultra vires. The physical brain, to a great extent, is independent of any free will supervision.

Are you suggesting there should be no laws? Absolutely none? Or should there at least be laws against extreme abuses (murder or rape for example)? Or what is meant by "any free will supervision"?

[Dubious]

We are to a extent designed to be free based, not least, on the intelligence of the individual; beyond that any notion of free will is ultra vires. The physical brain, to a great extent, is independent of any free will supervision.

Are you suggesting there should be no laws? Absolutely none? Or should there at least be laws against extreme abuses (murder or rape for example)? Or what is meant by "free will supervision"?

It's precisely the laws of physics which limit the compass of free will. Our laws, however we make or break them, are merely symptoms or manifestations of those limitations. There's a distinct dichotomy between the physical forces which allow for free will and in what ways that will is made active.