For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
“Lol”? That’s the best you’ve got? If your contribution to this discussion boils down to smug giggles and a single dismissive syllable, then you’ve already admitted you have nothing of substance to say. Either engage like an adult or sit this one out. I’m here for ideas, not playground taunts.
As I said...
You can't, so stop tryin'.henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 7:29 pm Just a reminder: this......is Mike's utopia-generatin' determinism.BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 6:06 pmHere’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.
Anyone -- *'cept Mike -- wanna tell me how we get sunshine & lollipops from that?
*cuz he can't
Sayin' a quark is made of quark or a photon is made of photon is no answer. You don't know what either are made of. No one does.Quarks and photons are elementary particles. By definition, they are not "made of" anything simpler within our current understanding of the Standard Model of particle physics. They are the foundational building blocks, and their properties—mass, charge, energy, and spin—are precisely measurable and experimentally verified.
The promissory materialism is when you assert man is meat, and only meat, without any verifiable explanation of how elementary particles create mind. Sayin' oh, that's an emergent property doesn't explain how it works. It's just you promising the answers are coming...someday. And until they do we ought just accept it.These are facts, not "promissory materialism."
Nuthin' in the empirical evidence proves man is just meat and not a free will. How's it go? Correlation does not imply causation?Your insistence that I "show my work" ignores the mountains of empirical data already accumulated by neuroscience, physics, and biology. Correlations between brain activity and emotions are demonstrated through fMRI scans, electrical studies, and neurochemical analysis. Memory and thought processes have been tied to synaptic activity and neural networks. This isn’t an "assertion"; it’s evidence-based science.
I say man is a hylomorph (I've said this several times in this thread), not a soul in a meatcar or a phantom pulling meat strings. Start with Aristotle, move on to Aquinas, then look up mere hylomorphism and staunch hylomorphism for more. Educate yourself in the alternates before dismissing stuff you obviously know nuthin' about. Descartes's theater ain't the whole of it.As for your soul, Henry, the burden of proof is on you. You’re the one proposing something beyond the physical—a ghostly puppeteer pulling the strings of your neurons. Where’s your evidence for this "soul" having any measurable property or causal influence? I’m not asserting the soul doesn’t exist; I’m simply asking you to meet the same evidentiary standards you demand from science.
Of course not. But you have made claims, specific claims about man's nature, and it behoves you to back them. You haven't done that yet.determinism doesn’t require answers to every metaphysical question to function as a framework.
Henry, you’re throwing out half-baked philosophical tangents, anecdotes, and cherry-picked findings as though they’re a coherent rebuttal to determinism. You keep demanding evidence while sidestepping the mountain of it that already exists. Neuroscience, physics, and biology have been systematically uncovering how brain activity and behavior operate under physical laws. The entire framework of modern science rests on determinism—conservation laws, causal relationships, and the four fundamental physical interactions. It works. That’s why we can predict natural phenomena, model complex systems, and create technologies that rely on the deterministic nature of physical processes.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 5:03 pmAs I said...You can't, so stop tryin'.henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 7:29 pm Just a reminder: this......is Mike's utopia-generatin' determinism.BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 6:06 pmHere’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.
Anyone -- *'cept Mike -- wanna tell me how we get sunshine & lollipops from that?
*cuz he can't
Really, all I want from you is a response to this...
-----
Sayin' a quark is made of quark or a photon is made of photon is no answer. You don't know what either are made of. No one does.Quarks and photons are elementary particles. By definition, they are not "made of" anything simpler within our current understanding of the Standard Model of particle physics. They are the foundational building blocks, and their properties—mass, charge, energy, and spin—are precisely measurable and experimentally verified.
And a quark has never been measured, or observed, or recorded. We infer they exist (remember that -- we infer they exist -- it'll come up later, in this post or one soon after).
The promissory materialism is when you assert man is meat, and only meat, without any verifiable explanation of how elementary particles create mind. Sayin' oh, that's an emergent property doesn't explain how it works. It's just you promising the answers are coming...someday. And until they do we ought just accept it.These are facts, not "promissory materialism."
Nuthin' in the empirical evidence proves man is just meat and not a free will. How's it go? Correlation does not imply causation?Your insistence that I "show my work" ignores the mountains of empirical data already accumulated by neuroscience, physics, and biology. Correlations between brain activity and emotions are demonstrated through fMRI scans, electrical studies, and neurochemical analysis. Memory and thought processes have been tied to synaptic activity and neural networks. This isn’t an "assertion"; it’s evidence-based science.
And you, sir, haven't even bothered to actually pony up any of the empirical evidence. You assert, that's it, that's all.
Well, to be fair, you did foist up Libet's work a few times. But you misinterpreted the results. And when I challenged your misinterpretation with a link to Libet's own words on the work, you dismissed him without even reading what he had to say. You disregarded the thinking of the man whose work you hold out as an evidence.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... ill%3F.pdf
I say man is a hylomorph (I've said this several times in this thread), not a soul in a meatcar or a phantom pulling meat strings. Start with Aristotle, move on to Aquinas, then look up mere hylomorphism and staunch hylomorphism for more. Educate yourself in the alternates before dismissing stuff you obviously know nuthin' about. Descartes's theater ain't the whole of it.As for your soul, Henry, the burden of proof is on you. You’re the one proposing something beyond the physical—a ghostly puppeteer pulling the strings of your neurons. Where’s your evidence for this "soul" having any measurable property or causal influence? I’m not asserting the soul doesn’t exist; I’m simply asking you to meet the same evidentiary standards you demand from science.
As I say: this is your thread, one of several, wherein you make claims about man's nature. None of us have an obligation to put up alternate ideas. You, though, have an obligation to support your assertions. You haven't done that yet.
But, okay, I'll throw you a bone (with the understanding you're not off the hook for backin' your claims).
Fact: severing the corpus callosum doesn't result in two minds. Despite all communication between the hemispheres ending, there is only one mind, identity, personality. If mind were solely the result of brain activity, with each hemisphere independent of the other, shouldn't there be a fragmented mind? Aside from some perceptual disfunction, the person remains the same.
What can we infer?
Fact: Hemispherectomies involve removing half the brain. If mind is solely brain product shouldn't this enormous loss of brain tissue dramatically affect personality, intelligence, memory, etc.? It doesn't.
What can we infer?
I already pointed out Wilder Penfield's work with epileptics. He found seizures, a brain-wide event, had no bearing on mind. He found and was never able to induce a seizure that affected purely mental faculties. Why? Also, while he was to, for example, stimulate the brain to cause a patient's arm to move, he was never able to fool the patient into thinkin' he had moved his own arm. The patient was always able to distinguish between what he did of his own accord and was Penfield induced. Why?
What can we infer?
https://ia801509.us.archive.org/33/item ... ind%20.pdf
There are other evidences, but let's start with these.
By the way: I can reference all of the above. I will if you'll actually read and consider. If, though, as before, you just dismiss it all out of hand, well, I won't waste my time.
Of course not. But you have made claims, specific claims about man's nature, and it behoves you to back them. You haven't done that yet.determinism doesn’t require answers to every metaphysical question to function as a framework.
No, Mike. I offered some evidence that mind is not strictly a product of brain activity, and that free will hasn't been disproven. That's all. More generally, in this thread and others, I've challenged your assertion that reforming society is possible if free will were relegated to the trash heap and if it were commonly accepted that man is a meat machine. That's all. I haven't railed against cause & effect.Henry, you’re throwing out half-baked philosophical tangents, anecdotes, and cherry-picked findings as though they’re a coherent rebuttal to determinism.
You keep sayin' that but offer nuthin' in support of that assertion. Not a link to a study. Not a copy & paste of a paper. As I say, you can't even get Libet's...You keep demanding evidence while sidestepping the mountain of it that already exists. Neuroscience, physics, and biology have been systematically uncovering how brain activity and behavior operate under physical laws.
As I say: I haven't railed against cause & effect, or the regularity of the world. All I've done is challenge you on your unsubstantiated claims about man's nature.The entire framework of modern science rests on determinism—conservation laws, causal relationships, and the four fundamental physical interactions. It works. That’s why we can predict natural phenomena, model complex systems, and create technologies that rely on the deterministic nature of physical processes.
Here's what the man himself has to say...Your supposed “facts” about hemispherectomies and Penfield’s work are misrepresented and oversimplified.
He doesn't say it does, and neither have I. You need to keep up, Mike.As for Penfield, his inability to induce a subjective sense of agency doesn’t magically prove free will exists
Becuz you haven't and still aren't.You call me out for not addressing alternatives...
I haven't done that, Mike....while conveniently hand-waving away the foundational principles of determinism, conservation laws, and causality
My evidence, so far, has been Penfield's work, Libet's research, and some common, verifiable results of surgeries. Together, they cast serious doubt on your idea man is a meat machine. And they stand as a counter to your own evidence of...wait...hold on...you haven't actually offered any evidence. You've asserted. And made appeals to unspecified authority. And, of course, you're incapable of understanding what your own determinism entails, what the logical conclusion of that determinism is whether we're free wills or meat machines (with the former we get nuthin' but atrocity; with the later we get nuthin' at all 'cept what blind forces drive us to [not necessarily better or kinder or more just]).don’t pretend you’ve provided anything remotely resembling evidence for it.
No, Mike. The real question is: will Big Mike ever put his money were his mouth is?The real question here is whether you actually disagree with the principles of determinism
If we're the meat machines you say we are, then, yes, this causally inevitable exchange of nuthin' about nuthin' is pointless. If we're free wills, no, this conversation has merit.this discussion is pointless
Henry, I don’t need to “put my money where my mouth is” when the entire modern scientific understanding of the universe already does that for me. Conservation laws, causal determinism, and the four fundamental forces underpin everything—physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience. The fact that you’re able to use technology to post your replies on this forum proves the deterministic nature of the physical processes that made it possible. You don’t get to cherry-pick causality when it suits your argument and reject it when it challenges your beliefs about human nature.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 8:05 pmNo, Mike. I offered some evidence that mind is not strictly a product of brain activity, and that free will hasn't been disproven. That's all. More generally, in this thread and others, I've challenged your assertion that reforming society is possible if free will were relegated to the trash heap and if it were commonly accepted that man is a meat machine. That's all. I haven't railed against cause & effect.Henry, you’re throwing out half-baked philosophical tangents, anecdotes, and cherry-picked findings as though they’re a coherent rebuttal to determinism.
You keep sayin' that but offer nuthin' in support of that assertion. Not a link to a study. Not a copy & paste of a paper. As I say, you can't even get Libet's...You keep demanding evidence while sidestepping the mountain of it that already exists. Neuroscience, physics, and biology have been systematically uncovering how brain activity and behavior operate under physical laws.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... ill%3F.pdf
...work right, but we're supposed to take your word...on anything?
As I say: I haven't railed against cause & effect, or the regularity of the world. All I've done is challenge you on your unsubstantiated claims about man's nature.The entire framework of modern science rests on determinism—conservation laws, causal relationships, and the four fundamental physical interactions. It works. That’s why we can predict natural phenomena, model complex systems, and create technologies that rely on the deterministic nature of physical processes.
Here's what the man himself has to say...Your supposed “facts” about hemispherectomies and Penfield’s work are misrepresented and oversimplified.
https://ia801509.us.archive.org/33/item ... ind%20.pdf
...see? I'm not afraid to back my assertions.
He doesn't say it does, and neither have I. You need to keep up, Mike.As for Penfield, his inability to induce a subjective sense of agency doesn’t magically prove free will exists
Becuz you haven't and still aren't.You call me out for not addressing alternatives...
I haven't done that, Mike....while conveniently hand-waving away the foundational principles of determinism, conservation laws, and causality
My evidence, so far, has been Penfield's work, Libet's research, and some common, verifiable results of surgeries. Together, they cast serious doubt on your idea man is a meat machine. And they stand as a counter to your own evidence of...wait...hold on...you haven't actually offered any evidence. You've asserted. And made appeals to unspecified authority. And, of course, you're incapable of understanding what your own determinism entails, what the logical conclusion of that determinism is whether we're free wills or meat machines (with the former we get nuthin' but atrocity; with the later we get nuthin' at all 'cept what blind forces drive us to [not necessarily better or kinder or more just]).don’t pretend you’ve provided anything remotely resembling evidence for it.
No, Mike. The real question is: will Big Mike ever put his money were his mouth is?The real question here is whether you actually disagree with the principles of determinism
If we're the meat machines you say we are, then, yes, this causally inevitable exchange of nuthin' about nuthin' is pointless. If we're free wills, no, this conversation has merit.this discussion is pointless
But, hey, you can always stick me in your penalty box again. I certainly don't need to tussle with you directly to comment on your posts.
Please, sir, cite even one study, one research paper, that concludes this: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.Henry, I don’t need to “put my money where my mouth is” when the entire modern scientific understanding of the universe already does that for me.
When I begin a thread called The Reality of Free Will in Life, the Universe, and Everything you can be sure I'll defend it, and I'll so a damned sight better than you've defended this...If you want to defend free will
...til then, all I have to do is ask you to stop wastin' forum bandwidth and post your evidence.BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 6:06 pmHere’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.
You’re trying to make this about a single paper or study as though I need a neatly packaged conclusion that spells out my position word for word. That’s not how scientific knowledge works. The deterministic nature of the brain and behavior isn’t some fringe hypothesis—it’s a conclusion derived from mountains of evidence across neuroscience, physics, and biology. The burden isn’t on me to find a paper titled "Free Will Doesn’t Exist, Here’s Why"—it’s on you to explain how your cherished free will escapes the physical laws that govern everything else.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 8:59 pmPlease, sir, cite even one study, one research paper, that concludes this: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.Henry, I don’t need to “put my money where my mouth is” when the entire modern scientific understanding of the universe already does that for me.
I dare you.
When I begin a thread called The Reality of Free Will in Life, the Universe, and Everything you can be sure I'll defend it, and I'll so a damned sight better than you've defended this...If you want to defend free will...til then, all I have to do is ask you to stop wastin' forum bandwidth and post your evidence.BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 6:06 pmHere’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.
Sure it does, in the sense that the one who takes himself to be disagreeing is taking himself to have free will and the power of free deliberation. You are involved in a performative self-contradiction.
Fair enough.
You're right: he's wrong.Leontiskos wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 9:32 pmSure it does, in the sense that the one who takes himself to be disagreeing is taking himself to have free will and the power of free deliberation. You are involved in a performative self-contradiction.
You’re mistaking the experience of disagreement for evidence of free will. Disagreeing doesn’t require free will; it only requires that people perceive themselves as deliberating and holding different positions—both of which are entirely consistent with determinism.Leontiskos wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 9:32 pmSure it does, in the sense that the one who takes himself to be disagreeing is taking himself to have free will and the power of free deliberation. You are involved in a performative self-contradiction.
---
Fair enough.
Do you seriously believe that your “free will” is instructing your brain what to do and think? If so, are you saying that you—whatever you mean by “you” (mind, soul, free will, take your pick)—are doing the thinking before engaging your brain? If that’s the case, then you’re claiming that “you” can think without a brain.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 9:37 pmYou're right: he's wrong.Leontiskos wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 9:32 pmSure it does, in the sense that the one who takes himself to be disagreeing is taking himself to have free will and the power of free deliberation. You are involved in a performative self-contradiction.
I've been trying to point that out to him for pages and pages. He just refuses to recognize it...thus exercising his free choice to ignore the plain facts. I'm certain it's no longer his being causally predetermined to believe in Determinism, but rather his personal determination never to face the truth...even the truth of his own actions.
Who are you talking to? To the causal factors which make me what I am? Or to a person, whom you hope to persuade?BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 9:53 pmDo you seriously believe that your “free will” is instructing your brain what to do and think?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 9:37 pmYou're right: he's wrong.Leontiskos wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 9:32 pm
Sure it does, in the sense that the one who takes himself to be disagreeing is taking himself to have free will and the power of free deliberation. You are involved in a performative self-contradiction.
I've been trying to point that out to him for pages and pages. He just refuses to recognize it...thus exercising his free choice to ignore the plain facts. I'm certain it's no longer his being causally predetermined to believe in Determinism, but rather his personal determination never to face the truth...even the truth of his own actions.
“Think harder”? Coming from you, that’s rich. The irony here is astounding—you’re literally debating me while denying that thoughts and decisions are the result of deterministic processes. So tell me, Immanuel, is your free will thinking for you without engaging your brain? Are you out here reasoning with a brainless mind, floating untethered from reality? Because by your own logic, that’s exactly what you’re claiming.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 10:04 pmWho are you talking to? To the causal factors which make me what I am? Or to a person, whom you hope to persuade?BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 9:53 pmDo you seriously believe that your “free will” is instructing your brain what to do and think?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 9:37 pm You're right: he's wrong.
I've been trying to point that out to him for pages and pages. He just refuses to recognize it...thus exercising his free choice to ignore the plain facts. I'm certain it's no longer his being causally predetermined to believe in Determinism, but rather his personal determination never to face the truth...even the truth of his own actions.
Who is speaking? Is it just the sum of prior causal factors, that without regard for truth or reason make the lump of materials called "Big Mike" think what he thinks, or Big Mike the person who can understand?
That's what a "performative inconsistency" means. It means you're talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. You're pretending that Determinism is a fact, yet, yourself, acting as if it's not.
So think harder. You've missed the obvious.