compatibilism

[Iwannaplato]

Some people who, in my opinion, do not believe in psychokinesis — the idea that you can move things, even atoms, with your mind — still do so because they do not comprehend how life began. I find this perplexing.

This reasoning is highly disconcerting to me.

I couldn't tell what the position was on telekinesis.

[BigMike]

Some people who, in my opinion, do not believe in psychokinesis — the idea that you can move things, even atoms, with your mind — still do so because they do not comprehend how life began. I find this perplexing.

This reasoning is highly disconcerting to me.

In what way?

[BigMike]

Some people who, in my opinion, do not believe in psychokinesis — the idea that you can move things, even atoms, with your mind — still do so because they do not comprehend how life began. I find this perplexing.

This reasoning is highly disconcerting to me.

I couldn't tell what the position was on telekinesis.

People who believe in free will believe the mind controls the brain's nerve signals. Perhaps you can persuade me otherwise.

[bobmax]

Some people who, in my opinion, do not believe in psychokinesis — the idea that you can move things, even atoms, with your mind — still do so because they do not comprehend how life began. I find this perplexing.

This reasoning is highly disconcerting to me.

In what way?

To get an idea of ​​how life began it might be enough to read "Chance and necessity" by Jaques Monod.

The idea that the mind moves matter to generate life which in turn generates the mind is disconcerting.

At least you believe in the dual mind - matter...
A completely arbitrary idea.

[BigMike]

This reasoning is highly disconcerting to me.

In what way?

To get an idea of ​​how life began it might be enough to read "Chance and necessity" by Jaques Monod.

The idea that the mind moves matter to generate life which in turn generates the mind is disconcerting.

Yes, that idea is insane.

At least you believe in the dual mind - matter...

I do not. I reject the idea that the mind is separable and distinct from matter. Without matter, no mind exists.

[bobmax]

To get an idea of ​​how life began it might be enough to read "Chance and necessity" by Jaques Monod.

The idea that the mind moves matter to generate life which in turn generates the mind is disconcerting.

Yes, that idea is insane.

At least you believe in the dual mind - matter...

I do not. I reject the idea that the mind is separable and distinct from matter. Without matter, no mind exists.

You are ready to start the desert crossing...

[BigMike]

To get an idea of ​​how life began it might be enough to read "Chance and necessity" by Jaques Monod.

The idea that the mind moves matter to generate life which in turn generates the mind is disconcerting.

Yes, that idea is insane.

At least you believe in the dual mind - matter...

I do not. I reject the idea that the mind is separable and distinct from matter. Without matter, no mind exists.

You are ready to start the desert crossing...

anytime

[Belinda]

If all is ONE...
unfolding and expanding in all directions...
why couldn't each of the parts of the one be unfolding and expanding in all directions too...
like fractals...
yet doing so dynamically...
not simply based on a single or particular equation or direction or set of parameters...
but rather, exploring creative potential in all directions...
and each part -- including what we think of as human selves -- could affect the unfolding and expanding of the whole?

None of this has to be pre-determined. Every part of nature, including humans, can be a sensing part that explores potential -- on behalf of the continual creative unfoldment experienced and explored through all of the parts for the one.

Yes? No?

The living parts of the one can't evolve chaotically because their evolution is limited by their struggles for existence, and also by random mutations.

The inanimate parts of the one can't evolve chaotically because there are laws of nature(or of science if you prefer, or of God (if you prefer) that determine the parts' possibilities.

Humans are the ones who judge it as chaotic, yes? The path of evolution is continually changeable based on varying contributions and circumstances. Can't we see perfection in that if we step back from ourselves? Can we only imagine that 'order' results from being pre-determined? Isn't it possible that there's a cooperatively creative flow that makes perfect sense while also continually evolving?

I agree on all the points you raise, Lacewing. I have had difficulty sorting out the last point about future events as determined just as past events are determined.
Recently I have heard or read certain parts of The Bible , a doxology, or a sermon, which explain to my satisfaction that the future is as assured as the past.

True, for us creatures of time there is a creative flow; the very word "flow" indicates a directional sequence. However from the point of view of eternity which is literally timeless there is no future and no past.

[Iwannaplato]

This reasoning is highly disconcerting to me.

I couldn't tell what the position was on telekinesis.

People who believe in free will believe the mind controls the brain's nerve signals. Perhaps you can persuade me otherwise.

And how does this relate to telekinesis. Telekinesis, should it exist, could imply a body/mind dualism or it might simply mean that the body can create fields somehow. Other bodies create fields: bats create sonic fields, electric eels can produce electric fields. I don't think believing in telekinesis entails substance dualism. Though perhaps you mean something else.

More than that you could be a dualist determinist who thinks that a mind of spirit substance controls the nerves, but both substances are determined.

I don't think free will has to depend on a dualism, also. I think one could consider bodies free. How one would demonstrate this, I don't know.

I am nto sure what you were suggesting I persuade you otherwise about. I am sure some free willers believe the mind controls brain nerves.

Of course, physicalism isn't really a claim, anymore, about substance. It's a bad name, as is materialism. Whatever scientists decide is real, they will call physical/material, regardless of what qualities it has.

And if you told some Medieval monk that neutrinos are matter and billions are passing through our bodies every day without touching us, they might has said, well, ok if you are call those matter and physical, then angels may be matter, by your definition of the term.

[BigMike]

I couldn't tell what the position was on telekinesis.

People who believe in free will believe the mind controls the brain's nerve signals. Perhaps you can persuade me otherwise.

And how does this relate to telekinesis. Telekinesis, should it exist, could imply a body/mind dualism or it might simply mean that the body can create fields somehow. Other bodies create fields: bats create sonic fields, electric eels can produce electric fields. I don't think believing in telekinesis entails substance dualism. Though perhaps you mean something else.

Sound "fields" as you refer to them, are air pressure waves. Electrostatically charged particles (electrons or protons) generate electric fields. Are you claiming that willpower can produce these results?

More than that you could be a dualist determinist who thinks that a mind of spirit substance controls the nerves, but both substances are determined.

I don't think free will has to depend on a dualism, also. I think one could consider bodies free. How one would demonstrate this, I don't know.

Do you believe that some bodies are "free" from the physical laws?

I am nto sure what you were suggesting I persuade you otherwise about. I am sure some free willers believe the mind controls brain nerves.

How could they not believe that the mind controls the brain's nerve cells? In the end, nerve signals are composed of bodies (particles).

[Iwannaplato]

Sound "fields" as you refer to them, are air pressure waves. Electrostatically charged particles (electrons or protons) generate electric fields. Are you claiming that willpower can produce these results?

Nope. I am claiming that bodies can create fields. So, perhaps some people's bodies can move things at a distance via a field we haven't discovered yet. IOW there is no way to rule out telekinises based on physicalist substance monism.

Do you believe that some bodies are "free" from the physical laws?

I don't know.

How could they not believe that the mind controls the brain's nerve cells? In the end, nerve signals are composed of bodies (particles).

I'll let them respond to that.

I'll assume you weren't interested in the other points I raised/made.

[bobmax]

Nope. I am claiming that bodies can create fields. So, perhaps some people's bodies can move things at a distance via a field we haven't discovered yet. IOW there is no way to rule out telekinises based on physicalist substance monism.

I agree.

Telekinesis could be checked tomorrow.
But, as you say, it would be the body that would act on matter at a distance, not the mind itself.

That is, for example, the brain could emit waves that affect the behavior of objects.

On the other hand, already now the interaction between objects, and therefore also with the body, takes place via electromagnetic fields.

[BigMike]

Nope. I am claiming that bodies can create fields. So, perhaps some people's bodies can move things at a distance via a field we haven't discovered yet. IOW there is no way to rule out telekinises based on physicalist substance monism.

I agree.

Telekinesis could be checked tomorrow.
But, as you say, it would be the body that would act on matter at a distance, not the mind itself.

That is, for example, the brain could emit waves that affect the behavior of objects.

What is it that you guys do not understand? Every force field is caused by physical matter and can only interact with it. A non-physical "mind" is incapable of generating force fields. We do not live in a fantasy world where things appear simply because we wish for them.

On the other hand, already now the interaction between objects, and therefore also with the body, takes place via electromagnetic fields.

That's false. Your body also sets up a gravitational field.

[bobmax]

What is it that you guys do not understand? Every force field is caused by physical matter and can only interact with it. A non-physical "mind" is incapable of generating force fields. We do not live in a fantasy world where things appear simply because we wish for them.

And matter is caused by force fields.
Do you want to deny it?

On the other hand, already now the interaction between objects, and therefore also with the body, takes place via electromagnetic fields.

That's false. Your body also sets up a gravitational field.

Any matter generates a gravitational field.
For the simple reason that matter is an expression of force fields.

And viceversa.

When you touch something, you are not touching something. But it is only the interaction of electromagnetic fields.
Don't you agree?

Have you ever wondered, studying the rotor and divergence, how Maxwell's electromagnetic waves travel in a vacuum?
If that doesn't surprise you, you still have no idea what the desert is.

[BigMike]

What is it that you guys do not understand? Every force field is caused by physical matter and can only interact with it. A non-physical "mind" is incapable of generating force fields. We do not live in a fantasy world where things appear simply because we wish for them.

And matter is caused by force fields.
Do you want to deny it?

Of course I want to deny that. It is utter nonsense.

On the other hand, already now the interaction between objects, and therefore also with the body, takes place via electromagnetic fields.

That's false. Your body also sets up a gravitational field.

Any matter generates a gravitational field.
For the simple reason that matter is an expression of force fields.

Matter was caused by energy interacting with Higgs bosons in the Higgs field. But the Higgs field is not a force field. Einstein demonstrated that matter and energy are interchangeable: E=mc2. Matter causes the space-time curvature that we perceive as gravitational field. The gravitational field is a force field, but Higgs is not.

And viceversa.

When you touch something, you are not touching something. But it is only the interaction of electromagnetic fields.
Don't you agree?

Yes, it is called electrostatic repulsion.

Have you ever wondered, studying the rotor and divergence, how Maxwell's electromagnetic waves travel in a vacuum?
If that doesn't surprise you, you still have no idea what the desert is.

The rotor?? You probably mean the curl, or the time-derivative. I know Maxwell's equations very well. Possibly unknown to you, I am a mathematician.