Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Tue Nov 15, 2022 7:21 pm**

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 6:16 pm
iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:13 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 2:32 pm

Translation.
Mr ambiguity sticks his fingers in his ears and gos la la la la la
That I am able to reduce "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" pontificators of his ilk down to pinhead posts of this sort? Sure, I'd like to believe I accomplished it of my own free will.
Translation.
Mr ambiguity sticks his fingers in his ears and gos la la la la la

He doesn't have a clue regarding how to respond to the points I raise about his "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" pontifications. So, he allows himself to be reduced down to posting shit like this.

Hell, even my notches have notches now in dealing with the hapless fulminating fanatics

The irony here being that we both share the same religious and political prejudices. But not the same caustic "my way or the highway" declamations.

Posted: **Tue Nov 15, 2022 7:50 pm**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 7:21 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 6:16 pm
iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:13 pm

That I am able to reduce "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" pontificators of his ilk down to pinhead posts of this sort? Sure, I'd like to believe I accomplished it of my own free will.
Translation.
Mr ambiguity sticks his fingers in his ears and gos la la la la la
He doesn't have a clue regarding how to respond to the points I raise about his "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" pontifications. So, he allows himself to be reduced down to posting shit like this.

Hell, even my notches have notches now in dealing with the hapless fulminating fanatics

The irony here being that we both share the same religious and political prejudices. But not the same caustic "my way or the highway" declamations.

Why not address the points I made rather than act like a p****???

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:01 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 6:36 pm
phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 2:44 pm One can't help noticing that Biggus doesn't explain how 'you' is distinct from what 'your brain' is thinking and deciding.

So let's do it for him:

'You' are an immortal soul. Your body and 'your brain' are just some baggage you are forced to carry around in this physical life. Your brain executes the instructions that the soul gives it and passes information back to the soul. Why? Because the soul can't interact directly with a physical world.

Carry on.

PS. In the case of determinism, the physical brain makes you, the soul, do things that it doesn't want to do.

In the case of free-will, the soul has complete control of the brain.
Do you believe, Phyllo, the souls are different ontic substances from minds, substances which, unlike minds, survive bodily and mental death?

'Mind' seems to be mostly 'brain' and some other factors thrown in. So it's largely dependent on the physical brain. If you wanted free-will to work via a soul then the soul would have to have its own memory and processing, independent of the brain. Therefore, in principle it would not die. I suppose if the body died, then the soul would not be able to interact with the physical world and it would disappear to physical beings. It could still exist 'somewhere' but we would not know it.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:09 pm**

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:10 pm
phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 2:44 pm Your brain executes the instructions that the soul gives it and passes information back to the soul. Why? Because the soul can't interact directly with a physical world.
If the soul does not "interact directly with a physical world" then how can it give information to or receive information from your brain, which is a part of the physical world? Face it: There is no soul!

The soul could communicate with the brain through a means that we do not yet detect or understand.

Are there any other objections to the concept that a soul is the way free-will works?

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2022 3:00 pm**

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:09 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:10 pm
phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 2:44 pm Your brain executes the instructions that the soul gives it and passes information back to the soul. Why? Because the soul can't interact directly with a physical world.
If the soul does not "interact directly with a physical world" then how can it give information to or receive information from your brain, which is a part of the physical world? Face it: There is no soul!
The soul could communicate with the brain through a means that we do not yet detect or understand.

Are there any other objections to the concept that a soul is the way free-will works?

If you mean "communicate" to mean "send and receive nonverbal messages," then the brain must be able to get the soul's instructions in some way. But the brain only reacts to gravity, electromagnetism, and weak and strong nuclear interactions. Both the sender and the receiver must have the same physical property for the interaction to work. For example, the force of gravity only works between things that have mass. And only between electrically charged objects can there be an electric pull or push.

Since the soul is thought to be non-physical, it can't set up any of the four forces it needs to interact with the physical, real world. It is foolish and dangerous to think that there is some kind of magical soul that can transfer energy or momentum to physical particles without breaking the laws of conservation.

The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge was held by the James Randi Educational Foundation. It was an offer to give a million dollars to anyone who could show that they could do something supernatural or paranormal. Even though a lot of con artists tried it, it goes without saying that none of them were successful.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2022 3:23 pm**

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 3:00 pm But the brain only reacts to gravity, electromagnetism, and weak and strong nuclear interactions.

You can't know that.
https://www.voanews.com/a/new-force-of- ... 72253.html
Just because X number of things are confirmed does not mean there are no other things in that category that are real.

Both the sender and the receiver must have the same physical property for the interaction to work. For example, the force of gravity only works between things that have mass.

Nope...
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/articl ... in%20space.

To return to the topic of gravity: Gravity affects anything with energy—even a particle that has no mass at all.

think of photons, which are massless but are certainly affected by gravity. For example.

Since the soul is thought to be non-physical,

which means nothing. That term physical has extended to include anything considered real in science, including massless particles, fields, particles in superposition, as a few examples of things considered real now that would, if described, not have been consider physical before qm. You can't rule out things like this or perform deduction with any certainty using that term.

it can't set up any of the four forces it needs to interact with the physical, real world.

If it has set up one of those 4 forces, so far confirmed. Perhaps it doesn't.

It is foolish and dangerous to think that there is some kind of magical soul that can transfer energy or momentum to physical particles without breaking the laws of conservation.

It's possible that the Big Bang broke laws of conservation.

The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge was held by the James Randi Educational Foundation. It was an offer to give a million dollars to anyone who could show that they could do something supernatural or paranormal. Even though a lot of con artists tried it, it goes without saying that none of them were successful.

That might or might not relate to souls and the types of causation and ontology you are trying to rule out. Or that might not. You'd need to connect the dots.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2022 4:12 pm**

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:01 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 6:36 pm
phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 2:44 pm One can't help noticing that Biggus doesn't explain how 'you' is distinct from what 'your brain' is thinking and deciding.

So let's do it for him:

'You' are an immortal soul. Your body and 'your brain' are just some baggage you are forced to carry around in this physical life. Your brain executes the instructions that the soul gives it and passes information back to the soul. Why? Because the soul can't interact directly with a physical world.

Carry on.

PS. In the case of determinism, the physical brain makes you, the soul, do things that it doesn't want to do.

In the case of free-will, the soul has complete control of the brain.
Do you believe, Phyllo, the souls are different ontic substances from minds, substances which, unlike minds, survive bodily and mental death?
'Mind' seems to be mostly 'brain' and some other factors thrown in. So it's largely dependent on the physical brain. If you wanted free-will to work via a soul then the soul would have to have its own memory and processing, independent of the brain. Therefore, in principle it would not die. I suppose if the body died, then the soul would not be able to interact with the physical world and it would disappear to physical beings. It could still exist 'somewhere' but we would not know it.

I agree with all that Phyllo. If I may summarise, according to your use for the word ' soul ' it's causally independent of the mind and the brain.In that case it would be possible to add on to soul that it is the source of your decisions and choices. I see one problem which is how this sort of soul connects with the world where decisions and choices are made according to previous experience.
Does your sort of soul have a memory of past events? If it has Freewill your sort of soul would have no need of a memory as it sources all its choices and decisions within itself.

My use for the word 'soul' is that the soul is the most active and imaginative part of the mind and body. There is a need for this concept because we need to encourage, teach, save, and value activity and imagination among people.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2022 4:28 pm**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 3:23 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 3:00 pm But the brain only reacts to gravity, electromagnetism, and weak and strong nuclear interactions.
You can't know that.
https://www.voanews.com/a/new-force-of- ... 72253.html
Just because X number of things are confirmed does not mean there are no other things in that category that are real.

No fifth force has been found, but it's possible that one will be found one day. What is not possible, is that it is non-physical.

Both the sender and the receiver must have the same physical property for the interaction to work. For example, the force of gravity only works between things that have mass.
Nope...
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/articl ... in%20space.
To return to the topic of gravity: Gravity affects anything with energy—even a particle that has no mass at all.
think of photons, which are massless but are certainly affected by gravity. For example.

Energy and mass are the same. Photons do have mass. The mass of a photon is h f/c², where f is the electromagnetic wave's frequency, h is Planck's constant, and c is the speed of light. It's true that at rest, a photon doesn't have any mass, but at rest, there is no photon either. A photon can only move at the speed of light!

Since the soul is thought to be non-physical,
which means nothing. That term physical has extended to include anything considered real in science, including massless particles, fields, particles in superposition, as a few examples of things considered real now that would, if described, not have been consider physical before qm. You can't rule out things like this or perform deduction with any certainty using that term.

I didn’t rule out any of that.

it can't set up any of the four forces it needs to interact with the physical, real world.
If it has set up one of those 4 forces, so far confirmed. Perhaps it doesn't.

It hasn’t.

It is foolish and dangerous to think that there is some kind of magical soul that can transfer energy or momentum to physical particles without breaking the laws of conservation.
It's possible that the Big Bang broke laws of conservation.

No it’s not.

The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge was held by the James Randi Educational Foundation. It was an offer to give a million dollars to anyone who could show that they could do something supernatural or paranormal. Even though a lot of con artists tried it, it goes without saying that none of them were successful.
That might or might not relate to souls and the types of causation and ontology you are trying to rule out. Or that might not. You'd need to connect the dots.

Well, I am too tired to spell things out to trolls. So you’ll just have to use your imagination, I guess.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2022 6:57 pm**

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 3:00 pm
phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:09 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:10 pm
If the soul does not "interact directly with a physical world" then how can it give information to or receive information from your brain, which is a part of the physical world? Face it: There is no soul!
The soul could communicate with the brain through a means that we do not yet detect or understand.

Are there any other objections to the concept that a soul is the way free-will works?
If you mean "communicate" to mean "send and receive nonverbal messages," then the brain must be able to get the soul's instructions in some way. But the brain only reacts to gravity, electromagnetism, and weak and strong nuclear interactions. Both the sender and the receiver must have the same physical property for the interaction to work. For example, the force of gravity only works between things that have mass. And only between electrically charged objects can there be an electric pull or push.

Since the soul is thought to be non-physical, it can't set up any of the four forces it needs to interact with the physical, real world. It is foolish and dangerous to think that there is some kind of magical soul that can transfer energy or momentum to physical particles without breaking the laws of conservation.

The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge was held by the James Randi Educational Foundation. It was an offer to give a million dollars to anyone who could show that they could do something supernatural or paranormal. Even though a lot of con artists tried it, it goes without saying that none of them were successful.

So your entire argument is founded on the idea that you have a complete understanding of the physics of the universe.

And if that falls apart ...

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2022 7:41 pm**

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 6:57 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 3:00 pm
phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:09 pm The soul could communicate with the brain through a means that we do not yet detect or understand.

Are there any other objections to the concept that a soul is the way free-will works?
If you mean "communicate" to mean "send and receive nonverbal messages," then the brain must be able to get the soul's instructions in some way. But the brain only reacts to gravity, electromagnetism, and weak and strong nuclear interactions. Both the sender and the receiver must have the same physical property for the interaction to work. For example, the force of gravity only works between things that have mass. And only between electrically charged objects can there be an electric pull or push.

Since the soul is thought to be non-physical, it can't set up any of the four forces it needs to interact with the physical, real world. It is foolish and dangerous to think that there is some kind of magical soul that can transfer energy or momentum to physical particles without breaking the laws of conservation.

The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge was held by the James Randi Educational Foundation. It was an offer to give a million dollars to anyone who could show that they could do something supernatural or paranormal. Even though a lot of con artists tried it, it goes without saying that none of them were successful.
So your entire argument is founded on the idea that you have a complete understanding of the physics of the universe.

And if that falls apart ...

Yes, my whole point is based on science. The scientific consensus changes over time, but every change that has happened so far has been in line with the six known conservation laws. And the fact that these laws are based on math that can't be changed gives me more confidence that any changes that happen in the future will still work with them.

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2022 8:06 pm**

Compatibilism
Michael Lacewin

A second form of compatibilism argues that it is a confusion to oppose free will and causation. The opposite of caused is uncaused; the opposite of free is constrained. Events are caused or uncaused, actions are free or constrained. So the opposite of a free action is not a caused event but a constrained action. Actions that are not constrained are free. The issue of causation is irrelevant.

Again, Mary and Jane.

What caused Mary to abort Jane? She got pregnant as a result of a defective contraceptive device. Then going back to why she chose to have sex and why sex is a part of the human condition and why the human species came about as a result of the evolution of biological life on Earth going back to the Big Bang going back to...what exactly?

Causes seem to be everywhere here. But we don't know what caused the existence of existence itself. Or, if it has always existed, how to encompass this either ontologically or teleologically. God, perhaps?

As for the distinction between caused and constrained, in a wholly determined universe where the human brain itself is just along for the "only possible reality" ride, making that distinction in and of itself is just another domino toppling over on cue re...nature?

Including this domino...

Here are four cases of constraint that bring out the contrast with free action:
1. You trip and fall into someone, knocking them over. Your knocking them over is physically constrained, not something that you had any choice or control over.
2. Someone puts a gun to your head, and tells you to push someone over. You have a kind of choice here – you can push them or die. But your action is very constrained, by coercion, a psychological constraint.
3. You are addicted to heroin, and acting on the intense desire for it, you steal from a store to get the money to buy more. You hate your addiction and would chose to be without it if you could. Your action is driven by an addiction, so it is physically (and psychologically) constrained, and not free.
4. Kleptomania is the compulsion to steal, without needing to or profiting from it. If you were a kleptomaniac, you would want to steal things, even things that aren’t much use to you. You may even want to not want to steal and try to resist stealing; but you don’t (always) succeed. We could argue that being a kleptomaniac is a case of psychological compulsion.

These four cases all stand in contrast to what it is to act freely, to act without physical or psychological constraint. This, say compatibilists, is the contrast that matters to whether we are free.

Again, and again, and again: what the compatibilists say about all of this is no less fated/destined to be as an inherent component of the only possible reality in the only possible world.

Though only if the hard determinism argument prevails. But: As though, for each of us, it does or does not prevail in turn in the only possible reality in the only possible world.

Posted: **Sun Nov 20, 2022 1:26 am**

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:01 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 6:36 pm
phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 2:44 pm One can't help noticing that Biggus doesn't explain how 'you' is distinct from what 'your brain' is thinking and deciding.

So let's do it for him:

'You' are an immortal soul. Your body and 'your brain' are just some baggage you are forced to carry around in this physical life. Your brain executes the instructions that the soul gives it and passes information back to the soul. Why? Because the soul can't interact directly with a physical world.

Carry on.

PS. In the case of determinism, the physical brain makes you, the soul, do things that it doesn't want to do.

In the case of free-will, the soul has complete control of the brain.
Do you believe, Phyllo, the souls are different ontic substances from minds, substances which, unlike minds, survive bodily and mental death?
'Mind' seems to be mostly 'brain' and some other factors thrown in. So it's largely dependent on the physical brain. If you wanted free-will to work via a soul then the soul would have to have its own memory and processing, independent of the brain. Therefore, in principle it would not die. I suppose if the body died, then the soul would not be able to interact with the physical world and it would disappear to physical beings. It could still exist 'somewhere' but we would not know it.

If your soul has "its own memory and processing£ it would make its choices and decisions because of its memories and the processing of its memories and so your soul's choices and decisions would be caused and not free.

Posted: **Sun Nov 20, 2022 1:26 am**

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:01 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 6:36 pm
phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 2:44 pm One can't help noticing that Biggus doesn't explain how 'you' is distinct from what 'your brain' is thinking and deciding.

So let's do it for him:

'You' are an immortal soul. Your body and 'your brain' are just some baggage you are forced to carry around in this physical life. Your brain executes the instructions that the soul gives it and passes information back to the soul. Why? Because the soul can't interact directly with a physical world.

Carry on.

PS. In the case of determinism, the physical brain makes you, the soul, do things that it doesn't want to do.

In the case of free-will, the soul has complete control of the brain.
Do you believe, Phyllo, the souls are different ontic substances from minds, substances which, unlike minds, survive bodily and mental death?
'Mind' seems to be mostly 'brain' and some other factors thrown in. So it's largely dependent on the physical brain. If you wanted free-will to work via a soul then the soul would have to have its own memory and processing, independent of the brain. Therefore, in principle it would not die. I suppose if the body died, then the soul would not be able to interact with the physical world and it would disappear to physical beings. It could still exist 'somewhere' but we would not know it.

If your soul has "its own memory and processing it would make its choices and decisions because of its memories and the processing of its memories and so your soul's choices and decisions would be caused and not free.

Posted: **Sun Nov 20, 2022 1:32 pm**

The soul's choices and decisions would have to be uncaused. Otherwise you have just added a determined soul to the determined brain and not gained anything except more complexity.

Posted: **Sun Nov 20, 2022 1:49 pm**

A second form of compatibilism argues that it is a confusion to oppose free will and causation. The opposite of caused is uncaused; the opposite of free is constrained. Events are caused or uncaused, actions are free or constrained. So the opposite of a free action is not a caused event but a constrained action. Actions that are not constrained are free. The issue of causation is irrelevant.

Even the free-willers admit that they are "influenced but not determined" by internal and external states and events.

You can't escape causation in some sense.

That's why freedom and free will really comes down to constrained and unconstrained actions.

Philosophy Now Forum

compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism

Re: compatibilism