iNow

You said, “Only living beings can make choices or decisions.” I asked how do you know. Rephrased: What information have you encountered that informs this conclusion, this conclusion you’ve asserted with such certainty and zero hedge, this conclusion you’ve avoided acknowledging may be invalid? Said another way, how do you know that only living beings can make choices and decisions? Can you answer this without using new questions of your own? Without appealing to common sense or folk wisdom?

Biden spoke of the hostages again today. I know this is a tense situation. I don’t know why you keep making it tense with me. If I’ve offended you, I’m sorry.

You again didn’t answer my question.

Maybe, but how do you know?

Also not every trait gets selected for or against. Homosexuality exists. We see it nearly everywhere. The folks with the problem have an agenda or are too indoctrinated to matter much.

I'm reminded of the split between classical and quantum physics. For the most part, assuming the world is determined works just fine, and it's only at certain scales and under very specific conditions that we must introduce and reinforce awareness of randomness and vacuum fluctuations and particle antiparticle annihilations etc. With sufficient information regarding the state of the system, we can accurately forecast the outcome (let's say) over 95% of the time. The need here is clear. We obviously need a Grand Unified theory of Determinism. Done well, if it's good, we can use the acronym GUD... but sadly that sounds way too much like GOD, which will bring all the wrong sorts of people to the party... but at least it's more satisfying than saying, "It depends" (which is really the only correct answer, at least in consulting). Language strangely is imprecise, and the mathematics of our verbiage often ain't nice.

Did you read this on a bumper sticker? It has zero relevance to my point. You kept asking and misunderstanding, so the basics are these: Our actions have an impact on the world around us Our thoughts and decisions appear to be formed prior to reaching the parts of our minds generally associated with self and awareness and consciousness Those decisions and thoughts are all driven by physical and biochemical processes (there is no magic meta physical super natural spirit or "specialness" to conscious experience... it's just another chemical reaction across our nervous system) The evidence further suggests that our sense of consciousness and freedom to choose are themselves just a narrative we create and impose AFTER the decision event already occurred We use these illusions to make sense of the world around us much like we use models and maps, but that doesn't mean the map is equivalent to the territory This really changes nothing about the way we exist since it's always been this way, even if it understandably feels a bit weird and scary when first encountered To borrow from Stephen Hawking: "our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.” Some people accept all of those things including the illusion, but state we DO have free will since our entire being is still acting according to those biochemical reactions. I personally find that unsatisfying given my understanding of the concept of freedom. To use an analogy, our minds are essentially just mixing vinegar and baking soda to make science fair level volcanoes, but that doesn't actually mean we are causing any real volcanoes to erupt.

Again, very strange comment to make, and without question untrue.

This thread is about freewill, not consciousness

How are you defining consciousness? Thought I’ve mentioned repeatedly that too is off-topic.

Also during. Also after. And I asked you, if not physical and biochemical events, then what pray tell are you suggesting are alternative causes for mentation?

I didn’t say it wasn’t causal. Do you have reading comprehension problems we should all be aware of?

I didn’t say causality wasn’t a factor. My words are easy to find. I’m not going to spoon feed you

I’m not arguing for determinism. That’s a label someone else applied.

His numbers have always been a bit soft, and they’ve been softening much more since his vocal support of Israel has alienated voters who don’t like seeing 10,000 deaths in Gaza… especially in swing state Michigan which has a sizable Palestinian population.

Yes. This is correct. It’s not, though.

No. It’s a direct statement that I won’t be answering your question about the existence of time symmetry in a thread about free will. It is not. I am not suggesting it’s all “simply one large physical system, there isn't any "we" at all.” This is what’s known in the biz as a strawman.

Even if every criticism they level above is valid, it’s still a 50/50 race across polls, regions, and sampling periods.

Strange comment to make, and not remotely true.

In a thread about free will? Nah. Won’t be commenting on that. Well, sure. It could be that if that’s the chosen frame of reference, but again… in a thread about free will it’s probably safe to say that particular framing isn’t the most useful and doesn’t lead to an improved understanding.

I reckon that depends on how you define consciousness and also how you define causal. As I've already mentioned, the actions we take of course have causal impact on the world around us. That doesn't change merely because the decision event appears to occur prior to us becoming consciously aware of it.

I'm saying the decision is made prior to conscious awareness of it, so you continue misrepresenting me. And my challenge has consistently been calling that "free" since it appears to be decided chemically prior to awareness, consciousness, or areas of the mind most often considered "self." Thanks for sharing, but I've not aligned myself with any specific camp on this... libertarian, compatiblist, whatever... I'm just laying out the conclusions which follow naturally from the repeated findings of neuroscience. The issue, of course, is that's the concept used by the masses and hence the context of most discussions. I understand your definition is more precise and likely even more accurate, but it's not what basically anyone except you is talking about during these exchanges.

This was too dismissive, but backward causation is a fringe idea lacking evidence, even if we acknowledge the possibility of a biochemical feedback mechanism perhaps amplifying certain decisions after conscious awareness of the thought occurs.

Is a fact when he agrees, and bullshit when he doesn’t. (Too the group) Is entirely possible that Bibi wanted an excuse to invade, ignored responding to earlier intel and threats to make that more likely, and figured the Israeli people would ultimately rally around him and get distracted from his other attempts to seize power and protect his own ass. It’s an entirely valid speculation and reasonable, too. We just need to quite steer clear away from treating that as fact or bullshit since we’ll never know either way and it will forever remain merely an opinion.

Yes, that or leprechauns, of course. If you’re suggesting that physical and biochemical events are NOT the sole cause of thought and mentation, then I’d be extremely curious to hear what OTHER thing you assert is involved. Maybe you believe we must include unicorn farts, or perhaps tooth fairy dust?