Normal

Ok, but you still haven't shown that a choice precludes consciousness, all you've shown is that when people are looking at pictures on a carosol, it's possible to pick up the signal to the motor functions of the finger before it registers in that person's consciousness. That does not prove the involintary nature of a possible brain function that does this.

Of course your not trying to prove anything, your just showing evidence against the existence of free will. I shouldn't of used a word as strong as 'prove'.

I find the carosaul evidence very weak. Pressing a button on a slide show does not require hardly a blip on a person's conscious awareness. If you set up an experiement to do something more thought-intensive, maybe I'll consider it better evidence.

Except that the soul doesn't have a brain, doesn't have a memory, and cannot "plan" out your day without you being aware of it. Well, maybe it can, but I've never claimed it can do any of these things. If your refering to the carousal experiment, a few seconds is different then a few hours, and I'd consider the soul to be a more "of the moment" chooser, if you know what I mean.

Saying that the soul can plan ahead, and have choices already selected for you before you think you can choose them, is implying the soul has physical constructs such as memory and a brain. And sure, it might be possible for the soul to "view" consciousness if it wants to, otherwise it would have no basis for making a decision, but that does not mean the consiousness and the soul are one thing, or are even connected. See the pilot/plane analogy.

You are equating the soul with consciousness, and I maintain that they are seperate. Asking me what exactly the soul has power over is something I obviously cannot answer, besides free will.

This is kind of off-topic.

That is definitely the subject for another discussion. I must say it's an interesting idea though.

Goober

But you did. The only real evidence for your assertion that you have put forward so far is that you think you can turn left or right.

I state my point again: If there is no free will, then whether you turn left or right is pre-determined. Just like the rock hit by another rock MUST fly off in a certain direction, so to MUST you choose a certain direction. The chain of causality might be much, much more complex, but you still MUST choose left instead of right it the is what the chain of causes leads to, just like the rock cannot fly off in the other direction. If there is free will, then obviously you have a choice. But we cannot distinguish whether or not you MUST turn right or mearly chose to turn right given the information that you chose to turn right once. Hence you have no evidence that supports one scenario over the others, because you cannot tell if you really had a choice or if you only had a choice. So there is no evidence for the fact that free will exists in this scenario, or any other scenario where we only see the outcome once.

There is nothing that prevents a rock hit by another rock from flying off in a completely unexpected direction. No barriers or walls or forces. Rather, the only option is that it move in a particular option. Just like it is possible the only option for you is to turn right.

Well, it is in my opinion.

We can't predict the path of a leaf in a hurricane, either. That doesn't mean the path of a leaf in a hurricane is not determined by physical factors. So what's your point?

Just because it picks randomly, does not mean it does not have a choice. Randomness can be a WAY of making a choice.

OK, fine we will use the word complexity.

The same argument I made before applies. To assign something a soul according to your defintion there are two factors, both of which must be fulfilled:

A) It has and makes choices.
B) It has complexity.

Now:

1) Complexity is a physical attribute, as it is not metaphysical.
2) Given two objects satisfying A (an electron and a human), the possesion of free will is determined by B
3) Hence the possesion of free will be partly determined by a physical attribute.

For your definition to be correct, free will must be determined by non-physical factors only. But it is not, see (3), so your definition does not work.

I guess it does seem like a strawman, because you didn't require free will to be be determined only by non-physical factors. I guess you would call the non-physical factors the soul.

But in my opinion, if you admit that there are some free will is due some physical factors and some undetectable metaphysical factors, then occam's razor will step in and rule out the metaphysical factors and say free will is caused only the physical ones, which is why you need free will to be have only non-physical components.

Complexity alone is simpler explanation for free will than complexity+soul, which is why in my opinion if you allow free will to have any physical factors, your definition will be invalid. That is why the argument is not a strawman.

Damn I'm tired. I hope some of that made sense.

Wyz_sub10

I think they are similar only in that the concepts are abstract. I would not say that this puts them on equal footing re: being able to demontrate their existence.

Okay, but once you call it a "force" (or imply that it function that way) you are saying it has a physical impact. At the very least, it is a "doer"



But these are two different meanings for "driver". When you say "logic drives truth", what you are really saying is "logic leads to truth" or "logic helps identify truth."

When you say "soul drives free will" you are saying "the soul exerts something that motivates free will".

The key difference I see is that all that is needed to "prove" logic is to describe it and acknowledge that it is a man-made process.

The reason the soul fails this scrutiny is that you are not saying it is describable, and you are not saying it is man made. Rather, you are saying "soul" exists outside the realm of our experience, and it exists as a third-party creation that no other party can verify.



That's fine because that's all it needs. The 'logic' process was defined, created and named through humans. The soul, you are suggesting, is undefinable, created by god and named through...divine revelation? (I assume this because if it cannot be measured but is 'known', it must have been revealed by one who can measure it)

You assume that whatever can be the cause, is. Or that I can point to "effect b" and can assign it any cause - say "cause a", and thus prove the connection by asserting the relationship and defining "cause a", ad hoc.

Well, I do a bit (simply because "free will" is a ridiculously difficult "effect" to define - it is very much more situational, and I tend to think the broad definition of "free will" is rather meaningless).

But that's another discussion. I think my statement above holds in that the similarities are not really so, simply because I can admit logic exists because we say it does - we did not invent contradiction, we did not invite "a=b, b=c, a=c", but we identified these things and related them to our world. Do you feel the soul exists simply because we have declared so? What have we done to make this connection? It sounds like you are saying that we connected our ability to make choices a "driver", but from where did we identify a driver?

Okay. That's fair. But the pilot still has a physical interaction with the plane. In your description, the pilot is not only without a physical connection, but he, too, is being "driven" by us.

It seems a little chicken-and-egg, no? If something else controls the soul, then we do not have free will. If we control the soul, then free will drives the soul and not vice-versa.

I cannot argue the first part because "the sould" m.o. remains a mystery to me and you. But it would seem to me that if the soul is immeasurable, unidentifiable, and metaphysical, whatever it does to "drive" my choices certainly cannot come from me or anything that I can do (seeing as anything I control must be through physical means). So whatever cause the soul to choose 'a' over 'b', it isn't me.

Having free will doesn't necessitate the soul, by the way. It may necessitate something, but not necessarily a soul.

This is analogous to arguing that the universe's existence necessitates god. "If god existed, the universe would be 'x'. The universe is 'x', therefore god exists."

You are working backwards - asserting a force exists by defining it so as to make it necessary.



See above. God is not necessary just because the universe exists, regardless if you have defined god as the cause.

For example - if my cat sleeps on my sweater, there will be cat hair on it. If I find cat hair on my sweater, does that mean the cat slept there?

No. You may say "if god exists, he will cure my cancer". If your cancer goes into remission, does that prove god did it?

No, it supports the existence of a force and a task. There is nothing to suggest the soul is this force, any more than brain chemistry. There is nothing to suggest this choice is "free will" any more than a result of complex probability.

How about now?

Normal

Your point: We appear to have the choice of choosing left or right, but really that choice is predetermined.

My point: We have the choice of choosing left or right, and the choice is determined by my actions.

Reasonably, there is nothing stopping me from turning right, when I choose to turn left.
In the same manner, if I did turn left, there was nothing stopping me from choosing right.

My choice alone is separating these two outcomes. If something is in control of my choice, I would lack free will.

From my perspective, and this is were empircal evidence comes into play, I could of choosen either direction. There is nothing in the realms of science to prove we have or do not have a chocie, so what else can we go on other then observable evidence?

Your position entails there is some physical basis for my choice, based on previous states, that should be predictable, or at least identifiable, but alas, there is none that can be found.

Why can't we?

My definition of life seems to entail the necessity of a soul in ALL living things. I've explained the detectablility of the metaphysical factors by way of empirical evidence of free will, which you do not accept. Beyond that, of course, there are no physical detectors of the soul, but also there are no physical detectors of free will either. So you want to use Occam's Razor to eliminate free will when it may in fact exist?

Indeed, you've strawmanned my definition of complexity to be rooted in the physical, but what if I say the definition of complexity IS the soul, and all living things are necessarily more complex due to the pressence of the soul? That is what separates free will from the random choice of electrons, the complexity of the metaphysical soul.

Don't worry, your agruments make sense. They really had me thinking!

Normal

And this is where we eternally disagree.

I'm saying it has a physical impact, but I'm saying the thing making the physical impact is metaphysical, ie. abstract, non-physical, lacking empirical evidence

And by saying soul is the driver of free will, I'm saying "the soul leads to a choice".

Well that's not nessicarily true. I'm saying lacking a soul we would not even have free will.

That's correct, only you yourself can verify it by making choices. The fact it can't be verified by science gives the soul it's metaphysical edge. And who said logic was man-made? I think it's more likely logic was a product of nature, which follows certain laws itself. You cannot describe where these laws came from anymore then I can describe where the soul came from.

I'm assuming a cause, I agree, but you are unable to give me any alternative cause. Again, any argument about the brain fails, see the plane/pilot analogy.

Why does the law a=b b=c a=c exist? Simply because we have delcared it so? No, that law exists within nature, so where did that law come from with respect to nature? That very question is the same as asking me where the soul came from, and why proof of logic and proof of the soul are analogous to the extent that we can only proof their existence, not where they came from.

Of course the soul has a physical interaction with the brain, but that does not deny it's own metaphysical nature.


This is nonsense. Without a soul you would not have free will, with a soul you have free will. "Control" is not even an issue. You are in control BECAUSE OF the soul.

You are separating yourself from your own soul, which is, obviously, ridiculous. As I mentioned above, being metaphysical does not exclude the physical nature of it's interaction with your brain.

If you can give me a physical basis for the soul, as in a physical explaination for the existence of choice and the function of the brain that invokes this choice, then my "soul" is merely another name for a physical process. Metaphysical or physical, the soul exists by my defintion if free will exists.

Actually my argument has nothing to do with that, but even in that argument "God" might be another name for the creation of the universe. Ie. "If Y existed, the universe would be X. The universe is X, therefore Y." You are trying to replace the "Y" in my argument with a physical explaination of free will, when none can be found.

You seem to be implying my argument is a non-sequitir. Ie. If free will exists, it does not follow we have a soul. But I've made it quite clear from my definition the existence of free will necessitates the soul. If there exists a physical explanation of free will, so be it, the metaphysical nature of the soul is falsified, but in the end I was just using the word "soul" to name a physical process. The fact that the physical process cannot be identified leaves my soul, as of this writing, to remain in the metaphysical realm.

The existence of a force. What more do you want? There's no evidence of brain chemistry being the force. If free will is the result of complex probability, free will in the sense we are speaking does not exist, and my soul is falsified. Show me physical evidence of this being so.

Still disagree.

Goober

We want empirical evidence for free will. That means we need to conduct a scientific test, right? We need a test that rules out one or other of the possibilities, right?

Now, how do we conduct this? Let's do this hypothetically by having someone stand at a crossroad, and we will have them pick left or right.

Now were are doing a test so we are not assuming either explanation to be correct. Instead, let's see what would happen if each one was correct and then compare that to what we see. The one that fits best will be the correct one.

If free will exists: The person will chose left or right.

If free will does not exist: The person will only ever chose one direction in the same set of circumstances.

Now we can tell them apart. We tell the person to chose which road they want to turn down several times and see whether they chose one or both using the exact same starting conditions.

We need to do it several times, because if we only do it once we will never be able to tell them apart. Both predict that they will turn down a road, but we want to know if they could turn down either road. To do that, we need to show that they do turn down either road in practice. We don't care if they could or couldn't in theory, because we are testing the theory. We must show that the theory works in practice.

We need the exact same conditions each time because if we don't use the exact same conditions, if the person choses a different direction it could be because of a difference in conditions, not a difference in free will. If we do not control the variables, it is not a valid test.

But we simply cannot control peoples brains enough to rule out the possible that the different decsion is due to a random difference in their brain state, like a single neuron at a different excitation level. We cannot, in practice, control the variables enough to make it a definitive test, because we cannot, in practice, ensure the starting conditions are the same.

So we can't find the empircal evidence we need from this test, and in the absence of empirical evidence, occam's razor will rule out free will. Both are equally unprovable using current technology, but they are not equally simple explanations.

Because there are too many variables involved, and the system is too sensitive to small changes in initial conditions. This is just like the brain. There are literally hundreds of billions of neurons in our brain, each one could concievably change the outcome. The brain, like the tornado or the weather, is a chaotic system.

Occam's razor in this situation wouldn't rule out the existence of free will. If complexity is physical, then it can rule out the soul and leave free will. If free will and complexity always come together then it is simpler to assume without proof that free will is a product of the complexity than to assume without proof that souls exist, souls produce free will, and souls require compexity. In the absence of any whatsoever then souls will be ruled out as the simplest assumption if complexity could possibly cause free will, even if there is no evidence of this fact.

Ahhh, but I covered this already. If complexity is the soul, then the reasoning is circular. Electrons don't have a soul because they don't have complexity. But complexity is due to the soul, so what you're really saying is that they don't have a soul because they don't. So it's not a real argument for why they don't have a soul.

And now I'm off to study for my chem exam.

crocodile deathroll

This page just gave me a thought:

What would be the implications of microchips being implanted in our brains which would upload images we see in our direct perceptions and even our dreams to the internet, so people can download in real time what we are directly perceiving in their cell/mobile phones or laptops or ever their own brains which also has chip implants. What implications would this have for the so called "soul"?

Sharif

In the pilot/plane analogy, how is the pilot making his own decisions regarding where to pilot the plane? I think the analogy suffers from an infinite regression.

Normal

Yes, in those conditions the empircal evidence is useless, because we cannot reproduce the exact same conditions for the exact same person. However, here you cannot use Occam's Razor, because we do have evidence, the evidence is just inconclusive.

But that is exactly what I'm not claiming. I'm claiming the complexity is a non-physical phenomia, IOW, the metaphysical soul. Soul's don't require complexity, soul's are the complexity itself. So by saying complexity cause free will, you are essentially agreeing with me in the existence of the soul.

The thing is complexity is not due to the soul, complexity IS the soul. Saying electrons don't have complexity, and electrons don't have a soul, is not circular, those are the SAME statements. Saying "electrons don't have a soul because they don't have a soul" is no more circular then saying "energy cannot be created or destroyed because energy cannot be created or destroyed".

Normal

It would mean the soul could ride in a Mercedes instead of a pinto.