Normal

By reading the gauges at the control panel.

Wyz_sub10

Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

Seeing as we are just chasing one-another around the maypole at this pont, I'm going to resummarize a few points as I address yours below, then I will give you the final word if you want it.

The laws, however, are merely observations that stand up to scrutiny.

I'm not sure I need to suplant your theory to demonstrate the problem with it. I honestly cannot tell you what causes a cosmic gamma burst, but my inability to do so does not strengthen the argument that these are caused by "Plasma Rams" bashing their plasma horns.



I don't think so. To begin with, one can be validated (a=b=c) the other cannot. That would be the first step in the process before ascertaining an origin.

Secondly, I'm not sure "where it came from" is a necessary question.



Speaking of nonsense...

What you are saying is the soul gives you control. How can it give you control if you are unaware of it, cannot direct it or operate, and on a base level, cannot even establish a link to confirm it is even there.

It makes no sense to say that a metaphyscial, intabgible, unknowable soul is the driver of a process, yet is not autonomous because it is completely controlled by you (despite not being able to do any of the aforementioned).

If it is controlled by you, then it is the driver of nothing. I'm sincerely not understading what you think the soul does. I thought I did, but now I know I don't.

Why? You seem to have a great deal of knowledge about something that is unknowable, immeasurable and intangible. This is ad hoc reasoning. If I introduce another issue - say, the soul being interfered with by some similar metaphysical force, you will no doubt edit the definition to explain how this is not possible.

This is just silly. What you are saying is that you have chosen a name - nothing more. And that you are quite prepared to alter the definition and properties as required to suit reality.

Sure it can. I gave you a perfectly good alternative - your brain analyzes a series of alternatives and produces a suitable (if not appropriate or logic) response.

Why do electrons "orbit" the nucleus of an atom? You can ask every question to the base "why", but at some point the answer is that this is the cause and effect realtionship. You may believe a metaphysical explanation is required for every action at the base level. I do not.



Sorry to be vague. I absolutely believe your argument is non-sequitur.



I'm completely failing to see why you consider this a persuasive argument or meaningful point.



I did a Google search for "brain" and "decision making". I think you'll find there is plenty of information from people more knowledgeable than myself that connects brain function to decision making.

If, however, you are just using the term "soul" to name a physical process, than that changes many of your points considerably.

Go google when you get the chance. Here's an interesting story. Not claiming that there are any show-stoppers here, just an interesting read.

Here's another good URL=http://scienceblog.com/community/article311.html]article.[/URL]

Well, I tend to think that "free will" is the result of complex probablilty, to a degree. But there is a tonne of info out there if you want to research it.

I'll restate what I said early on - do not assume there is no physical connection simply because you do not know of one. There is a marked difference between claiming a "metaphysical edge" because you do not have an alternative, and doing so because there is no alternative.

Normal

That's gotta be one of the definitions, at least.


So if the observable free will stands up to your scrutiny as existing, we don't have a problem.

You don't have to supplant my theory at all, that is hardly the point of my definition. The only thing that could possibly be in question here if you don't question the existence of free will, is the origin of the soul. Is it physical or metaphysical? My argument is that it is metaphysical. Neurology outlines the working of how the "plane" works. It shows where the pilot makes the decisions, aka the cockpit (the assciative cortex, if you want), the memeory, the links to motor functions, where emotions are shown, etc. All that speaks nothing to the actual "pilot" in control. The fact that "do humans have free will" cannot be answered by neurology is telling. Sure, we may in the future be able to build our own planes, upgrade them, put them on autopilot, etc., but I fail to see how any of that would disprove the existence of an original pilot.

That is the summary of my argument.

The only thing that needs to be validated in my definition is the existence of free will. a=b b=c a=c exists as a law, nature is where the law came from. Free will exists, the soul is where it comes from. If you want to ask where the soul came from, asking where nature came from is legitimate, but if it's an unnecessary question I won't argue.

Do you really not see the problem with your logic in this argument? You're asking why we don't have free will over the soul. Depending on your definition of "you", "you" is the soul, and "you" is in control.

Well do you really expect me to have all the answers for you?

All the definition entails is that it is the driver of free will. Any properties I have stated beyond that are pure conjecture on my part. The definition of "atom" sure shifted a lot through the years.

So what's controlling your brain then? It's completely self-sufficient? Then, if you think about it, free will doesn't exist.

Nuclear and electrical forces, but that's not the point. The point is that your question "where does it come from" (and similar questions) about the nature of the soul is equal to me asking questions about "where do they come from" on the nature of physical laws. If you feel they are unnecessary, why ask?

If I studied aviation I could build my own plane.

There is no evidence of a physical process that does what my definition of a soul does. If one were to be found then "soul" would indeed be another name for a physical process.

The point was that the soul is equal to logic in metaphysical nature, meaning you'll never have a physical explanation for the soul anymore then you'll have a physical explanation for "energy cannot be created or destroyed", beyond that it just is. Do YOU know a physical connection between "energy cannot be created and destroyed" and nature, beyond that it just IS? If you do I'm all ears.

Goober

No, we do not have evidence. An experiment that shows only that either side could be correct does not provide any evidence for one side over the other. That's precisely why we use Occam's razor in this situation. You need real evidence to prove your point, and you have have nothing.

Note that I said 'IF complexity is physical'. I was saying that you must argue that complexity is non-physical because otherwise occams razor will rule out the soul. I did not say that you thought that complexity is physical.

Yes, that's the problem. Saying "energy cannot be created or destroyed because energy cannot be created or destroyed" is not a proof that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Saying "electrons don't have a soul because they don't have a soul" is not a proof that electrons do not have a soul.

How about "I'm right because I'm right"? Is that a valid reason that shows I'm right? If it is, then I'm right and there is no need to argue. Is that all this argument is going to come to, or do you have a real reason why electrons do not have souls?

Sharif

This is where your infinite regression resides. If the soul is controlling the brain, it must be making decisions, reasoning, or thinking (e.g. If I choose to kill him...). To have this capacity it must have or be something brain like (ideas, memory, etc.) Then you have to ask, well what is controlling the soul? Soul 2, the super soul? What makes the soul make one free choice as opposed to another? If it's just the guages (information from the brain) there is no need for a soul. That is unless the soul is controlling the brain and making choices in a completely arbitrary way.

Normal

The soul doesn't need it's own brain if it only has to read the gauges off the brain it is controlling, and if that is how it makes it's decisions the choices wouldn't be "arbitrary".

Your point about infinite regression is a good one. It seems most metaphysical concepts of this natural are prone to this type of logical fallacy. The only answer I could think of is that the soul exists in control of itself AND in control of the brain, and that the free will power it excercises are over both itself and the brain, in which case you could say "well if the soul could control itself, why can't the brain", to which I would counter, "because if the brain is self-sufficient, it exists in a deterministic state, and the soul is necessary for free will to exist since it exists outside the determinisitc state".

Being a skeptic, I don't even believe in any of these concepts, so I'm finding them increasingly harder to defend.

Wyz_sub10

I just posted a lengthy response that got f-ing deleted by accident.

Rather than re-type everything, I will address only the following:



I would say that the brain doesn't need any metaphysical driver; it is capable of functioning as a decision making without any superfluous "metaphyscial organ" government it's moves.

I have already addressed the brain's function as a decision maker. Your brain responds to inputs and produces outputs. Your inputs are the choices you have in any given situation, your outputs are the decisions you make - observed by some as the results of "free will".

I would hazard a guess that 99.999999% of your "free will" decisions are never considered nor comtemplated. They do not require a soul to deliberate over choices. You climb down the stairs without tripping because your brain receives input from your eyes, limbs, etc. and gauges the appropriate responses, sending messages to the rest of your body accordingly.

Do you possess the "free will" to step awkwardly on the edge of the stair, increasing your chances of falling? Yes, but this does not happen because your brain can handle this function without you consciously thinking about it - so you don't.

In other words, your brain can rcive a message and respond to it without a driver. The more complex the inputs (choice between quitting a medicore, stable job, for an exciting, unstable one) will require more processing and will generate a greater list of choices.

Now let's cut to the heart of the matter - how do you actually choose? Enter "the soul", right?

Wrong (surely you didn't expect me to acquiesce at this point )

Your brain is not transmitting those "choices" back to you on an even keel. Some aspects of the choices make you feel more nervous than others. Some make you feel sad or happy or horny (as the cae may be). Whatever the response, you are being "pushed" in a direction.

"But surely", you may say, "at some point you have to actually choose to keep the job or leave it. That's what the soul does - chooses."

At this level, I would get back to simplicity. You must make a choice - i.e. there has to be some result. You cannot make all choices. So the question is, how do you land on one.

You respond by doing what you feel is in your best interests - the response is ultimately visceral, regardless of how much logic you employed. It is the natural cause and effect realtionship.

One may just as well ask: "how did electrons choose to be negative" or "how did gravity choose to be based on mass instead of area."

At the end of the day, if you want to ascribe these choices to metaphysical properties such as "soul", that's up to you. But that nature of "input-output", "cause and effect" that exists in the brain and translates into our responses does not need an added entity.

[QUOTE][b]Your point about infinite regression is a good one. It seems most metaphysical concepts of this natural are prone to this type of logical fallacy.

This is what I was getting at earlier, but Sharif put it better than I did. The point remains that if the soul doesn't need a soul, then there's no reason to think the brain needs a brain. Otherwise, you could regress intifinitely. "All things need a cause except the uncaused" isn't a very persuasive argument.



Phew! This is a confusing piece of claptrap, and I say that with all the respect in the world.

If the soul is self-sufficient, does it not exist in a deterministic state? No? Because it's "metaphysical", right?

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by the brain existing "in a deterministic state," but so long as the brain is capable of receiving new inputs, it is capable of producing new outputs. To me, that sounds as though you can still respond uniquely and "newly" to a given situation, allowing indeterminism when looking ahead.

Perhaps there's a good reason dor that.

Wyz_sub10

I just posted a lengthy response that got f-ing deleted by accident.

Rather than re-type everything, I will address only the following:



I would say that the brain doesn't need any metaphysical driver; it is capable of functioning as a decision maker without any superfluous "metaphysical organ" governing it's moves.

I have already addressed the brain's function as a decision maker. Your brain responds to inputs and produces outputs. Your inputs are the choices you have in any given situation, your outputs are the decisions you make - observed by some as the results of "free will".

I would hazard a guess that 99.999999% of your "free will" decisions are never considered nor contemplated. They do not require a soul to deliberate over choices. You climb down the stairs without tripping because your brain receives input from your eyes, limbs, etc. and gauges the appropriate responses, sending messages to the rest of your body accordingly - it makes the decision for you.

Do you possess the "free will" to step awkwardly on the edge of the stair, increasing your chances of falling? Yes, but this does not happen because your brain can handle this function without you consciously thinking about it - so you don't.

In other words, your brain can receive a message and respond to it without a driver. The more complex the inputs (choice between quitting a medicore, stable job, for an exciting, unstable one) will require more processing and will generate a greater list of choices.

Now let's cut to the heart of the matter - how do you actually choose? Enter "the soul", right?

Wrong (surely you didn't expect me to acquiesce at this point )

Your brain is not transmitting those "choices" back to you on an even keel. Some aspects of the choices make you feel more nervous than others. Some make you feel sad or happy or horny (as the cae may be). Whatever the response, you are being "pushed" in a direction.

"But surely", you may say, "at some point you have to actually choose to keep the job or leave it. That's what the soul does - chooses."

At this level, I would get back to simplicity. You must make a choice - i.e. there has to be some result. You cannot make all choices. So the question is, how do you land on one.

You respond by doing what you feel is in your best interests - the response is ultimately visceral, regardless of how much logic you employed. It is the natural cause and effect realtionship.

One may just as well ask: "how did electrons choose to be negative" or "how did gravity choose to be based on mass instead of area."

At the end of the day, if you want to ascribe these choices to metaphysical properties such as "soul", that's up to you. But that nature of "input-output", "cause and effect" that exists in the brain and translates into our responses does not need an added entity.

This is what I was getting at earlier, but Sharif put it far better than I did. The point remains that if the soul doesn't need a soul, then there's no reason to think the brain needs a brain. Otherwise, you could regress intifinitely. "All things need a cause except the uncaused" isn't a very persuasive argument.



Phew! This is a confusing piece of claptrap, and I say that with all the respect in the world.

If the soul is self-sufficient, does it not exist in a deterministic state? No? Because it's "metaphysical", right? (Why does metaphysical=indetermined?)

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by the brain existing "in a deterministic state," but so long as the brain is capable of receiving new inputs, it is capable of producing new outputs. To me, that sounds as though you can still respond uniquely and "newly" to a given situation, allowing indeterminism when looking ahead.

Perhaps there's a good reason for that.

Farren

I'm coming in late having not read through from the OP. It gets ridiculous when threads get this wrong, but assigning "free will" to the soul obviously begs the question.

"Free will", to the best of my knowledge, has never been adequately defined. What the hell is it?

If a choice is not deterministic, it literally is without cause. If there is no cause, it must be random. What is "free will" then, if not randomness?

If you ascribe a cause or purpose to a "free" choice, you are in fact providing the cause of the choice and implicitly implying determinism.

If you argue that an alternative choice existed for the same causes, you again beg the question. Then what caused you to make the choice you did? Answer this, and you provide a cause and admit causality.

Fail to answer, and you admit to ignorance of how the choice was made (and naming an absence of knowledge does not make the absence of knowledge a "thing"), or randomness in the choosing mechanism.

Now, if we have words for "ignorance", "randomness" and "causality", what purpose does the term "free will" serve? None whatsoever, other than to mislead people into thinking they have a means of resolving an inconsistency in belief - when all they have is a redundant word.

It is in this capacity that the word continues to serve those who do not wish to face the inevitable conclusion that causality and randomness are the only two choices. Neither concept, of course, requires a soul, God or anything else that is usually hitched to the phrase in the world's most oft-repeated fallacy by naming.

Last note: I'm not actually arguing that the universe is of necessity entirely causal. It is logically possible to construct model of a universe which behaves very much like our own, with randomness occuring in a limited way. Its possible that some sub-atomic "choices" are, in fact, random, but this certainly doesn't require any of the metaphysics of religion or spiritually to reconcile with reason.