Milton

If you are part of the group that does not believe, then you were created in that order, and the punishment that is determined for those who don't believe is also part of the whole plan.

You did not succeed in being a disbeliever. Your disbelief was and has always being a part of you. You have always being a disbeliever--eventhough at some point in time, you could have had the illusion that you were a believer. Also, it is still possible that, instead, you could become a believer. In that case, your disbelief would become the illusion that you had. What you are at the end, is the reality of what you were at the beginning, because your end is determined from the beginning.

Nowhere357

We know that "magic" is just a term to describe the unknown. The nature of mind is unknown - that does not make it magic.

Also, energy is not physical (as in "material") yet affects the physical, so it's not such an odd concept after all.

You've said this already. It's still just as wrong, imo. I guess this horse is just about dead.

Basically, yes. Does the fact that our current scientific knowledge and our imagination fail to explain this, mean that the phenomenae does not exist?

It may be a force, but I haven't made that claim. The brain affects itself, and one way it does this is through the abstract creation of a mind. This mind can feel - it is aware. The brain notices how the mind feels, and reacts accordingly. I don't understand why or how minds exist, but I can see that they do, and that they help achieve survival. Our failure to understand is not evidence of non-existence.

And the mind is of the physical world. I have yet to encounter one which wasn't a living brain.

Thank you.

Yes, if we leave out personal experience. It is perfectly plausable that creatures have no awareness. It is only direct experience of our own awareness, and the application of reason, that we think creatures really are aware.

So I have assigned no false dilemma. My argument is not that because the universe is not predetermined, therefore there is free will. My argument is that there is will because minds make decisions which are not predetermined, and I have direct experience of the ability to make decisions.

My stance also. But this does stance not imply that will does not exist. Minds, awareness, and will are natural.

No, the computer does not have will. Yes, the brain is similar to a computer. One difference is that the brain has awareness. So the fact that we are similar to a computer is not evidence against the existence of will, because will is a property of mind, and computers have no mind. Okay?

You missed the point of the analogy. A wave has no independant existence, just like the mind has no independent existence. Look at a wave, and you see only water, just as we look at a mind and see only brain.

And waves are abstract - they express a quality apart from an object.

And kinetic energy is abstract - can't bottle that stuff up either.

And the mind is testable and observable, at least to a degree. We have direct experience of them. And it's easy to recognize when a person has a mind, and when they don't. It's as obvious as life and death.

I think you expect too much from my analogy. The existence of mind is unlike any other thing in this universe I'm aware of. It seems to be in a class by itself, so to speak. Analogies for the mind are hard to come by, sorry.

The point is that just as a wave is an abstract quality of water, so too the mind may be an abstract quality of brain.

There is some localized storage, yes. There is also unlocalized storage. The brain has similarities with holgraphic technology, I'm sorry you don't find the point interesting.

I understand computer programming. Interestingly, the decisions were actually made by the programmer. Who has a mind. The physics involved with computers are well understood. The physics involved with mind are not. Computers are not brains, and do not have the same qualities and properties of the brain.

Nowhere357

You'll have to explain which part of the definition is unclear.

A mind is aware, and through feedback is self-aware.
It is subjective, and it is mental.

BadBadBad

That's right Milton. That's what the Bible says. Unfortunately, it also says you are saved by faith. It says you have to choose to believe in God. So which is it? Saved by grace or saved by faith? You haven't explained how both can be true at the same time. You haven't resolved the paradox. So if God has chosen, what difference does it make what I choose? If God chooses, why is there page after page, chapter after chapter, in the Bible urging me to choose God?

Amaranth

Afternoon, Nowhere - How's work?

What makes your definition of the mind magical is that it ultimately affects physics without being affected by physics. It does this by an unknown, undefined mechanism, but is not random. On the contrary, it is directly affected by a construct of physics that is somehow free to act outside of physics.

And energy is a physical thing - Check your definitions.

Certainly not! Stating such would be Argumentum ad ignorantiam, since we don't actually know. Much like stating it does exist wou...hey, wait a minute.

Right - We leave the fact that this "mind" doesn't comply with known and accepted science as proof to cast doubt on its existance, and as such place the burden of proof on the position that claims this physics-defying object. Much akin to the conversations about god so popular on these boards, all you can really do is establish the burden of proof, then attack the lack of proof.

In this case, the most compelling argument for your stance is personal experience of what seems to be "will." The rest has been unknown mechanisms and theoretical interactions, at best. As personal experience of perception is your proof, it's worth noting the wide variety of mental illnesses in the human mind - Most notably delusionary schizophrenia. The mind can be decieved, and perception can be tricked by illusions.

Much like the illusion of choice.


Amaranth

And, as an aside, kinetic energy certainly doesn't seem abstract to me.

Milton

I did not know this had anything to do with grace and faith. But I see what you're asking. Now, I don't see why you would think there is a conflict between grace and faith, since they are only co-factors in the whole process of salvation. Grace is the benevolence of God, and faith is the action of the believer to trust God to fulfill His promise(s). What is the conflict in this?

However, as I said, I see what you are asking. Why does the Bible ask the reader to take action? The Bible is part of this world, so it provides information for this world, and in many occasions, according to this world. We live in an illusory world, where we believe that we have choices, and the choices we think we make, also have effects. In our minds, the effect is as real as the choice. But the ultimate reality is that both, our choice and the effect of it, were predetermined.

You ask,

If God has chosen, we cannot choose. But our choices are only visible in the illusion that we live in. We are living in an illusory world, and free will is part of it. As long as we are in this illusory world, we will have the illusion of free will, and the Bible will communicate to us in the same way. The Bible is a part of the whole creation, and it is only doing its assigned part.

Nowhere357

I say that is false. Here is a collection of my quotes which, while just assertions, serve to show that your statement does not match my position.

Nothing here operates outside of physics. Mind exists in some form or another as a quality or property of the brain, I think this can be considered fact.
The physics of the gap are not yet understood, yet the outcome must include the "ethereal" aware mind - a subjective mental awareness. I think this also can be considered fact.

I claim the mind has will, supported by direct experience, argument of utility, and so on.
Your main objection to will seems to be it's ethereal quality. Yet I think you can accept the fact that we are aware, and awareness is just as ethereal!

Which is why I said "physical (as in "material")". Material is matter.

The difference, of course, is direct experience. We know there is a gap because we know mind arises from brain. Minds are not a made-up entity. People are aware and self-aware, people have minds, although the exact nature of minds is in dispute. Do you agree?

The "mind" does not contradict known and accepted science in any way, so your cast doubt is false.

Also, there is no physics defying object, is that some sort of strawman? Take it away, please. And resume your rightful burden.

An appeal to emotions? I make decisions - you claim I don't, I think the burden is on you. I'm not responsible for your lack of proof.

Meanwhile, I have readily admitted that the subjective nature of our awareness renders it non-objective and non-provable as an objective fact. The only way to experience mind is to be one.

Strange but true.

But in addition, we observe behavior patterns in others that can be interpreted as strong-willed and weak-willed, for example. Also, the idea that we have will does not contradict current knowledge, and explains observed phenomenae while employing Occam's razor.

Also, explaining observed phenomenae without will requires that Occam's razor be put away, in order to accept that minds exist yet serve no function at all, just an observing entity which cannot affect reality.

I think my case is strong, I don't state it well, but I'm trying.

True, and important to consider. It also shows you are running out of ammo.

If (apparent) perception of will is due to brain defect in any way, my only comfort is that it seems to affect all of us.

Though different, since the ability to choose is real.

Also aside, I'm not sure it is either. I think it describes a relationship between things, and is not inherent in the things themselves. A thing has kinetic energy only in relation to other things. I think that makes it abstract.

Amaranth

[quote]Nothing here operates outside of physics. Mind exists in some form or another as a quality or property of the brain, I think this can be considered fact.
The physics of the gap are not yet understood, yet the outcome must include the "ethereal" aware mind - a subjective mental awareness. I think this also can be considered fact.[quote]

Then you obviously have not thought your position through. At some point, in order to maintain your "free will", the mind has to have a cause outside of physics. Otherwise, all causes within the mind are merely physics, action and reaction, and you are supporting my point. Physics does not "decide" - It reacts, or in the case of QM, just acts. Neither of these reflect what your "mind" (as previously defined) can do. Again - Magic.

Awareness does not require physics to react to my whims.

You are beginning to equivocate, or at least forget that you have already defined "mind" as having "free will." So, when taken in context, your assertions about the existance of "mind" that I've previously fought against are not as you have presented here.

Blatantly incorrect. You contest that man directs physics, while I contest that physics directs man. Unless you care to explain how man can make a choice that is somehow "free", but not just an extension of physics.

An analogy, and nothing more. And you are claiming unknown mechanisms that allow for unheard of applications of physics, while I'm claiming that you are nothing but known physics in action, cause and effect. One of us is positing something new and grand in the universe, the other is just extending old rules to cover new subjects.

Strawman - My case states that the mind does not serve to allow man choices, not that it serves no purpose what-so-ever.

*chuckle* Far from it.

I also read an interesting article yesterday stating that the body only percieves about 50% of the force it affects on itself - that we really don't know our own strength. Perception is an interesting thing...


I'm relatively certain that it deals with movement, and that as such a thing can have kinetic energy without anything else moving at all.

Nowhere357

Awareness does require physics and is ethereal. Your statement avoids the point.

No sir, you have made several false accusations, and this is another one. I said clearly that "people have minds, although the exact nature of minds is in dispute." The quality of will is in dispute. The existence of minds is not. I have not equivocated.

I said "People are aware and self-aware, people have minds, although the exact nature of minds is in dispute. Do you agree?". Apparently, you disagree. This is an impasse, because I find the entire quote self-evident.

This claim might have value if you provided support. If you have a reason for claiming my position contradicts known and accepted science in any way, please share it.

Does a falling apple direct gravity? You are running on empty. Free will dances in victory!

Physics "directs" everything, in my view. Athough it's not the case that things fall down because of the law of gravity (for example). It is the case that we codify the law of gravity because things fall down.

The nature of the "unknown" is such that it is currently unknown. We've already agreed to that, yet now you require I make an incredible scientific advancement single-handedly. Not very sporting.

But I'll make this bold claim - I will fully explain how will can exist as soon as you fully explain how awareness can exist.

Unknown mechanisms, yes. Unheard of applications, not at all. There is nothing unusual in the claim that the mind arises from brain through natural means, and there is nothing unusual in the claim that people make decisions.

I claim we are physics in action, and physics is not fully understood. It seems strange to imply that our understanding of physics is omniscient. It's also completely false.

One of us is explaining all observations as simply as possible while not contradicting current knowledge, the other requires the existence of an entity which cannot affect reality - violating the razor - and ignores direct experience.

No strawman. If the mind does not affect the brain, then exactly how does it serve any purpose whatsoever? Your objection has no value if you provide no reasoning for support.

People everywhere will say they make decisions. And yes perception is interesting. What purpose does it serve?

All movement is relative. Things move only in relation to other things. Kinetic energy describes a relationship between things.

Amaranth

Rediculous. Your statement, as you redefined it, is self-evident. However, my point was (and remains) that your original statement did not reflect that veiw at all.

This seems to have gotten lost, so I'll reprint it:

Then you obviously have not thought your position through. At some point, in order to maintain your "free will", the mind has to have a cause outside of physics. Otherwise, all causes within the mind are merely physics, action and reaction, and you are supporting my point. Physics does not "decide" - It reacts, or in the case of QM, just acts. Neither of these reflect what your "mind" (as previously defined) can do. Again - Magic.

Huh? A falling apple is directed by physics - It has no choice. And no number of self-proclimations of some "victory" will make it so, sadly

Again, the crux of the matter - Your unknown, mystical mechanism against known physics. You don't know what it is, but you have very strong faith in its existance.

Until one takes into account that these decisions mean that you are effecting physics without a direct physical cause, and further that these uncaused decisions are not random.

Again, strawman - I have stated that your claim goes against current knowledge of physics, and thus the burden of proof belongs to you and your "unknown process."

Your hypothesis has been described, where it can be, as being in direct violation of what is known. Futhermore, your hypothesis may be called "simpler" only due to the fact that the main point of it is an "unknown mechanism." My hypothesis actually explains how the brain functions in response to stimuli - Yours merely refers to an esoteric "unknown mechanism." My hypothesis is testable given the proper tools - Yours doesn't even know what to test.

*chuckle* Have you even created a hypothesis at all? Your stance may be summarized as:

1) I percieve myself to make decisions.
2) There must be some mechanism for me to make decisions.
3) Ergo, free will exists.

Red herring. The point of the discussion is the existance of "will" or not.

Still false - There is no reason, of any sort, that I must validate another claim in order to falsify yours.


But a thing only stops moving at 0 Kelvin - Wouldn't that mean that things move regardless of the existance of other things, as long as they have energy? And I'm still not seeing how this is abstract.