Determinism vs Free Will

[Undertoad]

that was a little unclear. we can change our behavior based on our imagined outcomes, that is what is new to humans. It is freer will, really, if not exactly free will

[lumberjim]

Animals can't conceive of the option to end their existence either. Well most.... Whales do it rarely. And we do it more.

That's the proof of free will being a thing.

[sexobon]

I like the contention that if you believe in quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, you can't really believe in determinism.

[Undertoad]

[Griff]

Nice.

[Clodfobble]

I guffawed.

[Squawk]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

we can change our behavior based on our imagined outcomes, that is what is new to humans. It is freer will, really, if not exactly free will

Originally Posted by lumberjim

Animals can't conceive of the option to end their existence either. Well most.... Whales do it rarely. And we do it more.

That's the proof of free will being a thing.

The fact that we have a mental life and are capable of conceptual thought, including suicide, does not I believe rule out determinism per se. As well as responding to and acting upon environmental cues, our conceptual abilities can be considered as internal functions of the brain. The central issue is that the brain is governed by physical laws, and by implication it is the brain which is the driver of behaviour, and not the mind.

Originally Posted by sexobon

I like the contention that if you believe in quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, you can't really believe in determinism.

As far as I am aware, neuronal activity is still considered to operate at the macro level of physics. I haven't heard of any evidence of quantum mechanics being involved.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'd turn to page 57.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Squawk

... As far as I am aware, neuronal activity is still considered to operate at the macro level of physics. I haven't heard of any evidence of quantum mechanics being involved.

Not directly. Indirectly, via quantum theory, they're working on it...

NOTE: Even the subtopic below, from the article on Quantum Cognition is too long to reproduce in its entirety here; so, I took a little from the beginning and from the end. END NOTE.

Quantum-like models of information processing ("quantum-like brain")

The brain is definitely a macroscopic physical system operating on the scales (of time, space, temperature) which differ crucially from the corresponding quantum scales. (The macroscopic quantum physical phenomena such as e.g. the Bose-Einstein condensate are also characterized by the special conditions which are definitely not fulfilled in the brain.) In particular, the brain is simply too hot to be able perform the real quantum information processing, i.e., to use the quantum carriers of information such as photons, ions, electrons. As is commonly accepted in brain science, the basic unit of information processing is a neuron. ...

... Quantum mechanics is fundamentally contextual.[15] Quantum systems do not have objective properties which can be defined independently of measurement context. (As was pointed by N. Bohr, the whole experimental arrangement must be taken into account.) Contextuality implies existence of incompatible mental variables, violation of the classical law of total probability and (constructive and destructive) interference effects. Thus the quantum cognition approach can be considered as an attempt to formalize contextuality of mental processes by using the mathematical apparatus of quantum mechanics.

[Flint]

How many variables would you say this device has? Even relatively simple outcomes are not easily predictable. Complex outcomes are nearly indecipherable.
If we understood every physical law of the universe, a full-physics simulation of even a single biochemical reaction would be quite a technological feat.

How many variables go into the decision of what to make for breakfast?

[Undertoad]

That reminds me of an old math joke, for which you may disregard the inherent cis- and hetero-normative aspects, if you would like to enjoy it

Two dudes, one a mathematician and the other an engineer, are lined up on one wall of a room, and on the opposite wall is a beautiful lady. They are told to advance toward the lady by half the distance separating them every ten seconds, and when they reach her, they will receive a kiss.

The mathematician says, "According to Zeno's paradox, after one move I will be 1/2 as close; then, 1/4 as close; then 1/8 as close; but I will never actually reach her, because the series will be infinite."

The engineer says, "In about a minute I will be close enough for all practical purposes."

(free will = for all practical purposes)

[xoxoxoBruce]

For all practical purposes = Good enough for me = I'm willing to compromise = Close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades = That's a gimme = dozens of other expressions of being practical especially when it's to your own advantage.

But there is no time where you can know all the possible things affecting the situation.
You can only go with what you know and keep track of the emergency exits.

[Flint]

I think the crux of the issue is this--

Asking "does free will exist" is not a practical purpose.

It's not meant to be pragmatic, or a 'guide to behavior/making choices'-- it's an immaterial absolute. But insomuch as absolute truths exist, they don't care what their effect on an individual's personal philosophies would be. That's my whole soapbox on this-- I can't intellectually reconcile a universe that doesn't have logical parameters.

That's my little focus, itself just a culmination of nature/nurture/free will/divine intervention/subconscious impulses/effort and discipline/quantum fluctuations/what I ate for breakfast

[xoxoxoBruce]

It can have logical parameters and free will.
It may be like a giant fun-house with set openings and obstacles that are constant, but you get to choose how to navigate them and it.

[Diaphone Jim]

Something is wrong when you get that many balls in the front tray.