A critique of dualism and the notion of free will.

Frank, this answers your questions too.

That's the thing most people don't realize. I mean, unless it's your field of interest and livlihood and thus have really studied the subject indepth, you never get to learn the underlying chemical reactions that account for essentially every aspect of what makes us human. The organization of neurons in the hippocampus for memory and how they are associated with neural circuits in the amygdala associated with our emotions, is incredibly complicated, but it's mindblowing just how much we know about it, how much we can trace a memory or emotion down the the chemical components that make it up.

All the seemingly magical processes behind life, the mind, memories, emotions, reflexes, drives, the idea of self, all of them are at their root neurochemical circuits. We even know the precise structure of many of the chemicals that make this all possible. We understand many of the chemical processes underlying going from a clump of cells to a new "living" life form.

And yet, inspite of all the progress we made, much of it just in the last decade or so (a lot of progress came once we sequenced the human genome in 99, and thus could detremine the amino acid sequence behind many proteins and reverse engineer them to determine their structure, how they clump based on the charges of the amino acids, how they are effected by the flow of ions).

It really does blow my mind. And yet, inspite of how deep into the fundamental processes driving thoughts, memories, emotions etc, that we have gone, all we found of chemical reactions, ion movements following strict laws of physics, from making new proteins to processing food proteins and making them into new cells, and even a new life form, all we see are just chemical reactions following laws of physics. The same chemical reactions that they found aggregated into masses in muddy water when catalyzed by lightning. Over 80 years ago, they found that given enough time, some mud, some water, and some lightining, and some uv rays, can create circular clumps of clay inside of which aggregates many amino acids and even some of the simpler enzymes driving life. No evidence of some magical spirit only found in living things, no evidence of any thing that accounts for an actual mind, or a soul, or free will, just chemical reactions.

Surely Frank, you accept evolution, since it's the simplest explanation for the varieties amount "living" things and there has yet to be any evidence whatsoever of a god that intervenes in our world to create things.

This is the same thing, the simplest explanation, the explanation that doesn't require some entity that we have no evidence for, no understanding of, no basis for, this simple explanation must be accepted as the most logical explanation atleast for the time being.

This is the basis of all science and scientific endevors.

You're essentially argueing that, inspite of the fact that there is no evidence that a soul, or a mind, or free will exist when we examine their underlying processes in depth, inspite of all this, we should belief that these things do exist.

This isn't just logically flawed, it's also a dogmatic belief.

Just like how creationists argue that god created all life forms even though there is no evidence of god, we don't understand the basis for god, don't understand where this god comes from, and have no reason to believe in a god that created all the variety of life forms, inspite of all the evidence suggesting that different speicies weren't created but evolved over time from one another. Yet creationists ignore the most logicial, simplest explanation, the one that all the evidence suppots, for a different more complext theory that has no evidence to back it up. You would agree that that's dogmatic don't you. That's precisely what you're doing as well.

Here's what we know. We know the underlying neurochemical mechanisms and processing underlying all mental actions, thinking, feeling, remembering, reacting etc.

All the research we have points to anything that could be the basis for a soul or spirit or anything like that.

Just like all the research points to evolution. It's absurd to argue that giving an explanation of how something works and providing ample evidence for it, isn't sufficent to embrace it over other theories, that have absolutely no evidence of or basis for in reality. There is no evidence that ghosts exist. Yet people believe in them. It's ridiculous for you to demand that one prove that ghosts don't exist.

How would one go about doing that exactly? No one can explore every crevice of the universe or even earth and prove that none of them have a ghost. Simply, the lack of evidence for ghosts, suffices in sceintists being able to say that ghosts are figmenst of our imagination. So how is it that you don't see a problem with making the same demand of me, to search every crevice in the universe?

If you think by demanding science to disprove everything it rejects on the basis of lack of evidence is fair, you are logically flawed.

You are the one making this theory (of a soul) for which there is currently no proof.

Thus, the burden of proof lies squarely on your shoulders.

Your example is flawed, we haven't explored all of the universe. We have explored all of the brain and body, down to every last gene or protein. Thus we are in a position to say that there is no basis for a soul or of for a mind, or for true free will in humans.

Stop making logical mistakes in order ot prove something that has no evidence to support it.

I might remind you that the simple explanation for the phenomena of the sun and moon seeming to circle overhead...is that they do indeed circle overhead.

That is the simple explanation. But it is WRONG.

"They suggested a couple of eggs with nice crisp bacon...a glass of creamy milk...and some toast liberally spread over with butter. "

They never said, liberally spread, just a slice of butter or so.

And I'm pretty sure they said two toasts of bread, or cereal, or some other additional source of grain.

And what's wrong with that. That's a perfectly balanced meal. The problem is, it wasn't science that changed, it was people. We do need a healthy dose of fat in our system. The memberane for all our cells is fat. The brain, heart and many other critical organs use fatty acids almost exclusively for their source of energy. The problem is, now most people are overeating by a large margin, and when you overeat, the excess get's turned to fat.. They stopped eating things like vegetables and fruit, with preserved snacks like twinkies and cookies loaded with fat. They eat many eggs per day. That's why now, everyone is discouraging people to eat so much fat. You still need to eat a decent amount of fat, especially if you live a relatively active life , aren't overweight, don't have high bp and don't overeat. And it's nice to eat that fat early in the morning, since all your heart and brain activity probably depleted a decent amount of your serum fatty acids if you're a relativley healthy person. And if such is the case, depending on your age and activity level, I would tell you there is nothing wrong with that meal for breakfast.

Frank, I think our argument has broken down to a difference in definitions. Let me acknowlegde first and foremost that NOTHING can be proven. Nothing can be truly stated as a fact. If you put some thought into it, you could find a far more complicated explanation than the current accepted one for anything. You could argue that god caused the tsunami, and is causing all the weather changes and if he wants can turn a perfectly sunny cloudless day into a blizzard in moments etc. etc. etc. Does that mean that you stop listening to the weather channel. No, even though there is always a far more complicated explanation, you're best off accepting the simplest one that ALL of the evidence supports. If you don't, if you insist that god made the tsumani etc though there is no evidence for a god, you have a dogmatic belief.

Ask any scientist, they will tell you that anyone of the facts that they currently believe may someday be disproven. Thus by your definition of fact, that we can't reject anything even when none of the evidence supports, nothing can be believed. No scientist takes that position, or they couldn't ever rule out any hypothesis based on the evidence not supporting it. So yes, in some cases, absense of proof does constitute absense. If not, one couldn't believe ANYTHING and thus wouldn't be able to function.

The explanation that I have given, it's the simplest explanation that accounts for all the observed behavior and fits all the evidence. The common alternatives (soul, god or mind) don't have any evidence to back them up and all require far more complex processes. That is sufficent to accept this explanation as true until such time that contrary evidence emerges. Of course, I want to make clearly there is another criterion. You can't make theories until you first a decent amount of observations and evidence. We haven't yet studied the entire universe. Thus we can't make a statement encompassing all of it. We can however make a statement regarding the known universe. We can state that there is no "sentient" life currently on the moon. Can you prove that there is? No one ever can. So you would argued that I am wrong to make the statement, that there is no sentient life on the moon. So if we followed your theory, we shouldn't accept anything. There might still be sentient life on the moon. If so, maybe we should start trying to communicate with them too. Set off on a noble time consuming quest to sent signals to the moon. Because surely, if there might be sentient life on the moon, it would be worthwhile to find it and see how they can help us.

The human brain isn't the same as the parts of the universe we haven't begun to study. It is like the moon. We do have plenty of observations and evidence to support chemical evolution and neural basis of emotions, thoughts and memories. If you don't believe me, read Haines.

We shouldn't stop believing in any thing because we can't prove anything beyond all doubt.

Quote:

I might remind you that the simple explanation for the phenomena of the sun and moon seeming to circle overhead...is that they do indeed circle overhead.

That is the simple explanation. But it is WRONG.

And I might remind you that there is plenty of evidence and observations that earth rotates around the sun and not the other way around, and I consistently and repeatedly stated over and over again that the simplest explanation THAT FITS ALL OBSERVED BEHAVIOR AND EVIDENCE should be accepted.

So either you didn't comprehend what I wrote, or you are still unaware of all the evidence and observations that the earth revolves around the sun. If you still don't know of any of the observations and evidence that support that the earth revolves around the sun, you clearly aren't keeping up with our scientific discoveries, and if such is the case, it seems likely that you haven't kept up with any of the recent obeseravtions and evidence in neuroscience, and it would take me too long to explain it all. So we're done talking, because I can't possibly convince you without first detailing all the current observations, regarding the functioning of the neuron, the precise mechanism behind thoughts, memories and emotions etc. And detailing all those would take a few hundred pages. If, on the otherhand, you can't understand what I am writing, as you simply ignoring the part about the explanation fitting with all the current evidence illustrates, and yet still insist on arguing me with based on your misinterpreting, arguing with you is futile.

Either way, I'm done addressing your posts or arguing with you Frank, until you bring up a point I haven't already addressed and one that actually makes sense regarding what I actually stated and our advances in neuroscience regarding the underlying chemical mechanisms behind thoughts, memories and emotions.

you never know if you have ALL the evidence.

centroles: So yes, in some cases, absense of proof does constitute absense. If not, one couldn't believe ANYTHING and thus wouldn't be able to function.

Quote:

you never know if you have ALL the evidence.

That statement can be applied to anything currently accepted as true. So if you insist on using such a high standard. I guess, you don't believe anything then.

Quote:

centroles: So yes, in some cases, absense of proof does constitute absense. If not, one couldn't believe ANYTHING and thus wouldn't be able to function.

Yes, I did answer your question, Once again, you fail to read what I said and respond with things that don't fit with what I stated.

Frank, yes I do think that your cause is best served by typing two word replies that don't actually fit to thoughout arguments.

Bye frank, it's been nice chatting with you, unless you bring up an actual argument or once again say something false regarding what I actually stated, I guess this is good bye for this topic. I look forward to encountering you in other topics.

I do not "believe" in anything.

AND YOU ARE DEAD WRONG IN THAT ARGUMENT.

Quote:

I do not "believe" in anything.

You do not believe anything. You do not believe in science. You don't believe in forces driving the universe. You don't believe in causality.

Quote:

AND YOU ARE DEAD WRONG IN THAT ARGUMENT.

First, you don't need to shout. I can hear you just fine.

Second, do you believe that I am wrong in that argument?

Yet you seem so adamant in this belief that I am wrong that you are willing to shout it.

Honestly, I have no idea what's going on in your head. I can't understand how someone that doesn't believe anything can even function. So I am not even going to try to figure out what you meant, or why you stated the quote above.

I do however believe that your belief that I am dead wrong is an opinion. An opinion that those who do believe in the scientific process don't share.

I believe in the scientific process.

It is to those who believe in the scientific process, that thus believe in evolution over a creator because evolution fits all the current evidence we have on the subject and a creator is inherently a far more complicated explanation that has no actual evidence to support it, to whom I am addressing this argument.

So if you would be so kind, I would like you to leave this thread to those that believe in the scientific method.

Because those are the people to whom I am addressing this argument. You can argue your assertion that no one can believe anything, since no one can ever prove anything to certainity, in just about any one of the threads in this forum. And in doing so, you would take the thread off topic.

So perhaps it would be best for all of us, if you make a seperate thread to make this point, that one can't believe anything, since once can't truly prove anything beyond a shadow of doubt.

Don't get me wrong, it is an interesting argument. One I don't mind having with you, just not here.

...There is no evidence for free will, or a soul, or anything that isn't governed by laws of physics and causality. Thus these things don't exist.

You are not arguing that absence of proof is proof of absence...are you???

I answered the principle behind the question repeatedly.

Yes, if there all the evidence points to something, to believe in something else that none of the evidence points to is dogma. Interpret that how you want. But don't put words in my mouth.

...There is no evidence for free will, or a soul, or anything that isn't governed by laws of physics and causality. Thus these things don't exist.

What is the difference between a world in which there is free will and a world where actions are determined but unpredictable?

But this doesn't mean that the future isn't linear. Because every thing in the universe is dependent upon causal relationships with everything else according to everything we know aboutcertain fundamental laws of physics and their role in governing every particle of the physical world.

As jonat stated quite succintly "If you do not believe that the universe consist of either matter or energy, it would be quite useless to argue with you. You may even be right, that there may be a 3rd mysterious force out there, but nothing points to that."

And everything also points to the notion that matter and energy are bound by certain laws to behave in certain ways. Thus there is no scientific basis to suggest that multiple consequences may arise from the same event. The only way around this is a dogmatic, unscientific belief in substance dualism. And my argument above illustrates why that too fails.

And joe, your insistance in sentience when there is absolutely no evidence to back it up reeks of dogma.

Science has failed still to find any basis for sentience.

Afterall, you can't have a property exclusive to only certain things, living things for example, unless their is a basic particle or property inherent to those things and those things alone.

I challenge you to find even a handful of credible experts in the field that don't believe that a living thing could ever be generated from nonliving or dead components, as celera is attempting to do.

Quote:

What is the difference between a world in which there is free will and a world where actions are determined but unpredictable?

To daily life, it matters little.

But so do most matters of philosphy.

It's a conclusion drawn from the scientific method. The simplest explanation that fits all the evidence should be accepted over alternative more complicated explanations that the evidence doesn't warrant. This is why scientists believe in evolution. Because it's the simplest explanation that makes sense.

If you read my posts, you would know that I do. I believe that there is an underlying neurochemical basis for love. That's what all the evidence points to. We can even induce emotions that are interpreted as love chemically. One such chemical is found in chocalate. In a more concentrated form and when combined with a few other chemicals, it has been shown to produce feelings and stimulate emotions that are associated with love.

You seem to have a different understanding of determinism than I do.

I never argued or implied that determinism means that we could theoretically even ever produce a computer or an equation that accounts for every variable in the universe. To do so would require more variables than there are particles in the universe, which could very well be infinite.

I am simply argueing that there is an inherent mechanism driving all events, a mechanism characterized by the laws of physics.

It would take too long to explain than I care to spend. If you care to know, I suggest that you read and understand the first two chapters of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, read up on the experiments carried out 80 years ago from which chemical evolution was derived, and read up on Maslow's hierachy of Needs, as well as Haines Foundations of Neurobiology then consider how all these priniciples interact with each other. It might help if you knew some computer engineering as well. I know it sounds like a lot of work, but I guarentee that the experience you will have when all these pieces fit together is exhilirating and well worth the time.

Neurons spontaniously generating electrical impulses without any previous stimulus, electrical or sensory (such as photons or air waves), to explain where this electrical impulse came from. But that would require movement of ions against their concentration gradient, without a force driving this movement against their gradient. And that would require something an event that disproves all three three laws of thermodynamics. If you can do that, not just I, but most scientists would consider you smarter (or luckier) than Einstein.

Afterall, you can't have a property exclusive to only certain things, living things for example, unless their is a basic particle or property inherent to those things and those things alone.

Quote:

How do you know that?

Because to do so would contradict atleast one of three laws of thermodynamics. And I believe in thermodynamics.

Because they are inherently interconnected. Free will is considered, by most people atleast, to be a defining characteristic that makes something alive. Yet, for free will to exist, for truly spontanous behavior, we must first find an exception to causality, thermodyamics and entropy.

Frank, why don't you show a little back bone by talking about the actual arguements I made rather than trying to pigeonhole me by requisiting that I disprove every potential alternative explanation anyone may ever come up with when we both know that this is both theoretically and actually impossible.

...There is no evidence for free will, or a soul, or anything that isn't governed by laws of physics and causality. Thus these things don't exist.

You are not arguing that absence of proof is proof of absence...are you???

I admit, on hindsight, I should have probably stated that "There is no evidence for free will, or a soul, or anything that isn't governed by laws of physics and causality. Thus these things don't exist according to the scientific process?"

Frank, despite your insistance the scientific process shouldn't rule out thories once they have been extensively studied and all the evidence and observations contradict them in favor of a simpler explanation, it does so on an almost daily basis.

...There is no evidence for free will, or a soul, or anything that isn't governed by laws of physics and causality. Thus these things don't exist.

"There is no evidence for free will, or a soul, or anything that isn't governed by laws of physics and causality. Thus these things don't exist according to the scientific process?"