Something that is not even measurable by science in principle is something that falls into the realm of the supernatural or the spiritual.

That is just a definitional statement, you can't conduct a scientific experiment on a definition.

I thought that definition was uncontroversial. Do you disagree?

I did just notice that when I typed that sentence, it was in response to one from chezlaw, I meant to keep the two words "in principle" from his statement. So that should have been inserted, as above. Not sure if that will make a difference in your level of agreement with the definitional statement or not.

You have made a claim that there is "no such thing as free will." You have made a positive claim. So, what is your argument? (Please note well that I am not necessarily disagreeing with your claim that we have no free will.)

You made the claim that the brain is just a stew of neurons and chemicals. What is your argument that there is nothing else to the brain than neurons and chemicals? (Again, I am not necessarily disagreeing with your claim.)

Another claim that begs for an argument.

Fair enough. But, by your definition, then mathematics is in the realm of either the spiritual or the supernatural, since it's neither science nor merely definitional.

These are all negative claims, not positive ones. I can express them in other words if it helps.

Free Will does not exist.

Anything other than neurons and chemicals (and maybe a few other cells, I'm not a neurologist) does not exist.

Homunculi (little men inside a head who do the "choosing") do not exist.

None of these statements can be proven or disproven. But my belief is that they all do not exist, because I am a materialist and only believe in things that can be observed and measured. You may believe in some of these (basically on faith) for supernatural, spiritual, or religious reasons, but the existence of such things can also not be proven.

Mathematics is supernatural. It represents relative truths that would exist even if there was no universe. So it is above the natural world. There is really no "proof" for mathematics as a whole, it's just a tool that is useful in many activities. It helps me win money while playing poker (and in many other ways), so I'm going to stick with it until it doesn't work for me any longer.

Sounds good!

So, you did not freely choose your belief that free-will does not exist? Is it correct to say that you have never freely chosen any of your actions or beliefs? And do you believe that my agreeing or disagreeing with you was not chosen by me either?

Did you freely choose to believe that? And is it literally impossible that scientists will ever discover something other than neurons, chemicals and maybe a few other cells in the brain?

Did you freely choose to believe that Homunculi do not exist.

Says who?

Did you freely choose to be a materialist? Did I freely choose to not be a materialist?

So, you are not a Materialist after all? By definition, a Materialist believes that only material things exist.

Okay. But, since you deny free-will, you must believe that you are not freely making decisions at the poker table.

Hmm, I think the standard definition of a Materialist would include people who believe that mathematics works. It doesn't exist in a material sense.

That is correct, I cannot possibly play poker in any way other than amazingly well.

That is correct, I did not choose my belief that free-will does not exist. I have never acted freely (according to the philosophical definition of free will) in my life. I must believe that your beliefs were not freely chosen by you either. Do you feel like you "choose" to believe in God? Could you choose to not believe in God right now, if you wanted to?

No, it's not impossible that scientists will ever discover something new and exciting in the brain. But I don't think they will find anything that will radically change standard theories of consciousness.

I did not freely choose to be a materialist, I just realized one day that I did. I don't think you freely chose to not be one. Do you remember choosing freely yourself? Or did you feel that you had to go in a particular way?

Why do you think b) is true? There are studies which have shown you can estimate pain through brain scans with good accuracy. You would have to first establish that the person/animal has the physical apparatus necessary to have a conscious experience of pain but it then seems theoretically measurable.

what is the physical apparatus necessary to have a conscious experience? I've heard theories that particles experience pain - seems unlikely to me but this is not in the realms of science.

Do you think you are measuring pain or something that corrosponds well with reports of pain? (so does a kick in the balls). If your measurement says someone is in pain but they say they aren't then you would say they are wrong? They are in pain but they just dont realise it?

I have no idea exactly which elements it must possess or in what configuration a brain must be in to be conscious. But, there must be some absolute minimum requirement.


Yes, of course this isn't the same as measuring blood pressure or something. This is why I added the caveat of knowing that all the pieces are there to experience pain. If you wanted to be more exact while looking at the scans without knowing anything about the subject you'd say something like the activity in the brain is consistent with the body's response to injury. In the average person this would be analogous to a measure of pain.

Interestingly, I read about an experiment on someone who had a congenital inability to feel pain and the corresponding regions in the brain still lit up when their body was subjected to something that should cause pain, so clearly a brain scan alone doesn't cut it.

So you agree with me.

I am saying if a person is offering that view as a high minded 'theoretical type retort' and points that out, fine.

But in a practical discussion, even on this forum where two people are discussing the act of a person rushing into a burning building and dying, and they call it a selfless act, and someone else chimes in 'no it was a selfish act', because they are pushing a philosophical position that 'all acts evolve from a position of some selfishness', that typically is not going to go over well in terms of what the others are discussing and the person pushing that needs to 'note' it.

For instance if you and i are agreeing over the 'selfless act' of the person who just died, doing something they really did not want to, to try and save others, and someone interjected with that high minded philosophical point to try and tell us we were wrong, i would say they are wrong.

Those are parallel debates. It can be true in a philosophical sense all acts derive from a level of self interest, and it can also be true from a pragmatic view point that thiongs can be properly labeled a selfless act.

But a consistent materialist would argue that only material things exist. To say "Maths work, but don't exist in a material sense" suggests that maths do exist in a "non-material" sense. Which the consistent Materialist would deny.



"Of course I believe in free-will; I have no choice!"

Correct. We were discussing the philosophical sense, and then you decided you wanted to muck up our conversation and start an argument, so you butted in with your
pragmatic" sense. They should be parallel debates, but you are trying to force them to cross, either to create controversy or because you didn't at first realize what the conversation was about.

I think you are using a non-standard definition of "Materialist". Could you point me to your definition? I don't think it contradicts materialism to believe that ideas and processes exist.

I want to believe in free will, but I just can't.

Take your two index fingers and put them down on something-- it can be a table, or a wall or whatever.

Then lift up one of them. Who decides which one you lift? That's you. That's your free will in action. It's easy.

There have been psychological studies on exactly this kind of thing. The physical action starts happening before the subject believes they have chosen which finger to move.
It just feels like you're choosing.

I recently started TMS treatment. As a test, on the first session, a magnetic pulse was aimed at a particular spot in my head, which made my right thumb move. I definitely did not choose to move my thumb, and I could not prevent it from moving.

(Also, the statement you replied to was really just a silly quip in response to that of SS.)

In that case, decide which finger to move and then wait 5 minutes before moving it.

It is not the claim that if the doctor his you in the knee with his little knee hammer, that your leg won't move unless you will it.

In a neural net (or simialr) it doesn't make any big difference to decision making (or free will) whether the thinking precedes the decison or comes between the decision and the updating.

Except it would be quite suprising if it came before cos you need to act quicker than you need to learn.

I (literally) can't decide.

In that case flip a coin, go with whatever it tells you, and the act of following through with that is still your free will in action.

That would just show that my action was random. I didn't choose which way the coin would land.

You're choosing to abide by the results of the flip.

No, my actions are caused by chemicals and synapses which I am powerless to control.

You're welcome to disagree, but nothing you have said here even comes close to being a good argument for the existence of free will.