The trouble with discussions like this is keeping definitions of words standing still.
So when I say:
"Determinism doesn't preclude choice - it is simply not random choice."
You say:
"Oh. I get it. In Determinism everything is determined, except when it isn't."
I'm saying it appears we make choice: in the conventional sense of the word we do. But if we could watch the process up close, which we can with Matthew's http reference reaction time measurement test, we see that it is boringly dependent on the right cellular potential being reached. Not some capricious "oh what a bright idea I just got". It is just a cellular process, which seems to the investigators to be random. They obviously haven't understood enough yet. The randomness will dwindle as they learn more. Until perhaps it will disappear into the unmeasurable realm where so much ends up.
So we watch some beastie making a "choice". Will the monkey choose the banana or the apple? But in reality it does not make a choice - it simply follows its plan, which might include,"hmm, sick of apples today". Not a choice. But we call it choice.
When I say random choice, I mean ungrounded in anything which has gone before. Bolt out of the blue, ethereal mind, magic from nowhere, inspiration by God, type choice.
So it is not a matter of "all is determined, except when it isn't". Choice is the process we go through before an action. Integrating all the input variables, our experience and reacting it with our DNA drives and out comes, hey presto, something we CALL choice, but is just the output of a cause and effect process in our tiny little brains.
It isn't random choice. I'm sure you see the difference.
So far we have two aspects of free will magic. Very little things where we can't tell what's going on, and the magical mind, where we can't tell what's going on. Are there any other mysteries in nature which you think are non-deterministic or have we narrowed it to these two?
Your little religionist story is that they are magic. My little belief story is that they are causal, beginning with the Great Escape. My sweet little fantasy could be falsified by demonstrating a non-causal relationship anywhere in the system. How could you falsify your romantic dream? Most religionists simply say theirs can't be falsified. But I'm sure yours isn't in that category.
Gee jfred, Matthew isn't going to like "there can be no self-contained rational systems ... all systems begin with irrational assumptions". Not having just elevated you to Sainthood. An appropriate place for a religionist of course. Hahahaa!! Oh dear. jfred in the God Squad. |
