You doubt that brain activity involved in reacting to traffic signals has been observed in a lab? That the ability of drivers to decide whether or not to stop has been researched via brain scans, laboratory setups, field observation, etc?
No, I do not doubt at all that brain activity has been observed in the lab that attests to such, nor that there is a process called "will" that we can observe. The existence of the process has never been in dispute, something I have said time and again. What is in dispute is whether the process is actually free or not.
And that's just one example. Few aspects of human mental activity have been as long investigated from as many different approaches in as many different aspects as the making of decisions under fluctuating circumstances.
Sure, and none of them have addressed, or been able to address, the question of whether the process is actually free or not. If you think otherwise, post these links you say have been provided in the past. Provide them and let's examine them to see what they actually show.
Which are posted in front of you: stop or go at a traffic light is one immediately to hand. Whether or not you ever take them seriously is beyond my influence.
That's not a link, iceaura. That's just an example. And it is an example that I have already examined and explained my position on. Whether or not you take this discussion seriously is beyond my control.
So? It arrives anyway. And it arrives between now and the time of decision.
But an object or event occurring 20 light years away can not have an effect on a decision being made in 10 years. A decision being made in 10 seconds can not be influenced by an event occurring 20 light-seconds away. So it is wrong to conclude that for a given decision the universe is the smallest closed system. The universe is only the smallest closed system for the system that is the universe.
That's even worse for your argument. You have to take into account the behavior of things hundreds and thousands of years ago, as well as things hundreds and thousands of light years away.
Eh? You merely need to consider the current state of things a distance away that light can travel before the end state you want to examine.
If the decision is 10 seconds away then it is the current state of things within 10 light seconds.
As for this corrected misunderstanding of yours being "worse" for my argument it is far from it at all. No one actually does any considering of such things. We're not talking here about what someone would need to do, but simply the nature of the beast, that
if someone did consider those things then they would be able to accurately predict the outcome of the decision. If you honestly still think it is somehow "worse", once you have corrected for your misunderstanding, then you aren't really grasping the argument at all.
The only closed system in a physically deterministic universe is the universe entire.
That is only true if you are considering a system that began at the start of the universe and continues to the end of it... I.e. The universe itself. If you are considering a system for a finite life time then the closed system is enclosed within a volume with radius equivalent to the distance travelled by light from the start to the end of the time being considered.
It's not the universe we are talking about. It's human beings, and others who have some freedom of will.
So you DO think human beings operate differently to the universe? If the universe is set on a course of action determined from the start, where do humans suddenly gain this mysterious ability to not fall into the same line? That is what you're saying here by special pleading the case of humans. If the universe's course is set in stone then so is every aspect of it (in the scenario of the strictly deterministic universe being considered).
And you continue to overlook quantum theory, chaos, etc. The manner in which the universe is "set up", the nature of what is "determined", is critical.
While you're still crawling through the scenario of the strictly deterministic, it is really not worth considering quantum theory and probabilistic models. It will only add to your confusion.
And I have explained how chaos is irrelevant. If you want to rebut what I have said in that regard, do so, but don't be so dishonest as to say that I'm overlooking it. I have looked at it, considered it, and considered it irrelevant for the reasons given. If you think it important, state your case for it.
The decider is only a small part of reality. They sit outside the rest of it. Some reality is separate from, outside of, other reality.
They sit outside the rest of reality?? The only reality they sit outside of is that which can have zero influence upon them, and which they have had zero impact upon. And so we're back to the notion of the sphere of influence as previously explained.
But it's not the physical location of reality that you were suggesting they sit outside of but the actual workings of reality. Do you consider the decider to sit outside the nature of reality? That is what you suggested when you said that the outcome is not set in stone within the decider. If the universe's path is set in stone, we, as part of that universe, must also be on a path set in stone, our decisions set in stone. So do you see humans, the decider, sitting outside that reality?
Unless of course you are talking about the whole universe, all of physical reality, as the decider - which you are, half the time.
I'm merely talking about the universe being strictly deterministic. The rest is context driven but consistent with that.
No, I'm not. I'm referring to the observation, by everyone, that the decider has the ability to make two or more different decisions and then act on the one made. It doesn't matter what the decider's "sense" is - unless that affects the range of alternatives available to it.
So when you see magic tricks you believe what you see, that it is actually as you saw it, that things really did float, that things really did disappears etc? Or do you accept that there can be a difference between what you observe and what is actually going on? Write4U has posted some optical illusion we can not interpret other than incorrectly.
Of course, by saying that you judge freewill by observation in this way you are simply reaffirming that you are talking only about how things appear. Which is what I have been saying about your position all along.
Yes. That misleading and unexamined assumption doesn't change the physical reality in front of you.
It's not misleading in the slightest, as it is a logical conclusion of strict determinism, and most philosophical discussions start from the acceptance of strict determinism equating to predeterminism
As for being unexamined, what do you think the initial logical formulation by Baldeee does if not examine the logical conclusions of it? What do you think we're doing here if not examining it?
But you're right in that the physical reality in front of me wouldn't change. But just as the universe is predetermined, so is the eventual "choice", regardless of what we might think up to the point of decision.
Why do you suppose that is?
Because you're not offering anything of relveance thus far, while trying to assert that it is, perhaps.
It's right there: driver approaches traffic signal, able to stop or go, claiming that they will decide by the color of the light as they come up to the intersection. They do, in fact, stop or go accordingly. If you are monitoring their brain activity you can see the claim, the decision, and the willed action of the brake foot etc. All the evidence shows that they had a decision to make, the ability to make it, and the ability to act according to their will as established by the decision.
And none of that scratches on the question of whether they actually had an ability to do otherwise, or simply believed they did. The universe, if set in stone (as assumed by strict determinism) applies to the decision-maker as much as it does to everything else. If the decision is set in stone, where is the "ability to do otherwise"? Unless we take "free" to be wholly based on how it feels, I.e. the illusion.
But you won't have that.
