Mr.Samsa wrote: However, this form of 'determinism' is compatible with probablism, the position that causal interactions can occur where the result is indeterministic. This is relevant.

Surely, determinism is compatible with probatilistic approaches, depending on what you mean with probablism. Actually it may be the case that the universe is deterministic and, yet, we are using probabilistic approaches in many areas. Theres no problem with that. We use probatilisitc approaches in deterministic systems, because we do not know alls the initial and boundary conditions and because we do not have the exact deterministic laws, because we are no Laplacian Demons. Thats no issue. But you cannot combine determinism with indeterminism, thats something completely different. Nothing could be more obvious than that. Thats like being pregnant and non-pregnant at the same time...

Samsa wrote:
Whether such positions are true or not is irrelevant, all that matters is that they are possible.

Absolutely not. Thats basic epistemology. Theoretical possible is nearly everything, but thats completely irrelevant. We cannot know if the laws of nature will be valid tommorrow. Its *possible* that they change completely over night, but there is not the slightest reason why one should take someone serious who claims something like that. It is possible that there is a god, but this doesnt mean you can reasonably assume there is a god. If you think the world is dualistic, the burden of proof is on your side. Whole science shows that there is no need for any "supernatural" entity. Even worse, there is no consistent concept of something "supernatural" at all. You want Dennett to show the inconsitency of dualism? Then read him, he makes this point perfectly clear, I recommend his "consciousness explained" book. Dualism is a relict of former times, before the enlightenment and modern science ara, and can no longer reasonable be adopted. The same is true for your ancient concept of free will as opposed to determinism.

Samsa wrote:
Yes, there are a large number of compatibilists in philosophy but they all use the same general definition of free will.

Thats incorrect. Compatibilits do not share your definition of free will. Your definition of free will is inconsistent, as you say yourself. Your definition of free will includes a category mistake. Compatibilists instead have a consistent use of the term and do not make your category mistake. Their use of "free will" has nothing to do at all with determinism or indeterminism, thats the whole essence of their position, and that contradicts your use of this term.

Samsa wrote:
There are different factors which are important in looking at whether a term is meaningful in different contexts. For example, if I said to my wife at the breakfast table, "Please pass the butter", it wouldn't make a difference whether it was butter or margarine, as she knows what I meant given the context that my sentence took place in. But for a scientist looking at the effects of butter on heart disease, the definition of "butter" that is used in general usage is not consistent or meaningful enough for them to use.

First of all, the use of term "butter" in pracitcal situations is consistent and makes meaningful distinctions. The fact that you can use the same term for different things complicates language, but is no argument against the consistency of the terms. Surely you must be honestly enough to find out which meaning has to be used in which situation. If you do this, there is no problem at all with "butter".
In Science some people who want to analyize different kinds of butter and so on, surely may develop other language games in which much more distinctions are made. However, if they find out that their use of terms is inconsitent, this surely cannot make the term "butter" at the breakfast table inconsistent. There is absolutely no sense in saying that "butter does not exist" as some people want to with the term "free will". If you say to your wife "give me the butter" you mean something and your wife wont give you the coffee. Now, a Mr.Samsa2 may arrive at the breakfast table and say "well, butter is only particles which interact with eacht other, therefore butter does not exist". Or he may say, I define "butter = a square is round, this is inconsitent, therefore butter does not exist". He may do that and he may be right following his definitions, but it just misses the point and does not even affect the meaningful use of "butter" at the breakfast table.

Samsa wrote:
You're not following the argument at all. If we can't choose Option B, even when we want to (say, to demonstrate that we really have free will), then it does not make sense to say that we can freely choose between two equally realisable alternatives.

Sorry, but you do not understand the argument. There are alternatives, namely the alternative scenarios your brain creates. And if no one forces you externally into doing things you do not want, you are free to select the alternative which you want. Thats what the brain processes do. Claiming that you need to be able to choose against this free will decision in order to have free will, is just nonsense.
A problem lies in your term "equally realisable". Because this probably shall imply that different outcomes should be possible for this special decision. However, this does not make much sense. Its non-sensical in a way that there is only one future, and therefore only one alternative can be realised. This in mind, it is completely unclear what it should mean different alternatives are realisable. Furthermore, your decision would not be free and rational if different outcomes would be equally possible. It would be like throwing a dice. In order to be able to make rational and free decisions, there can only be one outcome...namely the free decision based on your personality, memory, experiences, etc.

Samsa wrote:
Are you saying that a choice can be free if we are completely unaware of the options and have no conscious control over the choosing?

Well, I see no big problem in it, it remains my decision based on my personality, my experiences and my memories as long not something other takes the control or intervenes the decision making, like drugs, indoctrination, force, etc. Since my consciousness has imlpications on all these internal factors (personality, memories, etc.) it always participates in an indirect sense at the decision. On the other hand, there is no need to go the extremes, the term "completely" is neither necessary nor true, because the consciousness very probably is involved in the process, at least partially.

snowman wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote: However, this form of 'determinism' is compatible with probablism, the position that causal interactions can occur where the result is indeterministic. This is relevant.

Surely, determinism is compatible with probatilistic approaches, depending on what you mean with probablism. Actually it may be the case that the universe is deterministic and, yet, we are using probabilistic approaches in many areas. Theres no problem with that. We use probatilisitc approaches in deterministic systems, because we do not know alls the initial and boundary conditions and because we do not have the exact deterministic laws, because we are no Laplacian Demons. Thats no issue. But you cannot combine determinism with indeterminism, thats something completely different. Nothing could be more obvious than that. Thats like being pregnant and non-pregnant at the same time...

Determinism is compatible with probabilism, yes, and so is indeterminism. Probabilism has two basic forms; one is the kind you've described above, where it is really a deterministic system but we are unaware of all the variables, and the second is where the system is inherently probabilistic, so even if we knew all the variables the results would still be indeterministic. Since it's a causal/deterministic system, we can predict some elements, or make general claims, but the results are inherently deterministic.

The latter approach is the current thinking on a number of issues in science that deal with these questions.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
Whether such positions are true or not is irrelevant, all that matters is that they are possible.

Absolutely not. Thats basic epistemology. Theoretical possible is nearly everything, but thats completely irrelevant. We cannot know if the laws of nature will be valid tommorrow. Its *possible* that they change completely over night, but there is not the slightest reason why one should take someone serious who claims something like that. It is possible that there is a god, but this doesnt mean you can reasonably assume there is a god.

You've missed the entire point. We're discussing logic. The claim was that X necessarily produces Y; that is, it was an attempt at a deductive argument. I pointed out that X does not necessarily produce Y because there are other (however unlikely) alternatives. As a comparison, suppose you claimed that tigers are orange so the tigers at the zoo will be orange, and I said that this might not be the case because sometimes you get white tigers. Yes, it may be unreasonable to assume this (given that we haven't heard any news about the tiger at the zoo and having a white tiger would surely make the news), but it does not change the fact that we cannot make an absolute claim in this way.

snowman wrote:If you think the world is dualistic, the burden of proof is on your side. Whole science shows that there is no need for any "supernatural" entity.

Firstly, I don't think the world is dualistic, but more importantly, you think science can disprove the supernatural? Science makes the supernatural unnecessary for scientific explanations, yes, but science obviously cannot support or disconfirm ontological positions like dualism. This is because science has to assume methodological naturalism to work (that is, it says "We don't know what reality actually looks like, but we're just going to assume it's natural because that's the easiest position to hold"), but this means that science can only ever study the natural. If the supernatural did exist (and I of course don't believe it does) science would have nothing to say on the matter.

snowman wrote:Even worse, there is no consistent concept of something "supernatural" at all. You want Dennett to show the inconsitency of dualism? Then read him, he makes this point perfectly clear, I recommend his "consciousness explained" book. Dualism is a relict of former times, before the enlightenment and modern science ara, and can no longer reasonable be adopted. The same is true for your ancient concept of free will as opposed to determinism.

"Consciousness Explained" does not show the inconsistency of dualism, it suggests that it's an inferior model. He provides arguments for his position and suggests that it is a better one to hold. If he had demonstrated dualism to be inconsistent, then he wouldn't be writing a book about it, he'd be writing a peer-reviewed article and submitting it to a journal, then collect his multitude of prizes.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
Yes, there are a large number of compatibilists in philosophy but they all use the same general definition of free will.

Thats incorrect. Compatibilits do not share your definition of free will. Your definition of free will is inconsistent, as you say yourself. Your definition of free will includes a category mistake. Compatibilists instead have a consistent use of the term and do not make your category mistake. Their use of "free will" has nothing to do at all with determinism or indeterminism, thats the whole essence of their position, and that contradicts your use of this term.

I do not say that "MY" definition of free will is inconsistent, as I have told you 4 fucking times now. THE concept of free will is inconsistent. Compatibilists agree with the definition of free will that is used in philosophy. The definition I've presented does not explicitly include the determinism/indeterminism debate, hence why it is not at odds with the compatibilist position.

And please, stop using the phrase "category mistake". It's become abundantly clear now that you have absolutely no idea what it means.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
There are different factors which are important in looking at whether a term is meaningful in different contexts. For example, if I said to my wife at the breakfast table, "Please pass the butter", it wouldn't make a difference whether it was butter or margarine, as she knows what I meant given the context that my sentence took place in. But for a scientist looking at the effects of butter on heart disease, the definition of "butter" that is used in general usage is not consistent or meaningful enough for them to use.

First of all, the use of term "butter" in pracitcal situations is consistent and makes meaningful distinctions. The fact that you can use the same term for different things complicates language, but is no argument against the consistency of the terms. Surely you must be honestly enough to find out which meaning has to be used in which situation. If you do this, there is no problem at all with "butter".

So you're suggesting that just because a term can be used for one thing as well as its opposite does not mean the word is inconsistent? Okay... That's a difficult position for you to defend, as that's sort of the definition of inconsistent.

snowman wrote:In Science some people who want to analyize different kinds of butter and so on, surely may develop other language games in which much more distinctions are made. However, if they find out that their use of terms is inconsitent, this surely cannot make the term "butter" at the breakfast table inconsistent. There is absolutely no sense in saying that "butter does not exist" as some people want to with the term "free will". If you say to your wife "give me the butter" you mean something and your wife wont give you the coffee. Now, a Mr.Samsa2 may arrive at the breakfast table and say "well, butter is only particles which interact with eacht other, therefore butter does not exist". Or he may say, I define "butter = a square is round, this is inconsitent, therefore butter does not exist". He may do that and he may be right following his definitions, but it just misses the point and does not even affect the meaningful use of "butter" at the breakfast table.

You've missed the point of the argument. Saying that the term is inconsistent does not mean that the concept it refers to does not exist. It means that we need to come up with a concrete definition for it - hence why we can't use common usage as the definition. If we come up with the best definition that we can, and it is still inconsistent, then we need to look at whether the concept is meaningful at all.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
You're not following the argument at all. If we can't choose Option B, even when we want to (say, to demonstrate that we really have free will), then it does not make sense to say that we can freely choose between two equally realisable alternatives.

Sorry, but you do not understand the argument. There are alternatives, namely the alternative scenarios your brain creates. And if no one forces you externally into doing things you do not want, you are free to select the alternative which you want. Thats what the brain processes do. Claiming that you need to be able to choose against this free will decision in order to have free will, is just nonsense.

No, the decision is not one that goes against free will. The decision is one that needs to go against external variables. If we cannot freely choose to overcome external variables which determine our behavior, then we cannot say that we have freely chosen our outcome.

snowman wrote:A problem lies in your term "equally realisable". Because this probably shall imply that different outcomes should be possible for this special decision. However, this does not make much sense. Its non-sensical in a way that there is only one future, and therefore only one alternative can be realised. This in mind, it is completely unclear what it should mean different alternatives are realisable. Furthermore, your decision would not be free and rational if different outcomes would be equally possible. It would be like throwing a dice. In order to be able to make rational and free decisions, there can only be one outcome...namely the free decision based on your personality, memory, experiences, etc.

There is no problem with the phrase "equally realisable", but your ignorance of the topic of free will appears to be presenting a hurdle. When discussing free will, it's accepted that the choice between two options must be possible - that is, if I present you with a red button and a blue button, and you choose the red button, if we were to go back in time, you should be able to choose differently if you so wished.

Remember, this is not saying that your "free will has to decide against your free will", the idea is that you should be able to choose either option if you freely choose to do so. For example, suppose you were a time travelling free will advocate hell-bent on proving scientists wrong, and so you agree to an experiment where you are placed in the same situation twice, in order to behave differently in each case. This should be possible if free will were true, otherwise it is impossible to choose between two options and it becomes meaningless to talk of free will.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
Are you saying that a choice can be free if we are completely unaware of the options and have no conscious control over the choosing?

Well, I see no big problem in it, it remains my decision based on my personality, my experiences and my memories as long not something other takes the control or intervenes the decision making, like drugs, indoctrination, force, etc. Since my consciousness has imlpications on all these internal factors (personality, memories, etc.) it always participates in an indirect sense at the decision. On the other hand, there is no need to go the extremes, the term "completely" is neither necessary nor true, because the consciousness very probably is involved in the process, at least partially.

Conscious control is rarely, if ever, involved in our choices and conscious awareness isn't much more prevalent. Humans are so poor at predicting their own behavior, that it hardly seems necessary to even consider asking what relevance consciousness has to our behavior. When asked why somebody performed an action, they'll come up with an answer, but it is usually wrong to some degree.

The problem is that there is no functional difference between intervening external factors like drugs or force, and intervening external factors like environmental variables that shape and control your thoughts, behaviors and experiences. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to pick Option B, or set up an experimental condition where I make you choose Option B, then what is the difference? If you consider both to be "force", then what's the difference between my experimental condition where I arrange the environmental conditions to make you pick Option B, and the uncontrolled world where environmental conditions make you pick Option B?

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Probabilism has two basic forms; one is the kind you've described above, where it is really a deterministic system but we are unaware of all the variables, and the second is where the system is inherently probabilistic, ...

I do not understand your use of terms. What shall it mean a system is inherently probabilistic, what other than the system is indeterministic? You do not even need to try to find a position in between determinism and indeterminism, thats not possible.

so even if we knew all the variables the results would still be indeterministic.

Thats why the system is called indeterministic and not deterministic. It is utterly absurd to talk of deterministic indeterministic systems.

Samsa wrote:
You've missed the entire point. We're discussing logic.

No, you are missing the point. I am not discussing logic, i am looking which position can reasonable be adopted and which not. And this cannot decided by pure logic, instead it relies on the world and the empirical knowledge of science.

snowman wrote:
Firstly, I don't think the world is dualistic,

Then, why do you come up with this stuff? You have said something like that I dismiss other possibilities, like the concept of dualism. Now you are saying you do not think this is true. So what? You just want to annoy me?

but more importantly, you think science can disprove the supernatural?

There is no need for "disprove" at all. You are attacking straw men, probably because you lack any arguments. As ive said, the burden of proof lies on those who claim the world is dualistic. And thats because all the scientific evidence shows there is no need to assume dualism.

snowman wrote:
"Consciousness Explained" does not show the inconsistency of dualism, it suggests that it's an inferior model.

Thats false. Dennett describes the inconsistencies of dualism in one of the first chapters.

Compatibilists agree with the definition of free will that is used in philosophy.

Thats nonsensical-talk, rather a tautology, because the use of the term "free will", as compatibilits like Dennett use it, defines the term in philosophy. And it contradicts your use of the term, which is inconsistent as we know.

Samsa wrote:
So you're suggesting that just because a term can be used for one thing as well as its opposite does not mean the word is inconsistent?

If something is inconsitent can be shown in the language games, namely if the terms have no meanings or make no sensible distinctions. The fact that one term can have in different situations different meanings is of no problem at all.

Samsa wrote:
No, the decision is not one that goes against free will. The decision is one that needs to go against external variables. If we cannot freely choose to overcome external variables which determine our behavior, then we cannot say that we have freely chosen our outcome.

Gladly, our free decisions are determined by internal variables in our brains. Surely, this internal processes are not completely independant of external factors, but why sould they be? A motor is also not independent of external influences, but it is not reasonable at all to say that a motor therefore does not exist or has no functional differences to an apple.

Samsa wrote:
There is no problem with the phrase "equally realisable", but your ignorance of the topic of free will appears to be presenting a hurdle.

Oh, I have clearly stated several problems. If you like being ignorant, much fun.

... where you are placed in the same situation twice, in order to behave differently in each case. This should be possible if free will were true, otherwise it is impossible to choose between two options and it becomes meaningless to talk of free will.

Absoluetly wrong. If I were placed two times in the exact same situation, then i MUST behave identical. I would both times make the same rational discussions in my brain, I would both times refer to my same former experiences and memories and I finally would come to the same conlcusion. Thats rather tautological, since you defined it as is the "same condition". If I would act differently in the same condition, my decision making process would be irrational, not based on my personality. It would be nothing more than throwing a coin...and thats no free will. The opposite is true, it would be necessary that I make the same decision to have free will.

This scenario of yours obviously has nothing to do with the use of "free will" in the language games. In real world we may be confronted with situations which are similar to each other and there we can notice that humans can behave rather differently on similar situations despite the similarities. Something a primitve insect, without free will, wont be able to do. But there are never situations which have exact the same conditions, thats just completely missing the point. There cannot even be two situations which have the exact same conditions, because the time moves on.

Samsa wrote:
The problem is that there is no functional difference between intervening external factors like drugs or force, and intervening external factors like environmental variables that shape and control your thoughts, behaviors and experiences.

Come on, you dont even belief this crap yourself. "Butter is no butter, there are only particles interacting with each other". Haha.
If you think there is no difference between a correct working and not-overruled decision making process in the brain and a process which is influenced by drugs, overruled by force, etc., then you are just blind.

snowman wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Probabilism has two basic forms; one is the kind you've described above, where it is really a deterministic system but we are unaware of all the variables, and the second is where the system is inherently probabilistic, ...

I do not understand your use of terms. What shall it mean a system is inherently probabilistic, what other than the system is indeterministic? You do not even need to try to find a position in between determinism and indeterminism, thats not possible.

Please stop saying that they are "my" terms - these are terms that are universally agreed upon in the scientific and philosophical community. A probabilistic system is compatible with both determinism and indeterminism, it just depends on how strong or weak your position is, as I mentioned above. An inherently probabilistic system produces indeterministic results, despite the fact that all of the components within it are just basic causal relationships (i.e. causal determinism). I don't need to "find" a position between the two, one already exists.

snowman wrote:

so even if we knew all the variables the results would still be indeterministic.

Thats why the system is called indeterministic and not deterministic.

Except all of the components within the system have a cause and effect relationship, and that's why the system is also called deterministic.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
You've missed the entire point. We're discussing logic.

No, you are missing the point. I am not discussing logic, i am looking which position can reasonable be adopted and which not. And this cannot decided by pure logic, instead it relies on the world and the empirical knowledge of science.

You made a logical claim - I refuted it. You can't just say the equivalent of "All swans are white", and then ignore the fact that finding a black swan would disprove your idea. The probability of finding a black swan is irrelevant to the fact that such an observation would disprove your thesis.

snowman wrote:

Firstly, I don't think the world is dualistic,

Then, why do you come up with this stuff? You have said something like that I dismiss other possibilities, like the concept of dualism. Now you are saying you do not think this is true. So what? You just want to annoy me?

I brought it up because it disproves your claim. A deterministic universe does not necessarily entail deterministic human behavior. This is because there are a number of positions which allow for a deterministic universe but indeterministic human behavior. How hard is this to follow? The truth or falsity of dualism (and those other metaphysical positions) are irrelevant, all that is important is that they are possible.

snowman wrote:

but more importantly, you think science can disprove the supernatural?

There is no need for "disprove" at all. You are attacking straw men, probably because you lack any arguments. As ive said, the burden of proof lies on those who claim the world is dualistic. And thats because all the scientific evidence shows there is no need to assume dualism.

Science shows there is no need to assume dualism in scientific theories. Remember, science does not necessarily say anything about reality or the way the world really is. So dualism can be true, and it would still be correct to say that science does not need to assume dualism for its theories to work.

snowman wrote:

"Consciousness Explained" does not show the inconsistency of dualism, it suggests that it's an inferior model.

Thats false. Dennett describes the inconsistencies of dualism in one of the first chapters.

It's in the section "Why dualism is forlorn" that he discusses his ideas on dualism:

Dennett, p37 wrote:This fundamentally antiscientific stance of dualism is, to my mind, its most disqualifying feature, and is the reason why in this book I adopt the apparently dogmatic rule that dualism is to be avoided at all costs. It is not that I think I can give a knock-down proof that dualism, in all its forms, is false or incoherent, but that, given the way dualism wallows in mystery, accepting dualism is giving up.

In other words, he does not find the concept to be inconsistent or logically problematic, but rather he finds it scientifically unsatisfying and impractical.

snowman wrote:

Compatibilists agree with the definition of free will that is used in philosophy.

Thats nonsensical-talk, rather a tautology, because the use of the term "free will", as compatibilits like Dennett use it, defines the term in philosophy. And it contradicts your use of the term, which is inconsistent as we know.

It's not "my" definition = 5 times now.

The definition does not contradict the compatibilists use, because they agree with the standard definition. They just disagree over the impact that determinism and indeterminism has on it.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
So you're suggesting that just because a term can be used for one thing as well as its opposite does not mean the word is inconsistent?

If something is inconsitent can be shown in the language games, namely if the terms have no meanings or make no sensible distinctions. The fact that one term can have in different situations different meanings is of no problem at all.

Words can be inconsistent and still have meanings and sensible distinctions. It's just that it has multiple meanings and distinction, which sometimes contradict one another in different circumstances. This is a problem for those words though.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
No, the decision is not one that goes against free will. The decision is one that needs to go against external variables. If we cannot freely choose to overcome external variables which determine our behavior, then we cannot say that we have freely chosen our outcome.

Gladly, our free decisions are determined by internal variables in our brains. Surely, this internal processes are not completely independant of external factors, but why sould they be? A motor is also not independent of external influences, but it is not reasonable at all to say that a motor therefore does not exist or has no functional differences to an apple.

I have never once suggested that free will requires us to be totally independent of external factors. However, given that our behavior is entirely dependent on external factors, this makes it hard to suggest an "I" or "self" is freely choosing anything - at least, no more so than the weather chooses to rain.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
There is no problem with the phrase "equally realisable", but your ignorance of the topic of free will appears to be presenting a hurdle.

Oh, I have clearly stated several problems. If you like being ignorant, much fun.

You have presented no arguments at all, you simply asserted it to be so.

snowman wrote:

... where you are placed in the same situation twice, in order to behave differently in each case. This should be possible if free will were true, otherwise it is impossible to choose between two options and it becomes meaningless to talk of free will.

Absoluetly wrong. If I were placed two times in the exact same situation, then i MUST behave identical. I would both times make the same rational discussions in my brain, I would both times refer to my same former experiences and memories and I finally would come to the same conlcusion. Thats rather tautological, since you defined it as is the "same condition". If I would act differently in the same condition, my decision making process would be irrational, not based on my personality. It would be nothing more than throwing a coin...and thats no free will. The opposite is true, it would be necessary that I make the same decision to have free will.

Then it's impossible to have chosen otherwise, meaning there was no choice, no equally realisable alternatives, therefore no free will.

snowman wrote:This scenario of yours obviously has nothing to do with the use of "free will" in the language games. In real world we may be confronted with situations which are similar to each other and there we can notice that humans can behave rather differently on similar situations despite the similarities. Something a primitve insect, without free will, wont be able to do. But there are never situations which have exact the same conditions, thats just completely missing the point. There cannot even be two situations which have the exact same conditions, because the time moves on.

Humans and insects behave according to the same behavioral laws, specifically variations of the matching law. The "variations" you see in human behavior are no different from the variations in insects. Do you believe insects have free will? Their personalities and experiences lead to them choosing one alternative over the other, so surely you agree they have free will?

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
The problem is that there is no functional difference between intervening external factors like drugs or force, and intervening external factors like environmental variables that shape and control your thoughts, behaviors and experiences.

Come on, you dont even belief this crap yourself. "Butter is no butter, there are only particles interacting with each other". Haha.
If you think there is no difference between a correct working and not-overruled decision making process in the brain and a process which is influenced by drugs, overruled by force, etc., then you are just blind.

What is this supposed magical difference? They are both external factors which shape the way we behave. Or look at it another, suppose I hypnotise you or brainwash you into behaving exactly as I wish you to behave - are you behaving freely or not? If you say no, then why not? The hypnotism and brainwashing is no different from your life experiences shaping your personality and leading you to choose one thing over another, so you must surely agree that me hypnotising you into quacking like a duck is a demonstration of your free will.

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Except all of the components within the system have a cause and effect relationship, and that's why the system is also called deterministic.

Then you have a determisitic indeterministic system. Congratulations.

Samsa wrote:
You made a logical claim - I refuted it.

No, I havent.

Samsa wrote:
I brought it up because it disproves your claim.

You come up with a position which is false in your opinion in order to refute my claims? Perhaps you should visit a doctor.

Samsa wrote:
Science shows there is no need to assume dualism in scientific theories. Remember, science does not necessarily say anything about reality or the way the world really is.

No, I do not remember. Surely can be said that science is no ontology, that science does no metaphysics about the "is". However, that doesnt prevent scientist to say something about the world and how things are in the world. Every scientist is talking about how things are in the world, and by saying that they do not imply that they are formulating some sort of ontology. If you think otherwise, you are again misusing terms. And this makes clear why you do not understand Dennett. You are trapped in your metaphysical interpretation of terms.

Samsa wrote:
In other words, he does not find the concept to be inconsistent or logically problematic,

You do not mean in other words, you mean in Mr.Samsa-Interpretation.

Samsa wrote:
Words can be inconsistent and still have meanings and sensible distinctions.

Actually no, a term cannot be used meaningful and at the same time be inconsistent.

I have never once suggested that free will requires us to be totally independent of external factors. However, given that our behavior is entirely dependent on external factors, ...

Thats not given, thats plainly false. My decisions base on my brain processes, my personality, my experiences, my memories...all of these are internal factors.

snowman wrote:
Humans and insects behave according to the same behavioral laws, specifically variations of the matching law. The "variations" you see in human behavior are no different from the variations in insects.

The brain processes in a human brain are vastly different from those of insects and hugely more complex. The variations in human behaviour given a similar initial state are vastely larger and more complex for humans than for a insect.

It really gets boring, since nearly every claim you make is either false or non-sensical. Thats as fruitless as discussing with a creationist who doesnt care about rational arguments.

snowman wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Except all of the components within the system have a cause and effect relationship, and that's why the system is also called deterministic.

Then you have a determisitic indeterministic system. Congratulations.

I'm glad you seem to understand that it's possible now.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
You made a logical claim - I refuted it.

No, I havent.

Yes you have, right here:

snowman wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:The universe being deterministic would only be relevant if it meant that human behavior was also deterministic, but 1) that does not necessarily follow, ...

Thats incorrect. If the universe is deterministic, then human behaviour is deterministic per definition, since humans are part of the universe.

You claimed, quite clearly, that if the universe is deterministic then human behavior must too be deterministic. You then seemed to accept that if dualism were true, this wouldn't be the case, but you don't care because you don't think dualism is a reasonable position. In other words, you've accepted that it's possible for the universe to be deterministic and human behavior not to be deterministic if dualism were true. Your only objection is that you don't think dualism is true, but that's irrelevant to the fact that your statement is clearly wrong.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
I brought it up because it disproves your claim.

You come up with a position which is false in your opinion in order to refute my claims? Perhaps you should visit a doctor.

Rich, but I'm not the one who forget what you've said in this thread.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
Science shows there is no need to assume dualism in scientific theories. Remember, science does not necessarily say anything about reality or the way the world really is.

No, I do not remember. Surely can be said that science is no ontology, that science does no metaphysics about the "is". However, that doesnt prevent scientist to say something about the world and how things are in the world. You are again misusing terms. And this makes clear why you do not understand Dennett. You are trapped in your metaphysical world with your metaphysical interpretation of terms.

Metaphysics studies the fundamental nature of the world, which requires us to adopt an ontological position. Metaphysics is the study of that which is beyond the physical world (as that's what "metaphysics" literally means), and science is the study of the physical world. Explain to me how a system that studies the physical can study that which is beyond the physical.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
In other words, he does not find the concept to be inconsistent or logically problematic,

You do not mean in other words, you mean in Mr.Samsa-Interpretation.

He fucking said so right there!

Dennett wrote:It is not that I think I can give a knock-down proof that dualism, in all its forms, is false or incoherent, but that, given the way dualism wallows in mystery, accepting dualism is giving up.

Explain to me how you interpret that any way other than: "I cannot demonstrate that dualism is false or incoherent".

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
Words can be inconsistent and still have meanings and sensible distinctions.

Actually no, a term cannot be used meaningful and at the same time be inconsistent.

Of course it can. For something to be meaningful, it simply has to serve a function in language (i.e. listeners understand what the person means). This is still possible in some cases for words which are also inconsistent. Look at the word "ethics" - sometimes it is used to mean "the study of morality" and sometimes it is used as synonymous with morality (e.g. "I can't do that because it disagrees with my ethics"). The word is thus inconsistent, but it is still meaningful because listeners can still determine the meaning from the person's intent and the context its used in.

snowman wrote:

I have never once suggested that free will requires us to be totally independent of external factors. However, given that our behavior is entirely dependent on external factors, ...

Thats not given, thats plainly false. My decisions base on my brain processes, my personality, my experiences, my memories...all of these are internal factors.

But those "internal factors" are entirely a product of external factors.

snowman wrote:

Humans and insects behave according to the same behavioral laws, specifically variations of the matching law. The "variations" you see in human behavior are no different from the variations in insects.

You must be kidding. The brain processes in a human brain are vastly different from and hugely more complex than those of insects. The variations in human behaviour given a similar initial state are vastely larger and more complex than that of a insect.
Saying that humans and insects both act due to the same laws, the laws of nature, is like saying nothing at all. Thats just irrelevant, you are again looking at fundamental physics and thereby overlooking the interesting parts. You are doing your category mistake again and again.

Our brains are more complex, but we are equally predictable and we respond in the same way in choice tasks. You can ignore the scientific evidence if you like, but your position requires you to accept that insects have free will as well. Whether human brains are more complex doesn't change the fact that insects have experiences, memories, etc which determine their behaviors in a given task. Nowhere in Dennett's definition does it suggest that free will requires "a complex human brain".

Nice evasion though, I'll take that as an admission that you realise your position is absurd but you refuse to publicly acknowledge it.

snowman wrote:It really gets boring, since nearly every claim you make is either false or non-sensical. Thats as fruitless as discussing with a creationist who doesnt care about rational arguments.

I'm the only one presenting rational arguments. When you feel like presenting a single rational argument, then please do so - it'll be a nice change.

Mr.Samsa wrote:
I'm glad you seem to understand that it's possible now.

Sure, a deterministic-indeterministic system is as possible as a pregnant and non-pregnant woman or a square circle.

Samsa wrote:
Yes you have, right here:

No, I havent, as the quote clearly shows.

Samsa wrote:
You claimed, quite clearly, that if the universe is deterministic then human behavior must too be deterministic.

Thats not even a claim, thats the definition of a deterministic universe.

You then seemed to accept that if dualism were true, this wouldn't be the case,

Surely not. The universe cannot be deterministic and indeterministic. And dualism isnt true, not due to pure logical reasons, but due to the knowledge gained by science.

Samsa wrote:
Metaphysics studies the fundamental nature of the world, which requires us to adopt an ontological position.

No, physics studies the fundamental nature of the world.

Metaphysics is the study of that which is beyond the physical world

Yes. Metaphysics (used in this bad sense) studies what is beyond the physical world. In other words, nothing at all. However, one should mention that Metaphysics has a different meaning in modern philosophy.

Samsa wrote:
Look at the word "ethics" - sometimes it is used to mean "the study of morality" and sometimes it is used as synonymous with morality (e.g. "I can't do that because it disagrees with my ethics"). The word is thus inconsistent, ...

No, it isnt. These are different meanings in different usages and that is without any problem and not inconsistent. If the term ethics would be inconsistent, than hundreds of philosophers practicing in ethics could leave the universities. Gladly, this isnt the case.

Samsa wrote:
But those "internal factors" are entirely a product of external factors.

Thats nonsenical talk. Everything in a deterministic world is "entirely a product" of the external factors of the big bang. That cannot be a reasonable argument specifically against free will or anything else which concerns human behaviour and human brains. Following this nonsense, there is no such thing as happines, sadness, luck, intelligence or even a brain, because everything is entirely a product of the big bang. Thats exactly your category mistake, or in terms of Dennett you are doing "greedy reductionism". Free will is an emergent phenomenon, developed during milliions years of evolution and cannot be understood by looking at fundamental physics, its the wrong level of description. Its right, there are external factors, e.g. the laws of nature, on which our brain processes base, but these are no forces acting againstthe free will, these are the prerequisites for a free will.

Samsa wrote:
Our brains are more complex, but we are equally predictable and we respond in the same way in choice tasks.

No, we are not equally predictable as primitve insects. Biologists can easily predict the behaviour of insects in various situations. No one can safely predict the next move in the chess game of Kasparov. No one can safely predict the brokers actions at the wall street. Furthermore, we do not respond in the same way, since humans have the possibility to learn new things and adapt strategies and to invent new strategies which primitive insects cannot.

snowman wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
I'm glad you seem to understand that it's possible now.

Sure, a deterministic-indeterministic system is as possible as a pregnant and non-pregnant woman or a square circle.

But we've just gone through it, step by step, above and you presented absolutely no objections to it. I can only assume that you're disagreeing for the sake of it now.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
Yes you have, right here:

No, I havent, as the quote clearly shows.

You don't think this: "If the universe is deterministic, then human behaviour is deterministic per definition, since humans are part of the universe" is a claim?

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
You claimed, quite clearly, that if the universe is deterministic then human behavior must too be deterministic.

Thats not even a claim, thats the definition of a deterministic universe.

No it's not, because you've accepted that if dualism were true then you can have a deterministic universe without deterministic human behavior. It therefore cannot, and does not, necessarily follow.

snowman wrote:

You then seemed to accept that if dualism were true, this wouldn't be the case,

Surely not. The universe cannot be deterministic and indeterministic.

But indeterministic entities (humans) could exist in a deterministic system (the universe).

snowman wrote:And dualism isnt true, not due to pure logical reasons, but due to the knowledge gained by science.

Science has absolutely nothing to say on the topic of dualism.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
Metaphysics studies the fundamental nature of the world, which requires us to adopt an ontological position.

No, physics studies the fundamental nature of the world.

No, physics studies the nature of our observations. For physics to understand the fundamental nature of our world we have to first assume that the fundamental nature of our world is physical - which is circular.

snowman wrote:

Metaphysics is the study of that which is beyond the physical world

Yes. Metaphysics (used in this bad sense) studies what is beyond the physical world. In other words, nothing at all. However, one should mention that Metaphysics has a different meaning in modern philosophy.

What do you mean "nothing at all"? How do you know? And no, the definition of metaphysics is pretty much the same, and always has excluded physics from being the same as metaphysics. Some physicists can do metaphysics as well, like questions regarding which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct etc, but obviously they don't use science to reach these conclusions - they are purely philosophical questions.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
Look at the word "ethics" - sometimes it is used to mean "the study of morality" and sometimes it is used as synonymous with morality (e.g. "I can't do that because it disagrees with my ethics"). The word is thus inconsistent, ...

No, it isnt. These are different meanings in different usages and that is without any problem and not inconsistent. If the term ethics would be inconsistent, than hundreds of philosophers practicing in ethics could leave the universities. Gladly, this isnt the case.

No, these words can have the same meanings in different usages, and they can have different meanings in the same usages. This is the definition of inconsistent.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
But those "internal factors" are entirely a product of external factors.

Thats nonsenical talk. Everything in a deterministic world is "entirely a product" of the external factors of the big bang. That cannot be a reasonable argument specifically against free will or anything else which concerns human behaviour and human brains. Following this nonsense, there is no such thing as happines, sadness, luck, intelligence or even a brain, because everything is entirely a product of the big bang.

That does not follow at all. Why would our behavior being a product of external factors rule out things like happiness? You're just making shit up now and not even thinking about what you're saying.

snowman wrote:Thats exactly your category mistake, or in terms of Dennett you are doing "greedy reductionism". Free will is an emergent phenomenon, developed during milliions years of evolution and cannot be understood by looking at fundamental physics, its the wrong level of description. Its right, there are external factors, e.g. the laws of nature, on which our brain processes base, but these are no forces acting againstthe free will, these are the prerequisites for a free will.

Free will was developed by evolution? I'd love to see the evidence regarding that one.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
Our brains are more complex, but we are equally predictable and we respond in the same way in choice tasks.

No, we are not equally predictable as primitve insects. Biologists can easily predict the behaviour of insects in various situations. No one can safely predict the next move in the chess game of Kasparov. No one can safely predict the brokers actions at the wall street.

Insects in the wild are just as predictable as humans in the wild; that is, predictable, but random elements make perfect prediction difficult. We can predict the foraging behavior of insects to the same degree that we can predict how much time a person will spend talking to each person at a dinner table, or how often and when a basketball player will take a 2 or 3 point shot etc.

This is because we all operate according to the same laws of behavior (specifically, as mentioned, derivations of the matching law).

snowman wrote:Furthermore, we do not respond in the same way, since humans have the possibility to learn new things and adapt strategies and to invent new strategies which primitive insects cannot.

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting insects don't learn or adapt new strategies? Are you under the impression that insects are automatons responding purely to instinct?

Insects use the same processes to learn that we do, specifically operant and classical conditioning, and given similar environmental inputs they will reach the same conclusions that we do in tasks.

How about we move up the evolutionary chain though - do pigeons have free will?

Mr.Samsa wrote:
But we've just gone through it, step by step, above and you presented absolutely no objections to it.

Yes, weve gone through it. And we saw that you talk nonsense and you cannot be taken seriously because you still claim that a system can be deterministic and indeterministic at the same time. Thats a completely absurd statement.

Samsa wrote:
You don't think this: "If the universe is deterministic, then human behaviour is deterministic per definition, since humans are part of the universe" is a claim?

I have already said thats rather the definition of a deterministic universe. If human behaviour would be indeterministic, the universe would be indeterministic.

Samsa wrote:
No it's not, because you've accepted that if dualism were true then you can have a deterministic universe without deterministic human behavior.

Thats the same nonsense again. I do surely not accept a deterministic and indeterministic universe. If one accepts such contradictions, arbitrary things could be concluded.

Samsa wrote:
Science has absolutely nothing to say on the topic of dualism.

Science shows that there is no reason at all to adopt dualism. Science shows that it is superfluous and it is unreasonable to postulate supernatural entities without giving evidence. And there is no evidence at all. There probably cannot be even evidence, because the term is inconsistent. I am repeating myself.

Samsa wrote:
No, physics studies the nature of our observatsons.

And thats the base for our learning and understanding about the fundamentals of our world. Without observations there cannot be said anything about the nature of the world.

Samsa wrote:
And no, the definition of metaphysics is pretty much the same, and always has excluded physics from being the same as metaphysics.

Thats totally beside the point. Surely Metaphysics is not the same as Physics. No one objects that, no one claims something like that, its a straw man. Philosophy is no physics. But that doesnt mean that metaphysics studies the fundamental nature of the world. It e.g. studies the conditions and methods used in science and subjects like physics, which study the fundamentals of the world.

they are purely philosophical questions.

There is no such thing as purely philosophical questions. After Wittgenstein you should read some Quine.

Samsa wrote:
That does not follow at all. Why would our behavior being a product of external factors rule out things like happiness?

Exactly! There is no reason at all for such an absurd claim. Its a category mistake. And thats how your argumentation basically works.

Samsa wrote:
Free will was developed by evolution? I'd love to see the evidence regarding that one.

Read Darwin he explained how complex animals with complex brains, capable of decision-making, developed. I wont tell it your creationist friends (just kidding)

Samsa wrote:
Insects in the wild are just as predictable as humans in the wild;

Completely absurd statement. By the way, it also shows that you havent even read Dennett on this topic, because thats a main part of his theories.

Samsa wrote:
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting insects don't learn or adapt new strategies? Are you under the impression that insects are automatons responding purely to instinct?

Yes, primitive insects in fact respond purely to instinct and are not capable to adapt their strategies in coping with the world (at least not in one generation).

Insects use the same processes to learn that we do,

Completely absurd statement. To be able to do that, they would need our brains, and I suppose that most humans brains are way to large to fit into insects

How about we move up the evolutionary chain though - do pigeons have free will?

If you have read Dennett you should understand that free will is a gradual phenomenon.

snowman wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
But we've just gone through it, step by step, above and you presented absolutely no objections to it.

Yes, weve gone through it. And we saw that you talk nonsense and you cannot be taken seriously because you still claim that a system can be deterministic and indeterministic at the same time. Thats a completely absurd statement.

Well you couldn't find any flaws in my arguments, so surely you can't reject the idea.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
You don't think this: "If the universe is deterministic, then human behaviour is deterministic per definition, since humans are part of the universe" is a claim?

I have already said thats rather the definition of a deterministic universe. If human behaviour would be indeterministic, the universe would be indeterministic.

That makes absolutely no sense. The universe can be a deterministic system, and humans can be an indeterministic system. It's an indeterministic system inside a deterministic system.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
No it's not, because you've accepted that if dualism were true then you can have a deterministic universe without deterministic human behavior.

Thats the same nonsense again. I do surely not accept a deterministic and indeterministic universe. If one accepts such contradictions, arbitrary things could be concluded.

Do you even read what you write? It makes no sense.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
Science has absolutely nothing to say on the topic of dualism.

Science shows that there is no reason at all to adopt dualism. Science shows that it is superfluous and it is unreasonable to postulate supernatural entities without giving evidence. And there is no evidence at all. There probably cannot be even evidence, because the term is inconsistent. I am repeating myself.

Science can never find evidence of dualism, because dualism invokes supernatural elements. Science, by its very nature, ignores all supernatural entities. So of course there is no scientific evidence of dualism, because science pretends that the supernatural doesn't exist.

That's just circular reasoning.

And if you think dualism is inconsistent, then present some evidence. Even Dennett accepts that dualism isn't inconsistent.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
No, physics studies the nature of our observatsons.

And thats the base for our learning and understanding about the fundamentals of our world. Without observations there cannot be said anything about the nature of the world.

We can't access the fundamentals of our world through observation unless the fundamentals of our world are empirical and natural.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
And no, the definition of metaphysics is pretty much the same, and always has excluded physics from being the same as metaphysics.

Thats totally beside the point. Surely Metaphysics is not the same as Physics. No one objects that, no one claims something like that, its a straw man. Philosophy is no physics. But that doesnt mean that metaphysics studies the fundamental nature of the world. It e.g. studies the conditions and methods used in science and subjects like physics, which study the fundamentals of the world.

Yes, so when you said 'science does metaphysics', you were wrong.

snowman wrote:

they are purely philosophical questions.

There is no such thing as purely philosophical questions. After Wittgenstein you should read some Quine.

Oh wow, throwing names around. Given that you have absolutely no understanding of free will, metaphysics, philosophy of science, category mistakes, etc etc, I'm not going to accept that you know why those names are relevant. If you think they're relevant, present a specific argument.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
That does not follow at all. Why would our behavior being a product of external factors rule out things like happiness?

Exactly! There is no reason at all for such an absurd claim. Its a category mistake. And thats how your argumentation basically works.

So you agree that your argument is absurd? Yes, I definitely agree with that.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
Free will was developed by evolution? I'd love to see the evidence regarding that one.

Read Darwin he explained how complex animals with complex brains, capable of decision-making, developed. I wont tell it your creationist friends (just kidding)

I know a fuckload about evolutionary psychology, that's why I know there's no evidence of free will being evolved. It was fun to ask though, to watch you evade with another vague reference to someone else whose work you don't understand.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
Insects in the wild are just as predictable as humans in the wild;

Completely absurd statement. By the way, it also shows that you havent even read Dennett on this topic, because thats a main part of his theories.

Not absurd, and Dennett has no idea because his understanding of behavioral science is precisely zero. Did you look up the matching law, which I suggested earlier? Find any papers which show that the matching law only applies to insects and not humans?

Given that we have a vast amount of research demonstrating the predictability of human behavior, does this mean Dennett's ideas are fucked?

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting insects don't learn or adapt new strategies? Are you under the impression that insects are automatons responding purely to instinct?

Yes, primitive insects in fact respond purely to instinct and are not capable to adapt their strategies in coping with the world (at least not in one generation).

I'll have to contact the behavioral scientists I work with who study insects. What, you're studying how bees learn how to solve complex mathematical problems? Fuck that, insects only work through instinct!

So anyway, are you telling me that if you go to Google Scholar right now, and you put it "Insects" and "Operant conditioning" or "classical conditioning", that absolutely no studies will pop up? Because when I do it, I get tens of thousands of results..

Go on, do it. I'm interested in how you evade this one.

snowman wrote:

Insects use the same processes to learn that we do,

Completely absurd statement.

Ever browsed through behavioral science journals? I guess not..

snowman wrote:

How about we move up the evolutionary chain though - do pigeons have free will?

If you have read Dennett you should understand that free will is a gradual phenomenon.

Doesn't make sense to say free will is a gradual process. That's like saying consciousness is a gradual process. They are discrete concepts - you either have them or you don't. You can't 'sort of' freely choose options, or 'sort of' be aware.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Well you couldn't find any flaws in my arguments, so surely you can't reject the idea.

Which arguments? Postulating contradictions and making inconsistent redefinitions of meaningful terms are no arguments.

Samsa wrote:
It's an indeterministic system inside a deterministic system.

If a system within another system is indeterministic, than the whole system is indeterministic.

Samsa wrote:
Science, by its very nature, ignores all supernatural entities.

Science ignores nothing, science makes observations and studies the world as it can be studied.

We can't access the fundamentals of our world through observation unless the fundamentals of our world are empirical and natural.

Empirical means to make observations and experiments to gather informations about the world. It is therefore non-sensical to say that "the fundamentals of our world must be empirical". That doesnt mean anything. And saying that nature must be natural is a tautology.

Samsa wrote:
Yes, so when you said 'science does metaphysics', you were wrong.

Gladly i do not say anything like that. Metaphysics in your bad sense is something no one should do and no serious scientist or serious modern philosopher does.

Samsa wrote:
Oh wow, throwing names around.

Sorry, I forgot that you do not know anything of philosophy and you are ignorant about everything.

Samsa wrote:
So you agree that your argument is absurd? Yes, I definitely agree with that.

thats fine, because this "argument" was an illustration of your category mistake.

Samsa wrote:
I'll have to contact the behavioral scientists I work with who study insects.

Yes, you really have to. And you should contact some books too.

Samsa wrote:
Doesn't make sense to say free will is a gradual process. That's like saying consciousness is a gradual process.

Exactly right, both are gradual and both are evolutionary products.

snowman wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Well you couldn't find any flaws in my arguments, so surely you can't reject the idea.

Which arguments? Postulating contradictions and making inconsistent redefinitions of meaningful terms are no arguments.

My arguments pointing out that probabilistic systems are both consistent with causal determinism and indeterminism. You haven't presented any reason why this is impossible (which is understandable as no such argument exists), and instead you've just continued to assert that it is wrong.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
It's an indeterministic system inside a deterministic system.

If a system within another system is indeterministic, than the whole system is indeterministic.

Nonsense. The processes of the universe would still be deterministic, as the existence of indeterministic humans would not change the laws of physics.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
Science, by its very nature, ignores all supernatural entities.

Science ignores nothing, science makes observations and studies the world as it can be studied.

Exactly - it ignores anything which cannot be observed. This is just standard philosophy of science, and practically no philosopher or scientist would deny that it's based on methodological naturalism.

If you think that science can study the supernatural, then explain to me the scientific study which would disprove dualism? That is, how would science distinguish between a materialist account of mind, and an identical one that includes untestable and unfalsifiable properties of mind-matter?

The answer, of course, is that science can't do this. It rules out dualistic accounts on the grounds of pragmatism, not because they're wrong or that we have any reason to think that they're wrong.

snowman wrote:

We can't access the fundamentals of our world through observation unless the fundamentals of our world are empirical and natural.

Empirical means to make observations and experiments to gather informations about the world. It is therefore non-sensical to say that "the fundamentals of our world must be empirical". That doesnt mean anything. And saying that nature must be natural is a tautology.

You're assuming that the world is what we observe. It's not a tautology, it's circular reasoning. The difference is that a tautology would be a valid form of reasoning, but you're committing a fallacy here - hence, circular reasoning. Laymen often get the terms confused though.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
Yes, so when you said 'science does metaphysics', you were wrong.

Gladly i do not say anything like that. Metaphysics in your bad sense is something no one should do and no serious scientist or serious modern philosopher does.

You claimed that physics [science] studies the fundamental nature of the world [metaphysics]. Whether you disagree with the concept of metaphysics or not is irrelevant.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
Oh wow, throwing names around.

Sorry, I forgot that you do not know anything of philosophy and you are ignorant about everything.

Sliding into direct personal attacks now? Well this has been an interesting debate - starting from making bald assertions without evidence, then engaging in evasion, then snarky sniping, and finally blatant insults.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
So you agree that your argument is absurd? Yes, I definitely agree with that.

thats fine, because this "argument" was an illustration of your category mistake.

The argument was yours. You described your own argument as absurd. I never said that external influences on behavior ruled out concepts like happiness, and we both agree that such a claim is absurd. So I don't understand why you suggested that to start with.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
I'll have to contact the behavioral scientists I work with who study insects.

Yes, you really have to. And you should contact some books too.

Good point! Check these out:

Insect Ecology: An Ecosystem Approach

Insect learning: ecological and evolutionary perspectives

Encyclopedia of insects

Encyclopedia of entomology

Invertebrate Learning: Cephalopods and echinoderms

Physiological systems in insects

For your convenience, I've set up the links to the books to jump straight to the section on insect learning in each one. And, if you were interested, here's the Google Scholar search for "insect learning", which has 130,000 hits.

But no, of course you're right. Insects can't learn and these scientists are really part of some great conspiracy to pretend that insects can. I suggest you publish your proof that insects can't learn, and expect your nobel prize any time now!

Seriously now, Snowman. Don't reject scientific fact in order to cling to your beliefs here - it is no longer possible to argue that insects behave only according to instincts now. Nobody in the world believes this any more, because it's such an absurd position and has been consistently disproved by evidence. Just try to learn something new, try to step out of your narrow world and go to Google Scholar right now and put in "insect learning", or "insect operant conditioning", or "insect classical conditioning". Try to further your knowledge in at least one area.

snowman wrote:

Samsa wrote:
Doesn't make sense to say free will is a gradual process. That's like saying consciousness is a gradual process.

Exactly right, both are gradual and both are evolutionary products.

Now consciousness is evolved?! Great, show me the evidence on that. I am very interested.

If you think this forum cannot stand such a discussion, with emotions from both sides, than delete it or censor it. I will not. And I surely have no interest to start a discussion about moderation, neither in this thread nor via pm. Thanks.