Posted: Jan 11, 2017 2:46 am
by romansh
ughaibu wrote: 1. physicists and chemists themselves will tell you that they cannot derive human behaviour from these sciences,

I don't recall claiming they did. I don't recall claiming anything about chemists and physicists, at least not recently. I would agree with these scientists that deriving models from chemistry and physics first principles would be nonsense, should they claim that. But the question you could have asked is, is the chemistry and physics going on in our brains the immediate cause of any behaviours we might have?

ughaibu wrote:2. chess can be played using any physical medium in which the moves can be encoded and in a game of chess there can be a forced move, so, either the rules of chess are some manner of uber-laws of physics and chemistry that apply regardless of the physical medium or activities like playing chess are independent of laws of physics and chemistry,

You made a mistake ughaibu, I have not claimed we or chess pieces are governed by the laws chemistry and physics. Only that these laws are descriptions of the chemistry and physics we observe. The movement of chess pieces by and larger are described by rules of chess. Except when they are being put away in a box. Here physics might be a better descriptor.

ughaibu wrote:3. we cannot derive from facts about the world and laws of chemistry and physics where a person will be several weeks from now,

Yes the universe appears to be chaotic. I would agree cannot derive facts ... we are more likely to observe them or define them into existence. But the fact that our brain chemistry (and physics) appears be determined by probabilistic phenomena in no way allows me to have a sense of free will.