• khaled
    3.5k
    The key issue here is not complexity. The key issue here is the structure.Truth Seeker

    These attributes are weakly emergent properties of the electrochemical activities of the brain.Truth Seeker

    Yes, I understand. Your claim is that the structure of the brain is such that it can have accurate representations of reality as well as rationality correct? How did you know that the brain is so structured so as to be rational? (I understand the basics of neurology. I know what electrochemical activities are. That does not change my question)

    The atoms themselves are rational? That can't be it, they're clearly not.

    Complexity? That's clearly not enough. The city of Tokyo is complex yet can't think rationally.

    Having electrochemical activity and neurons? Many animals have brains equipped with neurons and plenty of electrochemical activity, and yet are not rational.

    Evolution would favor a rational brain? Not necessarily. Even we have irrational biases drilled into us through evolution.

    So what makes you so sure?

    I did not say that events are predetermined. I said that events are determined in the present by the interaction of variables. Even in your thought experiment, what happens is determined in the present by the interaction of variables.Truth Seeker

    Well... Duh!!

    If you count even quantum randomness as a "variable" then that's obvious. With this definition though, how come there is a contradiction between free will and determinism? There would no longer be any contradiction between having a "will" variable which acts freely, and determinism.

    I have noticed something interesting about your posts. You frequently misquote me by claiming that I made statements I never made.Truth Seeker

    I don't mean to misquote you... I misunderstood your position. Frankly, I think your position has shifted and I'm not sure you noticed. The way people typically use "determinism" is to say that every event is predetermined by the previous event, and so if we had enough computational power we would know everything that happens (including people's behavior).

    I believe this is also what you meant by it initially, through quotes like these:

    We don't have enough knowledge to predict people's behaviour with 100% accuracy but that does not mean that the behaviours are not deterministic.Truth Seeker

    Here you imply that if we did have enough knowledge then we would be able to predict behavior correct?

    Now:
    1- We cannot predict Quantum events as they are inherently random
    2- Quantum events can cause changes on a macro scale (see cat)
    3- Therefore we cannot predict events (including people's behavior) on a macro scale

    Just so we're on the same page, let's first decide whether you're arguing for determinism as outlined above or just in "causation" (that present events are determined by the interaction of variables). And if it is the former, do you find the above argument satisfactory in showing that determinism is not the case?
189101112Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.