Where does free will come from?

[M14 Shooter]

Physiology != biology != chemistry != physics.
There is a reason why we use different terms. Conflating them turns them into equivalent of fruit salad. Either they have their specific meanings or they don't. If they don't then this discussion is pointless.

You don't understand.
-Physiology behaves as it does because of biology,
-Biology bevahes the way it does because of chemistry.
-Chemistry bevahes the way it does because of physics.
Thus
-Physiology behaves as it does because of physics
and so
-If you are to exercise control over your physiology, you do so thru the laws physics.

See -- told you that you didn't understand the question.


We arent discussing reflexes - we're discussing conscious choices.

...You only exercise control over a limited part of the physiology of your brain just as you do with your muscles...
...You can control it to some degree...

Uh-huh.

And to exercise this control over this physiology, so that the brain does what we want it to do, as opposed to what it would do regardless of any exercise of will, there must be some mechanism thru which we exert this control - at the most basic level this is done thru the laws of physics.

Thus, my question.
What mechanism allows us to control the laws of physics in order to exert control over our brain's physiology?

Thank you for admitting that you are changing the definitions of generally accepted terminology. Since you have not provided any logical justification for these changes there is no sound basis for your question. Too many "leaps of faith" that ignore the functional interactions between biochemistry and the physical environment in which we exist. So your question as it stands is basically unintelligible because it spans too wide a gap in conventional concepts.

I accept your evasion of the issue. Thank you for playing.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You don't understand.
-Physiology behaves as it does because of biology,
-Biology bevahes the way it does because of chemistry.
-Chemistry bevahes the way it does because of physics.
Thus
-Physiology behaves as it does because of physics
and so
-If you are to exercise control over your physiology, you do so thru the laws physics.

See -- told you that you didn't understand the question.


We arent discussing reflexes - we're discussing conscious choices.


Uh-huh.

And to exercise this control over this physiology, so that the brain does what we want it to do, as opposed to what it would do regardless of any exercise of will, there must be some mechanism thru which we exert this control - at the most basic level this is done thru the laws of physics.

Thus, my question.
What mechanism allows us to control the laws of physics in order to exert control over our brain's physiology?

Thank you for admitting that you are changing the definitions of generally accepted terminology. Since you have not provided any logical justification for these changes there is no sound basis for your question. Too many "leaps of faith" that ignore the functional interactions between biochemistry and the physical environment in which we exist. So your question as it stands is basically unintelligible because it spans too wide a gap in conventional concepts.

I accept your evasion of the issue. Thank you for playing.

Impossible to evade something that doesn't exist in reality. Have a nice day.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thank you for admitting that you are changing the definitions of generally accepted terminology. Since you have not provided any logical justification for these changes there is no sound basis for your question. Too many "leaps of faith" that ignore the functional interactions between biochemistry and the physical environment in which we exist. So your question as it stands is basically unintelligible because it spans too wide a gap in conventional concepts.

I accept your evasion of the issue. Thank you for playing.

Impossible to evade something that doesn't exist in reality. Have a nice day.

Except that it does, you simply do not want, or do not have the capacity, to address it.

If you do not understand that:

-Physiology behaves as it does because of biology,
-Biology bevahes the way it does because of chemistry.
-Chemistry bevahes the way it does because of physics.
Thus
-Physiology behaves as it does because of physics
and so
-If you are to exercise control over your physiology, you do so thru the laws physics.

I then suspect that the issue is your capacity.

 

[dblack]

If you believe all of the impulses that bring us to any given decision were all set in motion by our past experiences, and that this applies to everyone everywhere, then everything -is- predetemined. You may not be able to predict what happens, but that doesn't mean that what happens isn't already determined, just like the break of a billiard rack once the cue ball leaves the stick.

Well, as I've been saying, I think our conception "pre-determined" is what's flawed here. It pushes us into an incoherent conception of free will which in turn produces contradictory expectations.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I accept your evasion of the issue. Thank you for playing.

Impossible to evade something that doesn't exist in reality. Have a nice day.

Except that it does, you simply do not want, or do not have the capacity, to address it.

If you do not understand that:

-Physiology behaves as it does because of biology,
-Biology bevahes the way it does because of chemistry.
-Chemistry bevahes the way it does because of physics.
Thus
-Physiology behaves as it does because of physics
and so
-If you are to exercise control over your physiology, you do so thru the laws physics.

I then suspect that the issue is your capacity.

Theorem: a cat has nine tails.

Proof:

No cat has eight tails. A cat has one tail more than no cat.
Therefore, a cat has nine tails.

There is no significant difference between that theorem and yours since both are based upon fundamentally flawed illogical assumptions. Deliberately ignoring vast fields of specialized knowledge in order to make an "illogical point" is the mark of an agenda.

 

[BreezeWood]

All biology derives from chemistry.
All chemistry derives from physics.

Free will requires willfull control over the biological functions of the brain, and then, by extension, the willfull control over the physics that drive the chemisty which allows this biological control.

Where does this willfull control of physics come from?

Where does this willfull control of physics come from?
Physiology has a distinct flaw, it requires nourishment to keep functioning ....

Not sure how this answers my question...?

M14 Shooter

You don't understand.
-Physiology behaves as it does because of biology,
-Biology bevahes the way it does because of chemistry.
-Chemistry bevahes the way it does because of physics.
Thus
-Physiology behaves as it does because of physics
and so
-If you are to exercise control over your physiology, you do so thru the laws physics.

-Physiology behaves as it does because of biology,


the above along with the other summations are inaccurate irregardless the inaccurate conclusion ...


Hunger is not a physical attribute itself and is distinct from the physiology that requires its resolution that is not resolved by a biological solution but extraneously from all of the above - the mechanism is not the organism.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Impossible to evade something that doesn't exist in reality. Have a nice day.

Except that it does, you simply do not want, or do not have the capacity, to address it.

If you do not understand that:

-Physiology behaves as it does because of biology,
-Biology bevahes the way it does because of chemistry.
-Chemistry bevahes the way it does because of physics.
Thus
-Physiology behaves as it does because of physics
and so
-If you are to exercise control over your physiology, you do so thru the laws physics.

I then suspect that the issue is your capacity.

Theorem: a cat has nine tails.

Proof:

No cat has eight tails. A cat has one tail more than no cat.
Therefore, a cat has nine tails.

There is no significant difference between that theorem and yours since both are based upon fundamentally flawed illogical assumptions. Deliberately ignoring vast fields of specialized knowledge in order to make an "illogical point" is the mark of an agenda.

All these words... and nothing changes.

The "proof" I posted is absolutely sound; you simply either do not want to address the issue presented or don't know how to do so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where does this willfull control of physics come from?
Physiology has a distinct flaw, it requires nourishment to keep functioning ....

Not sure how this answers my question...?

M14 Shooter
You don't understand.
-Physiology behaves as it does because of biology,
-Biology bevahes the way it does because of chemistry.
-Chemistry bevahes the way it does because of physics.
Thus
-Physiology behaves as it does because of physics
and so
-If you are to exercise control over your physiology, you do so thru the laws physics.

-Physiology behaves as it does because of biology,
the above along with the other summations are inaccurate irregardless the inaccurate
conclusion ...

That which you quoted above is, indeed, absolutely true. Not sure what point you think you're making.

Hunger is not a physical attribute itself and is distinct from the physiology that requires its resolution that is not resolved by a biological solution but extraneously from all of the above - the mechanism is not the organism.

OK... and so, you answer to the question is...?

 

[jwoodie]

I tend to view "free will" similarly to a parent-child relationship. Children inherit their genes, but many other factors are also involved. The human mind may always remain a mystery. At least I hope it does.

 

[Derideo_Te]

All these words... and nothing changes.

The "proof" I posted is absolutely sound; you simply either do not want to address the issue presented or don't know how to do so.

Your assumption about your "proof" is as fallacious as the "proof" itself. Others are not buying it either. Either you have to substantiate your "proof" or it will fail. Your choice.

 

[M14 Shooter]

All these words... and nothing changes.

The "proof" I posted is absolutely sound; you simply either do not want to address the issue presented or don't know how to do so.

Your assumption about your "proof" is as fallacious as the "proof" itself.

Then you clearly know nothing about physiology, biology, chemistry or physics.

Facts:
EVERY phyisological process depends on the biological processes found within it.
EVERY biological process depeds on the chemical processes found within it.
EVERY chemical proccess depends on the physical laws that govern the exchange of electrons, etc, between atoms.

It is impossible to soundly argue otherwise.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Free willy? Crap movie, they should have shot the whale with an M14 and a couple of grenades.

 

[Derideo_Te]

All these words... and nothing changes.

The "proof" I posted is absolutely sound; you simply either do not want to address the issue presented or don't know how to do so.

Your assumption about your "proof" is as fallacious as the "proof" itself.

Then you clearly know nothing about physiology, biology, chemistry or physics.

Facts:
EVERY phyisological process depends on the biological processes found within it.
EVERY biological process depeds on the chemical processes found within it.
EVERY chemical proccess depends on the physical laws that govern the exchange of electrons, etc, between atoms.

It is impossible to soundly argue otherwise.

No one is arguing that each of those individual statements are incorrect. Your fallacy is making an illogical "leap of faith" from one end to the other. The actual dependencies of each process involved are far too complex for the massive "leap of faith" that you are making. To put this in simple terms just because an insect can lift 850 times it's own weight does not mean that if that insect were the size of a house it could lift an office building. The other factors that come into play such as strengths of materials would prevent that from happening. The same limiting factors apply to your "leap of faith". You are attempting to conflate the mental function of changing one's mind as being the deliberate "conscience" intention of altering the electron charges in atoms. You have no more control over that process than you do over the electron charges inside the battery of your smartphone. When you decide to send a text you don't identify exactly which specific electrons are going to be used. The same thing applies inside your brain. The process happens without your being able to stipulate what electrons are going to change and you have no idea where they are located either. What makes this even more ludicrous is your attempt to conflate this with "free will".

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your assumption about your "proof" is as fallacious as the "proof" itself.

Then you clearly know nothing about physiology, biology, chemistry or physics.

Facts:
EVERY phyisological process depends on the biological processes found within it.
EVERY biological process depeds on the chemical processes found within it.
EVERY chemical proccess depends on the physical laws that govern the exchange of electrons, etc, between atoms.

It is impossible to soundly argue otherwise.

No one is arguing that each of those individual statements are incorrect.

Ah. So you DO understand that all physiological processes do boil down of the laws of physics. Good!

Your fallacy is making an illogical "leap of faith" from one end to the other.

There' no leap of faith; the previous conclusion is is valid and supported by the arguments -- and thus, sound.

You are attempting to conflate the mental function of changing one's mind as being the deliberate "conscience" intention of altering the electron charges in atoms. You have no more control over that process than you do over the electron charges inside the battery of your smartphone.

OK...so.... when hungry, what is the mechanism that allows you to consciously, willfully and deliberately choose between pizza and cheseburgers?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Then you clearly know nothing about physiology, biology, chemistry or physics.

Facts:
EVERY phyisological process depends on the biological processes found within it.
EVERY biological process depeds on the chemical processes found within it.
EVERY chemical proccess depends on the physical laws that govern the exchange of electrons, etc, between atoms.

It is impossible to soundly argue otherwise.

No one is arguing that each of those individual statements are incorrect.

Ah. So you DO understand that all physiological processes do boil down of the laws of physics. Good!

Are you even aware that you are making fallacious assumptions?

Your fallacy is making an illogical "leap of faith" from one end to the other.

There' no leap of faith; the previous conclusion is is valid and supported by the arguments -- and thus, sound.

You have not provided any arguments, sound or otherwise.

You are attempting to conflate the mental function of changing one's mind as being the deliberate "conscience" intention of altering the electron charges in atoms. You have no more control over that process than you do over the electron charges inside the battery of your smartphone.

OK...so.... when hungry, what is the mechanism that allows you to consciously, willfully and deliberately choose between pizza and cheseburgers?

That was detailed earlier in the thread.

 

[Moonglow]

All biology derives from chemistry.
All chemistry derives from physics.

Free will requires willfull control over the biological functions of the brain, and then, by extension, the willfull control over the physics that drive the chemisty which allows this biological control.

Where does this willfull control of physics come from?

cereal boxes

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one is arguing that each of those individual statements are incorrect.

Ah. So you DO understand that all physiological processes do boil down of the laws of physics. Good!

Are you even aware that you are making fallacious assumptions? You have not provided any arguments, sound or otherwise.

I cannot tell if you are deliberately not paying attention, or simply cannot do so.
Either way..
YOU said that:

No one is arguing that each of those individual statements are incorrect

How then is the necessary conclusion that phyisological functions boil down to the functions of the laws of physics in any way assumptive, fallacious or unsound?

You are attempting to conflate the mental function of changing one's mind as being the deliberate "conscience" intention of altering the electron charges in atoms. You have no more control over that process than you do over the electron charges inside the battery of your smartphone.

OK...so.... when hungry, what is the mechanism that allows you to consciously, willfully and deliberately choose between pizza and cheseburgers?

That was detailed earlier in the thread.

No, It was not. Nothing evern slightly resembling this exists.
Disagree?
Copy/paste.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Ah. So you DO understand that all physiological processes do boil down of the laws of physics. Good!

Are you even aware that you are making fallacious assumptions? You have not provided any arguments, sound or otherwise.

I cannot tell if you are deliberately not paying attention, or simply cannot do so.
Either way..
YOU said that:
How then is the necessary conclusion that phyisological functions boil down to the functions of the laws of physics in any way assumptive, fallacious or unsound?

Your assumptions about my knowledge are fallacious and it is readily apparent that you are unaware that you are making these assumptions.

OK...so.... when hungry, what is the mechanism that allows you to consciously, willfully and deliberately choose between pizza and cheseburgers?

That was detailed earlier in the thread.

No, It was not. Nothing evern slightly resembling this exists.
Disagree?
Copy/paste.

Constantly denying what has been posted without providing a sound factual refuting argument it is a tacit concession that what was posted stands as being factually correct.

The physiology of the brain is not altered by changing our minds. The brain's physiology is such that one of it's functions is to enable us to make choices. The biochemical reactions that are built into physiology of our brains are what result in our reaching decisions. But simply making a decision does not alter that physiology since it already has that ability. Just as learning something new is a biochemical reaction that is then stored in the grey matter. This is what our brains have developed the ability to do as part of the existing physiology.


The biochemistry involved in moving your muscles is both controlled and instinctive. When your hand feels extreme heat you don't control the reflex that moves it away from the source of that heat. Similarly for the brain. You do not control your digestive process or how your ears hear sounds. The reflexive aspect of physiology is a survival mechanism. You only exercise control over a limited part of the physiology of your brain just as you do with your muscles. The ability to make a decision is an inbuilt function just like breathing. You can control it to some degree but you cannot force yourself to stop breathing entirely. Your reflexes will override your "control over this physiology". Your exercise of "free will" to make the "decision" to stop your breathing through "control over this physiology" simply doesn't exist in the manner that you are describing because of these limitations.


You are attempting to conflate the mental function of changing one's mind as being the deliberate "conscience" intention of altering the electron charges in atoms. You have no more control over that process than you do over the electron charges inside the battery of your smartphone. When you decide to send a text you don't identify exactly which specific electrons are going to be used. The same thing applies inside your brain. The process happens without your being able to stipulate what electrons are going to change and you have no idea where they are located either. What makes this even more ludicrous is your attempt to conflate this with "free will".

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you even aware that you are making fallacious assumptions? You have not provided any arguments, sound or otherwise.

I cannot tell if you are deliberately not paying attention, or simply cannot do so.
Either way..
YOU said that:
How then is the necessary conclusion that phyisological functions boil down to the functions of the laws of physics in any way assumptive, fallacious or unsound?

Your assumptions about my knowledge are fallacious and it is readily apparent that you are unaware that you are making these assumptions.

I laugh at you.

Do you or do you not agree that:
EVERY phyisological process depends on the biological processes found within it.
EVERY biological process depeds on the chemical processes found within it.
EVERY chemical proccess depends on the physical laws that govern the exchange of electrons, etc, between atoms.
And so:
EVERY physiological process depends on the physical laws that govern the exchange of electrons, etc, between atoms.

Constantly denying what has been posted without providing a sound factual refuting argument it is a tacit concession that what was posted stands as being factually correct.

The physiology of the brain is not altered by changing our minds. The brain's physiology is such that one of it's functions is to enable us to make choices. The biochemical reactions that are built into physiology of our brains are what result in our reaching decisions. But simply making a decision does not alter that physiology since it already has that ability. Just as learning something new is a biochemical reaction that is then stored in the grey matter. This is what our brains have developed the ability to do as part of the existing physiology.

The biochemistry involved in moving your muscles is both controlled and instinctive. When your hand feels extreme heat you don't control the reflex that moves it away from the source of that heat. Similarly for the brain. You do not control your digestive process or how your ears hear sounds. The reflexive aspect of physiology is a survival mechanism. You only exercise control over a limited part of the physiology of your brain just as you do with your muscles. The ability to make a decision is an inbuilt function just like breathing. You can control it to some degree but you cannot force yourself to stop breathing entirely. Your reflexes will override your "control over this physiology". Your exercise of "free will" to make the "decision" to stop your breathing through "control over this physiology" simply doesn't exist in the manner that you are describing because of these limitations.

Please point to the specific part where any of this illustrates the physiological mechanism that allows you to consciously, willfully and deliberately choose between pizza and cheseburgers.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I cannot tell if you are deliberately not paying attention, or simply cannot do so.
Either way..
YOU said that:
How then is the necessary conclusion that phyisological functions boil down to the functions of the laws of physics in any way assumptive, fallacious or unsound?

Your assumptions about my knowledge are fallacious and it is readily apparent that you are unaware that you are making these assumptions.

I laugh at you.

Do you or do you not agree that:
EVERY phyisological process depends on the biological processes found within it.
EVERY biological process depeds on the chemical processes found within it.
EVERY chemical proccess depends on the physical laws that govern the exchange of electrons, etc, between atoms.
And so:
EVERY physiological process depends on the physical laws that govern the exchange of electrons, etc, between atoms.

Already answered in the thread.

Constantly denying what has been posted without providing a sound factual refuting argument it is a tacit concession that what was posted stands as being factually correct.

The physiology of the brain is not altered by changing our minds. The brain's physiology is such that one of it's functions is to enable us to make choices. The biochemical reactions that are built into physiology of our brains are what result in our reaching decisions. But simply making a decision does not alter that physiology since it already has that ability. Just as learning something new is a biochemical reaction that is then stored in the grey matter. This is what our brains have developed the ability to do as part of the existing physiology.

The biochemistry involved in moving your muscles is both controlled and instinctive. When your hand feels extreme heat you don't control the reflex that moves it away from the source of that heat. Similarly for the brain. You do not control your digestive process or how your ears hear sounds. The reflexive aspect of physiology is a survival mechanism. You only exercise control over a limited part of the physiology of your brain just as you do with your muscles. The ability to make a decision is an inbuilt function just like breathing. You can control it to some degree but you cannot force yourself to stop breathing entirely. Your reflexes will override your "control over this physiology". Your exercise of "free will" to make the "decision" to stop your breathing through "control over this physiology" simply doesn't exist in the manner that you are describing because of these limitations.

Please point to the specific part where any of this illustrates the physiological mechanism that allows you to consciously, willfully and deliberately choose between pizza and cheseburgers.

For someone who is so proud of his alleged knowledge across all of these disciplines it is surprising that you missed this (albeit simplistic) explanation of the process in question.

The physiology of the brain is not altered by changing our minds. The brain's physiology is such that one of it's functions is to enable us to make choices. The biochemical reactions that are built into physiology of our brains are what result in our reaching decisions. But simply making a decision does not alter that physiology since it already has that ability.