Forums > Social Discussion > Can physical events have non-physical causes?
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
An attempt to keep an existing thread from distraction.
So, can physical events have non-physical causes?
An attempt to keep an existing thread from distraction.
Written by: quiet
psyrush: do you think that physical events can have non-physical causes?
Written by: MynciWritten by: quiet
psyrush: do you think that physical events can have non-physical causes?
I do.....all human physical events start with a mental cause.
So, can physical events have non-physical causes?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'll say that Myncis reply does assume that mental states are not simply manifestations of underlying physical states (eg mind=brain) which is perhaps something that requires a bit of backing up or clarification.
I'll say that Myncis reply does assume that mental states are not simply manifestations of underlying physical states (eg mind=brain) which is perhaps something that requires a bit of backing up or clarification.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Posted:
I think this boils down to Free Will vs Determinism... Determinism doesn't accept non-physical causes, Free Will assumes it. If you don't believe in non-phsyical causes, then (I believe) you are a determinist. If you do, then I imagine you will hold Free Will. I don't think you can be a dterminist and believe in non-physical causality, but I guess that's a contraversial statement *awaits i8beefy2
*
[Old link]
I think this boils down to Free Will vs Determinism... Determinism doesn't accept non-physical causes, Free Will assumes it. If you don't believe in non-phsyical causes, then (I believe) you are a determinist. If you do, then I imagine you will hold Free Will. I don't think you can be a dterminist and believe in non-physical causality, but I guess that's a contraversial statement *awaits i8beefy2
*[Old link]
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Is Mynci saying that mental activity is NOT a physical event????
I cannot see the logic Mynci is using.
Is Mynci saying that mental activity is NOT a physical event????
I cannot see the logic Mynci is using.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
small member
116 posts
Location: Hastings
116 posts
Location: Hastings
Posted:
Sym_- thats what I was going to say.
Sym_- thats what I was going to say.
Dreamer
4,308 posts
Location: York, England
4,308 posts
Location: York, England
Posted:
Yeah, i need that clarificataion too... but if so, then yes, totally. If not, I'm not so sure...
Yeah, i need that clarificataion too... but if so, then yes, totally. If not, I'm not so sure...
Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive
Shalom VeAhavah
New Hampshire has a point....
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Only with a great deal of presumption.
The belief that determinism doesn't accept non-physical causes rests on what constitutes a non-physical cause.
That free-will assumes non-physical causes is just plain debatable- far from settled.
I think this is a seperate issue- it's been very hotly debated on multiple past HOP threads, on at least one of which I argue that not only is true free-will compatible with full determinism, but that it relies upon it
Written by: nearly_all_gone
I think this boils down to Free Will vs Determinism...
Only with a great deal of presumption.
The belief that determinism doesn't accept non-physical causes rests on what constitutes a non-physical cause.
That free-will assumes non-physical causes is just plain debatable- far from settled.
Written by: nearly_all_gone
Determinism doesn't accept non-physical causes, Free Will assumes it. If you don't believe in non-phsyical causes, then (I believe) you are a determinist. If you do, then I imagine you will hold Free Will. I don't think you can be a dterminist and believe in non-physical causality, but I guess that's a contraversial statement
I think this is a seperate issue- it's been very hotly debated on multiple past HOP threads, on at least one of which I argue that not only is true free-will compatible with full determinism, but that it relies upon it
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Posted:
Well, that's your opinion. Your opinions on compatiblism are equally contraversial to anything I've said in this thread, so I'm not sure why you're claiming that my post is presumptuous, as obviously I could level the same criticism at you. At any rate the concept of non-physical causes has been discussed before, in reference to the Free Will vs Determinism debate, which is all I was referring to. I certainly don't agree this is a seperate issue - non-physical causation and agent causation? Unless you're engaging in some seriously speculative, groundless and transcendent metaphysics, I don't think the two are seperable.
EDITED_BY: nearly_all_gone (1127423046)
Well, that's your opinion. Your opinions on compatiblism are equally contraversial to anything I've said in this thread, so I'm not sure why you're claiming that my post is presumptuous, as obviously I could level the same criticism at you. At any rate the concept of non-physical causes has been discussed before, in reference to the Free Will vs Determinism debate, which is all I was referring to. I certainly don't agree this is a seperate issue - non-physical causation and agent causation? Unless you're engaging in some seriously speculative, groundless and transcendent metaphysics, I don't think the two are seperable.
EDITED_BY: nearly_all_gone (1127423046)
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Sorry, maybe I've misunderstood. I mentioned presumption in connection with this-
where you seem to be saying that the issue in question (Can physical events have non-physical causes?) is reducable to 'Free Will vs Determinism... ' which surely would only be the case if 'free-will' and 'determinsim' are of the form you consider them to be.
Written by: nearly_all_gone
Well, that's your opinion. Your opinions on compatiblism are equally contraversial to anything I've said in this thread, so I'm not sure why you're claiming that my post is presumptuous, as obviously I could level the same criticism at you.
Sorry, maybe I've misunderstood. I mentioned presumption in connection with this-
Written by: nearly_all_gone
I think this boils down to Free Will vs Determinism...
where you seem to be saying that the issue in question (Can physical events have non-physical causes?) is reducable to 'Free Will vs Determinism... ' which surely would only be the case if 'free-will' and 'determinsim' are of the form you consider them to be.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Posted:
Hence " I think this boils down to free will vs determinism". It is what I think.
Hence " I think this boils down to free will vs determinism". It is what I think.
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I stand corrected, head bowed, and awaiting your forgiveness.
In this matter, the wisdom of your signature shines through- it truly would have been better for me to have said nothing.
I stand corrected, head bowed, and awaiting your forgiveness.
In this matter, the wisdom of your signature shines through- it truly would have been better for me to have said nothing.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Posted:
That's OK, I know I bang on about this whole determinism thing but it's just what I believe. When it rears its ugly head I try and stuff it back where it came from as swiftly as possible.
That's OK, I know I bang on about this whole determinism thing but it's just what I believe. When it rears its ugly head I try and stuff it back where it came from as swiftly as possible.
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau
GOLD Member
still can't believe it's not butter
6,978 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
still can't believe it's not butter
6,978 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
is this a thread on determinism or physical causation?
make 2 threads or make your minds up please
is this a thread on determinism or physical causation?
make 2 threads or make your minds up please
Laugh Often, Smile Much, Post lolcats Always
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
It's a thread on physical causation; specifically- 'Can physical events have non-physical causes?'.
nearly_all_gone thinks that it boils down to 'free will vs determinism'.
I disagree, but acknowledge that it's true that nearly_all_gone thinks that it is so.
It's a thread on physical causation; specifically- 'Can physical events have non-physical causes?'.
nearly_all_gone thinks that it boils down to 'free will vs determinism'.
I disagree, but acknowledge that it's true that nearly_all_gone thinks that it is so.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Depends on what you regard as "Cause".
Is thought considered to be a Physical thing? Going with the whole "Thought is just electrical impulses" thing, or something else?
Depends on what you regard as "Cause".
Is thought considered to be a Physical thing? Going with the whole "Thought is just electrical impulses" thing, or something else?
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
You await me, huh? Hehe, how cute...
I agree with Dave that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive concepts. It depends on how your using the terms here... If determinism is just the limitation of all possibility to necessity, and freewill is the expansion of possibility to all possible states, then they are mutually exclusive. However, if free will simply means the mental ability to chose to do something or to not, then it is not necessarily mutually exclusive, as the choice can be determined and yet still be FREE in that you freely chose to do it, just given that you are who you are you would not have chosen otherwise.
Phew, this is going an interesting one... I don't even know where I stand yet, so Ill examine both sides...
No. Everything is made out of "substance". All matter reduces to energy. The mind is the brain and we are essentially very complicated machines that simply act in the only we can. It's deterministic I suppose.
Yes. There is the physical world, and a non-physical (or mental if you wish) world. That world if ideas / forms / whatever exerts physical preasure of the regular world.
No on second thought, my answer is no. There is no duality. Im not necessarily a physical reductionist, but two substances has the problem of explaining interaction, and that isn't possible. If a "non-physical" soul or mind exists which controls the body like a big computer, it is still energy. Energy is still physical.
I guess Im just coming to be more and more scientifically minded in my old age... either everything is all mind, or everything is all physical. There can be no duality... or at least I've heard of no good explanation for such an assumption. Some would even say that that assumption is the basis of a great number of our beliefs. Of course it's relatively new... the ancient Greeks never seperated between physical and non-physical... Im gonna say no for now... since no one else has really made any positive affirmations besides the determinist/free will one, Ill sit back and wait for some more stuff to show up here now.
*wanders back out*
You await me, huh? Hehe, how cute...
I agree with Dave that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive concepts. It depends on how your using the terms here... If determinism is just the limitation of all possibility to necessity, and freewill is the expansion of possibility to all possible states, then they are mutually exclusive. However, if free will simply means the mental ability to chose to do something or to not, then it is not necessarily mutually exclusive, as the choice can be determined and yet still be FREE in that you freely chose to do it, just given that you are who you are you would not have chosen otherwise.
Phew, this is going an interesting one... I don't even know where I stand yet, so Ill examine both sides...
No. Everything is made out of "substance". All matter reduces to energy. The mind is the brain and we are essentially very complicated machines that simply act in the only we can. It's deterministic I suppose.
Yes. There is the physical world, and a non-physical (or mental if you wish) world. That world if ideas / forms / whatever exerts physical preasure of the regular world.
No on second thought, my answer is no. There is no duality. Im not necessarily a physical reductionist, but two substances has the problem of explaining interaction, and that isn't possible. If a "non-physical" soul or mind exists which controls the body like a big computer, it is still energy. Energy is still physical.
I guess Im just coming to be more and more scientifically minded in my old age... either everything is all mind, or everything is all physical. There can be no duality... or at least I've heard of no good explanation for such an assumption. Some would even say that that assumption is the basis of a great number of our beliefs. Of course it's relatively new... the ancient Greeks never seperated between physical and non-physical... Im gonna say no for now... since no one else has really made any positive affirmations besides the determinist/free will one, Ill sit back and wait for some more stuff to show up here now.
*wanders back out*
Dreamer
4,308 posts
Location: York, England
4,308 posts
Location: York, England
Posted:
The lack of duality if a fairly reasonable approach to take i think... I certainly can't figure out how there could be one, altho my family, 3 scientific degrees doctors biology teachers and all, disgagree with me strongly on this one. We can't explain why some things are the way they are, and so technically speaking we don't know the answer.
But I wasn't taking this question all the way to its root. I was taking it in light of what Mynci said. If in fact, as implied, a mental cause if different than a physical one, than certainly a mental cause could cause a physical event. If however, a mental cause is another aspect of physicality, than clearly its just all physical....
The argument I usually hear for mental causes not being just some physical set of reactions is the "how come this person decided to do this amazing thing then"
Basically, regardless of free will or determinism, regardless of what reason a person winds up doing something, be it a set of chemical reactions or some higher mental thing, I think what society is looking for is a chance to give them credit. A lot of people feel that if we reduce things to a physicality than people arn't being allowed to be "what makes us differnet" (another argument, there, does anything really other than some greed and luck and bad design?) and so they want to think of causes as being mental, as being from somehow outside (a soul, for example).
I think thats what we're looking for when we ascribe events to something other than the purely physical. The sense of other. Mysticism which can survive in the face of science, however slightly or not.
The lack of duality if a fairly reasonable approach to take i think... I certainly can't figure out how there could be one, altho my family, 3 scientific degrees doctors biology teachers and all, disgagree with me strongly on this one. We can't explain why some things are the way they are, and so technically speaking we don't know the answer.
But I wasn't taking this question all the way to its root. I was taking it in light of what Mynci said. If in fact, as implied, a mental cause if different than a physical one, than certainly a mental cause could cause a physical event. If however, a mental cause is another aspect of physicality, than clearly its just all physical....
The argument I usually hear for mental causes not being just some physical set of reactions is the "how come this person decided to do this amazing thing then"
Basically, regardless of free will or determinism, regardless of what reason a person winds up doing something, be it a set of chemical reactions or some higher mental thing, I think what society is looking for is a chance to give them credit. A lot of people feel that if we reduce things to a physicality than people arn't being allowed to be "what makes us differnet" (another argument, there, does anything really other than some greed and luck and bad design?) and so they want to think of causes as being mental, as being from somehow outside (a soul, for example).
I think thats what we're looking for when we ascribe events to something other than the purely physical. The sense of other. Mysticism which can survive in the face of science, however slightly or not.
Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive
Shalom VeAhavah
New Hampshire has a point....
SILVER Member
addict
449 posts
Location: Australia
addict
449 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
As i8beefy2 has stated, we've already been forced to think of the universe in terms of physical, and non-physical dualism. Well, I'll play along.
In response to nearly_all_gone's comparison of this to free will vs determinism: do you think it's possible that free will can exist in a universe that's purely physical?
Our understanding of the physical universe can be limited if we only see things in terms of Newton mechanics which make everything seem really simple and mechanistic, but we know now that things aren't that simple (even Newton himself would agree), so there might be room for free will. And then you have to ask, where does this free will come from?
And say we did, in a sense, discover the soul, and were able to quantify it. Would this make it suddenly a physical entity? Define non-physical and physical.
Personally i've seen mind effect matter many times, but hey, don't take my word for it, do some experiments for yourself. For all i know i could be completely deluded
The other problem is that if the non-physical realm can't cause physical events, then there is no possible interaction between the two, so from our perspective, the non-physical realm doesn't even exist. Unless non-physical events are caused by physical events, which can't be verified by us.
Instead of dualism, we could consider some other theories:
-There is a spectrum between physical and the non-physical:
eg. Consciousness.... matter.....high frequency EM waves... low frequency EM waves.....
In this model, all parts of the spectrum effect each other eg. as we know, EM waves effect matter and vice versa, therefore it's likely that consciousness effects matter and everything else.
-The universe is only contained within the mind (or collective mind).
-'physical' and 'non-physical' as we understand them are actually one and the same, and these words are only a product of our mind trying to catagorise things to break them down so we can understand them.
As i8beefy2 has stated, we've already been forced to think of the universe in terms of physical, and non-physical dualism. Well, I'll play along.
In response to nearly_all_gone's comparison of this to free will vs determinism: do you think it's possible that free will can exist in a universe that's purely physical?
Our understanding of the physical universe can be limited if we only see things in terms of Newton mechanics which make everything seem really simple and mechanistic, but we know now that things aren't that simple (even Newton himself would agree), so there might be room for free will. And then you have to ask, where does this free will come from?
And say we did, in a sense, discover the soul, and were able to quantify it. Would this make it suddenly a physical entity? Define non-physical and physical.
Personally i've seen mind effect matter many times, but hey, don't take my word for it, do some experiments for yourself. For all i know i could be completely deluded
The other problem is that if the non-physical realm can't cause physical events, then there is no possible interaction between the two, so from our perspective, the non-physical realm doesn't even exist. Unless non-physical events are caused by physical events, which can't be verified by us.
Instead of dualism, we could consider some other theories:
-There is a spectrum between physical and the non-physical:
eg. Consciousness.... matter.....high frequency EM waves... low frequency EM waves.....
In this model, all parts of the spectrum effect each other eg. as we know, EM waves effect matter and vice versa, therefore it's likely that consciousness effects matter and everything else.
-The universe is only contained within the mind (or collective mind).
-'physical' and 'non-physical' as we understand them are actually one and the same, and these words are only a product of our mind trying to catagorise things to break them down so we can understand them.
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Kryian, I disagree that we need to look at everyone as having a unique soul to feel we are unique and special. Think about it. Every little change in the entire universe effects everything else. Every point, every atom, every energy wave is completely unique in its own right. We are completely unique, and are who we are based on our actions (thus our actions are still free, and ours) it's just that who we are and how we act are results of who we have been and what we have done in the past. It's still deterministic, and your choices are still YOURS and free.
As for quantum mechanics... well Im not up on all that, but Im gonna stab at it anyway. been a while, and the field changes so fast. It reduces things to probabilities, however if you look at the universe as actually one of an infinite number of possible universes, each one is still deterministic and unique. There's just an infinite number of them, so every possible difference and "choice" is accounted for in that way instead of in one single universe having any non-determined possibility.
I think we need to clarify some terms here before we go any farther. What does "physical" and "non-physical" mean? For instance I would say that light is still physical... what thread was this from and what is this pertaining to? If it's one of those "can you heal someone with energy" threads, then I would simply argue that a completely physical explanation can account for how that might work as well if not better than one positing some kind of non-physical realm.
Before we can all metaphysical could you clear up some terms here Dave?
Kryian, I disagree that we need to look at everyone as having a unique soul to feel we are unique and special. Think about it. Every little change in the entire universe effects everything else. Every point, every atom, every energy wave is completely unique in its own right. We are completely unique, and are who we are based on our actions (thus our actions are still free, and ours) it's just that who we are and how we act are results of who we have been and what we have done in the past. It's still deterministic, and your choices are still YOURS and free.
As for quantum mechanics... well Im not up on all that, but Im gonna stab at it anyway. been a while, and the field changes so fast. It reduces things to probabilities, however if you look at the universe as actually one of an infinite number of possible universes, each one is still deterministic and unique. There's just an infinite number of them, so every possible difference and "choice" is accounted for in that way instead of in one single universe having any non-determined possibility.
I think we need to clarify some terms here before we go any farther. What does "physical" and "non-physical" mean? For instance I would say that light is still physical... what thread was this from and what is this pertaining to? If it's one of those "can you heal someone with energy" threads, then I would simply argue that a completely physical explanation can account for how that might work as well if not better than one positing some kind of non-physical realm.
Before we can all metaphysical could you clear up some terms here Dave?
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Posted:
Wow, full on post there, lots of interesting ideas
I don't believe in free will, and I certainly don't believe in compatiblism between any real kind of free will and any real kind of determinism. Let's get that clear from the start. I believe there may be a non-physical realm, but I do not believe we have access to it, and I believe that the only way we could claim knowledge of non-physical causation is if we hold free will. In my opinion, the univese is deterministic, by which i mean mechanistic and causally closed.
I believe people can hold "free will" and basically mean they can "make decisions", but I believe they are wholly limited in their ability to do so by prior causes. Basically it's a bit like conditioning... with a good enough understanding of someone's physical structure, and how they have responded to past stimulus, I could predict their decision which they might claim is "free". I therefore don't think that they are correct, they are not free in any real sense, only "free to do what they're told" (by their prior stimulus, physical makeup etc). There is never a moment when they can "do anything", even if it seems like there is.
My main reason for all of this is I don't believe there can be interaction between the physical and non-physical. In a usual sense, we know of nothing in the universe which cannot be causally explained, except perhaps the creation of the universe. I believe the things we have not yet explained are not a reason to throw out our whole everyday concept of causality, and that they will wither become clear to us in time or will never become clear to us, but I think they will have perfectly good causal explanations. To assume the non-physical, initially in a sense which grants us some "special power of freedom" such as free will proposes, seems to me unjustifiable and egotistical. If we do so, I feel we are taking a phenomenological approach and ascribing our findings to the whole universe, when in fact we are only describing how something feels from the inside. Moving outwards from that, I don't think I could accept a non-physical event could affect my physical brain, which I believe creates my mind and consciousness. I don't beleive in a soul, and perhaps if I did my opinions would be radically different. But it seems to me that a soul would have to exist non-physically, and therefore we're still left with the same old chesnut... how can the physical and non-physical interact?
The other approaches mentioned... I don't think phys and non-phy can be a spectrum in any real sense, because we have no evidence of a "less physical" or "more non-physical" object. Atoms may be spread about a bit more (as in a gas.. sorry if atoms is the wrong word, it's early), but they're still atoms.
I agree with your final point. Phys and non-phys are one and the same, it is our mind which draws a distinction. There is no shadow of a doubt of that in my mind. The problem of scepticism.. "is this real?" is an extrememly complex one which I don't feel can be adequately answered. However, I believe it it transcendent metaphysics, it is neither here nor there because there is nothing (or very little) we can do about it, we are left to make the best of what we have in front of us.. and I am satisfied with a physical explanation (or the potential for one) in every case I have ever considered. The non-physical may be every bit as real, but I don't think it has any power to affect the course of our everyday lives... because I think we are purely physical beings.
*breathes*
Written by: PsyRush
In response to nearly_all_gone's comparison of this to free will vs determinism: do you think it's possible that free will can exist in a universe that's purely physical?
Our understanding of the physical universe can be limited if we only see things in terms of Newton mechanics which make everything seem really simple and mechanistic, but we know now that things aren't that simple (even Newton himself would agree), so there might be room for free will. And then you have to ask, where does this free will come from?
And say we did, in a sense, discover the soul, and were able to quantify it. Would this make it suddenly a physical entity? Define non-physical and physical.
Personally i've seen mind effect matter many times, but hey, don't take my word for it, do some experiments for yourself. For all i know i could be completely deluded
Wow, full on post there, lots of interesting ideas
I don't believe in free will, and I certainly don't believe in compatiblism between any real kind of free will and any real kind of determinism. Let's get that clear from the start. I believe there may be a non-physical realm, but I do not believe we have access to it, and I believe that the only way we could claim knowledge of non-physical causation is if we hold free will. In my opinion, the univese is deterministic, by which i mean mechanistic and causally closed.
I believe people can hold "free will" and basically mean they can "make decisions", but I believe they are wholly limited in their ability to do so by prior causes. Basically it's a bit like conditioning... with a good enough understanding of someone's physical structure, and how they have responded to past stimulus, I could predict their decision which they might claim is "free". I therefore don't think that they are correct, they are not free in any real sense, only "free to do what they're told" (by their prior stimulus, physical makeup etc). There is never a moment when they can "do anything", even if it seems like there is.
My main reason for all of this is I don't believe there can be interaction between the physical and non-physical. In a usual sense, we know of nothing in the universe which cannot be causally explained, except perhaps the creation of the universe. I believe the things we have not yet explained are not a reason to throw out our whole everyday concept of causality, and that they will wither become clear to us in time or will never become clear to us, but I think they will have perfectly good causal explanations. To assume the non-physical, initially in a sense which grants us some "special power of freedom" such as free will proposes, seems to me unjustifiable and egotistical. If we do so, I feel we are taking a phenomenological approach and ascribing our findings to the whole universe, when in fact we are only describing how something feels from the inside. Moving outwards from that, I don't think I could accept a non-physical event could affect my physical brain, which I believe creates my mind and consciousness. I don't beleive in a soul, and perhaps if I did my opinions would be radically different. But it seems to me that a soul would have to exist non-physically, and therefore we're still left with the same old chesnut... how can the physical and non-physical interact?
The other approaches mentioned... I don't think phys and non-phy can be a spectrum in any real sense, because we have no evidence of a "less physical" or "more non-physical" object. Atoms may be spread about a bit more (as in a gas.. sorry if atoms is the wrong word, it's early), but they're still atoms.
I agree with your final point. Phys and non-phys are one and the same, it is our mind which draws a distinction. There is no shadow of a doubt of that in my mind. The problem of scepticism.. "is this real?" is an extrememly complex one which I don't feel can be adequately answered. However, I believe it it transcendent metaphysics, it is neither here nor there because there is nothing (or very little) we can do about it, we are left to make the best of what we have in front of us.. and I am satisfied with a physical explanation (or the potential for one) in every case I have ever considered. The non-physical may be every bit as real, but I don't think it has any power to affect the course of our everyday lives... because I think we are purely physical beings.
*breathes*
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Can physical events have non-physical causes?
Mabey they can, mabey they can't. All I know is that I haven't ever seen a physical event with a non physical cause nor have I ever heard of one from a reputable source (read: someone who isn't a wide eyed loony) so I would be inclined to say no.
Can physical events have non-physical causes?
Mabey they can, mabey they can't. All I know is that I haven't ever seen a physical event with a non physical cause nor have I ever heard of one from a reputable source (read: someone who isn't a wide eyed loony) so I would be inclined to say no.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
I don't believe ANYTHING non-physical except constructs of thought
eg: unicorns, fairies, sadness, the rules of football etc.
which do not possess actual "existence" and cannot cause anything.
and it's worth pointing out that the 'thoughts' these constructs appear in are physical phenomena (brain activity).
I don't believe ANYTHING non-physical except constructs of thought
eg: unicorns, fairies, sadness, the rules of football etc.
which do not possess actual "existence" and cannot cause anything.
and it's worth pointing out that the 'thoughts' these constructs appear in are physical phenomena (brain activity).
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
Dreamer
4,308 posts
Location: York, England
4,308 posts
Location: York, England
Posted:
I guess the question everyone asks is if there is free will, than where does it come from? Is free will physical? If so how? Or whatever thing it is thats not part of the determinism.....
I'm trying to distill some other people's questions/ thoughts, so apologies if i wind up incoherent at some point. My own pov isn't really as interesting, since i'm heavily on the deterministic side.
I guess the question everyone asks is if there is free will, than where does it come from? Is free will physical? If so how? Or whatever thing it is thats not part of the determinism.....
I'm trying to distill some other people's questions/ thoughts, so apologies if i wind up incoherent at some point. My own pov isn't really as interesting, since i'm heavily on the deterministic side.
Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive
Shalom VeAhavah
New Hampshire has a point....
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
There is will but it isn't free. The mind appears to be a construct of the brain rather than some kind of descision making prosces.
There is will but it isn't free. The mind appears to be a construct of the brain rather than some kind of descision making prosces.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
woah there, Jeff...
Epiphenomenalism innit? a very interesting and coherent theory, if utterly and totally anti-intuitive.
If you're gonna state it as fact i'd like some references
woah there, Jeff...
Written by: jeff
The mind appears to be a construct of the brain rather than some kind of descision making prosces.
Epiphenomenalism innit? a very interesting and coherent theory, if utterly and totally anti-intuitive.
If you're gonna state it as fact i'd like some references
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I'm afraid this passes from my area of expertise and I may have stated it incorrectly to boot (that's why I used the word appears).
The Wikipaedia link to epiphenomenalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism
I'm afraid this passes from my area of expertise and I may have stated it incorrectly to boot (that's why I used the word appears).
The Wikipaedia link to epiphenomenalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
My objection was you stated it as fact, rather than the dodgy over-extreme theory that it is.
Basically, there's a lot of truth in it. Many of our experiences are epiphenomenal, fairly obviously. But "Epiphenomenalism is the taking of that observation to form the bizarre opinion that all mind activity is epiphenomenal (eg. all mind-body communication is one way only).
Then it becomes ridiculous.
My objection was you stated it as fact, rather than the dodgy over-extreme theory that it is.
Basically, there's a lot of truth in it. Many of our experiences are epiphenomenal, fairly obviously. But "Epiphenomenalism is the taking of that observation to form the bizarre opinion that all mind activity is epiphenomenal (eg. all mind-body communication is one way only).
Then it becomes ridiculous.
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Depends on what you mean by mind I suppose. I've just read the link I provided (yeah, should have done it earlier) and the hypothesis as laid down there looks dodgy. There is a huge amount of interchange between brains and bodies since after all the brain is a part of the body and is influenced by sensory stimulus obtained from the outside world.
The subjective exerience which we all assume we have is anouther matter entirely and is, I suppose, the key to the whoe debate.
Depends on what you mean by mind I suppose. I've just read the link I provided (yeah, should have done it earlier) and the hypothesis as laid down there looks dodgy. There is a huge amount of interchange between brains and bodies since after all the brain is a part of the body and is influenced by sensory stimulus obtained from the outside world.
The subjective exerience which we all assume we have is anouther matter entirely and is, I suppose, the key to the whoe debate.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
Your point of view makes me displeased
>
My displeasure causes me to post this argument
>
Thus you are proven wrong
Your point of view makes me displeased
>
My displeasure causes me to post this argument
>
Thus you are proven wrong
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
enthusiast
523 posts
Location: Edinburgh, UK
523 posts
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posted:
I found this had some interesting ideas about free will:
Aaron Sloman, How to dispose of the free will issue
(I don't think you should take the "dispose" bit too seriously - he's saying that you get much more interesting questions and answers by looking at finer grained definitions of free will. Of course, what is interesting is subjective )
I found this had some interesting ideas about free will:
Aaron Sloman, How to dispose of the free will issue
(I don't think you should take the "dispose" bit too seriously - he's saying that you get much more interesting questions and answers by looking at finer grained definitions of free will. Of course, what is interesting is subjective
) monkeys ate my brain
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Its interesting to note here, that randomocity, the tyoe that some argue quantum mechanics has (I disagree, but then Im out of the loop right now), would essentially make all science impossible. UNLESS you were to say that science is describing our subjective experience, and we experience the world in a certain way, IE a causal one, but that the world not necessarily need be that way, but I digress...
Science assumes several things, among which are:
The world is orderly and ruled by the law of cause effect. Without this, it would be impossible to make predictions, etc.
The world is real, that is to say it really is as we percieve it to be (or as we are capable of percieving it to be)... this one is more fluid and arguable I suppose.
I've made the argument before that science will always be only human science as we are locked into experiencing the world in a strictly human way, and as science is based on empiricism, we will always observe events the way we observe them (causally, etc.). I reject realism in the strict sense, but not in the weak sense (ie that the world really is how we observe it vs. the world corresponds to how we observe it but is not necessarily how we observe it).
===
The interesting thing about biopsychology is how new the science is. In a lot of fields, we ask a question and find someone has already found some sort of answer. In biopsych, we can't even tell you why a nerve grows in a certain way, in every instance, to the correct target in the body all the way from the brain.We can explain lots of methods by which it moves, but not why it grows a specific direction and not out into an immorphis blob.
Further, we have no idea what a memory is or how its stored. We know the Hippocampus is a necessary structure for forming new memories (thanks patient H. M.), but we have no idea why you can do a complete hemispherectimy (removing half the brain) and still retain memories (albeit fractured and requiring relearning the paths to them).
BUT it has discovered so much about how the brain interacts with the body. And amazing amount. I used to be anti-prescription drug use in psych cases... I'm not so sure about that anymore. It worries me that we really have no idea why any of our pharmacology works EXACTLY the way it does, but it does work.
It has given me this view though: there are two posssibilities. We are causally determined to act exactly the way we do because of very complex stimulous response situations, or there is something using the brain to control everything else like a computer. I like the first option better, because it doesnt require positing a completely unnecessary, untestable non-physical thing that can interact physically with physical things. It just makes more sense and is simpler (more parsimonious).
Its interesting to note here, that randomocity, the tyoe that some argue quantum mechanics has (I disagree, but then Im out of the loop right now), would essentially make all science impossible. UNLESS you were to say that science is describing our subjective experience, and we experience the world in a certain way, IE a causal one, but that the world not necessarily need be that way, but I digress...
Science assumes several things, among which are:
The world is orderly and ruled by the law of cause effect. Without this, it would be impossible to make predictions, etc.
The world is real, that is to say it really is as we percieve it to be (or as we are capable of percieving it to be)... this one is more fluid and arguable I suppose.
I've made the argument before that science will always be only human science as we are locked into experiencing the world in a strictly human way, and as science is based on empiricism, we will always observe events the way we observe them (causally, etc.). I reject realism in the strict sense, but not in the weak sense (ie that the world really is how we observe it vs. the world corresponds to how we observe it but is not necessarily how we observe it).
===
The interesting thing about biopsychology is how new the science is. In a lot of fields, we ask a question and find someone has already found some sort of answer. In biopsych, we can't even tell you why a nerve grows in a certain way, in every instance, to the correct target in the body all the way from the brain.We can explain lots of methods by which it moves, but not why it grows a specific direction and not out into an immorphis blob.
Further, we have no idea what a memory is or how its stored. We know the Hippocampus is a necessary structure for forming new memories (thanks patient H. M.), but we have no idea why you can do a complete hemispherectimy (removing half the brain) and still retain memories (albeit fractured and requiring relearning the paths to them).
BUT it has discovered so much about how the brain interacts with the body. And amazing amount. I used to be anti-prescription drug use in psych cases... I'm not so sure about that anymore. It worries me that we really have no idea why any of our pharmacology works EXACTLY the way it does, but it does work.
It has given me this view though: there are two posssibilities. We are causally determined to act exactly the way we do because of very complex stimulous response situations, or there is something using the brain to control everything else like a computer. I like the first option better, because it doesnt require positing a completely unnecessary, untestable non-physical thing that can interact physically with physical things. It just makes more sense and is simpler (more parsimonious).
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com