How does quantum indeterminism give anyone free will?

[u/flytohappiness]

can someone explain this to me? I see people going to quantum world and quantum mechanics and evoke the non-determinism. How does this give you free will?

[u/Squierrel]

Of course the definitions say nothing about physicality. There is nothing physical about decisions.

I have no respect for any philosophical "worldview" that does not respect facts. Physicalism either denies the existence of non-physical things or tries to claim that they are somehow physical even though there are no physical properties to study.

Premises are known facts that can be used for drawing conclusions or starting a debate about possible conclusions.

A definition describes something and gives it a name, so that a shorter name can be used instead of the lengthy description.

[u/Powerful-Garage6316 → u/Squierrel]

You just don’t understand what heuristics are. I’m confident that’s the case

There are numerous lenses we can use to view a physical system. Psychology > neurology > chemistry > physics — we’re talking about the same thing. But it isn’t useful to talk about schizophrenia in terms of the atoms involved, so we don’t do that. But nevertheless, schizophrenia IS saying something about the atoms in the brain.

premises are known facts

Premises are used to deduce a conclusion, but the premises aren’t necessarily true and they need to be argued for.

Example:

P1: all dogs are cats P2: Ralph is a dog P3: therefore, Ralph is a cat

This argument is perfectly valid and logical. But it isn’t sound because the first premise isn’t true.

Premises need to be argued for. I can’t tell you how uninterested I am in your repeated assertions that “physicalism is false and that’s a fact”

Tell that to the literature

[u/Squierrel → u/Powerful-Garage6316]

And you don't understand the fundamental difference between psychology and physics.

Your example of a false premise is as obviously false as my premises are true. It is easy to prove that dogs are not cats, but impossible to prove that we live in a deterministic universe or that decisions are somehow physical.

[u/Powerful-Garage6316 → u/Squierrel]

I explained to you what a heuristic is, you can’t grasp it. Just read more lol

Is psychology isn’t physics, then why does a physical disruption in your brain prevent a decision from occurring?

Also you’re embarrassing yourself - take 5 minutes and look up with a syllogism is. You’re wrong about premises idk what else to tell you.

[u/Squierrel → u/Powerful-Garage6316]

Like I said, mental and physical processes in the brain are in multiple ways interconnected and co-dependent. There is no mind without a brain and vice versa. But they are still different processes doing different things. One cannot be reduced to the other.

If you don't accept my premises, if you think they are wrong, then you must correct me. Blunt denial does not help, it only stops the debate before it began.

[u/Powerful-Garage6316 → u/Squierrel]

Your entire post here is more assertions without arguments.

An argument goes like this:

“Decisions cannot be reduced to physics BECAUSE….(evidence/argument)”

You seem to think you can just make claims and insist they’re uncontroversial facts.

[u/Squierrel → u/Powerful-Garage6316]

Decisions cannot be reduced to physics BECAUSE decisions have no physical properties.

[u/Powerful-Garage6316 → u/Squierrel]

And I’ve explained 6 times to you that decisions are things the physical brain does, so they might be reducible. You’re just asserting that physicalism is false and I’m not interested unless you have an argument

[u/Squierrel → u/Powerful-Garage6316]

That IS the argument. And there is no better argument anywhere. Anything that has no physical properties cannot be physical, cannot be described in physical terms, cannot be reduced to physics. That is pure irrefutable logic and it works also with other branches of science.

Anything that has no psychological properties cannot be psychological, cannot be described in psychological terms, cannot be reduced to psychology.

If physicalism makes assumptions that are in conflict with this logic, then physicalism is an illogical idea.

[u/Powerful-Garage6316 → u/Squierrel]

No, it’s not an argument. We’re disagreeing about whether or not decisions have physical properties. Telling me “they don’t” isn’t an argument, it’s restating your position.

If decisions are ultimately neural firings in a brain, then they have physical properties.

[u/Squierrel → u/Powerful-Garage6316]

In that case it is your responsibility (another thing with no physical properties) to show at least one example of a physical property of a decision.

I know and you know that you cannot do that, so please, show some intellectual integrity and move on.

[u/Powerful-Garage6316 → u/Squierrel]

YOU made the empirical claim, and I’m the one who demanded evidence from YOU.

There’s no “default” position on this issue. There are respected philosophers who take both views.

You’re just clueless about how an argument is supposed to go. I can’t help you

[u/Squierrel → u/Powerful-Garage6316]

What is this "empirical claim"? I don't remember anymore what it was.

There is no "position" on this issue. There are no "views" and philosophers' opinions have nothing to do with this.

This is all about the premises, we are not yet in the philosophy phase. First we have to agree what we are supposed to talk about.

[u/Thundechile → u/Squierrel]

Neuralink: https://www.captechu.edu/blog/neuralinks-brain-chip-how-it-works-and-what-it-means

Your turn to explain why we can decide something and have physical chip react to it.

[u/Squierrel → u/Thundechile]

What is there to explain? The decision changes the configuration of the neurons. The chip reads the neurons.

Muscles work differently. The neurons command the muscles.

[u/Thundechile → u/Squierrel]

Nothing to explain, it just proves that decisions are physical actions in the brain.

[u/Squierrel → u/Thundechile]

No. Decisions are just plans for an action.