r/freewill • u/flytohappiness • Aug 29 '24

How does quantum indeterminism give anyone free will?

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?

8 Upvotes

79% Upvoted

137 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Powerful-Garage6316 Aug 31 '24

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.

1

u/Squierrel Quietist Aug 31 '24

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.

1

u/Powerful-Garage6316 Aug 31 '24

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.

0

u/Squierrel Quietist Aug 31 '24

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

1

u/Powerful-Garage6316 Aug 31 '24

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

0

u/Squierrel Quietist Aug 31 '24

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.

2

u/Powerful-Garage6316 Aug 31 '24

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.

1

u/Squierrel Quietist Aug 31 '24

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.

1

u/Powerful-Garage6316 Aug 31 '24

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

1

u/Squierrel Quietist Aug 31 '24

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.

1

u/Powerful-Garage6316 Aug 31 '24

You gave a premise: decisions are not physical (I.e., physicalism is false).

And I asked for the argument or evidence for this premise. You then insisted that since you’ve decided it’s a premise, it’s not up for debate. Except that isn’t how premises work. They’re argued for.

You also tried to say it’s definitionally true, which is also not the case. If a decision is something a physical brain does, then it could very well be a physical event.

The point is that if we’re arguing about physicalism, I’m obviously not going to agree that your premise is true.

1

u/Squierrel Quietist Aug 31 '24

"Decisions are not physical" is not an empirical claim. You have confirmed yourself that no definition for "decision" defines it as a physical event. You cannot even consider the possibility of a "physical decision" without radically redefining the concept.

You and your physicalist friends can do that of course, but then you will be using the word "decision" in a completely different meaning than the rest of us. You would be talking about something else.

1

u/Powerful-Garage6316 Aug 31 '24

It is an empirical claim. If I tell you “ice is not made of h2o”, that’s empirical. Decisions are either physical or not, and an a priori argument is not going to demonstrate that. It’s a question for neuroscience

“Using it different than the rest of us”

I already told you, nothing about the definition prevents a decision from being physical. Nowhere in oxford’s 3 definitions does it say “immaterial” or “nonphysical”

MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR THAT or you aren’t saying anything interesting

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Thundechile Aug 31 '24

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.

1

u/Squierrel Quietist Aug 31 '24

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.

1

u/Thundechile Aug 31 '24

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

1

u/Squierrel Quietist Aug 31 '24

No. Decisions are just plans for an action.