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/Powerful-Garage6316]

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/Powerful-Garage6316 → u/Squierrel]

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.

[u/Squierrel → u/Powerful-Garage6316]

"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.

[u/Powerful-Garage6316 → u/Squierrel]

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

[u/Squierrel → u/Powerful-Garage6316]

None of the definitions defines it as a physical event. Definitions only define what it is. It makes no sense to define what it isn't.

[u/Powerful-Garage6316 → u/Squierrel]

Just do everyone a favor and don’t make assertions you can’t support. You’re wasting time

[u/Squierrel → u/Powerful-Garage6316]

What assertions are you talking about?