Physical viewpoints on the human mind bother me.

People tend to expect analogies to be too much, really. They're made to make one or two comparisons, not to be extended as a perfect model in all aspects.

Yeah, but in this case the one or two comparisons aren't even accurate.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

As I understand it, mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics don't say anything whatsoever about determinism versus nondeterminism one way or the other, for the rather simple reason that there's absolutely no evidence, dropping the question outside the purview of science and into that of pure philosophy for the time being. That is to say, anyone who talks about literal quantum foam, collapsing waveforms or whatever as a confirmed fact is full of hooey.

Is it? If the universe is superdetermined, but you would need to know the exact state of everything to the smallest detail (a possibly infinite amount of information) in the same instant to predict it perfectly, a feat made totally impossible by observer effect, would there be any practical difference from a nondeterministic universe? No. Ipso-facto, either free will exists, or the universe behaves exactly as if it did.

Eric,

I'd argue that in a physical deterministic universe, it's possible that there are still things that are unknowable.

^^Not sure how you're defining free will, there...

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

This is starting to remind me of my discussion on Artificial Intelligence and "Whole Brain Emulation".

Yes, that's true, but... how is that a rebuttal against what I said?

I'm.... not exactly sure of what you're asking here.

edited 13th Jan '11 9:02:10 AM by Ukonkivi

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

Red herring is red.

I'd just like to point out that this has nothing to do with nihilism or determinism. This topic is about reductionism (at least it was in the beginning).

And knowing is half the battle.

edited 13th Jan '11 9:20:32 AM by Clarste

What do you mean? You can have a physicalist but holistic view of the mind.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

@Tzetze: I'm defining something functionally identical to free will as the ability to make decisions no external entity could definitely predict. Just to be clear, the actual meaning of the term is the ability to generate decisions independent from some or all influences.

I thought the same thing reading the last few pages, but purposely didn't mention it because it's such a dumb subject.

Regarding the points of mine you responded to, what I mean is that arguing over whether or not free will exists is, from a scientific perspective, just as unverifiable and meaningless as arguing over whether a noninterventionist God exists.

@Clarste: Agreed with Tzetze, arguing over whether or not the brain amounts to the sum of its parts would be reductionism, the OP was about whether or not there's some mysterious entity external to the brain.

Eric,

If your decisions are totally random, they may be unpredictable, but that does not make it Free Will.

The OP did not mention a mysterious entity external to the brain in the first post. That came up later. The OP was objecting to the idea that reading the electrical signals in the brain could allow people to read one's mind. Which is an objection to reductionism. Appealing to the soul was merely the particular answer to the dilemma that the OP happened to choose.

edited 13th Jan '11 9:58:08 AM by Clarste

Well, with some models of quantum physics, purely physical viewpoints can still exist-just non-deterministically.

^^ This particular line from the OP seems to refer to there being something other than the brain involved in thought:

Eric,