What is a decision in phoodoo world?

This is a thread to allow discussions about how those lucky enough to have free will make decisions.

As materialism doesn’t explain squat, this thread is a place for explanations from those that presumably have them.

And if they can’t provide them, well, this will be a short thread.

So do phoodoo, mung, WJM et al care to provide your explanations of how decisions are actually made?

2,199 thoughts on “What is a decision in phoodoo world?

  1. Decisions are made by the homunculus inside each human being. And its decisions are made by the homunculus inside it. And so on, all the way down.

  2. Could be the soul, which is a little piece of something distinct from, but not independent of god, free, but not capable of surprising god.

    This has been very carefully thought out over the millennia.

  3. The soul watches over the brain and fiddles with the brain to make it work right. If the soul is in tune with God it makes the brain do right, and if it’s in tune with soulless ratlike atheistic Darwinists, it makes the brain do wrong. The soul does all of the real thinking, manipulating the complexity of the brain with faint (but very precise) nudges, much like a Designer would do to life during the course of evolution.

    It’s so simple if you don’t bother with messy, useless materialism, and confirmed knowledge.

    To be sure, I could be wrong, since I’m a soulless Darwinist.

    Glen Davidson

  4. When you understand how decisions are made inside a computer, you might be on the way to understanding how decisions are made inside a brain.

  5. shallit: When you understand how decisions are made inside a computer, you might be on the way to understanding how decisions are made inside a brain.

    Decisions are made inside a computer much like searches are made inside a computer.

  6. keiths: let’s hear how you explain decisions in terms of immaterial entities and forces.

    For the materialist any explanations that involve the immaterial are impossible aren’t they?

    Isn’t that what it means to be a materialist?

    peace

  7. fifth,

    If materialism is true then of course immaterial explanations aren’t. The question is whether you, or phoodoo, or Mung, or anyone else can offer a superior argument in defense of immaterialism.

    Part of that challenge is to explain how immaterial entities can make decisions and how those decisions can impact the physical world.

    As a Calvinist, your answers will presumably differ from theirs in some respects.

    Give it a shot.

  8. keiths:let’s hear how you explain decisions in terms of immaterial entities and forces

    Quantum Interfacing, the latest and greatest area of research in the Modern Synthesis of Cdesign Proponentism

  9. Mung:
    I find it amusing when materialists ask for reasons.

    How does an immaterial reason cause a material effect , what is the interface?

  10. Neil Rickert,

    Then how are they made Neil? Do you believe a computer can change its mind after weighing all the factors and pondering it for longer? Can a computer be indecisive?

  11. walto:
    It’s so simple if we just leave out matter!

    Don’t you find it troublesome that man has no good explanation for this decision maker behind the molecules, and yet many are still willing to still rule out the material world, because they want evidence?

    People do the same things with the existence of an ordered world. “I don’t believe in a universal intelligence, because there is no evidence. But I have no idea why the universe exists.” When Bertrand Russell says, he would tell a higher being the reason he didn’t believe is because there was not enough evidence, I imagine a God slapping himself on his head and saying, “You couldn’t see the fucking universe?!!”

    Its like a fish saying, I don’t really believe in water.

  12. keiths: or anyone else can offer a superior argument in defense of immaterialism.

    Part of that challenge is to explain how immaterial entities can make decisions and how those decisions can impact the physical world.

    What do you mean by a “better” argument? No argument for how a brain makes choices has been presented whatsoever, so why would one need a better one?

    You suggestion, that, “well, it weighs the alternatives..”.is not a theory keiths. Its not anything, its just saying, it does. One doesn’t need to make a case for a better theory than, that’s what it does.

  13. phoodoo: I imagine a God slapping himself on his head and saying, “You couldn’t see the fucking universe?!!”

    I imagine Bertrand Russell slapping himself on his head and responding “and you call yourself a higher being?”

  14. Richardthughes,

    I have to wait for the chemicals in my brain to be in the right pattern to answer. I mean I really want to answer, er, rather the chemicals are in the position of want, but one can only wait for the chemicals to be in the position of “write the answer”.

    There is really nothing anyone can do about it-as you well believe.

  15. dazz: I imagine Bertrand Russell slapping himself on his head and responding “and you call yourself a higher being?”

    Yea, like a fish saying, “You call this an aquarium??”

  16. phoodoo: Yea, like a fish saying, “You call this an aquarium??”

    Don’t you realize how stupid that is?

    phoodoo: “You couldn’t see the fucking universe?!!”

    Its like a fish saying, I don’t really believe in water.

    In your ridiculous analogy, the universe = water. You couldn’t even manage to smuggle an analogy for god to justify your belief in it. Pathetic as usual

  17. phoodoo,

    And then God saying, “Yes, that was an aquarium.”

    And the fish says, “But there were no cream puffs inside.”

    And Gods says, “Right, there were no cream puffs. Who said anything about cream puffs?”

    And the fish says “Yea, but I wanted cream puffs. If you would have put cream puffs in there, then I would have believed it was an aquarium. Because why else would there be cream puffs.”

  18. And then Gods says, “Yea, but didn’t you notice everyday I sprinkled the fish flakes in the water? And there was that night light, and the pink coral, and the sunken rock in the shape of an old castle you used to swim through?”

    And the fish says, “I thought it was all an accident?”

    “And you, plus the fifty other angel fish?”

    “I thought we were all accidents . There were no cream puffs.”

    “Fucking fish, I should have known you would be idiots too.”

  19. newton: How does an immaterial reason cause a material effect , what is the interface?

    That’s puzzled me for a while, too. I’m sure I’ve mentioned this before here and elsewhere but I don’t recall any meaningful response from a “non-materialist”.

    No problem to accept there is an immaterial world, full of God, souls, angels and whatever else might be imagined. Let’s accept all that for the sake of argument or why not even accept that it’s irrefutable?

    If someone wishes to claim that the observable universe is affected (continually or by the odd “poof”) then the question of how that happens becomes intriguing (to me, anyway). As Newton asks, what happens at the interface? In a game of soccer, the ball is kicked around and responds predictably; a pass finds a team member, a goal is scored. But what if God joins in? Being immaterial, how can he join in? And if He did, what could we observe? Would there be an effect with no apparent cause? Enquiring minds want to know!

  20. Mung:
    I find it amusing when materialists ask for reasons.

    Why is that? Must reasons be immaterial? Are reasons just the sort of thing that cannot be accommodated within a naturalistic metaphysics? Is that “self-evident” (to you) or do you have an argument?

  21. The point is perhaps subtle. We each have our own opinions about the way the world is, but ultimately there is only one truth. The world is how it is.

    FMM,

    For the materialist any explanations that involve the immaterial are impossible aren’t they?

    I am open minded to the possibility that I am incorrect. However that possibility will never be explored unless those explanations are forthcoming.

    And it is a poor excuse not to give your explanation just because someone else might think it impossible. After all, on the other thread explanations have been discussed that theists have already noted as impossible. Why is there such an asymmetry when you are asked to give your explanation?

    In science we often proceed by one person having an idea and then convincing others of the veracity of that idea via the usual process of science. You are in that position, you are that one person. And yet when in the position of that sole scientist who claims to have a better way, you stop because your audience does not believe in your better way. You don’t seem to see how to cross that barrier. And that’s why you will ultimately fail.

    Mung,

    I find it amusing when materialists ask for reasons.

    I’m not asking for a reason. I’m asking for an explanation. How are decisions made in your world? How is the brain involved, if at all? And as noted above, if materialism is wrong then we are all non-materialists even if we don’t know it.

    You have noted that materialism does not explain squat, and then changed the request from an explanation (which I asked for) to a reason (which I did not ask for).

    So to be clear, I’m not asking for reasons. Science does not do why. I’m asking for an explanation of the non-materialistic decision making process.

    If it does not depend on chemicals in the brain what does it depend on?

    And if your position is that materialism does not explain squat then you are in the unenviable position of holding a position that if your actions are any indicator cannot even begin to form an explanation. So you rail against a position that has the possibility of an explanation in favour of a position that, by your lack of an explanation, does not even attempt to provide an explanation.

    phoodoo,

    I have to wait for the chemicals in my brain to be in the right pattern to answer. I mean I really want to answer, er, rather the chemicals are in the position of want, but one can only wait for the chemicals to be in the position of “write the answer”.

    And yet that is simply not true. I mean, you believe your position is the correct one and that materialism is incorrect.

    Therefore it is solely your decision not to provide or attempt to provide the explanation that you have been asked for, that you presumably possess given what you have said in the other thread.

    You have said many things on this thread intended to ridicule, but in fact all you are doing is illustrate how desperate you are to keep the focus on the other side’s position. That would appear to be because you are aware that you have no explanations to give. But you are ready to ridicule the explanations offered by others.

    There is really nothing anyone can do about it-as you well believe.

    And yet if you are correct everyone can do something about it. But it’s up to you, as someone who knows the truth of the matter to demonstrate that truth.

    If you don’t have an explanation yourself but can’t bring yourself to accept the current best explanation that we have then you’ve as much as said that already.

    But all you are really doing is pointing out your belief that the emperor has no clothes when you’ve never so much worn a pair of socks yourself and don’t seem to be able to afford such either. And you don’t have any interest in getting some socks, simply shouting abuse from the sidelines seems to be sufficient.

    So far this thread has gone entirely as expected.

  22. OMagain: You have said many things on this thread intended to ridicule, but in fact all you are doing is illustrate how desperate you are to keep the focus on the other side’s position.

    There is no other side’s position, what are you talking about? Your side hasn’t given ONE explanation for how a decision can be made, if the chemical pattern in the brain already dictates what the response will be.

    None, Nada, Zero, Zip! What your side has said is, it just happens.

  23. Alan Fox: That’s puzzled me for a while, too. I’m sure I’ve mentioned this before here and elsewhere but I don’t recall any meaningful response from a “non-materialist”.

    I think ,therefore it does

  24. phoodoo: There is no other side’s position, what are you talking about?Your side hasn’t given ONE explanation for how a decision can be made, if the chemical pattern in the brain already dictates what the response will be.

    None, Nada, Zero, Zip!What your side has said is, it just happens.

    You must be lacking the chemical for the sense of irony,phoo.

  25. Your side hasn’t given ONE explanation for how a decision can be made

    This thread is about your side and it’s explanations for how decisions can be made. I can appreciate that it’s difficult for you to understand that, but please try and focus.

    But to be clear, it’s not a problem for you that you don’t have any such explanation but it is a problem for me?

    Your double standards are showing. Why is my ‘side’ preventing you from giving the explanation you so clearly think you possess?

  26. GlenDavidson: Immaterialists demand explanations that involve so much less!

    When they are not too busy doing anything except consider their own position anyway. Which they don’t seem to do.

    Even on a thread explicitly designed to allow them to explain themselves, they continue to think that pointing at the other sides perceived lack of explanation is somehow relevant. That it will somehow distract from the fact their input is solely snark (looking at you Mung).

    The more they protest about and focus on an explanation they don’t accept the more they simply highlight the lack of an alternative.

    But what they do know is any alternative to their lack of explanation is wrong.

    All they want to do is tear down others, building something appears not to be something they are capable of. As demonstrated in this thread.

  27. What your side has said is, it just happens.

    And given your side has said nothing at all who should we listen to?

    Those that are trying?

    Or those that are not trying at all?

    To me it’s an easy choice. After all, I have no doubt, phoodoo, that you wield more influence and power on the TSZ then you do in real life. And that’s what’s so attractive here for you I’m sure. When you speak here, others reply. I’m quite sure you don’t have that in real life. After all, you only have negative things to say and you never propose alternatives. And people quickly tire of your sort.

    I’ve worked with or known people like you in the past. Your bitterness is likely driven by jealousy of those more capable. Those that can do more then merely pick holes in other people’s work.

    So keep up the good work!

  28. phoodoo,

    What your side has said is, it just happens.

    This thread is about what your side says. Details, please.

  29. keiths: This thread is about what your side says. Details, please.

    Seconded. If you are unable to stay on topic phoodoo then by all means keep posting. Every time you post without your explanation that hole just gets a little deeper.

  30. phoodoo:
    Neil Rickert,

    Then how are they made Neil?Do you believe a computer can change its mind after weighing all the factors and pondering it for longer? Can a computer be indecisive?

    My “no” was to the idea of comparing decisions to searches. They are not searches.

    As to whether computers really make decisions, or merely implement the decisions of the programmer — that’s a question over which there is a lot of disagreement.

  31. Neil Rickert: As to whether computers really make decisions, or merely implement the decisions of the programmer — that’s a question over which there is a lot of disagreement.

    And I think it’s a very relevant point. Does phoodoo actually make decisions, or are his decisions merely implementing the decisions of his deity?

    If so, that makes phoodoo more like a computer then any materialist has ever been. He is literally just replaying a script.

  32. Neil Rickert: As to whether computers really make decisions, or merely implement the decisions of the programmer — that’s a question over which there is a lot of disagreement.

    It would seem to me that there are at least two kinds of situations in which a computer can surprise a programmer (other than by having bugs or errors).

    On is when the program is designed to respond to environmental input, and the input is unexpected.

    The other is when the program is designed to learn, and the trajectory of learning is unknown or unexpected.

    Decision makers are another god of the gaps. It looks like a ghost in the machine when we cannot see the details.

  33. For some odd reason, keiths, who claims he cannot know there is a material world, is a convinced materialist.

    Please do speak up if I am mistaken about that, keiths.

    How do you know that there is an external world composed of material objects and why do you believe in this external reality if you lack justification for doing so?

  34. explanation – a reason or justification given for an action or belief.

    ETA: Looking at you OMagain.

  35. What a tragic avoidance of the question. This is text-book creationism, folks: try and shoehorn god in any theory gaps but provide no compelling explanation of your own. More tragically, Gapsism kills minds, removing inquisitiveness and our desire to advance knowledge.

  36. newton: How does an immaterial reason cause a material effect , what is the interface?

    Why must there be an interface? The very concept applies to two material systems. It is material systems that require interfaces with other material systems.

    To me, the question is nonsense as soon as you attempt to apply it to an immaterial reality.

Leave a Reply