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. Kantian Naturalist: I think all of them, and you, are basically lazy. You don’t read, you don’t challenge yourselves…

    And not wanting to learn something because it might conflict with some deeply held, cherished conviction is not just laziness but cowardice. I refuse to pretend that I can respect an intellectual position grounded in laziness and cowardice. And while certainly that’s not true of all theism, it is manifestly on display amongst the theists who participate at TSZ.

    Simply hilarious. And so wrong.

  2. Mung: Simply hilarious. And so wrong.

    Oh, really? What were the last few books in philosophy of neuroscience that you read? Philosophy of biology? Philosophy of science? What works of naturalistic metaphysics have you read? Or naturalized epistemology?

  3. Kantian Naturalist,

    What was the last book about faith healing you read KN? About ESP research? How did you like Darwin’s Doubt? How about Undeniable by Douglas Axe, did you enjoy that?

    Did you write any Amazon reviews about Devil’s Delusion, I would be very interested to see what you had to say.

    Oh, but first, first, what is your take on Thich Nhat Hanh? Do you lean more towards his Huayan influences, or do you prefer his Theravāda roots?

  4. Kantian Naturalist: Oh, really? What were the last few books in philosophy of neuroscience that you read? Philosophy of biology? Philosophy of science? What works of naturalistic metaphysics have you read? Or naturalized epistemology?

    Are you now backing off your original claim?

    I’m an inveterate reader. I’m not sure how I would even manage to pick out books that might challenge what I believe so as to avoid them. I read philosophy as much or more than anything else.

    Philosophy of neuroscience not so much.

  5. phoodoo:
    Kantian Naturalist,

    What was the last book about faith healing you read KN?About ESP research?How did you like Darwin’s Doubt?How about Undeniable by Douglas Axe, did you enjoy that?

    Did you write any Amazon reviews about Devil’s Delusion, I would be very interested to see what you had to say.

    Oh, but first, first, what is your take on Thich Nhat Hanh?Do you lean more towards his Huayan influences, or do you prefer his Theravāda roots?

    LOL! It’s simply hilarious that you don’t get why this completely makes KN’s point! But do keep up with that reading there, Phoodoo!

  6. phoodoo,

    I very much enjoyed the McGraths’s The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine and thought Eagleton’s Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate was absolutely brilliant.

    Robin: LOL! It’s simply hilarious that you don’t get why this completely makes KN’s point! But do keep up with that reading there, Phoodoo!

    Well, somewhat.

    My point was that someone like FMM, who confidently pronounces what brains can and cannot do while clearly not knowing anything about what is actually known about what brains probably do and don’t do, would certainly come off as being as uninformed and ignorant in a discussion about brains as I would in a debate about the Huayan and Theravedan influences on Thich Nhat Han — which indeed I know nothing about. But we were discussing the relevance of neuroscience to explanations of decision-making, and in that context it is FMM’s ignorance that is at issue, not mine. If you’d rather talk about Thich Nhat Han, I’d be perfectly happy to sit back and learn something.

  7. Kantian Naturalist: If you’d rather talk about Thich Nhat Han, I’d be perfectly happy to sit back and learn something.

    Ok, but I think to fully understand it, it would be more clear if we discussed his teachings in Chinese. I am only good in three dialects ( I guess I am just too lazy to have learned more), but I could probably brush up on some of the southwestern dialects if I really have to. Let me know which one is your preference.

  8. phoodoo: Ok, but I think to fully understand it, it would be more clear if we discussed his teachings in Chinese. I am only good in three dialects ( I guess I am just too lazy to have learned more), but I could probably brush up on some of the southwestern dialects if I really have to. Let me know which one is your preference.

    By all means, let’s discuss Thich Nhat Han in his original Chinese.*

    * Thich Nhat Han is Vietnamese and writings fluently in English.

  9. Kantian Naturalist:

    Well, somewhat.

    My point was that someone like FMM, who confidently pronounces what brains can and cannot do while clearly not knowing anything about what is actually known about what brains probably do and don’t do, would certainly come off as being as uninformed and ignorant in a discussion about brains as I would in a debate about the Huayan and Theravedan influences on Thich Nhat Han — which indeed I know nothing about. But we were discussing the relevance of neuroscience to explanations of decision-making, and in that context it is FMM’s ignorance that is at issue, not mine. If you’d rather talk about Thich Nhat Han, I’d be perfectly happy to sit back and learn something.

    Exactly. I’m not disputing that any of the works Phoodoo mentioned are worthwhile pursuits in their own right or that anyone who reads those are lazy by comparison to someone who instead studies the philosophies of science. It is, however, something of an own goal to to bring up works that have nothing to do with a criticism of laziness in a separate given subject. By pointing that out, Phoodoo is quite readily admitting his has interests in other areas than the one he is criticizing here and admitting that the charge of laziness about his approach to the neurosciences is accurate.

  10. Kantian Naturalist,

    Haha, you are funny KN.

    Vietnamese originally came from the Chu Nom Chinese characters of southern China (nom means south 南, but you knew that of course). Its basically a mix of originally Guangxi and Cantonese dialects. We can do it in pure Vietnamese of course if you prefer, but then you really are going to struggle getting some of the meanings of Huayan Buddhism-as it really has little connection to modern Vietnamese.

    We could also certainly do it in French, as Thich is obviously quite proficient as well, but then we really are diluting the original texts. Plus my French is only passable (again, I am lazy!).

  11. Patrick: Of course it can. Software systems do this all the time.

    do any of the skeptics here want to correct Patrick. Or are you all comfortable with the idea that your operating system is conscious?

    peace

  12. Neil Rickert: That is to say, we should ascribe comprehending to people, not to brains. However, I don’t doubt that brain activity is involved.

    I agree 100 percent, this is my position in a nutshell.

    Apparently KN thinks this makes us lazy cowards and he finds that position to be offensive

    peace

  13. My question for the house is. How exactly could you empirically demonstrate that brains comprehend or decide?

    Please be specific I’m looking for actual prospective empirical evidence not opinion.

    You have a theory that brains and not minds comprehend. How would you possibly test that theory? ….ever

    peace

  14. fifthmonarchyman:
    My question for the house is. How exactly could you empirically demonstrate that brains comprehend or decide?

    Please be specific I’m looking for actual prospective empirical evidence not opinion.

    You have a theory that brains and not minds comprehend. How would you possibly test that theory? ….ever

    peace

    Well, let’s see, do we have evidence of brains? Yes.

    Do we have evidence of “minds” that are not brains/brain activity? No.

    Does information go to the brain, and nerve impulses come from the brain to cause movements, etc.? Yes.

    To someone with an open mind, these are sufficient data to indicate that brains decide. Much supporting neuroscientific evidence affirms this conclusion, of course. But none of that matters to those with presuppositions about what has to be the case, which is why their line of “thought” is unproductive and meaningless.

    Glen Davidson

  15. phoodoo: But Mung, why don’t you read books that KN is interested in?

    I’m sure I do. It’s just that his time, like ours is limited. I simply have not the time to read everything, nor do I have the time to read everything I might need to read in order to discuss a certain topic at anything more than a superficial level.

    I recently completed a book by Putnam, and one by Feynman. I doubt I would have been motivated to read Putnam other than from KN.

    The Changing Role of the Embryo in Evolutionary Thought: Roots of Evo-Devo (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Biology) probably fits in Philosophy of Biology.

    Then there is Philosophy of Chemistry: Between the Manifest and the Scientific Image (Louvain Philosophical Studies)

    Perhaps more up KN’s alley:

    Consciousness and Mental Life

    I think KN juat got frustrated and carried away.

    But to be accused of being lazy, not reading, or only reading material that reinforces what I already believe, that’s just insulting.

    But then. I have probably at one time or another accused all atheists here of being like Patrick. So I see I too can be insulting and try not to judge too harshly. 😉

    ETA: Not Feynman, sheesh. Too recently watched the BBT episode. Feyerabend.

  16. phoodoo,

    What was the last book about faith healing you read KN?About ESP research?

    Why don’t you name a few of those books?

  17. fmm,
    You have a theory that ‘mind’s exist. How exactly could you empirically demonstrate that minds comprehend or decide?

    It’s been noted how we do the same for brains by Glen. Now you do the same for minds. First, demonstrate empirically that they exist, then demonstrate that they decide.

    It’s kind of what I was looking for when I started this thread. It’s simply what you are asking for, but for your position instead. Do you finally get that now?

  18. OMagain,

    Why don’t I name a few of those books that KN hasn’t read? Because I don’t know how many books he hasn’t read. It could be quite a long list.

    I don’t try to mind read like KN and Dennett do.

  19. GlenDavidson:

    Do we have evidence of “minds” that are not brains/brain activity? No.

    That is incorrect we have tons of evidence of minds. It’s just not empirical evidence.
    Evidence like the existence of love
    Evidence like the existence of hate
    Evidence like the existence of friendship
    Evidence like the existence of indifference
    Evidence like the existence of choice

    all of these things are evidence of the existence of minds.

    GlenDavidson: To someone with an open mind, these are sufficient data to indicate that brains decide.

    No you are thinking of someone with a closed mind
    an open mind is one that does not come to a conclusion based only on unsupported assumption.

    peace

  20. OMagain: You have a theory that ‘mind’s exist. How exactly could you empirically demonstrate that minds comprehend or decide?

    You don’t demonstrate that minds decide empirically because minds are not materiel things.

    You demonstrate that minds decide definitionally it’s what the word means

    quote:

    Mind: the part of a person that thinks, reasons, feels, and remembers

    end quote:

    from here
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mind

    peace

  21. OMagain: First, demonstrate empirically that they [minds] exist, then demonstrate that they decide.

    Well there you go. I often say that this will always come down to the problem of other minds. It appears that that is where we are at

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds

    Welcome to the sad empty world of the radical skeptic. There you are alone in the universe unable to know even that other minds exist.

    I truly do pity you.

    peace

  22. fifthmonarchyman:
    My question for the house is. How exactly could you empirically demonstrate that brains comprehend or decide?

    Please be specific I’m looking for actual prospective empirical evidence not opinion.

    You have a theory that brains and not minds comprehend. How would you possibly test that theory? ….ever

    peace

    Well, I have a story that (empirically) demonstrates how at least some Christians think people decide (though not phoodoo–he insists on remaining mysterious).

    This morning, walking to the train station on a bike path I frequent, there were two men–one on each side of the path–passing out treats. ‘Would you like a granola bar, sir?’ ‘Sure, thanks!’ I responded, and they gave me one. When I looked into my hand, I saw that they’d also stuck in a business card that read (in all caps)

    you have made us for yourself, o lord, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in you.

    –Augustine

    On the back there was church info and an invite.

    So these Christians (but not phoodoo) apparently think that people make decisions as a result of receiving sweet meats and deep-sounding promises of future happier times if certain decisions are made.

    That theory makes good sense to me, even if it doesn’t make sense to their fellow traveler, phoodoo.

  23. fifthmonarchyman: fifthmonarchyman September 22, 2016 at 11:22 am

    GlenDavidson:

    Do we have evidence of “minds” that are not brains/brain activity? No.

    That is incorrect we have tons of evidence of minds. It’s just not empirical evidence.
    Evidence like the existence of love
    Evidence like the existence of hate
    Evidence like the existence of friendship
    Evidence like the existence of indifference
    Evidence like the existence of choice

    all of these things are evidence of the existence of minds.

    Once again, lazy, erroneous thinking. None of the above is any more evidence for “immaterial minds” than it is for evidence of brain activity. In point of fact, it’s more evidence for brain activity because we actually have brain scans and hormone tests showing correlations between love, hate, happiness, sadness, and a slew of other emotions and brain activity. Alas, there is no substantiation whatsoever for “immaterial minds”.

    GlenDavidson: To someone with an open mind, these are sufficient data to indicate that brains decide.

    No you are thinking of someone with a closed mind
    an open mind is one that does not come to a conclusion based only on unsupported assumption.

    peace

    Then why are you insisting on a conclusion of “immaterial minds” based only on an unsupported assumption?

  24. fifthmonarchyman:

    Of course it can. Software systems do this all the time.

    do any of the skeptics here want to correct Patrick.Or are you all comfortable with the idea that your operating system is conscious?

    I was responding to this statement of yours (which you conveniently left out of your response):

    Deciding is simply the act of determining that option one is less desirable than option two. Something that matter can not do by the way

    Nothing about consciousness there. Don’t try to put words in my mouth.

  25. Patrick: do any of the skeptics here want to correct Patrick.Or are you all comfortable with the idea that your operating system is conscious?

    I was responding to this statement of yours (which you conveniently left out of your response):

    Nothing about consciousness there.Don’t try to put words in my mouth.

    FYI – he’s not putting words in your mouth; he’s simply assuming everyone (or most everyone) buys into his opinion that decision making requires consciousness. He has declared such and insists he’s correct by fiat. Hence his response above.

    Personally, I’m with you on this point. My computer and smart phone do pretty well at decision making given the standard definition of decision.

  26. Robin,

    You then, like Patrick, have a very poor understanding of what computers do.

    Saying that computers make decisions is like saying a pinball game makes a decision when you pull the arm back and shoot the ball somewhere. The pinball game is deciding where the ball should go, wow!

    I am sure monkeys could be similarly fooled.

  27. phoodoo:
    Robin,

    You then, like Patrick, have a very poor understanding of what computers do.

    No, I just don’t conflate decision making with mystical revelation or autonomous, immaterial souls.

    Saying that computers make decisions is like saying a pinball game makes a decision when you pull the arm back and shoot the ball somewhere.The pinball game is deciding where the ball should go, wow!

    Ugg…terrible analogy. Pinball machines have no alternatives to consider based on changing information. My phone, OTOH, considers competing inputs all the time and makes recommendations after assessing them. That to me is the definition of decision making.

    I am sure monkeys could be similarly fooled.

    But not you…

  28. Patrick: Nothing about consciousness there. Don’t try to put words in my mouth.

    There is no such thing as unconscious deciding.

    peace

  29. Robin: Pinball machines have no alternatives to consider based on changing information.

    considering is something that requires consciousness. Pinballs like software are just responding to stimuli. No consideration is happening.

    A pinball or software will simply take the path of least resistance depending on the parameters set up for them. Just like a river.

    There is no deciding there is no thinking there is no consideration.

    I can’t believe that this is even a topic of discussion.

    peace

  30. fifthmonarchyman:

    Nothing about consciousness there. Don’t try to put words in my mouth.

    There is no such thing as unconscious deciding.

    Once again you are ignoring the definitions we’ve been using:

    Your definition of “decide” is “to choose between one possibility or another”. I provided a dictionary definition of “choose”:
    a) pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives.
    b) decide on a course of action, typically after rejecting alternatives.

    There is no requirement for consciousness in those. You’re adding that gratuitously (and thereby begging the question).

    Please explain, with explicit reference to those definitions, why you think software can’t demonstrate the behavior of deciding.

  31. Patrick: Please explain, with explicit reference to those definitions, why you think software can’t demonstrate the behavior of deciding.

    deciding requires consciousness
    selecting requires consciousness

    This is not rocket science.

    quote:
    consciousness– the condition of being conscious : the normal state of being awake and able to understand what is happening around you
    end quote

    from here

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness

    you can’t decide or select unless you are able to understand what is happening.

    peace

  32. fifthmonarchyman:

    Please explain, with explicit reference to those definitions, why you think software can’t demonstrate the behavior of deciding.

    deciding requires consciousness
    selecting requires consciousness

    Not according to the definitions that you, yet again, ignored.

    Try again, unless you’re simply going to repeat your baseless assertions, in which case the honest response is to admit that you cannot support them.

  33. Patrick: Not according to the definitions that you, yet again, ignored.

    The definitions contain the words decide and select which in turn need to be defined.

    Any definition of these terms will contain implicitly or explicitly the idea of conscious thought.

    It’s what the words mean

    select-carefully choose as being the best or most suitable:

    decide-come to a resolution in the mind as a result of consideration:

    peace

  34. Patrick: pick out or select

    I guess you have to go back to your definitions and tell us what pick out or select means.

    You think a computer is picking or choosing something, because you can’t watch the electric switches moving. Gee, it sure looks like it is choosing, all by itself. And as long as that is what it LOOKS like it is doing, just like a pinball machine looks like it is deciding to bounce the ball this way and that, I guess it must be deciding. As long as you don’t understand what is actually happening inside a computer, well, there you go. Fooled just like a monkey playing pinball.

  35. fmm,
    Where does it say in the bible that brains don’t decide but minds do, and that minds are separate from brains?

    phoodoo,
    no, what books do you recommend people read to get up to speed on Faith Healing and PSI?

  36. Patrick: Try again, unless you’re simply going to repeat your baseless assertions, in which case the honest response is to admit that you cannot support them.

    There are about 1341 comments on this thread currently. If they could have, they would have but they will never ever admit it. Just look at how phoodoo is behaving, he’s taking after Mung in the word lawyering championships! And fmm is doing the opposite, providing definitions then ignoring them.

    phoodoo, how do you know that brains don’t decide, minds do? Is it written in your holy book? What page?

  37. OMagain: Where does it say in the bible that brains don’t decide but minds do, and that minds are separate from brains?

    1) Why are you so obsessed with God.
    2) The Bible doesn’t speak about brains too much but about hearts
    3) In this universe AFAIKT Minds are not separate from brains. The mind is a irreducibly complex thing in which the brain plays a big part.
    4) we have covered this repeatedly why did you miss it?

    peace

  38. OMagain: And fmm is doing the opposite, providing definitions then ignoring them.

    you need to provide evidence for that charge or retract it.

    peace

  39. I’ve asked this before and received no answer: What the hell is this “irreducibly complex” business supposed to mean?

    (I get that it’s probably fun to use those words, but still…..)

  40. walto: I’ve asked this before and received no answer: What the hell is this “irreducibly complex” business supposed to mean?

    Formally, a system S is “irreducibly complex” just in case (1) S normally performs function F; (2) S it is comprised of components {c1, c2, c3 . . . cn}; (3) S would not be able to F if any component were removed.

    But if F is the target of selection (“blood-pumping hearts evolved in order to distribute oxygen throughout the body”), and S could not exist without all its components already integrated, then we cannot appeal to F in order to explain how the components of S became functionally integrated.

    Thus “irreducible complexity” is taken to be an obstacle to the possibility of evolution of any system apart from very minor changes.

    All of this, by the way, is entirely orthogonal to the metaphysical questions about whether or not there is an immaterial component to persons.

  41. Thanks, KN. That’s a very odd concept of irreducibility IMO, and I don’t think what you say they think follows from the claim of irreducible complexity actually does follow. But, assuming that’s what they mean by the phrase, I still want to know what the claim that the mind/brain combo is irreducibly complex is supposed to mean. That both parts are necessary for….consciousness? Is the mind part on this view supposed to be something other than some construction of the conscious events? Do you find that picture coherent?

  42. fifthmonarchyman,

    FMM, as you often quote the Bible in defense of what seem to be scientific or secular philosophical positions, it seems to me to make perfect sense for OMagain to ask if you’ve got some scriptural basis for your claims about human brain functionality. There’s often just no telling what Godly stuff you’ll come out with!

  43. walto: Thanks, KN. That’s a very odd concept of irreducibility IMO, and I don’t think what you say they think follows from the claim of irreducible complexity actually does follow.

    KN’s explanation was pretty good. But you are quite right. The ID people are just wrong about what follows. It is the modern ID version of the old creationist “what use is half an eye”.

    But, assuming that’s what they mean by the phrase, I still want to know what the claim that the mind/brain oombo is irreducibly complex is supposed to mean.

    It doesn’t mean anything. It is something that they throw out, without any supporting analysis.

    Behe at least made plausible arguments about the flagellum being irreducibly complex. His conclusions have been shown to be false. But nobody has done the analysis that would be needed to support claims that the mind/brain is irreducibly complex.

  44. walto:
    fifthmonarchyman,

    FMM, as you often quote the Bible in defense of what seem to be scientific or secular philosophical positions, it seems to me to make perfect sense for OMagain to ask if you’ve got some scriptural basis for your claims about human brain functionality. There’s often just no telling what Godly stuff you’ll come out with!

    Plus, it’s pretty clear that FMM isn’t getting his claims from anything like reality.

    Glen Davidson

Leave a Reply