Summations Only

Since initial condition are inherently indeterminable, causality breaks down on the subatomic level.
Causality is dependent on prior initial conditions, it is inherently impossible to "determine" the attribute of an electron or subatomic particle fully.randomness is natures way of maximizing entropy.I do not think dualism exist, I think our conscious brain can not be removed from the equation of what is manifesting our thoughts. Not woo per se, but some yet unexplained phenomenon.Edited by 1.61803, : removed the word "this"

For a valid answer to the why question we only need to understand the fundamental aspects. To use an analogy, we can't go back in time and use modern radar and satellites to measure the causes of thunderstorms. However, detailed study of some thunderstorms allows us to answer questions of why thunderstorms occur, including those that we did not observe or measure.The same for brain activity. Once we understand the general mechanics of decision making we have the answer to the why question in specific cases.

what if all possible selections where equally valid and the one that grandma X chose was actualized in this universe, but grandma Y and grandma Z in some other universe selected other teas?Edited by 1.61803, : added quote

Unless we're talking about purpose... But you're answering the question of what conditions lead to thunderstorms, or how they are caused. That doesn't address any purpose to the thunderstorm occuring. The fundamental aspects of Grandma X's brain that lead to her decision making do not address the purpose for her picking that particular tea.

I dunno, what?

And quantum mechanics is inherently random. So do you think your thoughts are indeterminate and random?

quote:

---

In modern times, J. J. C. Smart has described the problem of admitting indeterminism,

​

"Indeterminism does not confer freedom on us: I would feel that my freedom was impaired if I thought that a quantum mechanical trigger in my brain might cause me to leap into the garden and eat a slug".

---

Wiki on FreewillWhat does that even mean? Our thoughts are physical brain activity. Right? What else is there? So you don't like determinism because it is....well...a bit too deterministic. You presumably don't think that your thoughts are just the product of quantum randomness. So you have decided that just the right mix of determinism and indeterminism to allow things like "free will" must be present even if you cannot see any reason for that to be true or any reason that it would be. On what basis do you invoke this "unexplained phenomenon"....?

One theory to explain how wave functions can be every possible outcome and then when observed manifest a single out come is what is known as the multiverse theory. Every possible outcome is equally valid in it's perspective universe.

Why would we "have to" do those things? In principle (even if not remotely present technological practise) we could have recorded all of the relevant information about grandma's brain activity and sensory input. Her entire brain history if you will. And in doing so we could in principle answer why grandma chose that tea in that situation.Question: What data is it that you think science is inherently unable to obtain such that it cannot answer "why" the person in question did what they did? Dictating what it is science can and cannot do in principle based on your own prejudices makes you look like an ass.

Yes they do. Unless that is you are suggesting that Grandma has a "will" or "self" that is capable of imposing purpose but which is itself not a product of her physical brain.Dualism....... Whose purpose? Grandma's? But Grandma is her physical brain. Right?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Everything is deterministic. Given enough data a model can be constructed.But the snag is initial conditions are hinged on the indeterminable nature of subatomic particles.I do not have a "problem" with determinism at all, it is how the universe operates.It is yet to be determined if quantum discoherence in ambient media like brains can not have coherent domains like within molecules.I do not think my thoughts are determined. I think they are products of random determinism. On the basis that it is yet undetermined if such a thing as a human brain can act as a quantum computer.

Because a scientific investigation relies on running controlled experiments. How are you going to control the experiment to eliminate other variables? She only did it once. You can't even repeat it. Good data. Data from a controlled experiment that has eliminated variables. Yes, they can. But I was addressing what Taq was talking about with the hurricane. I could have worded that better, and would have if I knew you were just going to quote mine me and throw it back so you could try to push me into dualism again. I'm not. Let me know now if that is that all you got is to keep repeating "Dualism" to me and I'll stop wasting my time. Right. The actual purpose for Grandma X choosing that particular tea is going to have some fundamental aspect in her brain. But without the ability to set up a controlled experiment, you're not going to be able to scientifically investigate why this particular Grandma chose that particular tea in this particular circumstance. You could figure conditions that cause brains make decisions, but that's not an answer to the purpose in this situation. The purpose relies on the idividual and you can't control that. Its not about some dualistic data that science cannot touch, its about the limits of the methodology.

It's like saying if granny was born 1 million timesCould every single instance of granny from zygote to her current age be reproduced down to the atom?Could every nerve cell firing be replicated exact?Could it be 100 percent conclusive which tea each incarnation would choose?Its all about initial conditions. And also every probablistic cascade downstream from every random event upstream.Science can make good accurate predictions, thats why CAT Scans work, factoring in the randomness of particles. Schrodingers equations do just that. Wave functions propagate in a determistic fashion. The computer fills in the gaps.

Purpose and mechanism are one in the same. What is the purpose of Grandma choosing tea over coffee? A fundamental knowledge of how the brain works can answer that question. It can be due to reinforced positive feedback from previous cups of coffee, caffeine addiction, etc. Why not?

A properly controlled experiment may not be what you think it is. Controls are there so that you can trust the measurements you are making. For a brain scan, a control can be as simple as proper contrast within the imaging procedure. You don't need to control that anymore than you need to control the weather to understand how it works.

Grandma's purposes are a product of grandma's brain activity. With sufficient information about grandma's brain activity and the sensory inputs that cause this brain activity we can scientifically investigate grandma's purposes. Yes. And we can, in principle, obtain all of the physical data pertaining to that can't we? Yes it is. Unless you are saying that grandma's purposes are not the product of her brain activity. But you can't be saying that because that would be dualism. Which you say you are not invoking. I have described to you how in principle all of the necessary data can be recorded in a controlled manner which can be subsequently analysed objectively. We can't repeat the Big Bang, human evolution, the formation of the Andes, the origin of the moon etc. etc. etc. etc. Most of the things science does investigate cannot be replicated and repeated in whole in laboratories. What the hell is it that you think is so special about grandma's brain that means we need more than all of the sensory input and brain activity data in order to investigate her purposes? Purposes which are themselves products of this brain activity. On one hand you insist that we cannot discern purpose from brain activity. This seems pretty darn dualistic whether you accept it or not.On the other hand you seem to be asserting that science can only ever investigate events which can be repeated in whole in laboratories. This later assertion is just demonstrable nonsense.