(May 17, 2025 at 5:41 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 17, 2025 at 5:17 pm)emjay Wrote: I'm not really sure I understand your objection. If a physical law predicts a given outcome in a given situation, and that given outcome occurs as a result of that law applied, then I have no problem in saying that that outcome was determined by the application of that law in that situation.

Right, but I would say you're making an explanatory or categorical leap that isn't warranted. Similar to confusing correlation with causation. When laws and theories predict something they aren't giving you an inference into causation. For the sake of illustration let's say we can accurately predict the rain about 75% of the times based on whether cows lay down. Clearly, the accuracy of the prediction is independent of the cause. We wouldn't say the cows determine the rain, just that the correlation allows us to make the prediction.

Just to be clear, are you referring to my epiphenomenalist stance, or to my to characterisation of physical processes, such as the behaviour of electrons in a circuit, as causal and therefore in this sense, determined?

If the former then I indeed accept that I'm only working with correlation not causation per se... no one has any theory of how the physical brain actually causes consciousness, so that is ultimately a leap of faith... but the stronger the correlations and predictions become, the more reasonable it is to take that leap of faith, and assume causation, IMO. And the amount of correlational evidence is overwhelming, and anyone arguing the counter case that consciousness is independent of the brain... and I don't know if you are arguing that, but if you believe in an afterlife, I assume you must be to some extent... has to answer why they even have a brain and why physical interactions with it, such as brain damage and drugs, have reliable and predictable effects on consciousness.

If we were rc cars being controlled by ghosts it would look much the same way.

(May 17, 2025 at 7:46 pm)emjay Wrote: Just to be clear, are you referring to my epiphenomenalist stance, or to my to characterisation of physical processes, such as the behaviour of electrons in a circuit, as causal and therefore in this sense, determined?

My comment wasn't about your views on consciousness, it’s only about your use of the word determined when referring to what physics does. My point is that physics describes what nature does, it doesn’t determine what it can do.

Adding another off-topic observation. For the last week+ Johnny has lived in this thread.

touch grass.

(May 17, 2025 at 8:26 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 17, 2025 at 7:46 pm)emjay Wrote: Just to be clear, are you referring to my epiphenomenalist stance, or to my to characterisation of physical processes, such as the behaviour of electrons in a circuit, as causal and therefore in this sense, determined?

My comment wasn't about your views on consciousness, it’s only about your use of the word “determined” when referring to what physics does. My point is that physical laws describe what nature does, they don’t determine it in any active sense.

Okay, I'm sorry if it causes confusion, but that's just how I use the word... the sentence 'the physical laws determine what will happen next' makes perfect sense to me, I'm sorry if it doesn't to you. It doesn't mean they have any intention or anything like that, but if they play out as expected, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to say they determine the outcome... as in they determine what the outcome will be, or is expected to be.

(May 17, 2025 at 8:40 pm)emjay Wrote: Okay, I'm sorry if it causes confusion, but that's just how I use the word... the sentence 'the physical laws determine what will happen next' makes perfect sense to me, I'm sorry if it doesn't to you. It doesn't mean they have any intention or anything like that, but if they play out as expected, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to say they determine the outcome... as in they determine what the outcome will be, or is expected, to be.

Then what do you say when competing theories predict and describe the same phenomenon? That they both determine the phenomenon?

Gravity isn't the reason the things fall down. Gravity is just a description of what it looks like when ghosts push them down.

Precisely, Newtonian physics describes gravity as a force between two objects and Relativity describes gravity as a curvature in spacetime. Both describe and predict the same phenomenon, but it would be nonsensical to say they both determine the phenomenon.

Right, because we all know a ghost does that.

(May 17, 2025 at 8:53 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Precisely, Newtonian physics describes gravity as a force between two objects and Relativity describes gravity as a curvature in spacetime. Both describe and predict the same phenomenon, but it would be nonsensical to say they both determine the phenomenon.

Okay, well I hadn't thought of that, so, fair enough. I was just meaning it as a general statement... that whatever the physical laws are... or turn out to be... determine what will happen next according to those laws... but yes, I see what you're saying.... perhaps my view was too general/simplistic.