Determinism Is Self Defeating

[pocaracas]

It's really not complex guys.

Determinists fail their own test of logic. People that believe in Free Will do not.

Their next response is typically "Well, we are trying to change your mind, not because we recognise you have free will, but that we are programmed to try and change your mind" Well, that's a pretty good cop out for failing your own test of logic by creating a concept unbound by reason or evidence.

If determinism is self admittedly impossible to confirm or deny by the determinist, why even bother talking about it then? Should we have these conversations about everything we imagine but can never verify? "In another universe that we can never get to, all planets are ontop of a giant floating turtle. Discuss."

If indeterminism is true, then how can we verify it?
Why is it that indeterminists only pick cases where the system is so complex that no computer available today could hold the geometry of that system, let alone process how it works?
For any simple enough system, we can develop even simpler models that can be computed and the results of such computations approximate extremely well the observed behavior of that system. This is a horizontal observation from the tiniest of systems to the largest.... they can be determined, provided the models used are valid. (electron orbits around nucleus; planets/comet orbits around stars)

If a human mind does not deterministically arise from the workings of the brain, then the same should happen with a simpler brain and mind, like that of a fly, or an ant.... even these are so complex that we can't model.
So... what is a small enough brain that we can model to show a direct link between brain function and "mental activity"?


Maybe... just maybe, we are not the fist group of people with this idea...

This book (Neural Networks And Animal Behavior) seems very interesting.. too bad a lot of pages are missing from this google books preview:
http://books.google.pt/books?id=YGLuAdRd...&q&f=false


Then we have a nice paper, of which I can only read the abstract but that also sounds very interesting:
Neural Networks That Mimic the Human Brain: Turing Machines versus Machines That Generate Conscious Sensations

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10....0-0_97.pdf

Abstract

This paper shows that neural-net based machines may be designed to mimic the consciousness-sensations generated by the human brain. It is shown that the standard definition of biological modalities of the tactile and visual receptors, coupled with the law of specific nerve energy, leads to a fundamental relationship that relates human subjective experiences, or consciousness, to explicit neuronal activity. Such a relationship is a giant leap forward in the study of consciousness since it converts the parameters of consciousness, which have never been amenable to mathematical calculations, into mathematically calculable functions.

or this one
A hybrid neural network model for consciousness
http://www.zju.edu.cn/jzus/article.php?d....2004.1440

Abstract: A new framework for consciousness is introduced based upon traditional artificial neural network models. This framework reflects explicit connections between two parts of the brain: one global working memory and distributed modular cerebral networks relating to specific brain functions. Accordingly this framework is composed of three layers, physical mnemonic layer and abstract thinking layer, which cooperate together through a recognition layer to accomplish information storage and cognition using algorithms of how these interactions contribute to consciousness: (1) the reception process whereby cerebral subsystems group distributed signals into coherent object patterns; (2) the partial recognition process whereby patterns from particular subsystems are compared or stored as knowledge; and (3) the resonant learning process whereby global workspace stably adjusts its structure to adapt to patterns’ changes. Using this framework, various sorts of human actions can be explained, leading to a general approach for analyzing brain functions.

So... it seems models do exist and whatdoyouknow?!... they do seem to mimic some mental functions.
If simple models which are already available can mimic mental functions, why Can you accept that more complex models can mimic more complex mental functions?
Ultimately, this means that the entire human mind can be modeled, given enough computing power (not yet available) and, as such, is indeed deterministic.