What is the point of free will?

[CHRISTINE77]

Of course not. But I can extrapolate from my experience. Your question was how to define “wish and desire”. There is no need to define it, because it is obvious.

Not obvious at all. Your experience is not a measure of everything.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Everyone comes at this problem with empty hands my friend. Only some of them also claim to have the “fullness of truth.” Ignorance of the “fullness of truth” does not preclude one from pointing out obvious falsity, self-contradiction, or incoherence.

And, yet, here you are with “empty hands” claiming to have the wherewithall to recognize “obvious falsity, self-contradiction, or incoherence.”

The only “incoherence” is the one that makes such an “empty” claim with regard to the “truth.”
To wit: To claim that no one is competent to assess truth claims, but then you go on to assess truth claims.

Your use of “fullness of truth” to characterize the claim of the Church is rather misleading. The claim is more like that Christ is the “fullness of truth” or that the “fullness of truth” has been revealed through the teaching of the Church – not that any particular person in the Church (or outside of it) actually possesses the “fullness of truth.”

Now, if you wish to assume to yourself the capacity, right or obligation to point out “obvious falsity, self-contradiction, or incoherence,” then you need to be prepared to be challenged with regard to whether you are correct in your analysis.

You can’t use a shield of presumed ignorance to dismiss all claims about truth and then surreptitiously produce a dirk from under your cloak to carve up the truth.

Total determinism is a possible answer to the OP: free-will is an illusion so of course there appears to be “no point.”

Free will is an illusion?

Whatever happened to “Everyone comes at this problem with empty hands my friend?”

I suppose, then “everyone” does NOT include you. You were just speaking of “everyone else,” then?

Otherwise, we can say that the “point” of free will is to undergird our notions of moral responsibility. For me, “free will” is axiomatic. I have no understanding of how it works, and I fully admit that it appears to be impossible since it contradicts God’s providence as well as the knowable, regular workings of the universe. This question is unsolvable, we should leave it at that. No amount of sophistry will bridge this gap. Our hands are empty.

Those “empty hands” seem to have accomplished a great deal of “molding” of your ideas without you even being aware of it, it seems – just enough to support your own presuppositions while giving you warrant for dismissing those you have decided are “sophistry.”

Interesting sequence of logic in your post…

1. “Ignorance of the ‘fullness of truth’ does not preclude one from pointing out obvious falsity, self-contradiction, or incoherence.”
2. Free will is an illusion.
3. “Free will” is axiomatic.
4. This question is unsolvable, we should leave it at that.

To claim the question is “unsolvable” presumes that you are in a position to KNOW that. It appears that you are giving your “empty hands” full license and sufficient “fullness of truth” to make such an absolute declaration.

Just “pointing out the obvious falsity,” is all.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course not. But I can extrapolate from my experience. Your question was how to define “wish and desire”. There is no need to define it, because it is obvious.

By what epistemological “metric” or tool is it made “obvious?” This was the “objective” standard you, yourself, set remember?

Aside from the fact that you have chastised everyone about the numerous opportunities over decades of time that they have failed to provide such a metric, now, in one glaring presumption you wave away the need for this “alternative epistemology” under the guise of “it is obvious.”

Obvious to whom? That would be a subjective determination, would it not?

I suppose now you are claiming that the reason “de gustibus non est disputandum” is because it is “obvious.” No need for an “objective” epistemology then, when “extrapolation” will do the work for you?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

And, yet, here you are with “empty hands” claiming to have the wherewithall to recognize “obvious falsity, self-contradiction, or incoherence.”

The only “incoherence” is the one that makes such an “empty” claim with regard to the “truth.”
To wit: To claim that no one is competent to assess truth claims, but then you go on to assess truth claims.

Sir, I humbly suggest that you examine your motives in this dialogue. Are you here to study wisdom, or to employ sophistry with the aim of defending your pre-conceived notions? I did not claim nor suggest that “no one is competent to assess truth claims.” I said that no one has ever given a satisfactory and coherent explanation of “free will.” In fact, I explicitly stated that our ignorance does not preclude analysis of truth claims. Did you misread?

Your use of “fullness of truth” to characterize the claim of the Church is rather misleading. The claim is more like that Christ is the “fullness of truth” or that the “fullness of truth” has been revealed through the teaching of the Church – not that any particular person in the Church (or outside of it) actually possesses the “fullness of truth.”

The claim “the fullness of truth has been revealed through the teaching of the Church” is itself a nested claim. We have no reason to suppose this claim to the “fullness of truth” is truthful unless we accept the claim. Indeed, the only way we would know is if we possessed the “fullness of truth.” However, we don’t need to know everything to know when someone is contradicting themselves or speaking incoherently.

Now, if you wish to assume to yourself the capacity, right or obligation to point out “obvious falsity, self-contradiction, or incoherence,” then you need to be prepared to be challenged with regard to whether you are correct in your analysis.

You can’t use a shield of presumed ignorance to dismiss all claims about truth and then surreptitiously produce a dirk from under your cloak to carve up the truth.

Nice imagery. I agree with you. I see it like this:

Church: “Get ya truth here, hot fresh truth, we are always right, we have “the fullness of truth,” up is down, left is right, god is man, bread is god, 3=1”

Me: “Up is not down, you clearly don’t have the fullness of truth.”

Church’s internet defense squad: Wow who are you to talk buddy? Do you have the “fullness of truth?” Huh?

Me: "Of course not, no one does…but nevertheless up is not down. It takes only one falsity to show the claimant does not possess the “fullness of truth.”

Free will is an illusion?

Whatever happened to “Everyone comes at this problem with empty hands my friend?”

I suppose, then “everyone” does NOT include you. You were just speaking of “everyone else,” then?

Those “empty hands” seem to have accomplished a great deal of “molding” of your ideas without you even being aware of it, it seems – just enough to support your own presuppositions while giving you warrant for dismissing those you have decided are “sophistry.”

I don’t believe that free will is an illusion personally, I’m merely pointing out that this is an alternative solution. Indeed, many of the greatest philosophers and scientists espoused determinism. Many religions preach determinism of various kinds. I’d wager that a robust belief in “free-will” is the minority opinion of mankind.

Interesting sequence of logic in your post…

1. “Ignorance of the ‘fullness of truth’ does not preclude one from pointing out obvious falsity, self-contradiction, or incoherence.”
2. Free will is an illusion.
3. “Free will” is axiomatic.
4. This question is unsolvable, we should leave it at that.

To claim the question is “unsolvable” presumes that you are in a position to KNOW that. It appears that you are giving your “empty hands” full license and sufficient “fullness of truth” to make such an absolute declaration.

Just “pointing out the obvious falsity,” is all.

I accept 1,3, and 4. Point two is a concession where I recognize that determinism is a possible answer to this question. I have faith in free-will. I can’t support it with sufficient reason.

You’re right, I don’t know that the question of free will is unsolvable, I merely suppose it, based on the fact that some of the most brilliant minds in human history have struggled and fallen short. I believe the debate about this question will yield very little. Unless we somehow unpack the inner workings of the human mind/body to a degree where we can predict, with perfect accuracy, what a given person will say or do (proof of determinism)…we have no answers.

 

[Aloysium]

…we have no answers.

Oops, I have an answer, and I will assert that I know it.

This “we” then, apparently does not include me nor the sources from which I derive the truth.

Hmm, well actually, nothing to see here, just the common royal variety - what “we” supposedly think boils down to what you understand.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nice imagery. I agree with you. I see it like this:

Church: “Get ya truth here, hot fresh truth, we are always right, we have “the fullness of truth,” up is down, left is right, god is man, bread is god, 3=1”

Me: “Up is not down, you clearly don’t have the fullness of truth.”

Church’s internet defense squad: Wow who are you to talk buddy? Do you have the “fullness of truth?” Huh?

Me: "Of course not, no one does…but nevertheless up is not down. It takes only one falsity to show the claimant does not possess the “fullness of truth.”

Very interesting use of sophistry.

The church does not claim “god is man,” it claims God became man. That is not the same as “god is man” because you are supposing an equivalency, which would entail “man is God,” not the Church’s claim. Ditto with “God is bread,” which entails “bread is God.”

Neither does the Church say “3=1” It says there are three persons in the one nature of God. This would mean something akin to saying that it is in the nature of humanity (singular) to be made up of billions of human persons (plural.) This does not entail “billions=1.”

As to “up is not down,” is there a definable “up” as far as the universe is concerned? You should talk to a few Australians about that, I suppose.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

A better map is here…
phibetaiota.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/china-view-of-world-upside-down.jpg

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t believe that free will is an illusion personally, I’m merely pointing out that this is an alternative solution. Indeed, many of the greatest philosophers and scientists espoused determinism. Many religions preach determinism of various kinds.** I’d wager that a robust belief in “free-will” is the minority opinion of mankind.**

/B]You’re right, I don’t know that the question of free will is unsolvable, I merely suppose it, based on the fact that some of the most brilliant minds in human history have struggled and fallen short. I believe the debate about this question will yield very little. Unless we somehow unpack the inner workings of the human mind/body to a degree where we can predict, with perfect accuracy, what a given person will say or do (proof of determinism)…we have no answers.

As to the first in bold, a minority opinion is no proof of a poor opinion.

As to the second in bold, “perfect accuracy” of prediction assumes objective omniscience, a state of mind few scientists will agree exists in anyone anywhere.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sir, I humbly suggest that you examine your motives in this dialogue. Are you here to study wisdom, or to employ sophistry with the aim of defending your pre-conceived notions? I did not claim nor suggest that “no one is competent to assess truth claims.” I said that no one has ever given a satisfactory and coherent explanation of “free will.” In fact, I explicitly stated that our ignorance does not preclude analysis of truth claims. Did you misread?

Oh, I don’t know.

This…

Originally Posted by PumpkinCookie
Everyone comes at this problem with empty hands my friend.

… seems to imply MORE than “no one has ever given a satisfactory and coherent explanation of free will.” (Leaving aside the obvious issue of how you could possibly know that without 1) having read everything ever written about free will and 2) your not having established your competency with regard to being able to assess any of those “explanations” in the first place.)

Your use of “everyone comes at this problem” seems to imply the “empty hands” are endemic and universal to the state of “everyone” in the past, now and evermore.

I read what you write just fine, thank you. What you intended to say, well I can do nothing about that.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Oh, I don’t know.

This…

… seems to imply MORE than “no one has ever given a satisfactory and coherent explanation of free will.” (Leaving aside the obvious issue of how you could possibly know that without 1) having read everything ever written about free will and 2) your not having established your competency with regard to being able to assess any of those “explanations” in the first place.)

Your use of “everyone comes at this problem” seems to imply the “empty hands” are endemic and universal to the state of “everyone” in the past, now and evermore.

I read what you write just fine, thank you. What you intended to say, well I can do nothing about that.

The word “this” in the sentence you quote is an indexical pointing to “the problem of free will and determinism.” It’s a long and contentious debate involving some of the greatest geniuses to have ever lived.

I do not need to have read every single work about the problem of free will to know it is still an open question. If someone had ever come up with a satisfactory answer, it would be taught to children and we wouldn’t be debating it on internet forums. We have a satisfactory solution for calculating the circumference of circles, it’s a settled question. So, we teach it to children and it isn’t a subject of contention.The nature of free will, or whether there is such a thing, or whether it is a coherent concept are certainly not settled questions. We’ve had thousands of years to work on this, and very few conclusions, in my opinion. For reference, check out this excellent broad overview:

informationphilosopher.com/freedom/history/

I do not mean “everyone” in the sense of “∀” but rather something like “every philosopher/theologian with whose writings I am familiar.” Is it possible there can be a satisfactory explanation? I think so, but I do not see a path to it. Let’s address your other point, just for kicks…

Here are some claims:

1. Jesus is a man.
2. Jesus is god.

Necessarily, “a man” is god, according to Christians (if identity relations are transitive)

Now, you’ll say that Jesus is completely a man and completely god. This is intolerable to common sense and reason, is it not?

And, similarly, you’ll say the bread “turned into” or “became” god in the case of communion. It’s not really bread anymore, it’s actually Jesus, who is both a man and god, but appears to be bread. This is intolerable to common sense and reason, is it not?

I have no reason to suppose these claims are true just based on the prior probability. It is extraordinarily unlikely that a man is also God, and so I would need serious evidence to believe this claim. I don’t have this evidence. It is unthinkable that a given piece of bread is actually God, and so I would need serious evidence to believe this claim. I don’t have this evidence.

If you told me, “up is down” I would say that is simply impossible due to the definition of the very words. And so, if you say god is perfectly simple but also a trinity, I would say it is simply impossible due to the very definition of the words. I won’t quote the Torah here, because I assume you are familiar with the great pains the author takes to assure us that God is a singularity and not a plurality of any sort.

I’m not trying to convince you to change your mind, just explaining why I balk at the notion that the Church (proclaiming what I perceive to be absurdities and contradictions) has the “fullness of truth.”

That said, I believe we’ve answered the OP’s question. The point of free will is to allow us to have a moral universe. Whether or not we can prove that free will exists or is coherent is an additional difficulty.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The point of free will is to allow us to have a moral universe. Whether or not we can prove that free will exists or is coherent is an additional difficulty.

Whether or not we can prove free will exists, we take it as axiomatic that it must exist or there will be no moral universe. There is no difficulty in drawing that conclusion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Let’s address your other point, just for kicks…

Here are some claims:

1. Jesus is a man.
2. Jesus is god.

Necessarily, “a man” is god, according to Christians (if identity relations are transitive)

Now, you’ll say that Jesus is completely a man and completely god. This is intolerable to common sense and reason, is it not?

And, similarly, you’ll say the bread “turned into” or “became” god in the case of communion. It’s not really bread anymore, it’s actually Jesus, who is both a man and god, but appears to be bread. This is intolerable to common sense and reason, is it not?

I have no reason to suppose these claims are true just based on the prior probability. It is extraordinarily unlikely that a man is also God, and so I would need serious evidence to believe this claim. I don’t have this evidence. It is unthinkable that a given piece of bread is actually God, and so I would need serious evidence to believe this claim. I don’t have this evidence.

If you told me, “up is down” I would say that is simply impossible due to the definition of the very words. And so, if you say god is perfectly simple but also a trinity, **I would say it is simply impossible due to the very definition of the words. **

Well, this is all very interesting.

Except that to decide on the possibility of whether the Trinitarian God could exist or could make himself into “a man” or into bread, it is necessary for human beings like you or I to know a priori what precisely God is fundamentally capable of.

To base and restrict all the possibilities available to the creative power of God upon a frailly contrived human “definition” of God would seem to be constraining his omnipotence according to the limitations of human imagination and intelligence, as if only what human beings can possibly say about God are the necessary and sufficient determiners of all that God can possibly do. Surely, all that omnipotence can accomplish is not to be determined by definitions contrived by the contingencies and frailties of human epistemology.

To claim that God cannot be bread, for example, it is necessary, minimally, to know completely and fully what it means for bread to be bread. And to claim that God cannot be a man, it is necessary to know completely and fully what it means for a man to be a man. Other than the appearances, we don’t really understand either of those in any deep and profound ontological sense any more than we understand what it means to be a bat.

Oh sure, we can make tentative and apparently meaningful statements about how things appear to be, but whether those statements really have any profound meaning is a wide open question.

If it were true that God’s power is necessarily limited by our “definitions” of God or assessments of God’s power then the human accomplishments of tomorrow must necessarily be restricted to what humans imagine to be the case today and what was imagined ten thousand years before today. The limitations and definitions of what human beings are capable of, considered so profound and confirmed hundreds of years ago have been steadily abrogated. A fortiori, so, too, our definitive proclamations about what God is or is not capable of should be viewed with great trepidation. Be wary of chronological snobbery.

You need to see that human “definitions” mean very little with regard to ontology. Oh, sure they bring us a heightened sense of our own importance as if what we know has some great significance with regard to what is and what could never be, but, really, a touch of humility just might do us some good right about now.

Whatever happened to your “Everyone comes with empty hands?”

Definitions do not determine ontology. If anything they can only describe ontology and THAT only very thinly. This is why ontological arguments are not well accepted.

I don’t know about you, but to understand at all what it means to consciously “will” something and the requirements which attend and underwrite that possibility remain completely incomprehensible to me. In fact, getting at those, I suppose, would require the omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence of God, which is why I think, with Augustine – if I read him correctly – that authentic and true human free will is actually grounded in and underwritten by the omnipotence of God.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Of course not. But I can extrapolate from my experience. Your question was how to define “wish and desire”. There is no need to define it, because it is obvious.

I guess that with “obvious” you want to mean that when, in your childhood, you learnt from others the meaning of those words you did not need definitions. You just learnt, by trial and error, how to use them. You always need a foundation to build upon. Those words, and many others, are part of your foundations. It is good if you spend some time inspecting them, in order to verify if you can build another story upon them.

The language you learnt constitute an spontaneous effort to give shape to your world, to introduce certain order in it, to rationalize it to a certain degree. The result of such first rationalization effort (which is not your personal effort, of course), is your foundation. You receive many other influences along your life, and perhaps you can even add to them your own individual efforts. The hidden purpose of all this is always the same: To find the order around you. We were talking about this at the beginning of our dialogue, do you remember?: We talked about the free, the stochastic and the deterministic processes, do you remember?.. Even the classification of them, the act of calling them “processes”, is a way to reduce the chaos in front of you into order… Is it possible to rationalize the whole of reality? Some individuals have said “yes!”, some others have said “no!”, some “I don’t know”; and each group has developed innumerable discourses trying to justify its position. You have been exposed to many of those heterogeneous discourses and the chaos that they were intended to dissipate has been infiltrated into your soul, but you are not aware of it. Paradox!.. But this happens…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I don’t know about you, but to understand at all what it means to consciously “will” something and the requirements which attend and underwrite that possibility remain completely incomprehensible to me. In fact, getting at those, I suppose, would require the omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence of God, which is why I think, with Augustine – if I read him correctly – that authentic and true human free will is actually grounded in and underwritten by the omnipotence of God.

:bigyikes:

:bigyikes:

:bigyikes:

A shocking admission on this forum!! I can’t believe it!! In fact, if I were hearing this second-hand, I wouldn’t believe it.

Oldcelt, Bradski, Pallas Athene, that dude who started the thread about Molinism, many others, and I have been hammering away at this very point for months on this forum.

The choices proceeding from our freedom are underwritten by God. Yes, yes, yes, that is required if he is omnipotent and omniscient. If he underwrites them, he is at least a little bit morally responsible for them, since he is more free than any human.

This doesn’t have to mean that God is not omnibenevolent, I think. But, we may have arrived at yet another question with no answers, in my opinion.

Anyway, just had to comment on that statement because I’ve never seen anyone on this forum except self-proclaimed atheists/agnostics/deists/other do anything but ignore or refuse to engage with that idea.

Regarding the rest of your post: OK I appreciate your ideas.

Edit: LOL this is my 666th post! My true nature has been revealed! Time to go home I guess, it’s much warmer there…

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Determinism is not an axiom. Can it be a conclusion?

What would imply to me if I decided to postulate determinism as a basic principle for my subsequent meditations and actions in general? It would definitely be an strange (very strange!) act of faith! To be coherent I would have to reduce myself to a system that reacts only to immediate stimuli; and that would imply a reduction in the reality in which I am immersed.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Whether or not we can prove free will exists, we take it as axiomatic that it must exist or there will be no moral universe. There is no difficulty in drawing that conclusion.

“It is certain that the mortality or immortality of the soul must make an entire difference to morality.” Blaise Pascal

We may therefore take it as axiomatic that the immortality of the soul is true, or else we must believe that those who are evil may ultimately prevail with impunity over those who are good.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

It is not that bad. There is a coherent definition of “libertarian freedom”, that thoughts are the interactions of the neurons of the brain, but “life” is elusive.

Just think of the info-bots, relatively simple programs that wander around the net, and collect information about different subjects. Obviously they are not “biologically alive”, but they can be said to be “intellectually alive”. They are subset of computer viruses, they propagate themselves from node to node in a network, they analyze their environment, and send information back to their originators. Definitely an “intelligent behavior”.

I just was thinking about those info-bots this past weekend…

You attribute “intelligent behavior” (I am aware of your quotes, Pallas) to those simple programs, and you say they wander around the net. I assume that those programs don’t wander really, but they are certain arrangements of minuscule electronic devices, which in principle control the flow of electrons through a circuitry. I understand that for you all this is just a metaphor. If we establish an analogy between that system and our organism, our brain would be analogous to the net and the neurotransmitters which migrate from one point to the other in our brain would be analogous to the electrical particles. Programs would be analogous to subsystems of neurons which are interconnected in a specific way. Then you say that “thoughts are the interactions of the neurons of the brain”; and surely by this you mean physical-chemical interactions, which could be described on the basis of thermodynamics, transfer phenomena and chemical kinetics, which are theories about deterministic processes…

And I was thinking, Pallas: several thought processes open to me here. Which one shall I start first with? And I made up my mind for this: all decision making involve thought. But according to Pallas, thoughts are physical-chemical interactions in our brains; and physical-chemical processes are deterministic processes. If this specific decision making of mine concerned something different from thinking, all I could conclude is that my decision making involved deterministic processes. However, my decision making was pure thinking. Therefore I can conclude, based on Pallas statements, that my decision making was a deterministic process itself. In other words, freedom is, according to Pallas, a deterministic process. Or at least, some free acts are deterministic processes.

Strange! Isn’t it?.. But there must be something true in your statement anyhow, because against my will this thought happened to me: “how can Pallas maintain such contradictory thoughts? Isn’t that interesting?”.

Can it be then that at least certain thoughts are irreducible to mere physical-chemical processes, dear Pallas?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I just was thinking about those info-bots this past weekend…

I had something else in mind for them (the question of what is LIFE?), but let’s use your way of looking at them.

If we establish an analogy between that system and our organism, our brain would be analogous to the net and the neurotransmitters which migrate from one point to the other in our brain would be analogous to the electrical particles. Programs would be analogous to subsystems of neurons which are interconnected in a specific way. Then you say that “thoughts are the interactions of the neurons of the brain”; and surely by this you mean physical-chemical interactions, which could be described on the basis of thermodynamics, transfer phenomena and chemical kinetics, which are theories about deterministic processes…

I am glad you mentioned thermodynamics.

And I was thinking, Pallas: several thought processes open to me here. Which one shall I start first with? And I made up my mind for this: all decision making involve thought. But according to Pallas, thoughts are physical-chemical interactions in our brains; and physical-chemical processes are deterministic processes.

Hold it right there. The physical-chemical processes are NOT deterministic, they are stochastic. But this is not the most important point.

Look at a “real” computer, not the “wetware” of the brain. The motion of the electrons are governed by the laws of physics, so the movement of the electrons are deterministic. However that says nothing about the program which is what the ones-and-zeros represent. The program (or the thoughts) can be a spreadsheet, or a word-processor or a market-analysis and projection. The movement of the electrons are determined by the laws of physics, but what they represent (their “meaning”) is not.

Can it be then that at least certain thoughts are irreducible to mere physical-chemical processes, dear Pallas?

The thoughts themselves ARE irreducible. The same electro-chemical interaction can represent all sorts of thoughts. But that does not mean that there is anything “supernatural” going on.

Consider the muscles of the legs. They perform their activities, so the “legs” move. But from the motion of the legs you cannot conclude if the person is running for fun or exercise, or he is running for his life. But from this it does not follow that the movement of the legs (running or walking or pumping iron) is considered “supernatural”. The activity cannot be reduced to the actual motion of the muscles, but it cannot be separated from the motion of the muscles either.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Look at a “real” computer, not the “wetware” of the brain. The motion of the electrons are governed by the laws of physics, so the movement of the electrons are deterministic. However that says nothing about the program which is what the ones-and-zeros represent. The program (or the thoughts) can be a spreadsheet, or a word-processor or a market-analysis and projection. The movement of the electrons are determined by the laws of physics, but what they represent (their “meaning”) is not.

what they represent to us? To whom else? In themselves they “re-present” nothing. But meaning and re-presentation are thoughts (physical-chemical processes in our brain, remember?) So, again, they are nothing -always according to you, Pallas-, but physical-chemical processes. Unless you say something else…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So, again, they are nothing -always according to you, Pallas-, but physical-chemical processes.

Of course. But the electro-chemical processes are not deterministic. Two people can look at the same picture and see something totally different. I keep wondering: what is your point?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Of course. But the electro-chemical processes are not deterministic. Two people can look at the same picture and see something totally different. I keep wondering: what is your point?

I am walking along your borderlines. Had someone else done this favor to you?