Compatibilism: What's that About?

[DBT]

People are literally choosing.

Not if determinism is true. A realizable choice requires the ability to have done otherwise in the same circumstances. Determinism entails no such realizable option, just a determined progression of events.

Necessity:
''Necessity is the idea that everything that has ever happened and ever will happen is necessary, and can not be otherwise. Necessity is often opposed to chance and contingency. In a necessary world there is no chance. Everything that happens is necessitated.''

Primer;
If you accept regulative control as a necessary part of free will, it seems impossible either way:
1. Free will requires that given an act A, the agent could have acted otherwise
2. Indeterminate actions happens randomly and without intent or control
3. Therefore indeterminism and free will are incompatible
4. Determinate actions are fixed and unchangeable
5. Therefore determinism is incompatible with free will

 

[none]

Thrill seekers come from the home where parents are too busy to treat thier children with respect.
Thrill seekers come from all walks of life.
Kill for a Thrill.
- Alien jourgenson

 

[The AntiChris]

People are literally choosing.

Not if determinism is true.

If, in your view, 'choose' does not mean what people think it means, what is the source of the meaning of 'choose' that you are using?

 

[none]

People are literally choosing.

Not if determinism is true.

If, in your view, 'choose' does not mean what people think it means, what is the source of the meaning of 'choose' that you are using?

Semantics, you are looking for usage not meaning.

 

[DBT]

This has gone into repeat mode, a causal loop.

I can only point out that compatibilism fails at the point brain agency, that desire is shaped and formed by unconscious processes, upon which 'the desire to do X is being felt, there are no other constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, namely X.'

As it happens that the presence or consciousness has no bearing within a determined system, the conditions underpinning compatibilism must apply to all things within the system, therefore the universe is an example of free will.

Which is obviously not the case. The Universe doesn't have Will. The brain, while it generated urges and prompts in the form of 'will,' the brain does not function on the principle of will. Will is just another element of the system. Nothing special. Will is not free. Will is simply will.

Yes, I think that between the two of us we have covered the issue pretty well. Including these points ...

A desire is something we want to do. A will is a specific intention to do something. When faced with more than one thing that we want to do, we must choose from among our multiple options the single thing that we will do. Wherever within the brain this choosing happens (usually some combination of conscious and unconscious processing), we become aware of the choice as a conscious intent to do what we have chosen. This intent then motivates and directs our subsequent actions.

Free will is a freely chosen "I will". It has no meaning outside of a choosing operation. It is the subset of those choosing operations where the choosing was neither coerced nor unduly influenced. Thus, the universe does not have free will. Only the objects within the universe that perform choosing operations have, or don't have, free will in a given choice.

The brain of an intelligent species performs choosing. No other objects within the physical universe perform choosing, except for the computing machines that the brains of intelligent species have created.

I should probably add that all living organisms are biologically driven to survive, thrive, and reproduce. This may be viewed as a "biological will" that does not involve rational choosing, but only reflexive responses. With intelligence, we get the process of deliberation and a deliberately chosen will.

None of which relates to the nature of desire, will or motor action within the 'pecking order' of cognition. Will being experienced late in the process has no ability to alter what is felt, thought or done.

Cognition:
"And the electrical activity in these neurons is known to reflect the delivery of this chemical, dopamine, to the frontal cortex. Dopamine is one of several neurotransmitters thought to regulate emotional response, and is suspected of playing a central role in schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, and drug abuse," Montague says. "We think these dopamine neurons are making guesses at likely future rewards. The neuron is constantly making a guess at the time and magnitude of the reward."

"If what it expects doesn't arrive, it doesn't change its firing. If it expects a certain amount of reward at a particular time and the reward is actually higher, it's surprised by that and increases its delivery of dopamine," he explains. "And if it expects a certain level (of reward) and it actually gets less, it decreases its level of dopamine delivery."

Thus, says Montague, "what we see is that the dopamine neurons change the way they make electrical impulses in exactly the same way the animal changes his behavior. The way the neurons change their predictions correlates with the behavioral changes of the monkey almost exactly."

Whether one feels ''compelled'' or not, the decision making process itself is determined by the immediate condition of the neural circuitry (connectivity) and its own immediate information state (input and memory) in the instance of decision making (neural information processing), and not an act of conscious will. The latter is a consequence of the former condition, therefore cannot be described as 'free.'


Objects and events occur in the external world ->input of sensory information of objects and events ->propagation of related information throughout the neural networks of the brain-> conscious perception of that information represented in microseconds ->conscious feelings and emotions emerge ->conscious thought and deliberation emerge in response to the stimuli of input and perception -> conscious impulse to respond (conscious will to act) -> a conscious action is performed (self awareness, self identity).

 

[DBT]

People are literally choosing.

Not if determinism is true.

If, in your view, 'choose' does not mean what people think it means, what is the source of the meaning of 'choose' that you are using?

I am pointing out the implications of determinism...where, for the subject within any given instance in time, no possible alternative choice or action is possible. That by definition, ''every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.''

Necessity:
''Necessity is the idea that everything that has ever happened and ever will happen is necessary, and can not be otherwise. Necessity is often opposed to chance and contingency. In a necessary world there is no chance. Everything that happens is necessitated.''

 

[The AntiChris]

If, in your view, 'choose' does not mean what people think it means, what is the source of the meaning of 'choose' that you are using?

I am pointing out the implications of determinism...

Yes, I know.

You're assuming an implication of determinism is that choice does not exist. To do this you must start out with a working definition of 'choice'. I want to know the source of your definition of 'choice' since it does not seem to align with common usage.

 

[none]

If, in your view, 'choose' does not mean what people think it means, what is the source of the meaning of 'choose' that you are using?

I am pointing out the implications of determinism...

Yes, I know.

You're assuming an implication of determinism is that choice does not exist. To do this you must start out with a working definition of 'choice'. I want to know the source of your definition of 'choice' since it does not seem to align with common usage.

Well fuck. I chose my choice. Looney tunes. Did you choose the opposite of determinism?

 

[The AntiChris]

Yes, I know.

You're assuming an implication of determinism is that choice does not exist. To do this you must start out with a working definition of 'choice'. I want to know the source of your definition of 'choice' since it does not seem to align with common usage.

Well fuck. I chose my choice. Looney tunes. Did you choose the opposite of determinism?

I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with what you quoted.

 

[none]

Yes, I know.

You're assuming an implication of determinism is that choice does not exist. To do this you must start out with a working definition of 'choice'. I want to know the source of your definition of 'choice' since it does not seem to align with common usage.

Well fuck. I chose my choice. Looney tunes. Did you choose the opposite of determinism?

I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with what you quoted.

Has to do with the inequity of the inquiry...

 

[The AntiChris]

Has to do with the inequity of the inquiry...

Are you saying the question was in some way unfair? Can you explain?

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The brain does not organize data into a model of reality.

The proper ordering of words which you seek, and which makes your earlier statement wrong is:

The brain is an organization of matter which instantiates a model of reality.

That organized model of reality is a function of chemistry, and physics. Note that phrase "function of". I use it in exactly the mathematical meaning.

We have no purposes either. Nothing has "purpose", other than to be what it is, though sometimes what it is is "something which applies vector against its current trajectory". Sometimes it is not. The process by which that happens can be great and complicated or small and mean.

The process is still defined by the relationship of the matter and particles and waves and things not quite either mostly "there" but not exactly but being as such in fixed ways; and by the ways in which the matter and other stuff may in fixed ways be.

This is, when deconstructed, nothing more than a very complicated graph. Rocks when graphed as such are "rigid". Humans have a lot more mess in their matter, is all, and that mess does some really complicated shit as the forces of nature interact with it but it's still that mess doing the shit it does in response to the forces of nature. That the graph is LARGE and REALLY fucking complicated does not change that fact.

The more interesting part of it is the way that graphs of smaller but more chaotic ("meaningless") complexity are incorporated into graphs of much more consistent form with much more "directed" behavioral truth... but this does not change the fact that it is still "just" a graph.

Now, when that graph has a shape that, when projected into behavior that acknowledges that forethought and understanding and the like have value, that just tends to preserve important aspects of the graph!

Saying "the universe is deterministic" does not change the reality of that "survival value" of "acknowledging that one is an agency in the world, and a powerful one, even and especially unto tomorrow."

"The brain is an organization of matter which instantiates a model of reality."

Okay, that also works.

That organized model of reality is a function of chemistry, and physics. Note that phrase "function of". I use it in exactly the mathematical meaning.

Just to get our ducks in a row:

• Chemistry, Physics and the other Physical sciences observe and describe the reliable behavior of inanimate objects.
• Biology and the other Life sciences observe and describe the reliable behavior of living organisms.
• Psychology, Sociology and the other Social sciences observe and describe the reliable behavior of intelligent species.

The function of modeling reality is only performed by intelligent species. They alone have the evolved neurological infrastructure required to perform the modeling operation.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the notion of "function" is not limited to mathematics. Function summarizes an input-process-output set of events oriented to a specific goal.

"We have no purposes either. Nothing has "purpose", other than to be what it is, though sometimes what it is is "something which applies vector against its current trajectory".

The notion of "purpose" is not meaningful to inanimate matter, but it becomes meaningful when the first living organisms appear through natural evolution. Their purpose is summarized in their biological drive to survive, thrive, and reproduce. Their behavior can be described and explained using those three categories.

Living organisms introduced a new set of behaviors for physical objects, following their own new set of rules. These objects no longer responded passively to physical forces, but were governed instead by biological drives. Rather than fall downward due to gravity, they could crawl uphill, and eventually walk and even run, to get where they wanted to go. These behaviors are not exhibited by inanimate objects. It is new behavior following new rules.

When living organisms evolved intelligence, we again got a new set of behaviors, following a new set of rules.

(Note: Going in the opposite direction, it is likely that quantum events are exhibiting their own special behaviors, following their own set of rules).

The process is still defined by the relationship of the matter and particles and waves and things not quite either mostly "there" but not exactly but being as such in fixed ways; and by the ways in which the matter and other stuff may in fixed ways be.

With living organisms and intelligent species, we no longer describe the behavior in terms of particles and waves. The brain is not big enough for that. Instead, it symbolically models reality using larger objects. When a kid learns to hit a baseball with a bat, he has no need to account for the atoms that make up the ball or the bat. He only has to deal with the larger objects and events in the model. He "swings" the "bat" to "hit" the "ball".

Intelligent species carry within them the purpose of the living organism, to survive, thrive, and reproduce. But they now have a brain capable of imagining alternative ways to accomplish that purpose, like going to college to get a better job to buy the things they need to live.

"Rocks when graphed as such are "rigid". Humans have a lot more mess in their matter, is all, and that mess does some really complicated shit as the forces of nature interact with it but it's still that mess doing the shit it does in response to the forces of nature. That the graph is LARGE and REALLY fucking complicated does not change that fact."

Or, we could say that rocks are inanimate objects that behave as such. And humans are intelligent species that behave very differently than rocks, because, unlike rocks, humans can choose what they will do. When this choosing is free from coercion and undue influence, we call it "free will", because it is literally a " freely chosen 'I will' ".

Saying "the universe is deterministic" does not change the reality of that "survival value" of "acknowledging that one is an agency in the world, and a powerful one, even and especially unto tomorrow."

Yes, exactly.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

People are literally choosing.

Not if determinism is true. A realizable choice requires the ability to have done otherwise in the same circumstances. Determinism entails no such realizable option, just a determined progression of events.

Necessity:
''Necessity is the idea that everything that has ever happened and ever will happen is necessary, and can not be otherwise. Necessity is often opposed to chance and contingency. In a necessary world there is no chance. Everything that happens is necessitated.''

Primer;
If you accept regulative control as a necessary part of free will, it seems impossible either way:
1. Free will requires that given an act A, the agent could have acted otherwise
2. Indeterminate actions happens randomly and without intent or control
3. Therefore indeterminism and free will are incompatible
4. Determinate actions are fixed and unchangeable
5. Therefore determinism is incompatible with free will

"A realizable choice requires the ability to have done otherwise in the same circumstances."

Correct. A real possibility must be realizable. It must be something that we can actually do, if we choose to do it.

However, it is incorrect to say that, since I have decided that I will not do it, it must therefore be impossible. The fact that something will not happen does not logically entail that it could not happen. The only thing that insures that "it could not happen", is that it is physically impossible to actually do it, even if we chose to do it.

What "can" happen constrains what "will" happen. If it cannot happen, then it will not happen. But what "will" happen never constrains what "can" happen. To say that something "can" happen never requires that it "will" happen. If something "can" happen, then maybe it will happen, or, maybe it will never happen. And when we say that something "could have" happened, it always logically implies that it definitely did not happen.

In fact, all "real possibilities" exist solely within our imagination. We never think that we can drive our car across the "possibility" of a bridge. We can only drive across an "actual" bridge. And as soon as we actualize our possibility, we stop calling it a "possibility" and begin calling it an "actuality".

But, a possibility that is never actualized is still a possibility. And, something that we can do, that we never do, is still something that we could have done, even though we didn't.

"Determinism entails no such realizable option, just a determined progression of events."

That is incorrect. Whenever a choosing operation appears in the causal chain, the determined progression of events will necessarily include at least two real possibilities (for example A and B), two things that the person "can" choose, even though they "will" choose only one of them.

The arrival of the possibilities, as mental events, are as causally necessary and inevitable as any other event in the causal chain. The truth of both statements, "I can choose A" and "I can choose B", is guaranteed by logical necessity, because both must be true in order for the operation to continue. If either statement is false, then the operation breaks, and comes to a screeching halt. And, given the survival advantages that come with the ability to choose, it is best not to break it.

The "ability to do otherwise", to be able to choose A and also to be able to choose B, is built into the choosing operation. There will always be at least two "I can's" at the beginning, and at the end, there will always be the single inevitable "I will", plus at least one "I could have, but I didn't".

Necessity:
''Necessity is the idea that everything that has ever happened and ever will happen is necessary, and can not be otherwise. Necessity is often opposed to chance and contingency. In a necessary world there is no chance. Everything that happens is necessitated.''

No problem there, as long as we keep things straight. One of the things that cannot be otherwise, is that, within the choosing event, and, probably within any other mental event that deals with a context of uncertainty, the ability to do otherwise is always true.

Necessity guaranties that it cannot be otherwise.

Primer;
If you accept regulative control as a necessary part of free will, it seems impossible either way:
1. Free will requires that given an act A, the agent could have acted otherwise
2. Indeterminate actions happens randomly and without intent or control
3. Therefore indeterminism and free will are incompatible
4. Determinate actions are fixed and unchangeable
5. Therefore determinism is incompatible with free will

The answer to this little puzzle is that we are the meaningful and relevant prior cause of the choices that control our actions.

The final responsible cause of a deliberate act is the act of deliberation that precedes it. And it is we, ourselves, that perform that process of deliberation. As demonstrated in detail above, whenever we perform a choosing operation, the ability to do otherwise comes with it. This satisfies "1. Free will requires that given an act A, the agent could have acted otherwise". So the authors assumption, that we could not do otherwise, is false.

The middle two, "2. Indeterminate actions happens randomly and without intent or control" and "3. Therefore indeterminism and free will are incompatible" are correct. In fact, I personally believe that indeterminism is not present anywhere in the universe. Indeterminism would assert that the effects of a given cause are unreliable. If I press the "H" key on my keyboard, indeterminism would assert that something unpredictable will happen. Perhaps a "G" would appear. Perhaps a Cheshire Cat would appear. Perhaps gravity would reverse.

Determinism asserts that the effects of given causes are reliable. Every freedom we have, to do anything at all, requires reliable causal mechanisms. This includes the freedom to choose for ourselves what we will do. Without reliable cause and effect, we could never carry out our chosen intent. And, if our brains were unreliable, due to a significant mental illness or brain injury, then we would not be held responsible for our actions. Instead, the illness or injury would be held responsible, and would be subject to correction by medical and/or psychiatric treatment.

Okay, I think I've covered everything. Let me know if you think I've missed something.

 

[Jarhyn]

Chemistry, Physics and the other Physical sciences observe and describe the reliable behavior of inanimate objects.

Biology and the other Life sciences observe and describe the reliable chemical and physical behavior of "living organisms."

Psychology, Sociology and the other Social sciences observe and describe the overarching trends created by chemical and physical behaviors of "intelligent species" in particular.

Those corrections eliminate the vast majority of faff in your post so I'm not going to respond to the rest until your premises don't suck ass.

As you can see it's all built on chemistry and physics. That biologists have been selective in the chemicals they care about is merely a function of specialization: no one person can understand all the chemistry of everything* all at once, so we have to pick and choose which we learn about. The biologist is merely a chemist/physicist who likes a particular kind of chemistry and physics

*This is not perfectly true. A GUT focused and instantiated into a Universal Lens would allow someone to "understand the chemistry of everything at once", but that wouldn't be very useful on its own.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

This has gone into repeat mode, a causal loop.

I can only point out that compatibilism fails at the point brain agency, that desire is shaped and formed by unconscious processes, upon which 'the desire to do X is being felt, there are no other constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, namely X.'

As it happens that the presence or consciousness has no bearing within a determined system, the conditions underpinning compatibilism must apply to all things within the system, therefore the universe is an example of free will.

Which is obviously not the case. The Universe doesn't have Will. The brain, while it generated urges and prompts in the form of 'will,' the brain does not function on the principle of will. Will is just another element of the system. Nothing special. Will is not free. Will is simply will.

Yes, I think that between the two of us we have covered the issue pretty well. Including these points ...

A desire is something we want to do. A will is a specific intention to do something. When faced with more than one thing that we want to do, we must choose from among our multiple options the single thing that we will do. Wherever within the brain this choosing happens (usually some combination of conscious and unconscious processing), we become aware of the choice as a conscious intent to do what we have chosen. This intent then motivates and directs our subsequent actions.

Free will is a freely chosen "I will". It has no meaning outside of a choosing operation. It is the subset of those choosing operations where the choosing was neither coerced nor unduly influenced. Thus, the universe does not have free will. Only the objects within the universe that perform choosing operations have, or don't have, free will in a given choice.

The brain of an intelligent species performs choosing. No other objects within the physical universe perform choosing, except for the computing machines that the brains of intelligent species have created.

I should probably add that all living organisms are biologically driven to survive, thrive, and reproduce. This may be viewed as a "biological will" that does not involve rational choosing, but only reflexive responses. With intelligence, we get the process of deliberation and a deliberately chosen will.

None of which relates to the nature of desire, will or motor action within the 'pecking order' of cognition. Will being experienced late in the process has no ability to alter what is felt, thought or done.

Cognition:
"And the electrical activity in these neurons is known to reflect the delivery of this chemical, dopamine, to the frontal cortex. Dopamine is one of several neurotransmitters thought to regulate emotional response, and is suspected of playing a central role in schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, and drug abuse," Montague says. "We think these dopamine neurons are making guesses at likely future rewards. The neuron is constantly making a guess at the time and magnitude of the reward."

"If what it expects doesn't arrive, it doesn't change its firing. If it expects a certain amount of reward at a particular time and the reward is actually higher, it's surprised by that and increases its delivery of dopamine," he explains. "And if it expects a certain level (of reward) and it actually gets less, it decreases its level of dopamine delivery."

Thus, says Montague, "what we see is that the dopamine neurons change the way they make electrical impulses in exactly the same way the animal changes his behavior. The way the neurons change their predictions correlates with the behavioral changes of the monkey almost exactly."

Whether one feels ''compelled'' or not, the decision making process itself is determined by the immediate condition of the neural circuitry (connectivity) and its own immediate information state (input and memory) in the instance of decision making (neural information processing), and not an act of conscious will. The latter is a consequence of the former condition, therefore cannot be described as 'free.'


Objects and events occur in the external world ->input of sensory information of objects and events ->propagation of related information throughout the neural networks of the brain-> conscious perception of that information represented in microseconds ->conscious feelings and emotions emerge ->conscious thought and deliberation emerge in response to the stimuli of input and perception -> conscious impulse to respond (conscious will to act) -> a conscious action is performed (self awareness, self identity).

Will being experienced late in the process has no ability to alter what is felt, thought or done.

Not so fast. Examine your description of the causal chain of events at the bottom of your comment. You have conscious perception of information, conscious feelings and emotions, conscious thought and deliberation, conscious will to act, all causally necessitating the action. Conscious awareness is playing a controlling function in driving the action. The "I will", that emerges at the end of the choosing process, motivates and directs our subsequent actions. There is both bottom up and top down causation in your model.

And that agrees with both neuroscientists, Michael Graziano ("Consciousness and the Social Brain") and Michael Gazzaniga ("Who's In Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain"), who both assert that there is a cooperative combination of conscious and unconscious brain activity when making a decision.

Montague says. "We think these dopamine neurons are making guesses at likely future rewards. The neuron is constantly making a guess at the time and magnitude of the reward."

Montague (whoever he is, the link was down when I tried it), is creatively imagining the neurons are conscious life forms with the ability to make guesses. I'm sure he knows better, and is simply using figurative language to paint a vivid picture. But a neuron is a single celled organism, and making a guess is a process that can only be carried out by thousands of these neurons acting together. So, what we're actually talking about is a biological reaction to electro-chemical stimulus. More like a biological reflex, than a "guess".

"Thus, says Montague, "what we see is that the dopamine neurons change the way they make electrical impulses in exactly the same way the animal changes his behavior."

It only correlates to the animals reflexive behavior. The monkey's deliberate behavior is controlled by a different mechanism, one that can imagine alternate possibilities, evaluate the likely outcomes of each option, and choose what it will do, according to its own needs and desires. The single celled neuron has no mechanism to perform deliberation. It can only react electro-chemically. We need a "bigger boat" to perform deliberate choosing.

Whether one feels ''compelled'' or not, the decision making process itself is determined by the immediate condition of the neural circuitry (connectivity) and its own immediate information state (input and memory) in the instance of decision making (neural information processing), and not an act of conscious will.

That is only true of reflexive behavior, handled by the spinal cord prior to the cortex's involvement, or habitual behavior, that has been conditioned to be automatic due to prior conscious decisions (e.g., skills, like walking or playing the piano, that we now do without conscious effort).

But significant choices, like which car to buy, or whether or not to rob a bank, will involve conscious review and evaluation along with unconscious activity, like memory retrieval and emotional responses. Conscious awareness is required because there is a need to explain our choices to ourselves and others. If our unconscious activity decided to rob a bank, then it had better pop it up to conscious awareness for review, because the whole body, conscious and unconscious, will go to jail. And few convicted bank robbers simply wake up in jail without a clue how they got there.

The latter is a consequence of the former condition, therefore cannot be described as 'free.'

The fact that one event is the reliable consequence of former events does not prevent the use of the term "free". The word "free" becomes meaningful simply by referencing some meaningful constraint, something that one could be free of. The meaningful constraints, upon choosing for ourselves what we will do, include coercion and other extraordinary influences that can reasonably be said to impair or prevent us from deciding for ourselves what we will do. But when we choose for ourselves what we will do, while free of coercion and undue influence, it is literally a freely chosen "I will", or simply "free will". And the most meaningful and relevant causes of that choice are found within us, as integral parts of who and what we are.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Chemistry, Physics and the other Physical sciences observe and describe the reliable behavior of inanimate objects.

Biology and the other Life sciences observe and describe the reliable chemical and physical behavior of "living organisms."

Psychology, Sociology and the other Social sciences observe and describe the overarching trends created by chemical and physical behaviors of "intelligent species" in particular.

Those corrections eliminate the vast majority of faff in your post so I'm not going to respond to the rest until your premises don't suck ass.

As you can see it's all built on chemistry and physics. That biologists have been selective in the chemicals they care about is merely a function of specialization: no one person can understand all the chemistry of everything* all at once, so we have to pick and choose which we learn about. The biologist is merely a chemist/physicist who likes a particular kind of chemistry and physics

*This is not perfectly true. A GUT focused and instantiated into a Universal Lens would allow someone to "understand the chemistry of everything at once", but that wouldn't be very useful on its own.

We watch a car stop at a red light. Is is possible to explain this event using just physics and chemistry?

 

[Jarhyn]

Chemistry, Physics and the other Physical sciences observe and describe the reliable behavior of inanimate objects.

Biology and the other Life sciences observe and describe the reliable chemical and physical behavior of "living organisms."

Psychology, Sociology and the other Social sciences observe and describe the overarching trends created by chemical and physical behaviors of "intelligent species" in particular.

Those corrections eliminate the vast majority of faff in your post so I'm not going to respond to the rest until your premises don't suck ass.

As you can see it's all built on chemistry and physics. That biologists have been selective in the chemicals they care about is merely a function of specialization: no one person can understand all the chemistry of everything* all at once, so we have to pick and choose which we learn about. The biologist is merely a chemist/physicist who likes a particular kind of chemistry and physics

*This is not perfectly true. A GUT focused and instantiated into a Universal Lens would allow someone to "understand the chemistry of everything at once", but that wouldn't be very useful on its own.

We watch a car stop at a red light. Is is possible to explain this event using just physics and chemistry?

Yes, it is. Would you like me to do it?

 

[none]

Sure glad he didn't say science.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Chemistry, Physics and the other Physical sciences observe and describe the reliable behavior of inanimate objects.

Biology and the other Life sciences observe and describe the reliable chemical and physical behavior of "living organisms."

Psychology, Sociology and the other Social sciences observe and describe the overarching trends created by chemical and physical behaviors of "intelligent species" in particular.

Those corrections eliminate the vast majority of faff in your post so I'm not going to respond to the rest until your premises don't suck ass.

As you can see it's all built on chemistry and physics. That biologists have been selective in the chemicals they care about is merely a function of specialization: no one person can understand all the chemistry of everything* all at once, so we have to pick and choose which we learn about. The biologist is merely a chemist/physicist who likes a particular kind of chemistry and physics

*This is not perfectly true. A GUT focused and instantiated into a Universal Lens would allow someone to "understand the chemistry of everything at once", but that wouldn't be very useful on its own.

We watch a car stop at a red light. Is is possible to explain this event using just physics and chemistry?

Yes, it is. Would you like me to do it?

Yes. Please do.

 

[none]

In terms of potential energy or kinetic energy?