Are you merely claiming that there are other models which can alternatively be used to explain some of all of the behaviors
There’s that word, “merely,” there, like your other word “just,” which makes me say no to this. You could describe the situation as “there are many models,” but you are likely to be misled by this. In particular, you will likely be misled to think there is a highly accurate model, which is that someone did what he did because of chemicals, and a vague and inaccurate model, which says for example that someone went to the store to buy milk. So rather than talking about models, it is better simply to say that we are talking about two facts about the world:
Fact 1: the person went to the store because of the behavior of chemicals etc.
Fact 2: the person went to the store to buy milk.
These are not “merely” two different models: they are two different facts about the world.
Or are you saying that the physics is insufficient
I said in my comment, “So your behavior can be explained by those simple laws, and at the same time by the fact that you were seeking certain goals.” If the first were insufficient, it would not be an explanation. Both are sufficient, and both are correct.
you must supplement it with something else in order to identify all causes of behavior?
Yes, if we mean by “cause”, “explanation,” which is normally meant, then you have to mention both to mention all causes, i.e. all explanations, since both are explanations, and both are causes.
Fact 1: the person went to the store because of the behavior of chemicals etc. Fact 2: the person went to the store to buy milk.
These are not “merely” two different models: they are two different facts about the world.
Not independent facts, surely. The person went to the store to buy milk because of the behavior of chemicals, right? Even longer chains … because they were thirsty and they like milk because it reminds them of childhood because their parents thought it was important for bone growth because … because … ends eventually with because of the quantum configuration of the universe at some point. and you can correctly shortcut to there at any point in between.
I said they were two different facts, not two independent facts. So dependent or not (and this question itself is also more confused and complicated than you realize), if you do not mention them both, you are not mentioning everything that is there.
if you do not mention them both, you are not mentioning everything that is there.
Hmm. I don’t think “mention everything that is there” is on my list of goals for such discussions. I was thinking more along the lines of “mention the minimum necessary”. I’m still unclear whether you agree that physics is sufficient to describe all events in the universe including human behavior, even while acknowledging that there are higher-level models which are way easier to understand.
I’m still unclear whether you agree that physics is sufficient to describe all events in the universe including human behavior
It is sufficient to describe them in the way that it does describe them, which certainly includes (among other things) all physical motions. But it is obvious that physics does not make statements like “the person went to the store to buy milk,” even though that is a true fact about the world, and in that way it does not describe everything.
Ok, one more attempt. Which part of “the person went to the store to buy milk” is not described by the quantum configuration of the local space? The person certainly is. Movement toward and in the store certainly is. The neural impulses that correspond to desire for milk very probably are.
Which part of “the person went to the store to buy milk” is not described by the quantum configuration of the local space?
All of it.
The person certainly is.
The person certainly is not; this is why you have arguments about whether a fetus is a person. There would be no such arguments if the question were settled by physics.
Movement toward and in the store certainly is.
Movement is, but stores are not; physics has nothing to say about stores.
The neural impulses that correspond to desire for milk very probably are.
Indeed, physics contains neural impulses that correspond to the desire for milk, but it does not contain desire, nor does it contain milk.
There’s that word, “merely,” there, like your other word “just,” which makes me say no to this. You could describe the situation as “there are many models,” but you are likely to be misled by this. In particular, you will likely be misled to think there is a highly accurate model, which is that someone did what he did because of chemicals, and a vague and inaccurate model, which says for example that someone went to the store to buy milk. So rather than talking about models, it is better simply to say that we are talking about two facts about the world:
Fact 1: the person went to the store because of the behavior of chemicals etc. Fact 2: the person went to the store to buy milk.
These are not “merely” two different models: they are two different facts about the world.
I said in my comment, “So your behavior can be explained by those simple laws, and at the same time by the fact that you were seeking certain goals.” If the first were insufficient, it would not be an explanation. Both are sufficient, and both are correct.
Yes, if we mean by “cause”, “explanation,” which is normally meant, then you have to mention both to mention all causes, i.e. all explanations, since both are explanations, and both are causes.
Not independent facts, surely. The person went to the store to buy milk because of the behavior of chemicals, right? Even longer chains … because they were thirsty and they like milk because it reminds them of childhood because their parents thought it was important for bone growth because … because … ends eventually with because of the quantum configuration of the universe at some point. and you can correctly shortcut to there at any point in between.
I said they were two different facts, not two independent facts. So dependent or not (and this question itself is also more confused and complicated than you realize), if you do not mention them both, you are not mentioning everything that is there.
Hmm. I don’t think “mention everything that is there” is on my list of goals for such discussions. I was thinking more along the lines of “mention the minimum necessary”. I’m still unclear whether you agree that physics is sufficient to describe all events in the universe including human behavior, even while acknowledging that there are higher-level models which are way easier to understand.
It is sufficient to describe them in the way that it does describe them, which certainly includes (among other things) all physical motions. But it is obvious that physics does not make statements like “the person went to the store to buy milk,” even though that is a true fact about the world, and in that way it does not describe everything.
Ok, one more attempt. Which part of “the person went to the store to buy milk” is not described by the quantum configuration of the local space? The person certainly is. Movement toward and in the store certainly is. The neural impulses that correspond to desire for milk very probably are.
All of it.
The person certainly is not; this is why you have arguments about whether a fetus is a person. There would be no such arguments if the question were settled by physics.
Movement is, but stores are not; physics has nothing to say about stores.
Indeed, physics contains neural impulses that correspond to the desire for milk, but it does not contain desire, nor does it contain milk.