Materialism and Consciousness.

[Birdjaguar]

Since you like to play with poetry,here is one of my favorite.Kinda of the opposite.
Gotta love romantic but illtempered aristocrats.

Yes, great stuff!

Kindness will get you eaten by bears.I rather walk in the path alone with a shotgun rather prostrating to my opponent.

Kindness is not stupidity or prostration.

 

[cgannon64]

I don't think anything can explain why something exists, I believe only how can be truely explained.

Not really true. Science certainly offers a host of explanations as to why causes have certain effects. (Note that this is not quite the same as 'how'.) Why brains cause consciousness and experience, however, is so far unexplained and doesn't appear that it will be any time soon. It's doubtful that more and more knowledge of the mechanics of the process will shed any light on this question.

 

[Perfection]

It's doubtful that more and more knowledge of the mechanics of the process will shed any light on this question.

Why do you say that?

Just a note on why versus how. When I make the distinction, how is by what mechanism, why is moral/philosophical.

 

[cgannon64]

Why do you say that?

Because, comprehensive knowledge of how an effect operates doesn't necessarily lead to knowledge of why it exists. Especially considering the nature of consciousness: There are these physical systems, getting more and more complex - and then there is a pretty mysterious leap, into subjective experience, something which seems totally opposed to, and unlikely to arise from, the systems being considered.

Just a note on why versus how. When I make the distinction, how is by what mechanism, why is moral/philosophical.

Ah. Well I mean 'why' in the less-philosophical sense, as above.

 

[Perfection]

Because, comprehensive knowledge of how an effect operates doesn't necessarily lead to knowledge of why it exists.

Ah. Well I mean 'why' in the less-philosophical sense, as above.

It is my experience that it often does.

The brain's secrets are being unocked. We are able to tap into the motor cortex of people and use their signals to move objects. We are able to alter the way people think using chemistry and surgery. The self-analysis that makes us concious beings is not something inherently mystical or special, it just is the result of the arrangement of our minds.

 

[WillJ]

No, that's a false analogy.

Your definition of freedom is totally limiting, and doesn't warrant the name freedom. You see freedom as internal consistency of actions to desires. Can't you see how that isn't free at all? It may be the only rational 'brand' of freedom consistent with materialism, but it does not deserve to be called freedom.

EDIT: Also, that is only due to the logical nature of desire as it is defined in materialism. Up until materialisms, desires were considered things that vied for your choice, not controlled them. You could very easily contradict your desires in the older viewpoint, because desires were simply encapsulated ways of looking at a problem: you were free to consider all and choose. In the form of instincts, of course, they could strongly sway your choice, but never control it.

Do you see how your claims to logic are a little circular? You claim any other viewpoint to yours is illogical - but only because you've also claimed the definitions, and so tried to trap all opposing viewpoints in an arena in which they cannot win...

Yes, I'll admit I introduced the definitions, since I think they're superior to alternative definitions.

But if you want to go by other definitions, go ahead (and post them). You mention the idea of "desires" basically being "instincts." If you think that way, then we CAN control our desires, and there's no problem. Yay!

And if you go by my definitions, there's still no problem because any "limitations" there might be don't necessitate any worry. You seem to want to be able to "control" your "desires," not just your instincts but every possible opinion you could have with regard to preferring something over something else. That simply doesn't make sense.

 

[cgannon64]

The self-analysis that makes us concious beings is not something inherently mystical or special, it just is the result of the arrangement of our minds.

No one's denying that, but the question remains unanswered: Why would conscious beings result from formal, rule-based systems?

I think you're falling into the trap mentioned in the article posted by Sidhe. Alot of people nowadays talk about how there are easy problems to solve regarding consciousness, like the stuff you mentioned, and there is the hard problem, which I'm talking about. Then they point to the explanations of the easy problems, and pretend they just solved the hard problem.

Yes, I'll admit I introduced the definitions, since I think they're superior to alternative definitions.

But hey, if you want to go by other definitions, go ahead (and post them). You mention the idea of "desires" basically being "instincts." If you think that way, then we CAN control our desires, and there's no problem. Yay!

And if you go by my definitions, there's still no problem because any "limitations" there might be don't necessitate any worry. You seem to want to be able to "control" your "desires," not just your instincts but every possible opinion you could have with regard to preferring something over something else. That simply doesn't make sense.

But the trick in your argument is that, while you use your own new, scientific definitions (including one for free will) you talk about 'free will' as if you're using the old definition, and so it seems like the usual grand, wonderful concept! When, in reality, you've proven something totally opposed to the older definition of free will, one undeserving of the same name

The logic is good, the argument is sound, but the terminology gives it an element of sophistry. If you're going to set up a new definition of free will - especially one as radically different as yours is - don't call it free will.

 

[Perfection]

No one's denying that, but the question remains unanswered: Why would conscious beings result from formal, rule-based systems?

Because the mechanisms on conciousness are not inconcievable under them

I think you're falling into the trap mentioned in the article posted by Sidhe. Alot of people nowadays talk about how there are easy problems to solve regarding consciousness, like the stuff you mentioned, and there is the hard problem, which I'm talking about. Then they point to the explanations of the easy problems, and pretend they just solved the hard problem.

Well, it seems to me that if the scientific method works so well at solving all these problems as well as hard problems in other fields it is not unreasonable to assume it will work in determining the mechanism here as well?

If not do you have better mechanism to explain how conciousness works?

 

[cgannon64]

Because the mechanisms on conciousness are not inconcievable under them

That doesn't answer the question.

Well, it seems to me that if the scientific method works so well at solving all these problems as well as hard problems in other fields it is not unreasonable to assume it will work in determining the mechanism here as well?

Because it is well known that science will most likely never offer a full, comprehensive, 100% answer to all questions about the universe. Why shouldn't this be one of, perhaps the only question science cannot answer? It certainly seems like it's in the area most likely to contain this final uncertainty.

If not do you have better mechanism to explain how conciousness works?

It's not about how it works, but why it exists. And I'm not sure that I have a better explanation, but I am sure of two things:

1. Materialism, at the moment, cannot explain why consciousness exists.
2. Materialism negates free will, which is a destructive result repugnant to deep-seated human instincts.*

These leave the door wide open for considering materialism inadequate, and proposing non-materialist explanations.

* This is not to say that, "Materialism is untrue because it's conclusions are difficult to swallow." Rather I mean that, considering materialism is already incomplete, there is no reason why it's fullest and most radical conclusions should be accepted, especially when any solutions, coming from outside materialism, used to solve No. 1 can also solve No. 2.

 

[Sidhe]

Actually randomness and the knowledge that no path or action is absolute if you acknowledge this is free will. I don't get why this is so hard to accept so I'll make the analogy again. If everything is predetermined then we will always end up at point A. We may think we have choice but at the end of the day we are just following our programming. If any choice we make only leads to a single choice then you have a victory of predeterminism. If however we can have a quantumly induced alternative choice(chaos screwing with fate) then we now have more than one choice. If that choice equates to any of the other choice then if we know that to be true we know that nothing we do is cast in stone. Since if we are following a path that is no longer the fated path because of the indetterminateness of the quantum, then by extension we are making choices that are no longer part of the journey to A, but an infinitely new path, with all of it's own choices. Thus if I know this I know that nothing I do is necessarily going to lead to a fated existence, I therefore have a choice. And if I can choose my actions then I have free will.

Knowing this we are now free to make choices since even if predeterminism exists it is not predetermined and therefore we accept that there is no fate, no single choice for all our lives. We may start at point a, but no matter what it is extermely unlikely we will end at the preordained point A. We are far more likely since we know we have choice and that we can prove it by the above to end up at poin Z^infinity. This is free will, because I know that I can make concious choices and that there is no fate, then there simply must be free will as an alternative this disproves materialism and predeterminism at a stroke.

Of course if your perfection you make up a load of tosh about the definitions being wrong and 2500 years of philosophy being nonsense, and that modern psychology and the thinking of philosophers is bs, and then some people who should know better jump on the bandwagon in a sort of torch and pitchfork wielding frenzy of sophistry and nonsense

But essentially if you have random/chaos in the conciousness then you can't have predeterminsim it's sort of predeterminism bane.

 

[punkbass2000]

* This is not to say that, "Materialism is untrue because it's conclusions are difficult to swallow." Rather I mean that, considering materialism is already incomplete, there is no reason why it's fullest and most radical conclusions should be accepted, especially when any solutions, coming from outside materialism, used to solve No. 1 can also solve No. 2.

I would say that any given theory will be incomplete. No one particular model can accurately take into account every possibility and make predictions from it. Then again, I don't see why would need a theory to explain things.

 

[punkbass2000]

Of course if your perfection you make up a load of tosh about the definitions being wrong and 2500 years of philosophy being nonsense, and that modern psychology and the thinking of philosophers is bs, and then some people who should know better jump on the bandwagon in a sort of torch and pitchfork wielding frenzy of sophistry and nonsense

Of course. You have to accept anything that's been around for 2500 years. You must also accept anything put forth by someone possessing a PH.D.

 

[Sidhe]

You don't have to accept it, but saying it's wrong in your opinion because you say so without trying to argue agaisnt it is going to make you look pretty silly. I know which camp I'd rather go with the P.h.D's and thousands of years of philosophies great thinkers, I know where the smart money is

 

[cgannon64]

Actually randomness and the knowledge that no path or action is absolute if you acknowledge this is free will. I don't get why this is so hard to accept so I'll make the analogy again. If everything is predetermined then we will always end up at point A. We may think we have choice but at the end of the day we are just following our programming. If any choice we make only leads to a single choice then you have a victory of predeterminism. If however we can have a quantumly induced alternative choice(chaos screwing with fate) then we now have more than one choice. If that choice equates to any of the other choice then if we know that to be true we know that nothing we do is cast in stone. Since if we are following a path that is no longer the fated path because of the indetterminateness of the quantum, then by extension we are making choices that are no longer part of the journey to A, but an infinitely new path, with all of it's own choices. Thus if I know this I know that nothing I do is necessarily going to lead to a fated existence, I therefore have a choice. And if I can choose my actions then I have free will.

You're assuming that free will exists in your proof of free will! Would you mind if I use your own metaphor to explain?

Let's say everything is predetermined. That means that the nature of the rules that run our minds are set by our genes, and our enviroment, and the crazy and complex but still essentially predictable interaction between the two. Clearly, there is no free will here, since the rules determine our behavior always, so it is theoretically predictable with enough knowledge of how it works.

Now let's say, according to quantum mechanics, some things are random. What this means is that part of our mind is predetermined, just as before, and part is totally random. This randomness doesn't insert an alternative choice - this randomness makes the rules that guide our mind choose something else, randomly! Instead of always doing A in situation A, we might do A half the time, and randomly and unintentionally choose B half the time! Quantum mechanics didn't give us more choice - it merely made our behavior more unpredictable, but nevertheless, totally uncontrolled by us.

 

[Sidhe]

DNA uses quantum mechanics principles to organise itself. And no your wrong if there is no way of predicting something will happen either way untill we open the box to use a Schrodingers cat metaphore 50/50 then how can we have fate. In a situation where either action is likely due to quantum uncertainty then we have no predeteminism at all? Fate does not exist and every path that is a branch from the 50/50 path is also a 50/50 branch, how can an infinite possibility of futures in anyway be determined as predeterminism, that's just nonsense surely? I make a 50/50 decision based on a quantum event that is also 50/50. Your idea is a falacy. Just klnowing that out future is completely random and based on very fundementaly random occurences means we know we can arrive at any possible number of futures, so if that is fate? It is not the definition of fate I read?

You are arguing that infinite futures is fate? That makes no sense? By extension free will exists and by extension materialism is nonsense.

 

[El_Machinae]

Clearly, there is no free will here, since the rules determine our behavior always, so it is theoretically predictable with enough knowledge of how it works.

I know what you're saying, but it seems that observation changes things. I (of course) cannot prove Free Will, but I can see how Free Will selects for itself once it exists.

This fits the emprical data too, since young humans do not seem to have free will.

 

[punkbass2000]

You don't have to accept it, but saying it's wrong in your opinion because you say so without trying to argue agaisnt it is going to make you look pretty silly.

If your argument is against the very premise of the argument, what is there to be said? You don't see the world the same way they do. Doesn't make them any more right or you any more wrong.

 

[Sidhe]

Actually I was saying that whne he started saying there is no free will or predeterminism and that neither are true was silly.

 

[punkbass2000]

Actually I was saying that whne he started saying there is no free will or predeterminism and that neither are true was silly.

Why is that silly?

 

[Sidhe]

If you need to ask why that is silly there's very little hope for you. I think if you say god doesn't exist then we all have free will. or you say fate ties us to the predetermined or whatever or materialism does. These are both concepts of how man sees his ability to affect the world. Whether you say they don't exist or not they still do, it's like saying time doesn't exist. Mankind has either an ability to make his own choices or he is fated to do what is predetermined. he tried to say that mankind was both predetermined and free willed which is patently absurd? That's what I refered to as silly you can't have partial free will, it's not free then, any more than you can have partial predeteminism. One concept exists the other does not. They both can't exist at the same time and to my mind as ideas you can't just say they are wrong and an innacurrate picture of the truth just because you say so, that's not very accomplished debate. Thus I said that he was dismissing great minds of the last 2500 years and great psychologists and scientists as did Cart Fart. I don't think saying IMO they are all wrong and not explaining why is particularly insightful do you? Thus I said his ideas sounded silly.