Materialism and Consciousness.

[cgannon64]

Jail can conform people (it's just not very good at it). You'll note that I've already incorporated some of my views regarding the Justice System with my views on Materialism.

I believe that people will always do what they perceive is best for them. Because of some types of intelligence, some people have more success than others (mainly, understanding of long-term consequences). The Justice System will put pressure on people to factor in their future suffering, hopefully enough to prevent them from being criminals. In addition, through suffering, we help people develop their understanding of consequences (much like you can train a child to have more self-control over time).

The criminal will always do what's best for him, society just changes many of the options, and changes the cost/benefit factors.

I agree with you when you say that prison can reform people, but it is bad at it. But how can we make prison good at it? I'm sure it's not impossible, but notice something: in this aspect of the discussion, two rather disturbing allusions have been made: humans as animals or children, and A Clockwork Orange.

Think of what these allusions imply. Think of how drastic a change this new perspective would be, and how dehumanizing. Without free will, I don't see any reason to beleive in human dignity, and I see a very strong opening for Social Darwinism, eugenics, and fascism. Democracy is damned inefficient - why keep it? The only purpose to society would be fulfilling people's desires, and that can be done easily in any of the various dystopian ways people often imagine. You might say that people have a desire for self-representation - but they only have this because democracy and free will are held so highly. Eliminate the conception of true free will from everyone, and why wouldn't responsibility, self-determination, individualism, etc. follow?

Regarding your concept of First Cause - I must admit I've never thought about it from a morality perspective (I seemingly give Life the ability to change its environment, instead of being wholly subject to it ... I'm just not looking deep enough, as you've shown). I once read an interesting article that talked about how all the 'detail and diversity' in our universe must have been caused by minor (and totally undetectable, or even unpredictable) differences in the Big Bang. i.e., there were differences in the Initial Point that must have existed (though they would be so small, we currenlty would not think they exist) in order for all the diversity to exist now.

The Big Bang is so satisfying to me (and most other religious people I know) cuz it sets up God as the first cause spectacularly. If a scientist tells a Catholic that the universe began as a single explosion of space, how can he not suggest God? And the article you bring up does just the same: you mean that diversity and the potential for life were there from the beginning? All laid out, right there? That's pretty incredible - and you know Who comes to mind again...

And, as for the atheistic perspective: Every alternative I've heard to explain the existence of the universe usually sounds like an infinite chain of causes. I've often thought that this was the weak link in the First Cause proof of God - that it might come to pass that the infinite chain of causes is considered sensible - but I know it never will be with me...

BTW, I'm really enjoying (most of) this thread

Me too. Of every religious/philosophical thread of CFC, I've enjoyed this one the most.

 

[El_Machinae]

Eliminate the conception of true free will from everyone, and why wouldn't responsibility, self-determination, individualism, etc. follow?

Um, how? I agree that a tyrant would have an easier time molding a society if he could eradicate the concept of free-will ... but I really don't see it leaving any time soon. I admit, this just might be my perspective, because I believe that Free Will exists.

Without free will, I don't see any reason to beleive in human dignity ... etc.

You're right, I have to fall back on self-preservation. Over time, I believe that people will attempt to mold a society to satisfy their desires.

The Big Bang is so satisfying to me ... cuz it sets up God as the first cause spectacularly

I have no trouble believing that the Universe was caused by something, and calling it God ... it's the rest of the attributes of God that I have issue with.

 

[cgannon64]

Um, how? I agree that a tyrant would have an easier time molding a society if he could eradicate the concept of free-will ... but I really don't see it leaving any time soon. I admit, this just might be my perspective, because I believe that Free Will exists.

Oh, it is no doubt entrenched: But what kind of philosophy is one that can only be advantageous when no one beleives it!

You're right, I have to fall back on self-preservation. Over time, I believe that people will attempt to mold a society to satisfy their desires.

Sounds reasonable, but a bit pessimistic. I beleive there are other noble factors involved - but this beleive is predicated on free will's existence (pretty much).

I have no trouble believing that the Universe was caused by something, and calling it God ... it's the rest of the attributes of God that I have issue with.

I have a fantasy, and a belief, that all of the other attributes follow logically. This is a pretty massive idea, and my hope is that there is a theologian out there who's done it and laid it out clearly - also, one of my strong motivations for majoring in Theology in college. (Also, if I had all the time in the world...)

I get the feeling all of the Catholic theologians didn't bother to organize their thought this way - they just assumed some attributes initially. I intend on reading them, but I'm pretty sure that's how it will be.

 

[Sidhe]

"Gotta love this guy he says it's all so simple but science can't explain how any of the bahviours work in animals at the fundemental level at any level but it's all so simple."

So, then, if Science can't explain something it isn't simple?

Which is precisely the point I was making. If you read the post again the meaning is clear?

How can you say that everything boils down to something and its that simple when you have no concept or understanding what it is your refering to as simple, that to me says that it isn't simple and that therefore it's quite hard to solve the problem. Which is why what I'm talking about is called the hard problem and not the simple one. And yes is if you can't solve what is a frighteningly complex subject as what is conciousness and from where and how does it come then I'd say that makes it complicated too.

I wasn't generalising I was talking about the topic at hand. If science can't explain something=complex is in no way what I was driving at, you're just taking it out of context with the discussion at hand, I've noticed people do that alot round here.

SO what your saying is if you love everyone then you love Hitler! how can you possibly agree with that notion?You are a nazi!! OK

 

[Sidhe]

Well, yeah, as I say, I surrendered to Gothmog. In short, the idea of Science is not a religion, but it becomes one in practice most of the time.

This is nonsense. Science is not a belief system in practice, it requires you to believe only what you can prove and often ultimately seeks to disprove that. I fail to see the analogy here? I agree with Gothmog for a change.

NONONONONO Science in no way can be compared to religion. Religion can be compared to philosophy on a very superficial level and philosophy can be compared to Science on a very superficial level. But I fail to see any similarity between either the definitions or the practices of either?

sci·ence Audio pronunciation of "Science" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

re·li·gion Audio pronunciation of "Religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalizedor non institutionalised system grounded in belief and worship the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. .
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious scientific order.
3. A set of beliefsevidence, vaues, and practicesmethodology based on the teachings of a spiritual leadera community of scientists.
4. A cause theory, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Na sorry need to change the definitions here.

hold on their you go

 

[punkbass2000]

I think you may need a bigger sledge hammer.

 

[Sidhe]

?

The Big Bang is so satisfying to me (and most other religious people I know) cuz it sets up God as the first cause spectacularly. If a scientist tells a Catholic that the universe began as a single explosion of space, how can he not suggest God? And the article you bring up does just the same: you mean that diversity and the potential for life were there from the beginning? All laid out, right there? That's pretty incredible - and you know Who comes to mind again...

And, as for the atheistic perspective: Every alternative I've heard to explain the existence of the universe usually sounds like an infinite chain of causes. I've often thought that this was the weak link in the First Cause proof of God - that it might come to pass that the infinite chain of causes is considered sensible - but I know it never will be with me...

Me too. Of every religious/philosophical thread of CFC, I've enjoyed this one the most.

I'm afraid the Big Bang is far from universally accepted as such, and there are plenty of theories in physics that dispense with the need for a God although some of them are a tad tenuous scientifically speaking. The big bang being in fact one of them, in an oddly odd sort of way. The universe spontaneously came into existence much like quasi particles do in the void of space in a sea of particle creation and anhiallation. Sounds far fetched but? Might be true?

Every alternative I've heard to explain the existence of the universe usually sounds like an infinite chain of causes.

And what in that would suggest a God? A Source of all creation maybe but need we necessarily resort to God to explain it. Try putting yourself in a position of the Atheist and come up with some ideas of how the universe or multiverse or whatever can exist without God. What are you thinking? There you go it's not that hard

Have a look at M theory it explains the big bang as a never ending series of big bangs within a membrane of interdimensionality. Doesn't need a God at all as such.

 

[Sidhe]

Um, how? I agree that a tyrant would have an easier time molding a society if he could eradicate the concept of free-will ... but I really don't see it leaving any time soon. I admit, this just might be my perspective, because I believe that Free Will exists.







You're right, I have to fall back on self-preservation. Over time, I believe that people will attempt to mold a society to satisfy their desires.

Sounds reasonable, but a bit pessimistic. I beleive there are other noble factors involved - but this beleive is predicated on free will's existence (pretty much).

I have no trouble believing that the Universe was caused by something, and calling it God ... it's the rest of the attributes of God that I have issue with.

I have a fantasy, and a belief, that all of the other attributes follow logically. This is a pretty massive idea, and my hope is that there is a theologian out there who's done it and laid it out clearly - also, one of my strong motivations for majoring in Theology in college. (Also, if I had all the time in the world...)

I get the feeling all of the Catholic theologians didn't bother to organize their thought this way - they just assumed some attributes initially. I intend on reading them, but I'm pretty sure that's how it will be.

I have never felt comfortable with the idea that we are all predetermined by our DNA like mindless automatons, it doesn fit with what I experience conciously and intuitively it just feels wrong, especially when I consider how my actions affect others. I can't prove either way that we have or don't have free will but, at a fundemental level I do believe we do.

I have no problem with a God figure either. I do have a problem with what is comitted in that Gods name. It seems to often be used as an excuse to act apaulingly towards humanity. And to justify irational and outmoded moralities.

Oh, it is no doubt entrenched: But what kind of philosophy is one that can only be advantageous when no one beleives it!

What ever gave you the impression that human societies progress agrees with that idea.

History if nothing else is evidence to me of free will. For if predetermanism ruled it would be very easy to find out how everyone ticked and to pull their strings I see little evidence of this happening now or ever.

Even if I could take one look at someone and break down his personality profile using his DNA and then use psychology techniques to refine my analysis when face to face. I still would have no hope of predicting with any certainty what anyone will do.

Try experimenting with people you know, you will find that even in the most rigidly defined situations people behave and act unexpectedly to what you predict, with my friends I'd say I could predict what they were going to say in a rigid social situation first about 1 in 300 times.

Psychology is an art not a science,always has been always will be. No matter how much we can know about the way conciousness works, it would continue to defy the predictable.

I've heard the idea too that in order to understand the conscious mind you would have to be removed from it(thus the hard problem is an impossible one) This I agree with to some extent, because the way we percieve things clouds our understanding of what we percieve. Not that I think that destroys the idea of free will, but that I think that that destroys the idea of predeterminism, because conciousness is not explicable to those who percieve it and cannot be reduced to materialism, it is more than just the sum of its parts. We might build a machine to observe us and look for signs outside of ourselves but since it would be programmed from our point of view, we would have no idea what to design into it to look for and it would not recognise it because we cannot.

 

[Gothmog]

OK, despite all the side tracks this discussion was supposed to be about Materialism and Consciousness.

So I offered the opinion that I think Materialism is plenty to explain all human actions, no mystical free will need be included.

For those who do feel that some type of mystical free will must exist I have asked where they feel it must originate.

cg is very clear on this point, he believes in a soul given to us by our creator.

Sidhe on the other hand was going on about how if one accepts QM one must accept free will, and actually berating those who disagreed (perfection, birdjaguar, etc.).

I know a few things about QM, and I know that what Sidhe was implying was completely false. A classic case of inappropriately appropriating scientific theory to give credence to an otherwise shaky idea.

I have asked him where this free will would originate if not in Materialistic concepts such as our physical makeup and the sum of our experiences, but I got no answer.

I did get some more misguided stuff about virtual particles, and I asked about that too. Again, no answer.

Admittedly I didn't flesh out my own ideas too much, I can't spend too much time here all at once and I thought there would be time for that once I knew where people disagreed with me (as they always do).

So let me add a little more flesh to this idea that materialism can explain all human actions.

From a materialistic POV our lineage is mostly represented here on earth, that is we evolved here on earth and organisms similar to our ancestors still live here.

Let's go all the way back to unicellular life, bacteria.

Now bacteria can respond to external stimuli, as we do, and each bacteria has the same basic components as every one of our cells. Even these unicellular life forms can respond to multiple stimuli, and so must have some mechanism for deciding between them. Lets look at a few common ones:

chemitactic - moving in response to a chemical gradient;
phototactic - moving in response to a gradient in light;
magnetotactic - moving in response to a gradient in magnetic field

These are obvious analogues to our senses, and additional ones too. Indeed the basic proteins responsible for these abilities are the same ones we still use, there is a direct lineage. One reason for this conservation is that some of them are 'powered' by the same basic molecules that we use ATP, NAD, etc.

So we see that responding to the outside world on the basis of our senses is not special, nor is having to 'decide' between multiple stimuli.

Let me add here that evolution will work here to make a sort of simple generational memory. So a bacteria that 'knows' to respond to a certain gradient in a specific way, unless another gradient increases beyond a certain point, but can ignore even that given a specific level of light, will get more food than one that only responds to single gradients independently. This is a sort of evolutionary decision making by process of elimination.

Sensitivity to chemical gradients becomes especially important because it provides a mechanism for unicellular organisms to communicate with each other. For example, if when processing food a bacteria expels a certain waste product into its environment then if another bacteria can sense that gradient and move towards it, it has a good chance of finding food.

Once this sort of communication develops, it isn't far to a system where bacteria with slightly different abilities can work together, even within the same genotype.

So one bacteria may spend more of its energy on a certain chemical gradient, another on a different chemical gradient, and another on a light or magnetic gradient, etc. Then by communicating with each-other this community is stronger than any of them individually can be.

These organisms still share the same DNA, as our cells do, but by responding to their environment (through shifting gene expression) they are able to become different things, as our cells do - and as we do.

So we see that changing ones physical make up in response to stimuli received from ones environment is nothing special.

Eventually these cells associate and specialize so strongly that they start to aggrigate and lo' the multicellular organism has emerged. Once this happens the cells that specialize in responding to a certain external stimuli don't even have to hunt anymore. That is they can share in the ATP produced by the cells that actually capture food.

There is a great story here about organelles, if you don't know look it up. Basically they are cells that live in each of our cells and are supported for their ability to do something well. Mitochondria, for example, are extremely efficient at running Kreb's cycle - basically they take pyruvate and spit out CO2 and ATP (along with NAD or FAD or other electron carrier).

Now, once cells are free to specialize to this extent we get some that fight, some that handle reproduction, some that sense external stimuli, some that digest food, etc. etc. Pretty soon a nervous system develops, this is useful for allowing quick communication between disparate parts of a multicellular organism. No longer does an the organism need to rely on a chemical gradient transported in a diffusive way, no longer does every cell have to be subject to every signal. This in turn leads to more efficient specialization.

Other specialized systems emerge, internal clocks, memory...

Now we have the basics in place for a more sophisticated information processing system. We have awareness of time, we have information about what happened in the past, we have access to external stimuli.

The organism must now not only make decisions about responding to immediate stimuli, but can integrate what it has learned in a more abstract way. It has access to stored information about its environment and can sense changes in it.

I haven't gone very far up the evolutionary ladder at this point and already I have described most of the traits that people associate with consciousness and free will.

All except the subjective experience, which I reject as evidence in part based on studies I've already mentioned. Maybe I'll find some time to dig up a link on that stuff.

So the basic idea becomes: where in this lineage does free will originate? where consciousness? Can we really be the only life that has these, assuming for a moment that they are really more than subjective experiences.

On a more philosophical path, why can't we just be a collection of cells that respond to their environment the way they are programed to do? What need is there for a biological organism, such as we are, to be more than that? What roll is there for free will in this context? If it does exist, where does it originate? Are you really 'free' to make decisions that are outside the context of your genetic material and the materialistic process that led to your specific phenotype?

Before anyone attacks these ideas or this presentation as 'patchwork' or 'incomplete' or '1/10' or calls me 'senile' or 'uncreative' or whatever - let me say that this is just a start. I am in no way claiming that this is the truth, or even part of the truth. Heck, I don't even believe in the truth.

Please respond with well formulated questions about it, or not at all.

 

[Gothmog]

cg wrote:

It's a bit hard, because once you probe this question you see it's (another) age-old religious problem.

My point about the first cause, which I clarified to WillJ, is that the individual will is the "first cause" of its small, self-contained system, and God the true First Cause of the entire universe.

Agreed, I just wanted to hear you say it.


Sidhe wrote:

History if nothing else is evidence to me of free will. For if predetermanism ruled it would be very easy to find out how everyone ticked and to pull their strings I see little evidence of this happening now or ever.

No, we can't even predict the weather two weeks in advance (basically because we cannot fix the initial conditions well enough), what makes you think we could predict human actions? Is that somehow evidence for free will in storms?

 

[Sidhe]

I seem to remember giving you a link to these quasi particles in fact three. You really must pay more atention. I even copied and pasted some text from a link in one post.

They are called quintessence particles, they are suggested by some to explain the increase in the hubble constant. Essentially at any one time in a space or vaccum or anywhere else there is a seething mass of particles flitting in and out of existence. If you want to look it up go through the link and find the post because frankly I can't be bothered to google it. It is a new area but not that new area of physics and since you seem to still think that you completely destroyed my ideas then whatever we both know that isn't true. Even if I was worng on one point it still doesn't change the fact that what I said could actually be accurate and what you said could be full of it? So I fail to see how you have comprehensively done anything except completely misrepresented your own achievements.

It's also a small point and a much better one than before. I'm not quite sure how your ruling out free will with your evolutionary stages but I'll think on it and get back to you.

cg wrote: Agreed, I just wanted to hear you say it.


Sidhe wrote: No, we can't even predict the weather two weeks in advance (basically because we cannot fix the initial conditions well enough), what makes you think we could predict human actions? Is that somehow evidence for free will in storms?

What you are saying is that our DNA drives us to make choices over which we have no control if this is the case then if we find out precisely what these conditions steps and psychological cues are and put in say a simple 3 second test then we should be able to predict what someone will do provided we ahve all the materialist information and every scrap of psychological data we can muster, in essence if we know everything about a situation in other words if like destiny we are the same in that there is no choice. then we should be able to predict precisely what everyone is going to do in every situation. Given the fact that we have god like omniscience or knowledge of destiny. All I'm saying is I think even if we did we would get it wrong. And I am at a loss anyway to see how you can describe the whole human race the evolution of learning as science as preordained? It just doesn't make any sense to me? I admit there could be no free will but it is a tenuous thing you hope for? And with all those virtual seething particles out there popping in and out of existence and all that quantum interaction I just don't see how you can 100% say that everything is determined(yeah ok only under certain interpritations of Qm, but whatever, you can't just dismiss those interpritations because you feel like it) I don't see that your a b c simplistic approach makes any more sense in excluding free will than my complex rich holistic dynamic and at a fundemental level chaotic does of excluding predeterminism? Without having more to go on your just speculating and so am I.

Oh and just in case your interested free will is more evolutionarily advantageous than predeterminism, I'll leave you to digest that fact.

I have to go I'll fill in the pieces later.

 

[Gothmog]

Gah!

You really don't read my posts do you, or if you do you don't understand them.

Particles that pop in and out of existence from nowhere are called virtual particles by most, the idea is not that new and actually has some experimental support.

Quintessence is something else entirely, it is another form of the cosmological constant, it is a theoretical substance that causes the expansion of the universe to speed up because it embodies the repulsive gravitational force. It is also sometimes called dark energy.

I did respond quite explicitly to your suggestion that they (virtual particles, not quintessence) somehow support free will.
From post #447

So you keep saying. I fail to see the link between the theoretical consequences of energy conservation and the uncertainty principle (i.e. virtual particles) and free will. There is simply no connection that I can see, and you have failed to provide one.

Please enlighten me, how does energy conservation relate to free will?
How about the uncertainty principle?

Note that (as I said before), the uncertainty principle is a simple consequence of how much you must necessarily interact with a system in order to make a measurement of it along with what we believe to be the smallest quanta of the property in question.

I made the assumption that since you brought up virtual particles - you actually understood something about them! At least a little bit! Silly Me!

I don't know how much clearer I can be than I was in the quote above, so let me know.

As I say above, virtual particles are a direct consequence of the certain interpretations of the uncertainty principle and energy conservation. I have studied them and their consequences.

They have nothing to do with free will, nothing that I can see anyway. I asked for an explanation from you and got none.

What you are saying is that our DNA drives us to make choices over which we have no control

Again, Gah!

I just put up a long post about how even the actions of bacteria are not a simple consequence of their DNA. I just can't get through to you.

I never said there is no free will, I am not excluding it, I just don't see any evidence for it, any need for it, or where it would originate!

If cg wants to believe in a human soul, I cannot argue that point. It is a belief. It doesn't need empirical backing. I cannot rule out the existence of a first cause, so I am not an athiest.

If you want to say free will is a consequence of QM, I need you to explain at least what you mean or I am going to vehemently disagree.

 

[Sidhe]

Gah!

You really don't read my posts do you, or if you do you don't understand them.

Particles that pop in and out of existence from nowhere are called virtual particles by most, the idea is not that new and actually has some experimental support.

Quintessence is something else entirely, it is another form of the cosmological constant, it is a theoretical substance that causes the expansion of the universe to speed up because it embodies the repulsive gravitational force. It is also sometimes called dark energy.

I did respond quite explicitly to your suggestion that they (virtual particles, not quintessence) somehow support free will.
From post #447
I made the assumption that since you brought up virtual particles - you actually understood something about them! At least a little bit! Silly Me!

I don't know how much clearer I can be than I was in the quote above, so let me know.

As I say above, virtual particles are a direct consequence of the certain interpretations of the uncertainty principle and energy conservation. I have studied them and their consequences.

They have nothing to do with free will, nothing that I can see anyway. I asked for an explanation from you and got none.

Again, Gah!

I just put up a long post about how even the actions of bacteria are not a simple consequence of their DNA. I just can't get through to you.

I never said there is no free will, I am not excluding it, I just don't see any evidence for it, any need for it, or where it would originate!

If cg wants to believe in a human soul, I cannot argue that point. It is a belief. It doesn't need empirical backing. I cannot rule out the existence of a first cause, so I am not an athiest.

If you want to say free will is a consequence of QM, I need you to explain at least what you mean or I am going to vehemently disagree.

You are not being clear you said I asked for info about said particl;es and you agev me none, frankly I'm getting tired of your vageries, if people aren't understanding what you write it's because you're not making yourself clear. I really am tiring of this guy, all he does is insult and come up with vague nonsense. Please say what you mean and go into some depth, otherwise no one has any idea what you are talking about.

Actually it's partly my fault i skipped alot of what he wrote because it was a bit tenuos and I go t bored. To be honest I'm not reading anything that is interesting from you or that you go into any real depth on, it's like skimming the pages of a novel with reading your stuff. Pick a single subject and then give it some depth please. Am I the only one who kind of fades out every time I read his stuff atm.

You have covered most of the lifetime of evolution in a few paragraphs and have made assumptions based on a lack of depth. Your trying to cover too big an area with too little detail. It's a bit too generalised

Yeah alright I'm sorry I made a mistake with naming them It's been a while since I read that stuff. YOu are a patronising arse sometimes

You yourself admit it's a patchwork, break it down a bit and give us something with a bit more depth, some meat to the bones. If you don't have time then don't post for a few days and pull some stuff together.

Saying the quantum world rarely effects the macro world or that above the size of say a ganglion is not enough to dismiss the idea that sometimes ocassionaly in the complexity of the 6.2 billion trillion trillion brain cells some bizarre **** doesn't happen and some bizarre **** that isn't predetermined. I still don't think you can just gloss over this fact as if it never has an effect ever in the whole existence of the planet. It's a point it may not be a ground breaking point but you can't just dismiss it because it's inconvenient.

Surely you know that over the entire history of life on this planet at some point at least the quantum world has effected the macro world of the very small many many times.

Some links you may find interesting on the subject of QM and free will:

http://linas.org/theory/quantum.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics,_philosophy_and_controversy

http://www.cneuroscience.org/Topics/Will/Quantum_Free_Will.htm A view biased against the WM argument and towards predeterminism, slightly dubious source but mah.

http://www.benbest.com/philo/freewill.html A non biased link that doesn't advocate either.

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/freeuni.html

Interesting thread that leaves the idea of free will as a possibility in quantum chaos.

I think there's enough material to at least place a doubt in the minds of the ardent predeterministic fanatic, meaning that dismissing it is ignorance. It needs to be raised as relevant in a thread that attempts to claim as it's OP point that there is no free will.

In fact if you type in QM and free will into any search engine there's reems of this stuff. For the first time since Newtons laws lead us to believe everything was predetermined the question of total predeterminism is open IMO.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Not at all. To have a satisifying grasp of why neural activity leads to sensation would not be acheived by this fantastical idea of feeling that sensation by looking at it on a picture. If such a thing were possible (which you seem to understand it is not) that would bring us no closer to understanding why electrical happenings in the brain lead to sensation.

Sloppy phrasing on my part. It's not feeling that sensation upon looking at the brain scan, which matters, but being reminded of it. Being reminded of it would be required to have a satisfying grasp of why neural activity leads to the sensation. Also, being reminded of a sensation, pain for example, shares something with actually experiencing it. In both cases the concept of pain is usually activated: "Ow, that hurts!" if you're in pain, or "Ow, that's gotta hurt!" if you're a neurologist seeing that an MRI of a patient shows that the patient is in pain.

Because both the actual experience and the second-hand experience of it typically share this feature, you would expect some (not all as I accidentally implied) of the same brain activities to be involved in both. But, you wouldn't expect that just looking at an MRI on its own terms, without correlating to subjective experience, would activate those brain areas.

I brought up genes as nothing more than an example of how I was using the word 'controlled'. I don't see why you related it to the actual discussion at hand.

Because I don't think you've justified the claim (which I can't remember exactly but here's a rough paraphrase) that on a materialist picture we're controlled by the laws of nature. Using the sense of "controlled" in which genes can be said to control morphology.

 

[Gothmog]

Sidhe wrote:

You are not being clear you said I asked for info about said particl;es and you agev me none

what? When did you ask for more info? When did I say you asked for more info?

You claimed that the existence of virtual particles somehow made you believe in free will. Then ignored my response.

Please say what you mean and go into some depth, otherwise no one has any idea what you are talking about.

So which is it? Do you want more depth or are you going to fall asleep if I write longer posts. I've tried both techniques here.

I certainly have been criticized for writing long posts before, that's OK I understand not everyone wants to read them. But if someone specifically asks for more depth, it is a bit bizzare for that person to then make that criticism.

If you're not interested why would I bother? If you're not even going to ask
a well formulated question then you have obviously not absorbed what I wrote above.

I don't care about the misnaming, I just wanted to be clear what we were talking about.

I do care about you bringing up virtual particles, basing the core of your argument on them, and then not understanding where they come from or what they mean (which you would have recognized in my post if you had that knowledge).

You yourself admit it's a patchwork

No, I was trying to say that one can not write a fully fleshed out version of what I am trying to get across in one page of type.

I broke it down as simply as I could, from the beginning, starting with bacteria.

I gave plenty of meat there, I pointed out that many of the characteristic of consciousness and free will are present in other animals and even bacteria. I was hoping this would prompt you to list other things that you feel are not present, something that makes us unique. Then we could discuss that.

I've not dismissed anything.

I've agreed that QM may indeed rule out determinism. I even gave a definition of what determinism means.

But that says nothing at all about consciousness or free will, nothing that I can see anyway. (hint: that's a plea for you to state what you think the connection is).

I looked at your link, it's OK. Nothing new there though.

In so many words it says that there cannot be free will in a deterministic universe, but that it could possibly exist in a non-deterministic universe.

Well, yes. I agree with that.

But it doesn't say anything about whether free will actually exists in humans! It doesn't even breach the topic afaikt.

 

[Sidhe]

@Gothmog Fine:Ok that's something I can get to grips with but atm I don't have time.

I'm not sure what you mean free will exists in non humans in principal in the universe but not in humans, well not time to go into great depth on humans either atm.

 

[El_Machinae]

Characteristics of free will is seen in animals, not 'free will' itself (which seems to be too tough to define)

 

[Gothmog]

Sidhe wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean free will exists in non humans in principal in the universe but not in humans, well not time to go into great depth on humans either atm.

Just because something may possibly exist does not mean that it actually exists.

For example there may be a monolith orbiting Jupiter right now. There is nothing inherent in the structure of the universe that rules that out, i.e. it is not a logical impossibility.

In a totally deterministic universe free will, in the sense of a human soul making decisions based entirely on 'will', cannot exist. It is a logical impossibility, that's why the 'clockwork universe' was the cause of so much dismay.

In a universe that may not be deterministic free will is a logical possibility.

That's why some people took heart in QM. Of course people who believed in an immortal soul didn't care either way, they know for sure where free will comes from.

But not everything that is a logical possibility actually happens. Thus the need for emperical data.

 

[El_Machinae]

But not everything that is a logical possibility actually happens.

What about an infinite sized universe with infinite resources? I'm sure that then this statement could be false, right?

Or am I missing something.

In my view, QM allows us to introduce randomness into the human condition. But this randomness is then usurped by our physical laws, and incorpated according to set functions.

 

[Gothmog]

First let me say, I don't know about infinities. They are an abstraction to me, I've studied them in terms of series, but I don't know what they mean on a physical level.

Anyway, the observable universe is not infinite. Apparently not in time or space.

Even if we get way into hypotheticals, there are different types of infinity. We could have an infinite set of universes which do not contain a given possibility.

I think what you are saying is "what about a universe where every logical possibility actually happens". To that I would say: yes, in that case there would actually be an infinite number of locations where there is a monolith currently orbiting Jupiter, and another infinte set where there is no such monolith.

QM may imply randomness (the example I gave in the other thread was a radioactive decay setting off a neuron which tipped the balance of a decision - radioactive decay is unpredictable as an individual event), but randomness is not free will in the typical sense.