Materialism and Consciousness.

[Sidhe]

I agree that environment also restricts what behaviours your conscious mind has available to you.

Environment both restricts and expands what behaviours you have available to you would of been a better way of putting it.

 

[El_Machinae]

We're talking about Free Will, though, so by default, every factor is a restriction.

But maybe there would have (not 'of') been a better way of putting it.

 

[Sidhe]

We're talking about Free Will, though, so by default, every factor is a restriction.

But maybe there would have (not 'of') been a better way of putting it.

Only in a very limited sense. I would not say that concious thought is bound by what is and isn't a restriction per se, since what you think isn't subject to any rules as far as I can see(I'd love to hear why it is though ) what you do is though.

 

[El_Machinae]

I would not say that concious thought is bound by what is and isn't a restriction per se, since what you think isn't subject to any rules as far as I can see

I certainly cannot think in five dimensions. I'd like to be able to. I can almost think about four dimensions, as long as I rapidly switch analogies in and out of what I'm thinking.

So, I'd say conscious thought is certainly bound. And a person with less intelligence than I might not ever be able to grasp 4D thought.

 

[Sidhe]

I certainly cannot think in five dimensions. I'd like to be able to. I can almost think about four dimensions, as long as I rapidly switch analogies in and out of what I'm thinking.

So, I'd say conscious thought is certainly bound. And a person with less intelligence than I might not ever be able to grasp 4D thought.

My advice is to read pyramids by Terry Pratchet you can obviously see he's spent alot of time wraping his head round four dimensional thought and the physics of time, it's actually extremely cleverly written being that it is a novel not a text book. I agree it's not easy to think in four dimensions but then. The fourth dimension is spacetime and wrapping your head around that little doozy is fraught with difficulties, it is possible but if you have any understanding of General and special relativity you really do have to put your fingers in your ears to stop your brain from leaking out if you try and think about and more especially in 4D for too long.

There isn't a percievable 5th dimension at least not scientifically. It is only possible to do this mathematically and then it is very complicated. Heim Theory has 6 dimensions and string theory I think is 11 and M theory 22, you can use maths to describe these dimensions, but since you can't ever percieve them(if they exist at all) then yes you are bound to 3 dimensions, I would not say this is a bad thing because we only have to deal with the world in 4 and the other dimension sort of happens without us having to think too much about it. I'd say there is only a restriction on thought if you want to invent one. And even then I am not foolish enough to say that restriction will always exist. Not given forever to play with.

 

[El_Machinae]

Um, time is A fourth dimension, not THE fourth dimension. Any additional dimension factored into an equation is that equation's fourth dimension.

I tend to only be able to think 4D-type thoughts if I use time as an analogy.

 

[Sidhe]

Um, time is A fourth dimension, not THE fourth dimension. Any additional dimension factored into an equation is that equation's fourth dimension.

I tend to only be able to think 4D-type thoughts if I use time as an analogy.

of course, not meaning to confuse the issue. Time is not the fourth dimension but I supose you could dubiously say space time is the expression of the fourth dimension in real terms.

Time is a concept it does not need to be quantified as such or directly valued to get a grasp of the physics of space time. You only need to understand it in a conceptual fashion to think about 4D.

Have you studied special relativity. You need to do a little 4 dimensional thinking to grasp areas such as the twins paradox and relativistic effects such as time dilation and relativistic frame of reference.

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html

plenty of stuff out there if your interested. Length contractions pretty bizarre. But there are experiments that prove time is dilated. For example most high energy particles that strike the Earths surface should decay before they even reach it according to classical laws. But they don't.

 

[Gothmog]

Yeah, I'm interested in genetic engineering too. I did some environmental science for a while, and genetic engineering was a big part of that.

But you're still talking about behaviors, sure the availability of genetic engineering will open up additional choices for you. But that's does not answer the question of free will.

The question here is why you choose the things you do. Not the array of choices available to you.

Is there some ineffable free will that makes choices?
Or are your choices inevitable based on your genetics and experiences.

So if you chose to acquire genes that would change your morphology into a dog (actually this would likely have to be done at the zygote level, but we'll skip that for now), did you make that choice because of the various stimui that you had recieved in your life in combination with your genetic material. Or is there some other criteria, some 'will' that defines its self outside of the physical (material) world.

Like Ayatollah So, I think its fine that I am defined by my material being. I have certain genetic material and have been exposed to a specific set of stimui, and I make decisions based on that alone. I make the decisions I do because of them, and I cannot make others or I would be a different person.

So any biological being that had exactly my genetic material, and had been exposed to exactly the same stimui down to the QM level would have made the exact same choices I did. There is no more to me than that.

Materialism may some day be disproved entirely, because it makes specific predictions that is a possibility.

But, I have not seen any evidence that we need more than that to explain current data.

BTW, time dialation is an experimental fact. It is necessary to achieve the precision of current GPS satellites in orbit (i.e. they use a relativistic correction to sinc their clocks).

 

[Sidhe]

I didn't say it proves free will, merely that it slowly strangles predeterminism btw.

But you're still talking about behaviors, sure the availability of genetic engineering will open up additional choices for you. But that's does not answer the question of free will.

The question here is why you choose the things you do. Not the array of choices available to you.

Is there some ineffable free will that makes choices?
Or are your choices inevitable based on your genetics and experiences.

So if you chose to acquire genes that would change your morphology into a dog (actually this would likely have to be done at the zygote level, but we'll skip that for now), did you make that choice because of the various stimui that you had recieved in your life in combination with your genetic material. Or is there some other criteria, some 'will' that defines its self outside of the physical (material) world.

Like Ayatollah So, I think its fine that I am defined by my material being. I have certain genetic material and have been exposed to a specific set of stimui, and I make decisions based on that alone. I make the decisions I do because of them, and I cannot make others or I would be a different person.

So any biological being that had exactly my genetic material, and had been exposed to exactly the same stimui down to the QM level would have made the exact same choices I did. There is no more to me than that.

Materialism may some day be disproved entirely, because it makes specific predictions that is a possibility.

But, I have not seen any evidence that we need more than that to explain current data.

BTW, time dialation is an experimental fact. It is necessary to achieve the precision of current GPS satellites in orbit (i.e. they use a relativistic correction to sinc their clocks).

That entire monologue is so out of sorts with any of the points I made that it's more like denial. If you truly believe there is nothing you can do to change your nature and nothing ever will then I'm afraid there is really very little point in talking to you. I don't say predeterminism is killed merely that it is moribund, and I see little in your counter argument to dispute it except the I am right an you are wrong counter argument. Or the because I say it is so. At least make an effort to deny my argument: counter points I've made. That's a very lazy dismissal of the argument. From the plaudits of other posters I really expected more.

So if you chose to acquire genes that would change your morphology into a dog (actually this would likely have to be done at the zygote level, but we'll skip that for now), did you make that choice because of the various stimui that you had recieved in your life in combination with your genetic material. Or is there some other criteria, some 'will' that defines its self outside of the physical (material) world.

This point specificaly how could your DNA have ever known you would be able to make that choice and since you can, isn't that defying your materialism? DNA is not conciousness, and your conciousness is not ruled by DNA alone especially when a spanner like rewriting your entire genetic code at will is thrown into the equation. Ok we can't do that but we can overcome our genetic falability to some extent. And in the future we may be able to change who we are fundementally too. We wouldn't want to would we? becuase we are programmed to be what we are, and if we change what we are that is reprogramming but consistent with what we are even though the reference has changed and there are now an infinite divergent set of futures for you, this was predicted by fate how, Since the future does not exist in physics as we understand it how did your DNa predispose you to make allowances it couldn't possibly concieve of does DNA have a recoginition that this can happen. And if it does happen does that DNA still remain in its same predetermined state and do you, as you stand now are you still programmed to proceed into robotic oblivion. What if you change yourself by DNA manipulation to be the absolute opposite of what you are now. Is that predeterminism? Honestly, you believe that nothing ever can change your fate? And that your DNA will repeatedly force you to make the same decisions regardless of the fact that you can't possibly even concieve of what those decisions might be? This is pure denial. Your thinking is pre 20th century and I see very little way you can justify it?

 

[Gothmog]

I've already said I accept a non-deterministic universe. IMO there is solid evidence for a probabilistic universe.

In the post I was responding to your wrote:

This is not indicative of materialism at all but of free will n'est pas?

and I was basically explaining why this is not at all indicitive of free will, nor of the death of materialism.

That's the topic of discussion, materialism.

The question, can our behaviors be explained without the inclusion of a non-materialistic component.

You bring up nifty stuff like QM, virtual-particles, and genetic engineering - but you fail to make any connection to the topic at hand.

What points have you made that I've failed to counter?

When have you even attempted to answer questions directed at you?

You keep haranging on DNA making all your choices, and I keep trying to explain that its nature and nurture.

But indeed this discourse may have run its course. You don't seem to understand my questions of you, that or you refuse to answer them. Plus your quite rude.

 

[Sidhe]

Materialism relies at it's heart on predeterminism if you acknowledge that predeterminism is not a factor then you destroy materialism, a point you fail consistently to acknowledge, which is why I'm being rude. Without predeterminism, materialism is dead full stop.

The question, can our behaviors be explained without the inclusion of a non-materialistic component. yes entirely but only in terms of the present not the future. Also then if the non-materialistic component itself is changed? what then, and fate is moribund too what implications does that have on non materialistic points?

You bring up nifty stuff like QM, virtual-particles, and genetic engineering - but you fail to make any connection to the topic at hand.

What points have you made that I've failed to counter? All of them becuase there is no non materialistic component that we cannot or will not be able to change or that is a an absolute factor, you are thinking in such precisely defined terms that you fail to see the chaotic nature of the system in which you exist

bold by me

 

[El_Machinae]

Materialism relies at it's heart on predeterminism

I thought materialism states that we're slaves of the past? It has nothing to do with the future (if the future is not predictable). ie, what you do right now is 100% based on what's already happened, and is 100% predictable based on what's happened.

 

[Sidhe]

think about what you said there, if their is no predeterminism then the future isn't set, so if our future is random and unpredictable or at the very least not predetermined by us or our DNA or whatever and then that future becomes our past, how is this indicative of our past being definitive?(what about our make up and self was determined by our material in a holistic sense) The past was a mess of non predeterminism, not direclty related to us or our DNA or anything about our make up? So how then can we argue that we are the result of the material if that make up isn't the sole contributer to us, and we live in an unstable and chaotic unpredetermist present, that material isn't in anyway indicitive of us unless it was predetermined and fate exists? Materialism relies on a preset order and fate, without it it dies. without our fate being totally controlled in any sense it cannot exist thus if our whole make up is not controlled by our past but reflects the material in any but the whole sense we are not defined by the past materialistically but by the whole chaotic mess that is non predeterminism. Whether it's past future or present without the predetermined nothing material is an absolute factor thus the material cannot be indicative of us in exclusion, under the tennants of modern thinking, only under the tennants of Newtonian classical physics or concious determinism or DNA being the whole of the law, can materialism exist.

It's quite simple, but it is obviously extremely difficult to grasp the 4 dimensional implication Think about modern physics, relativity, biology and fate, and now try and think in 4 dimensions, what is different about one quanta of time from another? Should answer your questions, well I hope?

 

[punkbass2000]

"The question here is why you choose the things you do."

Precisely. Does anyone ultimately know why it is they want what they want?

 

[Sidhe]

precisely good point PB, and can we define that as a guiding principle, kind of but it isn't that simple nothing we do or say or are DNA programmed to do will be absolutely indicative of what we will do unless we are predetermined, predeterminism is dead long live non predeterminism.

 

[El_Machinae]

The past was a mess of non predeterminism

Materialism states that the past is fixed, so it's not a mess.

Anyway, how is unpredictable at all related to free will?

 

[Sidhe]

That's precisely the point if you could grasp it, the past is fixed only in that it's the past, but the future isn't so therefore nothing when we come to look at the past was ever really fixed as such unless we say that fate ruled, if nothing was fixed in the past as such when it becomes the past then how can anything ever be defined as being fixed unless we have fate?

You need that 4 dimesional thing, but you don't need it to understand that there is no difference between one quanta of time than another. Each moment has no precondition or fate under QM and under modern thinking or philosophy, therefore time say if it runs in any direction at all is totally without determinism unless it runs backwards. If we could prove time runs back wards then fate exists, but since we believe it runs forwards? Or does it how do you know? It's a confusing issue and is unnecessary but it's still apoint. If the arrow of time as we believe or percieve it runs forward then when looking back there is nothing predetermined except that the whole system was governed by non predeterminism.

Thus their can never be nor was there ever materialism.

Oh and I will say it for the 3rd time it is not proof of free will but only proof that predeterminism is moribund.

 

[Gothmog]

Materialism relies at it's heart on predeterminism

Well maybe that's the core of our most recent disagreement.

As far as I know Materialism is the philosophy that fundamentally all things are made of matter and all phenomena are the results of the interactions of matter.

As Democritus said "all is atoms and the void"

So when you answer the question:

The question, can our behaviors be explained without the inclusion of a non-materialistic component.

With a yes, you are agreeing to the materialistic point of view in this area.

I do not fail to see the chaotic systerm that we are, that's why I brought up storms. I think you fail to understand what a chaotic system is.

A chaotic system is one that is characterized by extreem sensitivity to initial conditions. But a chaotic system is completely deterministic, that is it contains no random factors and its state at an instant in time depends completely on its state at the previous instant.

So in a non-predeterministic universe there must be some additional random factor. Such as posited by QM. Or there must be another non-material factor, such as free will.

 

[Sidhe]

Actually yes under Chaos theory that is indeed the case, I meant chaos in it's pure definitive sense I.e totally without order or the original greek expression of chaos: that which can never be predicted or ordered. But that's semantics.

I think we disagree on the fundemental point that at any point in time nothing is predetermined, if nothing is then looking back in time is ordered, but only in that it is completely dependant on lack of order. So the future and the present do not depend on a single definitive fate, but on a probabilistic one that is totally chaotic.

It's a moot point I agree. But one thing I will say is nothing is ever cast in stone if you accept QM either in the present the future or by extension the past, and if you accept that, if you read all the posts I've made nothing can ever be materialistic.

The question, can our behaviors be explained without the inclusion of a non-materialistic component. yes entirely but only in terms of the present not the future. Also then if the non-materialistic component itself is changed? what then, and fate is moribund too what implications does that have on non materialistic points?

You bring up nifty stuff like QM, virtual-particles, and genetic engineering - but you fail to make any connection to the topic at hand.

What points have you made that I've failed to counter? All of them becuase there is no non materialistic component that we cannot or will not be able to change or that is a an absolute factor, you are thinking in such precisely defined terms that you fail to see the chaotic nature of the system in which you exist

bold by me

I never said yes at all.

So in a non-predeterministic universe there must be some additional random factor. Such as posited by QM. Or there must be another non-material factor, such as free will.

To this point I say yes and emphatically yes, it's what is at the heart of both modern philosophy and science

Few advocate that anything but a non deterministic universe exists by no means a proof positive of free will but a dismisal of materialism, only the most naive philosophers and in as much as you can say so scientists, believe there is materialism any more, it is an archaic Newtonian belief system. it is as I said moribund, in modern thinking at least. I can't speak for the person who wrote Godel Escher and Bach, although that tome is a pretty weighty philosophical masterpiece, it is also an old fashioned book. Read modern philosophy as Cart said and modern science.

Love the cover though:

A metaphorical league of minds and machines in the spirit of Lewis Carol

Cartesian was taking the piss when he referred to Lewis Carol earlier, but it is something you missed, clever humour

 

[Birdjaguar]

Deleted, to be filled later with something more interesting.

EDIT: The better post follows Cgannon's just below.