Materialism and Consciousness.

[Perfection]

intellectual masterbation.

Which is why philosophers make these claims, not scientists.

 

[Sidhe]

Precisely I thought we were talking about philosophy with the whole Godhel Escher and Bach thing, maybe we have slipped into science world too. I would infer that science cannot know the bigger questions because of QM theory is inherent in alot of papers atm, it's not a scientific theory but it is a thought

 

[Perfection]

yes but biologists are incapable of dealing with maths.

OK lets make this nice and easy so the biologists don't get all confused.

I bet biologists know a lot more math than you do...

blah blah blah predeterminism blah blah blah predeterminism blah blah blah

Why does destroying predetermism destroy free will?

 

[Perfection]

Precisely I thought we were talking about philosophy with the whole Godhel Escher and Bach thing, maybe we have slipped into science world too. I would infer that science cannot know the bigger questions because of QM theory is inherent in alot of papers atm,

What the hell are you talking about?!
What bigger questions?
What papers?

it's not a scientific theory

Now that's obvious.

 

[Sidhe]

I said that? I said Destroying predterminism means we have free will? Oh well it just goes to show that some people can't or won't read what you say

I posted the link earlier and everyone has since ignored it, even when advised to read it several times, as a consequence you've all been rattling off a lot of trite nonsense for the last 6 pages

 

[Perfection]

I said that? I said Destroying predterminism means we have free will? Oh well it just goes to show that some people can't or won't read what you say

Whoops, I meant equate there. Why does destroying predeterminism equate to having free will?

Does having some random imputs make you any more in control of your destiny?

 

[Sidhe]

It destroys the idea that your destiny is allready set and there is nothing you can do about it so yes destroying predeterminism means that chaos is inherent in the system which in turn means that there is no set path which in turn means that the initally small number of possibilities which cannot be predetermined of future lead to an infinite set of possible futures thus free will exists because we can at times be prompted by the chaotic to change our predetermined fate, and in doing so create a new future both of our own free will and by extension of the fact we know this to be true, so yes basically if we know that nothing we do can have definite outcomes, then by making choices. No future is set and those choices in and of themselves are not set and the choices that lead to those choices aren't set and that's one person, if we look at it holisticaly and include every chaotic life and all the resultant choices then we have a massively complicated example of why free will wins.

Pretty simple really.

 

[Perfection]

we can at times be prompted by the chaotic

Being prompted by the chaotic doesn't seem to be free to me. How is there freedom in being subjected to a random act?

 

[Birdjaguar]

From your link early in the thread:

The moral of all this is that you can't explain conscious experience on the cheap. It is a remarkable fact that reductive methods - methods that explain a high-level phenomenon wholly in terms of more basic physical processes - work well in so many domains. In a sense, one can explain most biological and cognitive phenomena on the cheap, in that these phenomena are seen as automatic consequences of more fundamental processes. It would be wonderful if reductive methods could explain experience, too; I hoped for a long time that they might. Unfortunately, there are systematic reasons why these methods must fail. Reductive methods are successful in most domains because what needs explaining in those domains are structures and functions, and these are the kind of thing that a physical account can entail. When it comes to a problem over and above the explanation of structures and functions, these methods are impotent.

He has ruled out one path of discovery

 

[Birdjaguar]

It destroys the idea that your destiny is allready set and there is nothing you can do about it so yes destroying predeterminism means that chaos is inherent in the system which in turn means that there is no set path which in turn means that the initally small number of possibilities which cannot be predetermined of future lead to an infinite set of possible futures thus free will exists because we can at times be prompted by the chaotic to change our predetermined fate, and in doing so create a new future both of our own free will and by extension of the fact we know this to be true, so yes basically if we know that nothing we do can have definite outcomes, then by making choices. No future is set and those choices in and of themselves are not set and the choices that lead to those choices aren't set and that's one person, if we look at it holisticaly and include every chaotic life and all the resultant choices then we have a massively complicated example of why free will wins.

Pretty simple really.

Why couldn't the end be pre-set and the interim actions open to choice? If you separate the "end " from the "actions" you can have both. The actions chosen by free will just don't affect the end; they are of limited, short term impact and of no consequence in the big picture.

 

[Sidhe]

I think what your missing is the fact that if there is no predeterminism then we must by default have free will. There's no there is no predeterminism or there is no free will 0.5 value to the philosophical debate.

They are mutually exclusive if you disprove 1 then the other is true and vice a versa. But essentially what it boils down to is you can make as many choices as you like. Now at some point you may have that choice derailed by the quantum, if this happens then you have proven that all your choices will only lead to the same thing because that is patently untrue. Thus if you know that your future isn't set in stone then you have the free will to change your future. Every decision you make is not determined to have an outcome therefore you can with aforethought chose to do and be whatever you want, because at the end of the day your role is not defined by your genes or anything else it is not predefined that you will end up at point A, defined only by that which you can acheive and that is defined as point A but that you will end up at an infinite number of possible futures defined as the set of chaotic probability and chance which if that is the case mean that you can chose what you do in life and nothing can force you into turning up at point A. Can you see where I'm going yet? Therefore if you have choice and that choice itself leads to choice and that leads to an infinity of possible futures then by definition is that no free will? We do not arrive at point A we arrive at poin A-Z^infinity, =free will exists, because we and only we are in control of our destiny to any extent, nothing we do is absolutely going to lead to point z and nothing we do is going to absolutely lead to point A. Therefore we know we can and will have choices that lead to all possibilities of A-Z^inifinity: Man I could go on but I think you get the point.

 

[Perfection]

I think what your missing is the fact that if there is no predeterminism then we must by default have free will.

Not really. You don't choose quantum effects, they just happen. You don't get to choose which way an electron goes.

 

[Sidhe]

Not really. You don't choose quantum effects, they just happen. You don't get to choose which way an electron goes.

no really and I suggest you read that post again, In philosophy we have 1 and 0 ok on this discussion, and the reasons for this are already established you can bang on about electrons as long as you like but it doesn't change the fact that if predeterminism is dead then we have free will. I suggest you go look up the debate on the internet. Then you will see that one cannot exist with the other they are mutally exclusive by both defenition and logic.

Besides I have free will God told me I do? Why would he lie?

 

[Perfection]

Not really, just because multiple things can happen in the future doesn't mean that we have the power to change it as implied by free will.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think what your missing is the fact that if there is no predeterminism then we must by default have free will. There's no there is no predeterminism or there is no free will 0.5 value to the philosophical debate.[p/quote]Why? Who says it is one or the other? I say both can be true.

They are mutually exclusive if you disprove 1 then the other is true and vice a versa. But essentially what it boils down to is you can make as many choices as you like. Now at some point you may have that choice derailed by the quantum,

Please show me how any quantum event has affected any action by a person.

if this happens then you have proven that all your choices will only lead to the same thing because that is patently untrue. Thus if you know that your future isn't set in stone then you have the free will to change your future.

Our futures are all predetermined. In fifty years I will be dead regardless of the decisons I make now.

Every decision you make is not determined to have an outcome therefore you can with aforethought chose to do and be whatever you want, because at the end of the day your role is not defined by your genes or anything else it is not predefined that you will end up at point A, defined only by that which you can acheive and that is defined as point A but that you will end up at an infinite number of possible futures defined as the set of chaotic probability and chance which if that is the case mean that you can chose what you do in life and nothing can force you into turning up at point A.

Some twin studies would refute this. You don't seem to understand the effects of genes on who we are and how we behave. Our genes are fully capable of shutting down many choices for people and limiting what they can do or even think they can do.

Can you see where I'm going yet? Therefore if you have choice and that choice itself leads to choice and that leads to an infinity of possible futures then by definition is that no free will? We do not arrive at point A we arrive at poin A-Z^infinity, =free will exists, because we and only we are in control of our destiny to any extent, nothing we do is absolutely going to lead to point z and nothing we do is going to absolutely lead to point A. Therefore we know we can and will have choices that lead to all possibilities of A-Z^inifinity: Man I could go on but I think you get the point.

I see exactly where you are going. It's is just incorrect when you look at the world.

 

[Sidhe]

ok let's make it simple, we have two choices predeterminism says we will make one choice regardless because the future is predetemined we are programmed by fate to arrive at point A and it is set in stone, but free will argues that we could as likely make one choice as the other since we are free of constraint?

Now let's say we make the choice that predeterminism dictates but it is derailed to a 3rd possibility so we now have 2 choices. The very fact that we realise that we could have 2 choices from 1 predetermined choice means it's not a predetermined choice. Now if we accept that therefore even if we are predetermined to only ever have one choice even then nothing is predetermined? Now if we accept we have 2 (possibly 3 choices if we acknowledge free will, but we don't need it becasue what we have is already free will) choices because of this principle and we know what choice we pick in itself is up to us, then we pick say route 2 by accident or design whatever which does not lead to A but the orignal route that was the second choice that we are forbidden by predeterminism to take, as it turns out to be the same as the quantum route that came from route 1? SO we have in fact by proved determinism and the quantum destroyed predeterminism. By accepting the quantum you accept there is free will only by destroying it can you have predeterminism again.

Essentially if every choice is a single choice or is predetermined QM says that is not true and if that is the case then we have free will. Now multiply this by the infinite number of choices we might ascribe to any decision and you see what I mean? have you grasped it yet?

Seriously I'm not good at defining stuff so I'll point you in the direction of the internet and ask you to read about the debate.

 

[Birdjaguar]

In philosophy we have 1 and 0 ok on this discussion, and the reasons for this are already established you can bang on about electrons as long as you like but it doesn't change the fact that if predeterminism is dead then we have free will.

And so, "How many anngels can dance on the head of pin?" Using incorrrect assumptions just so you have something to argue about is, well, silly. But I guess that is what philosophy is all about.

 

[Sidhe]

Some twin studies would refute this. You don't seem to understand the effects of genes on who we are and how we behave. Our genes are fully capable of shutting down many choices for people and limiting what they can do or even think they can do.
I see exactly where you are going. It's is just incorrect when you look at the world.

Since DNA has been proven to use quantum principles to more efficiently process and store proteins I'd be carefull what you say QM affects precisely, obviously the bizarre effects of the quantum effect the nano world of tiny atoms and it is wise therefore for DNA to use this strange behaviour to improve it's own efficiency: NASA and 3 eminent bioligists have produced a paper which states that they have seen evidence of DNA behaving accordin to quantum pronciple at the very small nanoscopic/microscopic level? If that's the case then you are really not arguing about biology any more but semantics surely?

 

[Sidhe]

And so, "How many anngels can dance on the head of pin?" Using incorrrect assumptions just so you have something to argue about is, well, silly. But I guess that is what philosophy is all about.

No bird if you know anything about the definitions of free will and predeterminism you know by logic and reason that they are mutally exclusive, I suggest you go look it up and stop voicing some lazy opinion based on simply that opinion

 

[El_Machinae]

You don't choose quantum effects, they just happen. You don't get to choose which way an electron goes.

No, but you choose which quantum effects to observe. Free Will and Life are quirks of physics - they occur when certain chemicals are brought together in an arrangement. However, once they exist, they take active steps to continue their existence. The brain specifically chooses to notice itself (seemingly in a feedback loop) and thus maintain consciousness. Other parts of the brain are devoted to maintaining the life of the whole.

I'm quite sure that Life came first, and then came Free Will - but once they're there, they're there (because they modify their environment to maintain their existence).

As well, I also think that QM effects are important in neurons. In neurons, the order of firing is quite important (if only in little ways). And so, when you have a few hundred chemicals trying to activate two different neurons, which neuron fires first is subjected to quantum effects. Neurons may be large and discrete objects, but they're amazingly intertangled, with billions of possible actions. And when billions of possible actions are dictated by the jumping of a few hundred electrons (over billions of neurons) - the small number start to matter.

edit: but in the wash, QM effects only matter once in awhile, and only in little ways, since the brain is so redundant.