Free Will, Consciousness, Identity (Identity)
Back from our family holiday in North Wales (thanks for all the good wishes). Despite torrential rain most days, we thoroughly enjoyed ourselves and one another's company ... and we also made a conscious, collective, "free-will" decision to defy the constraints of our pluvial environment, and go out and explore the region.-And there you have a most unsubtle introduction to the above topic, which has once more dominated the forum in my absence. We had a good old ding-dong over this last autumn, when I suggested that will, consciousness and identity were inseparably connected. No-one seems to have considered the framework I tried to establish then, so I shall put it forward once more.-I offered the following definition of free will: "an entity's conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints." The constraints are: 1) Nature and/or the situation. 2) Factors connected with the decision-making process itself, which include genetic make-up, family influence, education, chance/accident, illness.-As regards 1), the constraints are insurmountable (I can't decide to fly, or be 10 feet tall; if I owe you $1000,000 or am in prison, I can't decide to be debt-free or to run around outside). As regards 2), no-one can draw clear borderlines between conscious decisions and unconscious influences, and so until we know the nature and source of consciousness/ will/identity, no-one can know the extent to which our decisions are or are not free from these influences.-Identity itself clearly emerges from an ongoing interaction between the factors listed in 1) and 2), but consciousness has to be conscious of something, and this is where I'd like to take up a comment of Matt's: "For an observer to exist in the first place, it is necessary to be able to remove yourself from the raging river of consciousness. THAT is free will, consciously exercised. Buddhism's underlying goal [...] is to exercise our ability to be an observer. In Hindu tradition, this "observer" is the soul itself."-I'd like to offer a different perspective. Firstly, observation demands consciousness of the thing to be observed, and secondly if the thing to be observed is myself, I see this as additional consciousness (not the removal of consciousness), and since I can also observe myself observing, I must be capable of many layers of consciousness, which may well set us humans apart from other animals. And these layers of consciousness lead me to a degree of scepticism concerning the materialist's belief that will/consciousness/identity are forms created solely by the chemicals within my body and their (mysterious) interaction with the influences I have enumerated above.-The (equally mysterious) alternative to the materialist explanation attributes the controlling layer of consciousness (the will) and other layers (including emotions, memories, reason, imagination etc.) to a form of energy which interacts with those chemicals but which transmits signals to them ... as opposed to being their product. Here I might tie the argument in with other recent posts on brain scans (which cannot prove that the brain is the transmitter, not the receiver) and on dark energy ... a form of energy whose existence is inferred from its effects. Perhaps will/consciousness/identity are also forms of "dark" energy, interacting with the known energy of the physical body. If this kind of dark energy exists, it's what I might call "the soul itself".-As with God versus chance, we have a choice between what seem to me to be two improbabilities: self-aware chemicals versus an unknown form of energy.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by xeno6696 
, Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, July 10, 2012, 03:05 (4302 days ago) @ dhw
After having this topic recently rear its head several times, I find myself returning to, and agreeing with Nietzsche, as stated in a recent post to George:-The question of free will IS purely irrelevant. Because it is a fact that we cannot will more than one thing at a time. -Nietzsche's implicit acceptance of this Schopenhauer concept coupled with his incisive critique of Causa sui sums everything up perfectly:-Strength is the key question in regards to will. And if our will is truly free, than the free will--which is constrained to one item at a time--isn't really free. Because at any one time, only one object can be the focus of attention. -If our will is NOT free: We are still limited to only one thing at a time. If we choose, or don't choose what to "will," you're limited to one thing, either way.-Therefore, the question is null on both sides. The question of free will is irrelevant.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 10, 2012, 04:42 (4302 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Therefore, the question is null on both sides. The question of free will is irrelevant.-Of course it is. My will is my will, is totally free. That is the way it feels and that is all that counts.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, July 10, 2012, 11:50 (4302 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Therefore, the question is null on both sides. The question of free will is irrelevant. > > Of course it is. My will is my will, is totally free. That is the way it feels and that is all that counts.-Not completely true, as I said before, you can only *will* one thing at a time, and none of us are in control as to what will manifest into that will.-Unless you're claiming to be Buddha, your "feeling" is irrelevant!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 10, 2012, 16:01 (4302 days ago) @ xeno6696
> > > Therefore, the question is null on both sides. The question of free will is irrelevant. > > > > Of course it is. My will is my will, is totally free. That is the way it feels and that is all that counts. > > Not completely true, as I said before, you can only *will* one thing at a time, and none of us are in control as to what will manifest into that will. > > Unless you're claiming to be Buddha, your "feeling" is irrelevant!
-Buddha was a human being. I am a human being. I still like my feelings and feel very free and not very philosophicaly constrained. I really don't understand the point of willing only one thing at a time. Please explain.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
MATT: After having this topic recently rear its head several times, I find myself returning to, and agreeing with Nietzsche, as stated in a recent post to George: The question of free will IS purely irrelevant. Because it is a fact that we cannot will more than one thing at a time.-As always, Matt, your posts are nothing if not stimulating! The question of free will is irrelevant to whom, in what context, and to what subject? I have already defined (ad nauseam) what I mean by free will ... namely: "an entity's conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints" (for further details of these, see my post of 08 July at 20.12). If you do not accept this definition, do please tell us why, and give us your own. The test of free will, as I see it, involves a) choice, and b) decision. Since Nietzsche believed there was no God, clearly religious agonizing over man's freedom of choice (e.g. man's responsibility for the Fall) would have been irrelevant to HIM. Does that make it irrelevant to your Christian friends? If you and your wife have been tied up by a gunman, and your lives depend on your ability to persuade him not to kill you, will you NOT try to persuade him, because the question of whether he can or cannot make a choice is "irrelevant"? I suspect that on the contrary, you would lay enormous emphasis on the fact that he DOES have a choice, and his own future (not to mention yours) will depend on his decision. And how does "one thing at a time" influence whether we are or are not in control of our choices? Would you argue that the gunman has no choice (or choice is "irrelevant"), because this is just a one-off decision? (Here, incidentally, the given constraints are the situation of gunman threatening to kill you. You have to decide whether to try and talk him out of it or just sit back and say nothing. He has to decide whether to kill you or not.)-I simply don't know whether we have free will, because I don't know to what extent our conscious decisions are controlled by the (largely unconscious) factors I enumerated under 2) in my last post. But I do believe that the subject is HIGHLY relevant to our understanding of ourselves and our fellow humans, not just because it lies at the heart of our justice system (to what extent are we responsible for our actions?) but also because it is inseparably linked to the problem of consciousness and identity. Is there or is there not an unknown form of energy that controls our physical selves, or do our physical selves constitute everything we are? At present our consciousness (of which will, memory, reason etc. are all integral parts) is a total mystery. An unknown form of energy would explain it, but would then confront us with another mystery ... what IS this unknown form of energy, and where does it come from? By extension, the problem also involves the possibility of an unknown form of energy that may have consciously created us, as opposed to our being the product of blind chance. Understanding our own consciousness and how we are able to control what we do with it (through the will) is therefore one possible means of access to the wider issue of God's existence or non-existence. If you regard these questions as "irrelevant", you may as well dismiss every single discussion we have ever had as "irrelevant". I can only repeat: irrelevant to whom, in what context, and to what subject?
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, July 11, 2012, 01:39 (4301 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: After having this topic recently rear its head several times, I find myself returning to, and agreeing with Nietzsche, as stated in a recent post to George: > The question of free will IS purely irrelevant. Because it is a fact that we cannot will more than one thing at a time. > > As always, Matt, your posts are nothing if not stimulating! The question of free will is irrelevant to whom, in what context, and to what subject? I have already defined (ad nauseam) what I mean by free will ... namely: "an entity's conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints" (for further details of these, see my post of 08 July at 20.12). If you do not accept this definition, do please tell us why, and give us your own. The test of free will, as I see it, involves a) choice, and b) decision. Since Nietzsche believed there was no God, clearly religious agonizing over man's freedom of choice (e.g. man's responsibility for the Fall) would have been irrelevant to HIM. Does that make it irrelevant to your Christian friends? If you and your wife have been tied up by a gunman, and your lives depend on your ability to persuade... > -Pardon me, I (sincerely) thought that I was clear *exactly* why the question is irrelevant!-Will is ultimately manifested in action. And truthfully, even the best of us can only *consciously* do one thing at a time. -You raise the question of a degree of choice: By the time we act, the degree of choice is 1. If will is deterministic (and our feeling of "freedom" is an illusion) than what it means is that the single strongest drive causes us to act. -If our feeling is right, and we can have equal ability to choose *every* path (with the constraints you mention), it simply shifts "the strongest drive" to that of the drive that wills to choose. -So in all those examples you carefully concocted: By whatever method, "free" or "unfree," the question is categorically irrelevant. It's not even a legal question. By the time action is manifest, even in the scenario where I'm talking someone out of killing my family--only the strongest will manifests. -> I simply don't know whether we have free will, because I don't know to what extent our conscious decisions are controlled by the (largely unconscious) factors I enumerated under 2) in my last post. But I do believe that the subject is HIGHLY relevant to our understanding of ourselves and our fellow humans, not just because it lies at the heart of our justice system (to what extent are we responsible for our actions?) but also because it is inseparably linked to the problem of consciousness and identity. Is there or is there not an unknown form of energy that controls our physical selves, or do our physical selves ...-You bring up the justice system, as always happens in these discussions. That's precisely what drove me to the irrelevancy of the question: "Does free will exist?" -Since you keep insisting on its relevance, let me throw a couple questions your way, to continue my thrust:-What would "unfree will" even look like? Would it look like free will? If hard materialists are correct, and free will is simply an illusion, a fiction due to long memory, I state that it doesn't actually matter: We're not going to overturn our institutions: everything we have built we have built upon the notion of a rational, free, actor. (The core of humanist thinking.) -If we can't tell the difference between a free and unfree actor--and I challenge you to try--than at worst we can agree that "free will" is a useful fiction for us to be able to justify an order and punish wrongdoers. -Again, the question has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with the manifest. Again, I draw you to the attention of how you could tell the difference between free and unfree wills--we can't. Therefore, it's a question about a useful fiction. -Nietzsche's analysis I think has little to do with his ideas of God. Remember, he was more mystic--Read the section in Zarathustra called "The Apostates" and you will watch him categorically castrate "pale atheism." That entire novel is what challenged his thoughts about free will, because it sprang from below--it was its own torrent. A buddy of mine was assigned Zarathustra's first three books in a class about Gnosticsm. -Ironic, that!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 11, 2012, 15:15 (4301 days ago) @ xeno6696
The question of free will IS purely irrelevant. Because it is a fact that we cannot will more than one thing at a time.[/i]-I hate to keep butting in, but I multitask all the time, choose to do three things at once. I don't understand your context. Show me how it is a fact please, or am I interpreting you at the wrong level?
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, July 11, 2012, 19:29 (4301 days ago) @ David Turell
The question of free will IS purely irrelevant. Because it is a fact that we cannot will more than one thing at a time.[/i] > > I hate to keep butting in, but I multitask all the time, choose to do three things at once. I don't understand your context. Show me how it is a fact please, or am I interpreting you at the wrong level?-http://brainrules.blogspot.com/2008/03/brain-cannot-multitask_16.html-Your multitasking is a personal fiction.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Thursday, July 12, 2012, 06:29 (4300 days ago) @ xeno6696
The question of free will IS purely irrelevant. Because it is a fact that we cannot will more than one thing at a time.[/i] > > > > I hate to keep butting in, but I multitask all the time, choose to do three things at once. I don't understand your context. Show me how it is a fact please, or am I interpreting you at the wrong level? > > http://brainrules.blogspot.com/2008/03/brain-cannot-multitask_16.html ... > Your multitasking is a personal fiction.-I"m glad you have swallowed this guy whole hog. I don't know that I believe him. He offered statements but no proof. If he is basing his conclusions on fMRI studies, I have presented two neurophysiologists here recently who both point out the fallacies in the published conclusions. I still can't equate blood flow to a region of the brain and we are supposed to know what the person is thinking.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, July 12, 2012, 13:56 (4300 days ago) @ David Turell
The question of free will IS purely irrelevant. Because it is a fact that we cannot will more than one thing at a time.[/i] > > > > > > I hate to keep butting in, but I multitask all the time, choose to do three things at once. I don't understand your context. Show me how it is a fact please, or am I interpreting you at the wrong level? > > > > http://brainrules.blogspot.com/2008/03/brain-cannot-multitask_16.html ... > > > Your multitasking is a personal fiction. > > I"m glad you have swallowed this guy whole hog. I don't know that I believe him. He offered statements but no proof. If he is basing his conclusions on fMRI studies, I have presented two neurophysiologists here recently who both point out the fallacies in the published conclusions. I still can't equate blood flow to a region of the brain and we are supposed to know what the person is thinking.-That guy's blog didn't start my thinking this way. Actually, my meditation did, coupled with my computer science knowledge surrounding multitasking. It's a mathematical fact: tasks get done faster when done individually as opposed to frequent "context switching." (Technical term for switching tasks.)-There's actually a plethora of data from the apa even, that demonstrates that "multitasking effectiveness" doesn't play out in the real world. Prime example: Study after study has demonstrated that talking on the cell phone while driving delivers the same impairment as being legally drunk. -I'll also note that few drunk drivers--if at all--*feel* impaired. Yet we all know it happens every time. I'll challenge that your multitasking is little different. -I'm not talking about tasks that are outsourced to muscle memory either: surgical cutting has more to do with exercise than it does with conscious control. In fact, I'll bet conscious control makes you a little worse. -If you watch your thoughts carefully, I have extreme doubts that you are actually *thinking* three things at once. Everyone else's experience seems to be "There might be 3 things going on, but I'm only 'hearing' one."
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Thursday, July 12, 2012, 15:17 (4300 days ago) @ xeno6696
If you watch your thoughts carefully, I have extreme doubts that you are actually *thinking* three things at once. Everyone else's experience seems to be "There might be 3 things going on, but I'm only 'hearing' one."-You have made very good points and cleared up my thinking. Having never meditated, with no desire to do so, I've read about it, but I'm sure I do not undestand what you have felt. I'll be guided by your experience. I'll accept that over fMRI's any day. Thank you.-However, your definition of 'free' and mine must differ. you say no free will because we can only do one mental thing at a time. but I know I freely skip from one thought to another. I know I can choose not to think. As an older person I have trouble sleeping. I must carefully turn my brain off in the middle of the night to get back to sleep. If I seem to control my own thoughts, am I not free?
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, July 12, 2012, 17:50 (4300 days ago) @ David Turell
If you watch your thoughts carefully, I have extreme doubts that you are actually *thinking* three things at once. Everyone else's experience seems to be "There might be 3 things going on, but I'm only 'hearing' one." > > You have made very good points and cleared up my thinking. Having never meditated, with no desire to do so, I've read about it, but I'm sure I do not undestand what you have felt. I'll be guided by your experience. I'll accept that over fMRI's any day. Thank you. > > However, your definition of 'free' and mine must differ. you say no free will because we can only do one mental thing at a time. but I know I freely skip from one thought to another. I know I can choose not to think. As an older person I have trouble sleeping. I must carefully turn my brain off in the middle of the night to get back to sleep. If I seem to control my own thoughts, am I not free?-NO I am NOT saying "no free will." I'm saying, that the the question "Do I have free will" is utterly irrelevant in the first place. I don't know if you've been paying attention to my exchanges with dhw, but *because* we can only *will* one thing at a time, and we cannot *ever* tell the difference between a "free" and "unfree" action, the entire question is really pointless.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Thursday, July 12, 2012, 17:56 (4300 days ago) @ xeno6696
> NO I am NOT saying "no free will." I'm saying, that the the question "Do I have free will" is utterly irrelevant in the first place. I don't know if you've been paying attention to my exchanges with dhw, but *because* we can only *will* one thing at a time, and we cannot *ever* tell the difference between a "free" and "unfree" action, the entire question is really pointless.-Thank you again. I have not studied or worried about the issue of free will. For me I feel I have it, and that is enough for me. I'm just not that deep into philosophic thought.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, July 13, 2012, 12:23 (4299 days ago) @ David Turell
> > NO I am NOT saying "no free will." I'm saying, that the the question "Do I have free will" is utterly irrelevant in the first place. I don't know if you've been paying attention to my exchanges with dhw, but *because* we can only *will* one thing at a time, and we cannot *ever* tell the difference between a "free" and "unfree" action, the entire question is really pointless. > > Thank you again. I have not studied or worried about the issue of free will. For me I feel I have it, and that is enough for me. I'm just not that deep into philosophic thought.-Well good friend, you ARE after all a retired surgeon!
-If you pay attention to my next post, I will put dhw's fears about "will" to rest. It reduces to the "Am I a Brain in a Vat" problem, and the ONLY solution to that problem is "What reason do I have to think I'm a Brain in a Vat?"
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Friday, July 13, 2012, 15:53 (4299 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Well good friend, you ARE after all a retired surgeon!
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
MATT (to David on 13.07 at 12.23): If you pay attention to my next post, I will put dhw's fears about "will" to rest. It reduces to the "Am I a Brain in a Vat" problem, and the ONLY solution to that problem is "What reason do I have to think I'm a Brain in a Vat?" -Matt, Matt, Matt, Vot happened to the Vat? I've been vaiting all in vain For you to vat my brain!
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, July 21, 2012, 17:58 (4291 days ago) @ dhw
MATT (to David on 13.07 at 12.23): If you pay attention to my next post, I will put dhw's fears about "will" to rest. It reduces to the "Am I a Brain in a Vat" problem, and the ONLY solution to that problem is "What reason do I have to think I'm a Brain in a Vat?" > > Matt, Matt, Matt, > Vot happened to the Vat? > I've been vaiting all in vain > For you to vat my brain!-Been busy. With a new baby on the way I'm looking for ways to increase my financial position. -I haven't forgotten you!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Saturday, July 21, 2012, 18:19 (4291 days ago) @ xeno6696
MATT (to David on 13.07 at 12.23): If you pay attention to my next post, I will put dhw's fears about "will" to rest. It reduces to the "Am I a Brain in a Vat" problem, and the ONLY solution to that problem is "What reason do I have to think I'm a Brain in a Vat?" > > > > Matt, Matt, Matt, > > Vot happened to the Vat? > > I've been vaiting all in vain > > For you to vat my brain! > > Been busy. With a new baby on the way I'm looking for ways to increase my financial position. > > I haven't forgotten you!
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, July 21, 2012, 18:50 (4291 days ago) @ David Turell
MATT (to David on 13.07 at 12.23): If you pay attention to my next post, I will put dhw's fears about "will" to rest. It reduces to the "Am I a Brain in a Vat" problem, and the ONLY solution to that problem is "What reason do I have to think I'm a Brain in a Vat?" > > > > > > Matt, Matt, Matt, > > > Vot happened to the Vat? > > > I've been vaiting all in vain > > > For you to vat my brain! > > > > Been busy. With a new baby on the way I'm looking for ways to increase my financial position. > > > > I haven't forgotten you!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Saturday, July 21, 2012, 20:30 (4291 days ago) @ xeno6696
MATT (to David on 13.07 at 12.23): If you pay attention to my next post, I will put dhw's fears about "will" to rest. It reduces to the "Am I a Brain in a Vat" problem, and the ONLY solution to that problem is "What reason do I have to think I'm a Brain in a Vat?" > > > > > > > > Matt, Matt, Matt, > > > > Vot happened to the Vat? > > > > I've been vaiting all in vain > > > > For you to vat my brain! > > > > > > Been busy. With a new baby on the way I'm looking for ways to increase my financial position. > > > > > > I haven't forgotten you!
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, August 09, 2012, 22:13 (4272 days ago) @ David Turell
MATT (to David on 13.07 at 12.23): If you pay attention to my next post, I will put dhw's fears about "will" to rest. It reduces to the "Am I a Brain in a Vat" problem, and the ONLY solution to that problem is "What reason do I have to think I'm a Brain in a Vat?" > > > > > > > > > > Matt, Matt, Matt, > > > > > Vot happened to the Vat? > > > > > I've been vaiting all in vain > > > > > For you to vat my brain! > > > > > > > > Been busy. With a new baby on the way I'm looking for ways to increase my financial position. > > > > > > > > I haven't forgotten you!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
MATT: Pardon me, I (sincerely) thought that I was clear "exactly" why the question is irrelevant! Will is ultimately manifested in action. And truthfully, even the best of us can only *consciously* do one thing at a time.-Yes indeed, will is ultimately manifested in action. What I do not understand is firstly why doing one thing at a time makes free will "irrelevant". Secondly, I take the word to mean not related to a particular subject under discussion, and therefore not important, and I do not understand to whom, in what context, or to what subject "free will" is unrelated and therefore unimportant. This is what needs explaining.-MATT: The strongest drive causes us to act.-The strongest drive is just an expression for what determines the final decision. The question is whether that drive is consciously controlled by the mysterious entity I call "myself", or by influences over which "myself" has no control. Of course there is no difference between what free and unfree will "look like", because the "look" is the action resulting from the decision, which will be the same either way. In the context of justice, the court has to determine the degree to which the defendant's "myself" was in control of the decision, which is precisely why we have terms such as "mitigating circumstances", "balance of mind was disturbed", "under the influence of"... The fact that we are "not going to overturn our institutions" only makes the question irrelevant if your criterion for relevance is the need to overturn or maintain institutions. My criterion for relevance is the light which the question sheds on our understanding of ourselves and of our relation to the universe we live in. -By calling free will "a useful fiction" you have already predetermined that it is not real. I have not. I am not convinced that we are no more than our cells and chemicals, because I do not understand how cells and chemicals can create consciousness of themselves, consciousness of being conscious, and consciousness of the feeling of being in control of the decision-making progress (= the will). You say "the question has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with the manifest." I say the exact opposite. The manifest is the ACTION, and free will concerns the forces that CAUSE the action (or the strongest drive, if you prefer your Nietzschean terminology). Do I or do I not have (a degree of) control over them? What constitutes this "I" that believes it does have control? -I have no answer to these questions ... and it surprises me that by calling free will a fiction you seem to think you do. However, I am even more surprised that you consider the nature of our will (whether free or unfree) to be unrelated to the subject of our consciousness and our identity, and hence to be of no importance. But perhaps we simply disagree on what constitutes (ir)relevance ... which is why I keep asking you: irrelevant to whom, in what context, and to what subject?
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, July 11, 2012, 23:43 (4300 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, > MATT: The strongest drive causes us to act. > > ... Of course there is no difference between what free and unfree will "look like", ...-Then we are done. I say this because I have no access to what's in your brain. You have none to mine. Even if we hook people up to brain scans, we won't know what scan corresponds to which thought. Which drive. -In absence of that kind of information, free will is a far greater "pie in the sky" than any deity man has worshiped over the aeons. -> By calling free will "a useful fiction" you have already predetermined that it is not real. -If you read me carefully, I'm pretty sure that I was explicit in saying "In the worst case its a useful fiction." This isn't a pronouncement. -You'll probably see me refer to it more offhandedly in the future, but to me, free will has been permanently relegated into the "normative" category: we will assume it because it is convenient. Not because it has any "truth." Truth is absolutely unreachable. -There comes a time when every mathematician, through logic, decides that a question is not just unsolvable, but the wrong question to begin with. -> I have no answer to these questions ... and it surprises me that by calling free will a fiction you seem to think you do. However, I am even more surprised that you consider the nature of our will (whether free or unfree) to be unrelated to the subject of our consciousness and our identity, and hence to be of no importance. But perhaps we simply disagree on what constitutes (ir)relevance ... which is why I keep asking you: irrelevant to whom, in what context, and to what subject?-Action is the only thing that can be observed. Therefore action is the only thing that's relevant. If you can't tell the difference between free and unfree, than there is no valid question to ask. From where would you strike a vantage? As I said before, even if you could map out a person's brain entirely--with or without consciousness--the entire question of free will itself is unanswerable in the most extreme degree. You said it yourself in the first thing I quoted you above: -> ... Of course there is no difference between what free and unfree will "look like", ...-We can never tell the difference. THAT is why its irrelevant, to everyone, in all contexts, and all subjects.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
Dhw: Of course there is no difference between what free and unfree will "look like", because the "look" is the action resulting from the decision, which will be the same either way.-MATT: We can never tell the difference. THAT is why it's irrelevant, to everyone, in all contexts, and all subjects.-Origin of the universe: The universe will "look" the same, no matter how it originated, and no matter whether it arose by chance or by design. We can never tell the difference. In any case, "truth is absolutely unreachable" (xeno). Therefore the origin of the universe is irrelevant.-Origin of life: Life will "look" the same, no matter how it originated, and no matter whether it arose by chance or by design. We can never tell the difference. In any case, "truth is absolutely unreachable" (xeno). Therefore the origin of life is irrelevant.- Evolution: All species will "look" the same, no matter whether they evolved Darwin's way, Gould's way, Margulis's way, Turell's way, or were created individually by God. We can never tell the difference. Truth...etc. Therefore evolution is irrelevant.-Consciousness: Consciousness will "look" the same, no matter whether the brain is a transmitter or a receiver. We can never tell the difference. Truth...etc. Therefore consciousness is irrelevant.-God: The universe and everything in it will "look" the same whether God exists or not. We can never tell the difference. Truth...etc. Therefore the existence of God is irrelevant.-Ach, lieber Friedrich, du hast eine Menge auf dem Gewissen!-But some of us are really interested in the fundamental nature of our mental processes, and in all the other questions to which the various answers will make not the slightest difference to what things "look like", and concerning which the truth is absolutely unreachable. And so, dear Matt, keep writing. Your contributions are invaluable, even if all our discussions are irrelevant!
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, July 21, 2012, 18:34 (4291 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,-Free will is a completely different kind of question compared to everything you algebraically copied my "irrelevancy" into. -As I stated earlier, what the question of "free will" is, is a restatement of the "brain in a vat problem." -I'll assume everyone where knows what that is. -The only solution for the brain in a vat, is answering the question: "What reason do I have to believe that I'm a brain in a vat?"-The "Brain in a vat" is ultimately a question about how we know what we know. -What we know about Free Will:-1. If it is deterministic, than we do not have free will. (We are a brain in a vat.) -2. If it is truly free, then we do indeed have free will. (We are NOT a brain in a vat.) -Fact: As humans, we can only DO one thing at a time. This has been cognitively demonstrated time and again. We're not good multitaskers. -Fact: Whether our wills are free or unfree, the majority of our cognitive processes are invisible to us: they seem to appear at random. ("A thought comes when it wills!") -When you combine the facts together, you see really quickly that in any given circumstance, only the strongest "will" can ever be turned into action. -NOW:-The ultimate question of free will, turns on the idea that we have the means to *know* the difference between a free and unfree action. This is the IDENTICAL condition in the "Brain in a vat" problem. In BOTH cases, we literally can NEVER know whether or not our will is free (not in a vat) or unfree (in a vat). -This is categorically different than the beginning of the universe: The answers ARE actually out there. We have evidence. There's a trail to follow. There are things in the universe we can study, in order to give us answers. -Free will? Not even in the same ballpark. The *only* thing we can do, is assert free will, or assert NO free will. It's an axiom. Not an object. Not a thing. -So how does this finally make "Do I have free will?" an irrelevant question? I submit one more thing for your consideration. A question MUST HAVE a reachable answer. That's the first rule in mathematics, and by that extension--logic. If your question cannot terminate, it's not a valid question. -Since we know, that the question of free will is identical to the "brain in the vat" problem, and we know that there is no logical consequence that necessarily follows either conclusion--then the question is a red herring. Invalid. No different than "Why does quando floo?"
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by romansh 
, Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 01:52 (4288 days ago) @ xeno6696
Fact: As humans, we can only DO one thing at a time. This has been cognitively demonstrated time and again. We're not good multitaskers. > Matt as much as I agree with your conclusion, I am not convinced by your argument. Are you suggesting I can't walk and chew gum at the same time? Perhaps it explains a lot. The right and left hemispheres can't work sufficiently independently for a piano player to play a chord? -Just looking at things from a deterministic or indeterministic point of view makes the concept of free will a non sequitur. -Of course compatibilists will move the goal posts to allow the existence of free will. I would argue they miss the point completely.-Have fun with your forthcoming child.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
ROMANSH: Just looking at things from a deterministic or indeterministic point of view makes the concept of free will a non sequitur. This discussion is constantly running into problems of definition. Determinism and indeterminism are the polar options, just like the existence or non-existence of God. Matt says the concept is irrelevant, and I have asked "for whom and to what?" You say it's a non sequitur. How does having two options make it a non sequitur, and to what preceding statement is it unconnected?-ROMANSH: Of course compatibilists will move the goal posts to allow the existence of free will. I would argue they miss the point completely.-As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong), both sides use different concepts of freedom ... i.e. a different set of goalposts. Incompatibilists argue that you can never be free from the endless chain of causes that lead to a decision, and compatibilists argue that you are free from coercion. Under normal circumstances, we all feel that the decision is "ours" (uncoerced), even if it is influenced by factors or causes that make "us" what "we" are. In other words, whatever constitutes our personal identity is the autonomous decision-maker. With those two very different definitions in mind, and having no idea what is the source of consciousness (of which the will is one manifestation), I don't see how we can know the extent to which the will is "free". But for me that does not make the subject a non sequitur, or invalid, or irrelevant. It simply means that the question ... like that concerning the existence of God ... is unanswerable except in terms of subjective belief.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by romansh , Wednesday, July 25, 2012, 02:40 (4287 days ago) @ dhw
This discussion is constantly running into problems of definition. Determinism and indeterminism are the polar options, just like the existence or non-existence of God. Matt says the concept is irrelevant, and I have asked "for whom and to what?" You say it's a non sequitur. How does having two options make it a non sequitur, and to what preceding statement is it unconnected? > Firstly they are not polar opposites. This is the mistake libertarians of old, like William James, make when thinking when they vanquish determinism they have promoted free will.-In a broad sense I agree with Matt, it is an irrelevant question as well as a non sequitur concept. -> As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong), both sides use different concepts of freedom ... i.e. a different set of goalposts. Incompatibilists argue that you can never be free from the endless chain of causes that lead to a decision, and compatibilists argue that you are free from coercion.-You will have to confirm with someone who truly understands compatibilism. But I suspect for some a lack of coercion is freedom. This of course leads to daft arguments that we excercise free will when choosing vanilla or chocolate ice cream for dessert. -> Under normal circumstances, we all feel that the decision is "ours" (uncoerced), even if it is influenced by factors or causes that make "us" what "we" are.-Fine but this is not what the free will debate is about. -> In other words, whatever constitutes our personal identity is the autonomous decision-maker. With those two very different definitions in mind, and having no idea what is the source of consciousness (of which the will is one manifestation), I don't see how we can know the extent to which the will is "free". -What is your will a consequence of? Excuse the terminal preposition. Ultimately I agree we cannot know, we end up in solipsism (or Matt's brain in a vat). This I don't think is a good defence of free will. On the other hand we can examine each component of our bodies to see where this freedom enters. Good luck.-> But for me that does not make the subject a non sequitur, or invalid, or irrelevant. It simply means that the question ... like that concerning the existence of God ... is unanswerable except in terms of subjective belief.-That you don't see it as a non sequitur does not make not so (and vice versa). Having said that If freedom makes sense to you I will enjoy discussing your arguments for such a position.-The first law of thermodynamics states you don't get something for nothing. There is no free lunch. The second law drives the point home.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
ROMANSH: Firstly they [DETERMINISM/INDETERMINISM] are not polar opposites. This is the mistake libertarians of old, like William James, make when thinking when they vanquish determinism they have promoted free will.-As I said, this discussion is constantly running into problems of definition. There are umpteen definitions of both terms, but this is what I understand by them. Determinism: the philosophical doctrine that all events are fully determined by preceding events and states of affairs. Indeterminism: the philosophical doctrine that not all events are fully determined by preceding events and states of affairs. ROMANSH: In a broad sense I agree with Matt, it is an irrelevant question as well as a non sequitur concept. -Irrelevant for whom and to what? The question is relevant for me, and is relevant to my understanding of myself, the nature of consciousness, and ultimately to the existence or non-existence of a god. A non sequitur is a statement that has no relevance to a preceding statement. Same problem: to what is the discussion on free will irrelevant?-ROMANSH: I suspect for some a lack of coercion is freedom. This of course leads to daft arguments that we excercise free will when choosing vanilla or chocolate ice cream for dessert. -Why is this a daft argument? You have always disagreed with my definition of free will as "an entity's conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints". Your main reason for disagreeing was "because it includes consciousness as prerequisite" (11 October 2011 at 20.13). My argument is that the will only comes into play when a decision has to be made consciously, as per this dictionary definition: "the faculty of conscious and deliberate choice of action" (Collins). In the context of "free" will, this is the only definition of "will" that I consider relevant. (The definition does not, of course, mean that the will IS "free" in whatever sense.) You may trivialize this with the ice cream choice, but that involves the same conscious, deliberate process of thought as the decision to commit or not to commit adultery/theft/murder. We are confronted with a choice, we consciously weigh up the options, and then we decide. Your own definition of free will was: "the ability to act on or make choices independently of the environment or of the universe". Since the universe comprises everything that exists, you define free will out of the possibility of existence. See the next set of comments.-Dhw: Under normal circumstances, we all feel that the decision is "ours" (uncoerced), even if it is influenced by factors or causes that make "us" what "we" are.-ROMANSH: Fine but this is not what the free will debate is about.-For me that is precisely what it is about. For you, it seems to be about nothing (irrelevant), because you do not believe free will exists. Your definition is determinist. Of course, you have every right to believe what you believe, and to adhere to your definition. The point I made in my previous post was that this discussion IS all about definitions, and I do not accept yours, so we are discussing different things. ROMANSH: What is your will a consequence of? -I have no idea, because I have no idea what my consciousness is a consequence of, and my will is one manifestation of my consciousness. ROMANSH: Ultimately I agree we cannot know, we end up in solipsism (or Matt's brain in a vat). This I don't think is a good defence of free will. -I'm not offering it as a defence of free will (and I don't agree that we end up with solipsism!). I'm saying that until we know the source of consciousness, we cannot dismiss the concept of free will (by my definition) as you appear to do. ROMANSH: That you don't see it as a non sequitur does not make not so (and vice versa). Having said that If freedom makes sense to you I will enjoy discussing your arguments for such a position.-Until you explain the argument that makes it a non sequitur, I don't understand your use of the term. Freedom certainly makes sense to me, though that doesn't mean we have it! I feel that under normal circumstances, when I'm required to make a conscious decision, "I" am in control of the process leading to that decision. In similar fashion, when "I" try to remember something, "I" search my memory. I have no idea what part of "me" gives me the ability to rack my brain, but it is the same element of my identity that gives me the ability to weigh up the pros and cons before taking my decision ... namely, a layer of consciousness that exercises control over those areas of my mind to which I have conscious access. (In Matt's terms, this refers to those thoughts that come when I will, and not when they will.) I'm not prepared to dismiss this ability as an illusion just because it and the various choices would not exist if the universe did not exist.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by romansh , Saturday, July 28, 2012, 20:32 (4284 days ago) @ dhw
As I said, this discussion is constantly running into problems of definition. There are umpteen definitions of both terms, but this is what I understand by them. Determinism: the philosophical doctrine that all events are fully determined by preceding events and states of affairs. Indeterminism: the philosophical doctrine that not all events are fully determined by preceding events and states of affairs. > Fine - but you continue ignore the consequences of both determinism and indeterminism (at least it seems that way to me). Neither grant us the ability to have free will. How does either give us the ability to have free will?-Of course your answer should be don't know - because you don't know where consciousness comes from. Which is fair enough. But there are clues - i don't have memories of being conscious before I accumulated enough biological matter and programming. > Irrelevant for whom and to what? The question is relevant for me, and is relevant to my understanding of myself, the nature of consciousness, and ultimately to the existence or non-existence of a god. A non sequitur is a statement that has no relevance to a preceding statement. Same problem: to what is the discussion on free will irrelevant? > To me, and I would argue to you if you looked at the problem the way I do.-In one sense I would agree the free will discussion is relevant. If free will is false then much of our perception is built on a house cards.-But a belief in free will (an indpendent agency) is similar to a belief in a god. > Why is this a daft argument? You have always disagreed with my definition of free will as "an entity's conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints". Your main reason for disagreeing was "because it includes consciousness as prerequisite" (11 October 2011 at 20.13). My argument is that the will only comes into play when a decision has to be made consciously, as per this dictionary definition: "the faculty of conscious and deliberate choice of action" (Collins). In the context of "free" will, this is the only definition of "will" that I consider relevant. (The definition does not, of course, mean that the will IS "free" in whatever sense.) You may trivialize this with the ice cream choice, but that involves the same conscious, deliberate process of thought as the decision to commit or not to commit adultery/theft/murder. We are confronted with a choice, we consciously weigh up the options, and then we decide. Your own definition of free will was: "the ability to act on or make choices independently of the environment or of the universe". Since the universe comprises everything that exists, you define free will out of the possibility of existence. See the next set of comments. > If we don't have free will (whether conscious or unconscious)then our consciousness is an illusion (not what it seems). This is why I don't accept including consciousness in any definition.-I can't show you that I am conscious, and you cannot show me that a brick is not conscious. These are assumptions we make.-Defenders of free ice cream choice -> For me that is precisely what it is about. For you, it seems to be about nothing (irrelevant), because you do not believe free will exists. Your definition is determinist. Of course, you have every right to believe what you believe, and to adhere to your definition. The point I made in my previous post was that this discussion IS all about definitions, and I do not accept yours, so we are discussing different things. > After living fifty odd years of so called consciousness and believing in free will thoroughly, I thought about free will. Once I thought about it made no sense to me. That is why I don't believe in the concept dhw.-Indeterminism does not give us free will either - less so I would argue. (I find comforting my actions are in some way a result of cause). > >ROMANSH: What is your will a consequence of? > I have no idea, because I have no idea what my consciousness is a consequence of, and my will is one manifestation of my consciousness. > But is it a consequence of something? Or is it some independently intrinsic entity?
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by romansh , Saturday, July 28, 2012, 20:33 (4284 days ago) @ romansh
Again this long dhw > I'm not offering it as a defence of free will (and I don't agree that we end up with solipsism!). I'm saying that until we know the source of consciousness, we cannot dismiss the concept of free will (by my definition) as you appear to do.-Whether we are conscious or not is irrelevant - unless you are pointing to something supernatural similar to a god's ability be independent. If so then there is little point in this discussion. -> Until you explain the argument that makes it a non sequitur, I don't understand your use of the term. Freedom certainly makes sense to me, though that doesn't mean we have it! I feel that under normal circumstances, when I'm required to make a conscious decision, "I" am in control of the process leading to that decision. In similar fashion, when "I" try to remember something, "I" search my memory. I have no idea what part of "me" gives me the ability to rack my brain, but it is the same element of my identity that gives me the ability to weigh up the pros and cons before taking my decision ... namely, a layer of consciousness that exercises control over those areas of my mind to which I have conscious access. (In Matt's terms, this refers to those thoughts that come when I will, and not when they will.) I'm not prepared to dismiss this ability as an illusion just because it and the various choices would not exist if the universe did not exist.-Whether determinism is true, indeterminism is true or some combination. None of these give us free will. That is why free will is a non sequitur.-I can't explain it better than that dhw.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
Romansh, thank you for your detailed response. I'll try to answer you point by point.-ROMANSH (re determinism and indeterminism): How does either give us the ability to have free will?...Indeterminism does not give us free will either...None of these give us free will.-Of course they don't. No 'ism' can "give" you free will. It can only explain why free will is or is not a possibility. ROMANSH: Of course your answer should be don't know - because you don't know where consciousness comes from. Which is fair enough. But there are clues - i don't have memories of being conscious before I accumulated enough biological matter and programming. -This is indeed a clue that our consciousness depends on biological matter. On the other hand, mystic and psychic experiences (such as NDEs) are a clue that our biological matter acts as a receiver, not a transmitter, and that consciousness and identity can survive the death of the brain. Neither clue is decisive, and so I keep an open mind. ROMANSH: [Irrelevant] to me, and I would argue to you if you looked at the problem the way I do.-I know you regard the subject as irrelevant, but I also asked to WHAT. (See the next point). If I looked at the problem as you do, I would agree with you. But I don't, and that's why we're having this discussion.-ROMANSH: In one sense I would agree the free will discussion is relevant. If free will is false then much of our perception is built on a house cards.-We can hardly separate our perception from our self-understanding or our consciousness, and the nature of the latter (materialism versus unknown form of energy) is relevant to the God question. Therefore we now agree that the subject is relevant!-ROMANSH: But a belief in free will (an indpendent agency) is similar to a belief in a god.-They are connected. Both beliefs entail a form of energy that does not depend on the material world as we know it.-ROMANSH: If we don't have free will (whether conscious or unconscious) then our consciousness is an illusion (not what it seems). This is why I don't accept including consciousness in any definition.-True, but this is precisely the "if" that's in dispute. We seem to have a different concept of how definitions function. For me the term free will automatically refers to a faculty for making conscious decisions. If consciousness is an illusion, that does not mean the definition is wrong, it means we do not have free will as I have defined it. ROMANSH: I can't show you that I am conscious, and you cannot show me that a brick is not conscious. These are assumptions we make.-Agreed. Epistemology has taught us that we can't be sure of anything, so the most we can aspire to is belief, based on experience and observation ... our own and that of others. It is my subjective belief that you and I aware not only of ourselves but also of each other. I also believe that all living organisms have a degree of awareness, though I very much doubt if any of them reach our level of self-awareness (a vital prerequisite for my concept of free will). Believe in conscious bricks if you want to, but I'm not sure what relevance that has to our subject. ROMANSH: After living fifty odd years of so called consciousness and believing in free will thoroughly, I thought about free will. Once I thought about it made no sense to me. That is why I don't believe in the concept.-I have lived a lot longer than you, thought about it, and went the other way, from youthful disbelief to open-mindedness! It makes sense to me, but so does determinism, and that is why I neither believe nor disbelieve in the concept. If you could present me with evidence that the materialist concept of consciousness is correct, that every mystic and psychic experience is a fake or a delusion, and that my self-awareness and intuitive sense of control are illusory, I would share your disbelief. ROMANSH: But is it [the will] a consequence of something? Or is it some independently intrinsic entity?-See below.-ROMANSH: Whether we are conscious or not is irrelevant - unless you are pointing to something supernatural similar to a god's ability be independent. If so then there is little point in this discussion.-I don't like the word "supernatural" as it implies that we actually know what is natural. About 90% of the material world is unknown to us (dark matter and dark energy). The quantum world is a mystery. But yes, this discussion boils down to whether all our questions about consciousness (of which free will is one possible manifestation) can be answered materialistically. I don't know. Nor do you. So how can you be so sure that our "ability to make choices" (part of your own definition) is never under our own conscious control?
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Sunday, July 29, 2012, 15:53 (4283 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Sunday, July 29, 2012, 15:59
> This is indeed a clue that our consciousness depends on biological matter. On the other hand, mystic and psychic experiences (such as NDEs) are a clue that our biological matter acts as a receiver, not a transmitter, and that consciousness and identity can survive the death of the brain. Neither clue is decisive, and so I keep an open mind.-> I don't like the word "supernatural" as it implies that we actually know what is natural. About 90% of the material world is unknown to us (dark matter and dark energy). The quantum world is a mystery. But yes, this discussion boils down to whether all our questions about consciousness (of which free will is one possible manifestation) can be answered materialistically. I don't know. Nor do you. -> "So how can you be so sure that our "ability to make choices" (part of your own definition) is never under our own conscious control?"-This learned article will help the discussion. We are responsible for our bad decisions:-http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/neuroscience-and-moral-responsibility.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1343572933-UJSS2bpeIHL8v7C4q/I1ug-And I view this as a misguided attempt to explain consciousness. Again fMRI is a blood flow study, not a neural connection study. Apples and oranges make fruit salad, not sense.-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120727095555.htm
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by romansh , Sunday, July 29, 2012, 17:41 (4283 days ago) @ David Turell
This learned article will help the discussion. We are responsible for our bad decisions: > Responsible is one those funny words.-Is the Sun responsible for the hurricanes we have? Plainly yes. Unless we want to point to the 90% of matter and energy we can't see and guess that it is responsible.-Is an eco system responsible for the flora and fauna we find in it? Is a particular animal (or type of animal) responsible for, or at least help shape, that ecosystem. Plainly yes.-Is a dog responsible for grabbing a piece of meat off a kitchen counter in an unguarded moment. Here things get a little murky. Plainly the dog did it. And in this sense is responsible. But here we are tempted to give it moralistic twist, but our better judgement prevails and we understand the dog has no free will.-And was I responsible for leaving the meat unattended on the kitchen counter? Plainly yes. But perhaps I should have known better. Here our better judgement fails us.-This is all very interesting but has little to do choosing my own will.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Monday, July 30, 2012, 01:25 (4282 days ago) @ romansh
> Is a dog responsible for grabbing a piece of meat off a kitchen counter in an unguarded moment. Here things get a little murky. Plainly the dog did it. And in this sense is responsible. But here we are tempted to give it moralistic twist, but our better judgement prevails and we understand the dog has no free will.-The dog chose to steal the meat. He acted of his own decision, which to me is free will. And he conscously chose to do that. Does he have much consciousness? No, but he is conscious and can act on choices.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by romansh , Monday, July 30, 2012, 00:32 (4282 days ago) @ dhw
Of course they don't. No 'ism' can "give" you free will. It can only explain why free will is or is not a possibility.-It is not "isms" as such, but what they decribe - how does cause and effect allow us free will? How does fundamentally probabilistic universe allow us free will or any combination thereof?-You can point all our knowledge or dark matter for that matter, it [free will]remains a hail Mary into the darkness. > > This is indeed a clue that our consciousness depends on biological matter. On the other hand, mystic and psychic experiences (such as NDEs) are a clue that our biological matter acts as a receiver, not a transmitter, and that consciousness and identity can survive the death of the brain. Neither clue is decisive, and so I keep an open mind.-Frankly I read this with not a little dismay dhw. NDEs OBEs and psychic phenomna are like are like phlogiston and luminousferous aether, once we turn on the scientific scrutiny they are not there.-> I know you regard the subject as irrelevant, but I also asked to WHAT. (See the next point). If I looked at the problem as you do, I would agree with you. But I don't, and that's why we're having this discussion.-You imply later on that in your youth you did not believe in free will. In that case I would have expected you to show some understanding of the arguments against free will. (I'm not sure how this comes across, but no offence is meant). > -> We can hardly separate our perception from our self-understanding or our consciousness, and the nature of the latter (materialism versus unknown form of energy) is relevant to the God question. Therefore we now agree that the subject is relevant!-I can. But to be fair irrelevant is Matt's term. > They are connected. Both beliefs entail a form of energy that does not depend on the material world as we know it.-This I think is poorly thought out. This form of energy that does not depend on this world - either it does or does not repond to cause and effect. How does this help the cause of free will?-> True, but this is precisely the "if" that's in dispute. We seem to have a different concept of how definitions function. For me the term free will automatically refers to a faculty for making conscious decisions. If consciousness is an illusion, that does not mean the definition is wrong, it means we do not have free will as I have defined it.-We don't really have a clue of the cause consciousness, we don't have a a sense of how it works. We are not even very sure we have it. > ROMANSH: I can't show you that I am conscious, and you cannot show me that a brick is not conscious. These are assumptions we make. > > Believe in conscious bricks if you want to, but I'm not sure what relevance that has to our subject. This is exactly why I don't want consciousness in defintion of free will. You can't demonstrate to me that you are conscious so how on earth are you going to show me you have free will. > I have lived a lot longer than you, thought about it, and went the other way, from youthful disbelief to open-mindedness! It makes sense to me, but so does determinism, So in your youth what was objection to free will?-> and that is why I neither believe nor disbelieve in the concept. If you could present me with evidence that the materialist concept of consciousness is correct, that every mystic and psychic experience is a fake or a delusion, and that my self-awareness and intuitive sense of control are illusory, I would share your disbelief.-It's not that the materialistic concept is correct, free will in the materialistic sense is a non sequitur. In what sense do you defend the possibility of free will, dhw?->> ROMANSH: But is it [the will] a consequence of something? Or is it some independently intrinsic entity? > > See below.-> I don't like the word "supernatural" as it implies that we actually know what is natural. About 90% of the material world is unknown to us (dark matter and dark energy). The quantum world is a mystery. But yes, this discussion boils down to whether all our questions about consciousness (of which free will is one possible manifestation) can be answered materialistically. I don't know. Nor do you. So how can you be so sure that our "ability to make choices" (part of your own definition) is never under our own conscious control?-If you cannot answer the question materialistically (or in terms of naturalism or physicalism). In what frame of reference would you like to discuss free will?-ps I don't think I have ever said I disbelieve in free will. Like you I maintain a solipsistic attitude to free will. Nevertheless it is a concept that simply does not make sense to me.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Monday, July 30, 2012, 02:04 (4282 days ago) @ romansh
This is indeed a clue that our consciousness depends on biological matter. On the other hand, mystic and psychic experiences (such as NDEs) are a clue that our biological matter acts as a receiver, not a transmitter, and that consciousness and identity can survive the death of the brain. Neither clue is decisive, and so I keep an open mind. > > Frankly I read this with not a little dismay dhw. NDEs OBEs and psychic phenomna are like are like phlogiston and luminousferous aether, once we turn on the scientific scrutiny they are not there.-NDE's are a strange bird. VanLommel, the famous author of the Lancet article on the issue, thinks like dhw, but more positively. I've read his subsequent book which is even more positive. The problem with NDE's is the person who has the experience often gains knowledge he should not have. There are a plethora of hospiced reports on this, and other authors than van Lommel who are convinced. My own immediate background is as a physician having had disucssion with 10 patients who had such experiences. The two keys are: 1) they are not hallucinations, and I know one when I hear one; 2)All of the NDE'rs talk to dead people, never live ones, when they do have communcation, which they all say is telpathic. It is a very strange phenomenon, and is clearly documented to go back to the beginnings of true civilization. The Tibetan book of the Dead deals with it, for example.-So there has been scientific scrutiny by a fair number of M.D.s with books written and much ongoing research. I suggest you do more reading than Blakemore, and I offer references if you wish. I'm with dhw using an open mind.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, August 09, 2012, 22:10 (4272 days ago) @ romansh
Fact: As humans, we can only DO one thing at a time. This has been cognitively demonstrated time and again. We're not good multitaskers. > > > Matt as much as I agree with your conclusion, I am not convinced by your argument. Are you suggesting I can't walk and chew gum at the same time? Perhaps it explains a lot. The right and left hemispheres can't work sufficiently independently for a piano player to play a chord? > -I am just now starting to get caught up, but you missed an important part of the discussion. When you're walking and talking with your spouse, do you consciously *will* the walking AND the talking? I argue no: Your conscious attention is going to be on the conversation. (Why else are they passing laws in the US about talking on the cell phone while driving, if we're not so darn "good" at *willing* two things at once?)-> Just looking at things from a deterministic or indeterministic point of view makes the concept of free will a non sequitur. > > Of course compatibilists will move the goal posts to allow the existence of free will. I would argue they miss the point completely. > > Have fun with your forthcoming child.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
MATT: Fact: As humans, we can only DO one thing at a time. This has been cognitively demonstrated time and again. We're not good multitaskers.-ROMANSH: Matt as much as I agree with your conclusion, I am not convinced by your argument. Are you suggesting I can't walk and chew gum at the same time? Perhaps it explains a lot. The right and left hemispheres can't work sufficiently independently for a piano player to play a chord? -MATT: I am just now starting to get caught up, but you missed an important part of the discussion. When you're walking and talking with your spouse, do you consciously *will* the walking AND the talking? I argue no: Your conscious attention is going to be on the conversation. (Why else are they passing laws in the US about talking on the cell phone while driving, if we're not so darn "good" at *willing* two things at once?) -Like I said a couple weeks ago--and need to finish off with dhw--free will is not something I consider a valid question to ask anymore. Libet? Dennett? Decartes? Schopenhauer? Wasted their time on that question.-All this shows just how far apart we are in our understanding of what is meant by "free will". In my view, it has nothing whatsoever to do with walking and talking with your spouse or with your conscious attention on the conversation, unless you have an alternative to consider ("Um, sorry, dear, but wouldn't you rather watch the Olympics?"). The will ... whether free or not ... ONLY comes into play when there are conscious decisions to be made. Here yet again, to save you looking it up, is my definition: "An entity's conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints". This does not mean that we go through life continuously controlling everything we do! Most of the time, our actions automatically respond to the requirements of our situation, and we don't NEED to exercise our ability to control our thoughts. You wrote earlier that thoughts come when they will. Generally, this is true. But when we have a decision to make, it is we who summon up the thoughts as we weigh the pros and cons, just as we remember things automatically, but when a piece of information fails to come to mind, we consciously search our memory. The fact (I agree with you) that we can't focus efficiently on more than one thing at a time is totally irrelevant if we have to make a choice between two courses of action. But if you do not accept my definition, you will need to supply one of your own to avoid further misunderstandings.-Let me remind you that so far, in trying to prove the irrelevance or invalidity of the subject, you have argued 1) that the actions remain the same whether we have free will or not. This is true, but your argument therefore "invalidates" all questions relating to explanations of what exists: e.g. the universe will be the same, whether there is or is not a God; we humans remain the same, whether we evolved by chance or by design. 2) We shall never know the definitive answer. This is also true, but it "invalidates" all philosophical questions. However, I'm sure you'll find a new way to finish me off!
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
A scond passage from the Guardian review of Tim Spector's Identically Different: Why You Can Change Your Genes reads as follows:-"Spector is able to attach some fairly reliable figures to the heritability of many traits. Where there is autism in an identical twin, there is a 60% chance the other will have it. More surprisingly, he reports "a 40%-50% genetic component to belief in God." But you don't live your life by percentages: your life is 100% yours ... genes, good and bad luck, roads not taken, all included."-At first sight this seems to be a vote for free will, since it suggests that regardless of the circumstances, you are in control of your response to them. (I must say I too am surprised, if not downright sceptical, about the genetic link to belief in God ... how the heck can such a thing be observed, let alone measured?) But "your" life yet again raises the question of who and what actually constitutes "you"? Our on-going identity is the sum of our physical selves, our experiences, and the unfathomable phenomenon we call the mind. So even those factors that have been imposed on us are still "us" and no-one else. In that sense, the quote is correct: our life is 100% ours. But no-one can possibly know where unconscious influences might end and an autonomous, conscious decision-making process might begin.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Sunday, August 19, 2012, 15:27 (4262 days ago) @ dhw
A viewpoint from a neurophysiologist that supports the concept that we do have free will. It is not a Sam Harris illusion with a ghost in the works. Libet questioned, his results only 10% removed from chance:-http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-contemporary-neuroscience-support-or-challenge-reality-free-will
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
DAVID: A viewpoint from a neurophysiologist that supports the concept that we do have free will. It is not a Sam Harris illusion with a ghost in the works. Libet questioned, his results only 10% removed from chance:-http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-contemporary-neuroscience-support-or-cha...-"One reason it is easy to move from the assumption that neural processes cause behavior to the presumption that consciousness does nothing is that neuroscience still lacks a theory to explain how certain types of brain processes are the basis of conscious or rational mental processes. Without such a story in place, it is easy to assume that neuroscientific explanations supersede and bypass explanations in terms of conscious and rational processes. But that conclusion is unwarranted. Explanations in organic chemistry do not explain away life; they explain life. A more complete scientific theory of the mind will have to explain how consciousness and rationality work, rather than explaining them away. As it does, we will come to understand how and when we have the capacities for conscious and rational choice, and for self-control, that people ordinarily associate with free will. These are the capacities to reflect on our desires and reasons, to consider which of them we want to motivate us, and to make efforts to act accordingly."-This researcher categorically rejects the concept of dualism, and so I'm afraid I find his arguments incoherent. Without dualism how can you avoid the conclusion that the brain is the source of the mind, of which the will is just one part? All he seems to be saying is that eventually we might find a "more complete" scientific theory to explain how we have free will. Others will argue that eventually we might find a scientific theory to explain how we have the illusion of free will. In other words, he has no more idea than the rest of us. And as usual, there is no attempt to explain what constitutes the "we" which reflects, considers and acts. Everyone seems to take identity for granted, as if it was not part of the mystery.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Monday, August 20, 2012, 02:12 (4261 days ago) @ dhw
As it does, we will come to understand how and when we have the capacities for conscious and rational choice, and for self-control, that people ordinarily associate with free will. These are the capacities to reflect on our desires and reasons, to consider which of them we want to motivate us, and to make efforts to act accordingly[/i]." > > This researcher categorically rejects the concept of dualism, and so I'm afraid I find his arguments incoherent. Without dualism how can you avoid the conclusion that the brain is the source of the mind, of which the will is just one part? -Please educate me: what is your definition of dualism?-I have used the Stamford Philosophical definition: "In the philosophy of mind, dualism is the theory that the mental and the physical—or mind and body or mind and brain—are, in some sense, radically different kinds of thing. Because common sense tells us that there are physical bodies, and because there is intellectual pressure towards producing a unified view of the world, one could say that materialist monism is the 'default option'. Discussion about dualism, therefore, tends to start from the assumption of the reality of the physical world, and then to consider arguments for why the mind cannot be treated as simply part of that world." -This neurophysiologist appears to accept consciousness as an emergent property of the brain and wants to find out how the brain does this. How does that rule out dualism for him? He seems to be saying that a material brain is producing a non-material mind. Isn't that a form of dualism? And why are we beholden to dualism? Van Lommel of NDE fame thinks the brain is a radio receiver on a quantum wavelength. That is a form of dualism I guess.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
Dhw: This researcher categorically rejects the concept of dualism, and so I'm afraid I find his arguments incoherent. Without dualism how can you avoid the conclusion that the brain is the source of the mind, of which the will is just one part? -DAVID: Please educate me: what is your definition of dualism? I have used the Stamford Philosophical definition: "In the philosophy of mind, dualism is the theory that the mental and the physical—or mind and body or mind and brain—are, in some sense, radically different kinds of thing. Because common sense tells us that there are physical bodies, and because there is intellectual pressure towards producing a unified view of the world, one could say that materialist monism is the 'default option'. Discussion about dualism, therefore, tends to start from the assumption of the reality of the physical world, and then to consider arguments for why the mind cannot be treated as simply part of that world." -The crucial part of this "definition" is that dualism suggests a reality that is NOT simply part of the physical world (I would add "as we know it"). DAVID: This neurophysiologist appears to accept consciousness as an emergent property of the brain and wants to find out how the brain does this. How does that rule out dualism for him? -You need to ask him, but his opposition is quite clear: "Most willusionists' [= people who think free will is an illusion] assume that, by definition, free will requires a supernatural power of non-physical minds or souls [...] Based on this definition of free will, they then conclude that neuroscience challenges free will, since it replaces a non-physical mind or soul with a physical brain. But there is no reason to define free will as requiring this dualist picture. Among philosophers, very few develop theories of free will that conflict with a naturalistic understanding of the mind—free will requires choice and control, and for some philosophers, indeterminism, but it does not require dualism."-This is also my own concept of dualism ... that the body is distinct from the mind/soul ... as per your Stamford definition. (NB, this does not mean I believe in it. I am explaining my argument, as requested.) He goes on to say: "...what people primarily associate with free will and moral responsibility is the capacity to make conscious decisions and to control one's actions in light of such decisions." Exactly. But what Nahmias does not know any more than the rest of us is where the capacity for conscious decisions and control might come from, and that is the crux of the problem. If it is a product of the physical brain, we are what our brains make us and we cannot be free from our brains. Exit free will. DAVID: He seems to be saying that a material brain is producing a non-material mind. Isn't that a form of dualism? And why are we beholden to dualism? Van Lommel of NDE fame thinks the brain is a radio receiver on a quantum wavelength. That is a form of dualism I guess.-Not as I understand it. If the brain is a RECEIVER, what does it receive, and from where? NDEs provide the perfect illustration of dualism at work. If the brain is clinically dead, what produces the will/consciousness/identity of the brain-dead patient? In all Van Lommel's examples, the patients are still themselves, are still aware, and even have feelings and wishes (e.g. not to return to this life). If you are prepared to give credence to such episodes, you must also be prepared to give credence to the idea that there is a form of conscious energy that is independent of the brain cells. For you, who believe in a universal intelligence, I would have thought this was absolutely central ... unless you think God's intelligence "emerges" from a physical brain.-The idea that the physical brain actually produces something non-physical, which then becomes independent of the brain and is able to control it, is way beyond my powers of imagination, though frankly the whole business of consciousness is so incomprehensible that all scenarios seem unlikely. But I would say yet again that until we know the source of consciousness, we cannot make any definitive pronouncements on the subject of free will. If the source of consciousness and all its manifestations is the brain cells, I would agree with the "willusionists". If the source is an unknown form of energy that sends its signals to Van Lommel's "receiver" brain, then free will is a possibility, in accordance with the degree of the will's independence from the body and from influences past and present outside its control. But without the Stamford/Nahmias/Cartesian form of dualism (mind distinct from body), free will doesn't seem to me to have a philosophical leg to stand on.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
David, in my post to you last night I wrote something that didn't make sense. I must stop writing at night!-Van Lommel's image of the brain as a receiver IS what I understand by dualism, i.e. the physical brain receives and responds to signals from the non-physical mind. -My comment "Not as I understand it" should have referred to your interpretation of Nahmias's argument as meaning that the material brain produces a non-material mind. This suggestion goes too far for me, as I tried to explain later in my post (though I find all explanations of consciousness unlikely). In any case, I can't find it anywhere in his article ... he simply explains that free will involves conscious control, but doesn't ask where the capacity for conscious control might come from. He just indicates that we need a "more complete" scientific theory to account for it. -My apologies for the confusion.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 21, 2012, 16:53 (4260 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Tuesday, August 21, 2012, 17:39
David, in my post to you last night I wrote something that didn't make sense. I must stop writing at night! > > Van Lommel's image of the brain as a receiver IS what I understand by dualism, i.e. the physical brain receives and responds to signals from the non-physical mind. > > My comment "Not as I understand it" should have referred to your interpretation of Nahmias's argument as meaning that the material brain produces a non-material mind. This suggestion goes too far for me, as I tried to explain later in my post (though I find all explanations of consciousness unlikely). In any case, I can't find it anywhere in his article ... he simply explains that free will involves conscious control, but doesn't ask where the capacity for conscious control might come from. He just indicates that we need a "more complete" scientific theory to account for it. -I'm still confused in general, but appreciate your clarification. Yes, Nahmias thinks the brain produces the mind in some manner, but a main thrust of his article is to downgrade the leap of faith from Libet's work that our biochemical/electrical processes in the brain control everything, which the atheists like Sam Harris (he mentions specifically) accept unconditionally since that concept is a marvelous support for materialistic atheism. Instead Nahmias points out our developmental backgrounds as a fertile field to color our decision-making. He specifically states the brain gears up to make decisions, and we make the decisions. Goodbye Libet, as other studies mentioned here have shown. -In my medical school training we were taught that personality was 40 % inherited, 40% taught by family and 20% an amalgum of further experience. The twins raised apart studies are in full support of this concept.-An article in the WSJ adds to the concept of the building an enormous background into the developing brain. Some adolescent and young adult brains develop into the late 20's before finishing. -http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443713704577601532208760746.html?KEYWORDS=Melinda+Beck
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
David: I'm still confused in general, but appreciate your clarification. Yes, Nahmias thinks the brain produces the mind in some manner, but a main thrust of his article is to downgrade the leap of faith from Libet's work that our biochemical/electrical processes in the brain control everything, which the atheists like Sam Harris (he mentions specifically) accept unconditionally since that concept is a marvelous support for materialistic atheism. Instead Nahmias points out our developmental backgrounds as a fertile field to color our decision-making. He specifically states the brain gears up to make decisions, and we make the decisions. Goodbye Libet, as other studies mentioned here have shown.-"WE MAKE THE DECISIONS." What you and Nahmias and so many others seem to gloss over is just what constitutes this "we", i.e. the identity/mind/soul/personality ... call it what you will. You go on to say you were taught that "personality was 40% inherited, 40% taught by family and 20% an amalgam of further experience". We needn't discuss the percentages. I'm interested only in the substance: is the identity something material or something immaterial? I really don't see how you can have an immaterial will without an immaterial identity. NDEs indicate that will, thought, emotion, memory, consciousness all function independently of the physical body. All of these are what constitute our identity. But if they are CAUSED by biochemical/electrical processes (as atheists believe) and therefore die with the body, "we" are nothing but materials, and NDEs are not to be trusted. The reduction of the will to physical processes in the brain is indeed vital to atheism, but it is no answer to say "we" make the decisions if "we" are also reducible to biochemical processes! This is what dualism denies, and I cannot see any third way: it's either materialism or dualism. Either the brain controls the mind (materialist), or the mind controls the brain (dualist). -I struggle to make sense of your suggestion that the material brain somehow creates an immaterial mind that acts independently of the material brain and controls it. But I'm no less confused than you, since I find materialism and dualism equally unconvincing! However, what really surprises me is that you are so reluctant to embrace mind/body dualism when your own faith is rooted in just such an immaterial form of will and consciousness ... namely, God.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 22, 2012, 15:24 (4259 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Wednesday, August 22, 2012, 15:38
I struggle to make sense of your suggestion that the material brain somehow creates an immaterial mind that acts independently of the material brain and controls it. But I'm no less confused than you, since I find materialism and dualism equally unconvincing! However, what really surprises me is that you are so reluctant to embrace mind/body dualism when your own faith is rooted in just such an immaterial form of will and consciousness ... namely, God.-I'll admit I'm as confused as you are and as you make me sound in your analysis of what I have written. I agree that the brain is material and the mind is immaterial. I believe I have free will, that the biochemical/ electrical impulses generated between brain cells are run by me, not the other way around. So there are two dual parts, but my free will allows me to exert control over the immaterial part. From my readings of van Lommel's research, I think his idea of a receiver brain may have some merit based on quantum duality. Just how all of it works is in the stage of a fuzzy concept. The dualism I accept is what I have written, nothing more. My mind is not fully separate from me or my control. But it is not material, it is of this reality and I control it. It can separate from me in an NDE during 'clinical' death but it can be retained by a non-functional brain as a memory afterward, so it is never fully separate. It is important to remember that memory is a whole brain process, not just one identifiable spot of the brain. I keep coming back to a quantum hologram concept. My concept of dualism is material/immaterial intertwined, never entirely separate. Total separation makes no sense. God is all mind, no body, a quantum cloud of energy, which my brain allows me to mimic somehow. And the key is still hidden in quantum theory, that portion which is not yet understood, and may never be. It creates the ghost in the machine.-Philosophic slicing and dicing is where my eyes glaze over. Its angels dancing on the pinhead again, for it leads to nothing. I can go only so far as I can go. I suspect it may never be fully explained, and we will have to accept only what we can know, not keep chewing at it like a dog with a bone, or as Scarlet O'Hara said, "I'll worry about that tomorrow".-To see how our frontal lobes control thought:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120821144128.htm
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Thursday, August 23, 2012, 15:25 (4258 days ago) @ David Turell
Self awareness, a major component of consciousness is studied in brain-damaged patients. Self awareness comes from everywhere:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120822181228.htm-And our wiring is much more complex compared to chimps and rhesus macaques:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120822124708.htm-"Although all three species share a frontal cortex, our analysis shows that how the human brain regulates molecules and switches genes on and off unfolds in a richer, more elaborate fashion," -And all this developed by chance occurrances
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
DAVID: I agree that the brain is material and the mind is immaterial. I believe I have free will, that the biochemical/electrical impulses generated between brain cells are run by me, not the other way round. So there are dual parts, but my free will allows me to exert control over the immaterial part.-You need to keep differentiating. When you say "run by me", I presume "me" = your immaterial part. Your free will (if you have it) has to be immaterial, and if it runs the impulses between brain cells, it exerts control over the material part, within given constraints, as well as the immaterial part, though also within given constraints (see my last paragraph). -DAVID: It [the mind] can separate from me in an NDE during 'clinical' death but it can be retained by a non-functional brain as a memory afterward, so it is never fully separate. It is important to remember that memory is a whole brain process...-This is confusing. In NDEs, the brain-dead patient retains his/her identity, and recognizes people from his/her past. This entails memory, which means the memory is also part of the immaterial mind/identity. -DAVID: My concept of dualism is material/immaterial intertwined, never entirely separate. Total separation makes no sense. God is all mind, no body, a quantum cloud of energy, which my brain allows me to mimic somehow.-So long as we are physically alive, of course the two must be intertwined. The immaterial mind ... as you said in the first quote ... controls the material brain, and as physical beings we cannot function without this interaction. But if you believe that the mind can separate from the body in an NDE, total separation does make sense. The patients return to their bodies and to material-immaterial interaction, but their NDE has been one of total separation, and this is essential to your concept of God, who is all mind and no body. With this concept, it is not the brain "allowing" you to mimic God: your immaterial self IS an echo of God's immaterialism, but he has designed your body/brain as a temporary physical container for your immaterial self (the "ghost in the machine"). That, as I see it (but seeing is not believing!), is the essence of mind-body or so-called "substance" dualism.-Your confusion is different from mine, which arises firstly from the fact that I am faced with a stark choice between materialism and dualism, but remain unconvinced by both theories. There is no way that I shall ever be able to understand how material cells can produce consciousness with all its hugely complex manifestations. Nor, however, can I conceive of any form of non-physical energy that is aware of itself and somehow gets into my skull to exercise control over my brain. It is the same dilemma as with unbelievable chance versus an unimaginable, immaterial, self-generated designer. Secondly, if I were to opt for dualism, I would have no way of knowing the extent to which my immaterial will is directed by factors beyond its own control (heredity, upbringing, past events etc.). And so, as usual, I perch on my picket fence. "My" free choice, the choice of my material brain cells, or the choice of unconscious influences that control my immaterial identlty? Who knows? -I like your conclusion: "I suspect it may never be fully explained, and we will have to accept only what we can know." Yep, that's agnosticism for you.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Thursday, August 23, 2012, 22:06 (4258 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: My concept of dualism is material/immaterial intertwined, never entirely separate. Total separation makes no sense. God is all mind, no body, a quantum cloud of energy, which my brain allows me to mimic somehow. > > So long as we are physically alive, of course the two must be intertwined. The immaterial mind ... as you said in the first quote ... controls the material brain, and as physical beings we cannot function without this interaction.-Agreed. -> With this concept, it is not the brain "allowing" you to mimic God: your immaterial self IS an echo of God's immaterialism, but he has designed your body/brain as a temporary physical container for your immaterial self (the "ghost in the machine"). That, as I see it (but seeing is not believing!), is the essence of mind-body or so-called "substance" dualism.-How much ghost is there in a newborn? The brain has to develop enough to create a mind, or to receive it. But I experienced creating myself. I did not feel that it was radioed to me to acccept. > > Your confusion is different from mine, which arises firstly from the fact that I am faced with a stark choice between materialism and dualism, but remain unconvinced by both theories. There is no way that I shall ever be able to understand how material cells can produce consciousness with all its hugely complex manifestations.-I agree-> Nor, however, can I conceive of any form of non-physical energy that is aware of itself and somehow gets into my skull to exercise control over my brain.-Exactly. You are separating the two, the material brain and the mind too much. They are intertwined. You create the 'non-physical energy' and you control it. Mind and brain do separate in an NDE, which strenghtens the concept of afterlife, a gathering of quantum souls in a giant herd in heaven.-At Bates College came the following story. A prof, while visiting Asia, was told that giant worms could be chopped into ten parts, and each part would create a new worm. He was also told that each worm, as well as all other animals had souls. His question, of course, was did the original soul get chopped into ten parts, or were there nine soul-less worms. He never got a straight answer.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
DAVID: How much ghost is there in a newborn? The brain has to develop enough to create a mind, or to receive it. But I experienced creating myself. I did not feel that it was radioed to me to accept. -Dhw: Nor, however, can I conceive of any form of non-physical energy that is aware of itself and somehow gets into my skull to exercise control over my brain.-DAVID: Exactly. You are separating the two, the material brain and the mind too much. They are intertwined. You create the 'non-physical energy' and you control it. Mind and brain do separate in an NDE, which strengthens the concept of afterlife, a gathering of quantum souls in a giant herd in heaven.-"You" create... "you" control the energy. But in dualism "you" ARE your immaterial will/memories/ emotions etc. It is these, your own faculties, that send signals to your brain ... they are not "radioed" from somewhere else. Once you start claiming that the mind does separate in an NDE, you are committed to the idea of an immaterial mind which is independent of the brain. "You" ARE the "non-physical energy". In a previous post you suggested that the brain created the energy, and now you are suggesting that the you which IS the energy creates and controls the energy! How much ghost is there in a newborn? Of course I don't know the answer, nor do I even believe that this is what happens. But if I did believe in dualism, I would probably answer that this non-physical energy is virtually blank until it is worked on (very swiftly and then continuously) by experience. This ties in with a quote from one of the articles you drew our attention to: -DAVID: Self awareness, a major component of consciousness is studied in brain-damaged patients. Self awareness comes from everywhere:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120822181228.htm-"Here, we have a patient who is missing all the areas in the brain that are typically thought to be needed for self-awareness yet he remains self-aware," says co-corresponding author Justin Feinstein, who earned his doctorate at the UI in February. "Clearly, neuroscience is only beginning to understand how the human brain can generate a phenomenon as complex as self-awareness." Neuroscience is not even beginning to understand consciousness, and that may be because neuroscientists have already made up their minds that it is generated by the brain. One could scarcely wish for a more direct pointer to dualism than the above example, although no neuroscientist would dare say so. And yet everybody knows that non-physical experiences affect the body. Emotions like fear, anxiety, love, excitement cause chemicals to be discharged, and it is not the chemicals that cause the emotions. The inference, then, is that it is not the chemicals that produce our consciousness, but vice versa. How an abstraction can produce something so material we do not know, any more than a materialist knows how chemicals can produce something so abstract. However, the mind/identity is constantly changing, again through an inexplicable process of abstract experience imprinting itself on the dualist's immaterial energy (or the materialist's brain). If I remember rightly, our process theologian Frank talked about God releasing particles of himself, and this might perhaps fit into the dualist scenario: that each living being inherits a particle of God's conscious energy, and this is exposed day in day out to the experiences of life, which progressively fashion the identity. The body will inevitably influence it, since the body is also part of our experience, and as this energy is enclosed in a physical framework, naturally the two interact so long as the physical framework is alive. When it dies, the particle returns to the universal energy, while still retaining the identity it has formed during the life of the physical being. This would account for many mystic and psychic experiences. Alternatively, we are nothing but our material cells and their chemical interactions. A much simpler theory, but just as incredible, incomprehensible and confusing.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Saturday, August 25, 2012, 15:42 (4256 days ago) @ dhw
> "You" create... "you" control the energy. But in dualism "you" ARE your immaterial will/memories/ emotions etc. It is these, your own faculties, that send signals to your brain ... they are not "radioed" from somewhere else. Once you start claiming that the mind does separate in an NDE, you are committed to the idea of an immaterial mind which is independent of the brain. -'I think therefore I am' is not off the mark. My physcial brain is the most complex computer in the universe, and if there is a universal intelligence, as I believe, and my 'think' is a part of the UI, it offers explanations.-> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120822181228.htm > > "Here, we have a patient who is missing all the areas in the brain that are typically thought to be needed for self-awareness yet he remains self-aware," says co-corresponding author Justin Feinstein, who earned his doctorate at the UI in February. "Clearly, neuroscience is only beginning to understand how the human brain can generate a phenomenon as complex as self-awareness." > > Neuroscience is not even beginning to understand consciousness, and that may be because neuroscientists have already made up their minds that it is generated by the brain. -But it probably is. A material brain produces an immaterial consciousness, a tiny part of the consciousness of the universe. This is why I am a panentheist.- > However, the mind/identity is constantly changing, again through an inexplicable process of abstract experience imprinting itself on the dualist's immaterial energy (or the materialist's brain). If I remember rightly, our process theologian Frank talked about God releasing particles of himself, and this might perhaps fit into the dualist scenario: that each living being inherits a particle of God's conscious energy, and this is exposed day in day out to the experiences of life, which progressively fashion the identity. The body will inevitably influence it, since the body is also part of our experience, and as this energy is enclosed in a physical framework, naturally the two interact so long as the physical framework is alive. When it dies, the particle returns to the universal energy, while still retaining the identity it has formed during the life of the physical being. This would account for many mystic and psychic experiences.-Now you have something. Frank and I are close together. > > Alternatively, we are nothing but our material cells and their chemical interactions. A much simpler theory, but just as incredible, incomprehensible and confusing.-An emergent property joining the UI. The brain is a radio sender and receiver, whence the 'psychic' phenomenon you alluded to above. The electromagnetic waves of radio signals are not intelligible until received by a proper decoder. Seen as waves, they are just waves. They are information only when properly decoded. Yesterday, my psychic wife had to shop for groceries. Her choice is two areas equally far away from us. She felt compelled to go to a specific area and found a food item we have been searching for over several weeks in other areas without success. Remember I've described her 'seeing' things before. I was startled the first time, but I've gotten accustomed to her telepathy now.
Free Will, Consciousness, Gullibility
by David Turell , Saturday, August 25, 2012, 15:58 (4256 days ago) @ David Turell
The center for 'being taken' is discovered. The usual warning, fMRI shows blood flow, identifies an area but not how the area does its job at the neuron level. -http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-08-brain-gullibility-center.html-dhw take note
Free Will, Consciousness, Choice
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 18:17 (4224 days ago) @ David Turell
An fMRI study showing two frontal lobe areas controlling a choice:-http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-09-scientists-competition-brain-regions-ability.html
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
DAVID: A material brain produces an immaterial consciousness, a tiny part of the consciousness of the universe. DAVID: The brain is a radio sender and receiver... The electromagnetic waves of radio signals are not intelligible until received by a proper decoder. DAVID (in a previous post): Mind and brain do separate in an NDE.-In view of the direct communication in NDEs between brain-dead patients and the dead people they encounter, how do you think signals are sent and decoded, since no physical brain is necessary? The suggestion seems to be that at one moment the immaterial self is dependent on the material brain for its birth and all its characteristics, but the next moment doesn't need the brain at all, yet retains its characteristics and simply switches to a telepathic mode which the material brain created to be both dependent on and independent of itself. Is that a fair summary of what you believe? -Your psychic wife "felt compelled to go to a specific area and found a food item we have been searching for over several weeks in other areas without success." Please send her to me immediately. Perhaps she can find my car keys, my wife's reading glasses, and the treasure which I am convinced is buried in our back garden.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Sunday, August 26, 2012, 18:54 (4255 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: A material brain produces an immaterial consciousness, a tiny part of the consciousness of the universe. > DAVID: The brain is a radio sender and receiver... The electromagnetic waves of radio signals are not intelligible until received by a proper decoder. > DAVID (in a previous post): Mind and brain do separate in an NDE. > > In view of the direct communication in NDEs between brain-dead patients and the dead people they encounter, how do you think signals are sent and decoded, since no physical brain is necessary? The suggestion seems to be that at one moment the immaterial self is dependent on the material brain for its birth and all its characteristics, but the next moment doesn't need the brain at all, yet retains its characteristics and simply switches to a telepathic mode which the material brain created to be both dependent on and independent of itself. Is that a fair summary of what you believe? -The answer to all these puzzles must lie in quantum mechanics. After all we know that Einstein's 'spookiness at a distance' is proven beyond a doubt. If quanta can be in two places at the same time, a mind which is a quantum particle network can do telepathy, and be detached and attached at the same time. The authors, whom I have read, who try to come to grips with this all return to the same quantum suppositions or to holographic representations based on quantum theory. The answer may lie beyond Heisenberg's wall of quantum uncertainty. I'd like to hear other's thoughts.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, August 26, 2012, 23:55 (4254 days ago) @ David Turell
I don't really know what to think on this topic, honestly, which is one of the reasons I have refrained from chiming in on it too much. On one hand I see the brain as part two-way transceiver, part data processor, and part data server. However, I have seen nothing in the biological processes that explains the brains ability to do all of the things that it does. Nor have I seen anything at our current level of understanding that can come remotely close to explaining consciousness, emotion, or experience. Some how, we are capable of building models more rich and more complex than the fastest computers in the world, and do it more efficiently using less energy. While that is amazing enough, there is the question of interpretation. Who interprets those models, and why? -I have lots of theories, and tons of speculation about the who's, why's, and whatfor's, but nothing else aside from my faith and what little we actually know from science. Anything I say would get reduced to 'God did it' and cause another round of circular reasoning that is counter-productive. My position is based on a strange mix of fact, faith, and more recently my own experiences as a designer. While that is certainly true of everyone to some extent, for those with any type of belief in a archetypical deity that does not fit precisely with the norm, getting deep into any details or reasoning for a particular belief generally only drives the subject off topic. (That's not a criticism of anyone here, it is just my general experience.)
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Monday, August 27, 2012, 15:54 (4254 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I don't really know what to think on this topic, honestly, which is one of the reasons I have refrained from chiming in on it too much. On one hand I see the brain as part two-way transceiver, part data processor, and part data server. However, I have seen nothing in the biological processes that explains the brains ability to do all of the things that it does. Nor have I seen anything at our current level of understanding that can come remotely close to explaining consciousness, emotion, or experience.-Your coments are right on target. - > I have lots of theories, and tons of speculation about the who's, why's, and whatfor's, but nothing else aside from my faith and what little we actually know from science. Anything I say would get reduced to 'God did it' and cause another round of circular reasoning that is counter-productive. My position is based on a strange mix of fact, faith, and more recently my own experiences as a designer. While that is certainly true of everyone to some extent, for those with any type of belief in a archetypical deity that does not fit precisely with the norm, getting deep into any details or reasoning for a particular belief generally only drives the subject off topic. (That's not a criticism of anyone here, it is just my general experience.)-That is exactly the 'God problem'. Religion has left us with fairly rigid concepts of a 'greater power', one that is too anthropomophic. More quantum less manlike is my guess.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 22:55 (4252 days ago) @ David Turell
A reminder. Human consciousness has a huge component of self-awareness, which includes self analysis. My poodle knows himself in the mirror. He is self aware to a degree, but he is not self analytic. In retrospect, I think that point has been missing from many previous discussions we all have had.-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2012/08/22/does-self-awareness-require-a-complex-brain/?WT_mc_id=SA_WR_20120829
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
DAVID: A reminder. Human consciousness has a huge component of self-awareness, which includes self analysis. My poodle knows himself in the mirror. He is self aware to a degree, but he is not self analytic. In retrospect, I think that point has been missing from many previous discussions we all have had.-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2012/08/22/does-self-awareness-require-a...-dhw on this thread, 8 July at 20.12: "Firstly, observation demands consciousness of the thing to be observed, and secondly if the thing to be observed is myself, I see this as additional consciousness [...], and since I can also observe myself observing, I must be capable of many layers of consciousness, which may well set us humans apart from other animals." But you are right, David, the point needs constant reiteration.-A quote from the article you have referred us to: "Given the evidence of Roger's largely intact self-awareness despite his ravaged brain, Philippi, Rudrauf and their colleagues argue that the insular cortex, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) cannot by themselves account for conscious recognition of oneself as a thinking being. Instead, they propose that self-awareness is a far more diffuse cognitive process, relying on many parts of the brain, including regions not located in the cerebral cortex." - Well, clearly the current model is wrong. The alternative that Philippi, Rudrauf and their colleagues might consider is dualism, but that would involve taking NDEs, OBEs and other psychic phenomena seriously, which is anathema to science. David has related these to the quantum world, which is taken seriously, so why the heck can't these materialist researchers at least consider joining all the dots in a different pattern? The above quote smacks almost of desperation: the materialist explanation HAS to be right, so let's not even think about evidence to the contrary. No, I'm not arguing for dualism ... I'm arguing for scientific and philosophical open-mindedness and integrity.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Thursday, September 06, 2012, 19:29 (4244 days ago) @ dhw
An article on personality change from brain injury, known since Phineas Gage;- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-you-make-sociopath-through-brain-injury-trauma&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20120905-The brain controls personality, as an originator or a receiver?
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
DAVID: An article on personality change from brain injury, known since Phineas Gage;-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-you-make-sociopath-through-brain-i...-The brain controls personality, as an originator or a receiver?-That is the great question, and perhaps it's worth a recap on the underlying problem. We know that drugs, diseases, injuries can affect the brain and hence the personality. That is an argument for materialism (= the brain as originator). But when neuroscientists triumphantly pinpoint areas of the brain that light up during particular activities, they don't ask (and would not be able to answer anyway) just what part of the person activates those areas of the brain. If I want to solve a puzzle, and Compartment 555 lights up, what compartment constitutes the "I" that wants to solve the puzzle and makes 555 light up? The case of the patient who was perfectly conscious of himself despite the absence of those areas of the brain connected with self-awareness highlighted the problem. Of course we don't know the answer, but we certainly won't get one just by ignoring the question.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Sunday, September 09, 2012, 15:20 (4241 days ago) @ dhw
> The brain controls personality, as an originator or a receiver? > But when neuroscientists triumphantly pinpoint areas of the brain that light up during particular activities, they don't ask (and would not be able to answer anyway) just what part of the person activates those areas of the brain. -Another question, after I've had a night of vivid dreaming is, who is in control to manifest the dream sequences? Is it me or is it an independent brain? But I can relate most dreams to my own experiences and thoughts. Freud used dreams in his therapy of patients just for that reason. I know I initiate a line of reasoning at my volition, but I'm not in control of dreams. And of course the other question: why dream at all? What purpose? I know my dog dreams, I've watched him, but what function or purpose does it provide for him? The whole issue is well beyond fMRI's. I've presented websites that make the point that the material presented is extremely basic and elemental, like learning pre-K material when we are really searching for a Ph.D. thesis. For the atheist (think Dawkins) who uses Darwin to justify his personal philosophy, the presence of a conscious brain is a nightmare. By chance from an origin using inorganic matter to start? Ridiculous!
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Friday, September 14, 2012, 17:58 (4236 days ago) @ David Turell
The ill brain can change personality. This article discusses crime and neuroscience and the effect on criminal law:- http://www.chron.com/default/article/Do-we-have-free-will-3863768.php
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, July 11, 2012, 23:50 (4300 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,-I will re-quote the relevant passage of N and engage in a little more analysis:-"The causa sui is the best self-contradiction that has been conceived so far, it is a sort of rape and perversion of logic; but the extravagant pride of man has managed to entangle itself profoundly and frightfully with just this nonsense. ... Suppose someone were thus to see through the boorish simplicity of this celebrated concept of "free will" and put it out of his head altogther, I beg of him to carry his "enlightenment" a step further, and also put out of his head the contrary of this monstrous conception of "free will": I mean "unfree will," which amounts to a misuse of cause and effect. One should not wrongly reify "cause" and "effect," as the natural scientists do ... according to the prevailing mechanical doltishness which makes the cause press and push until it "effects" its end; one should use "cause" and "effect" only as pure concepts, that is to say, as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation and communication--not for explanation. In the "in-itself" there is nothing of "causal connections" of "necessity" or of "psychological non-freedom"; there the effect does not follow the cause, there is no rule of "law." ... The "unfree will" is mythology; in real life it is only a matter of strong and weak wills. " --Nietzsche, BGE, section 21-I emphasized the relevant sentence. N is talking directly about the internal observation of consciousness. I think he's pushing into the often random nature our consciousness tends to draw itself--what can possibly be more free than the ability to move randomly? Thoughts come when they will. In that sense, as an agent, no, I have no control, but as an entire entity, it's as free as free possibly gets. -I was going to write more... but I think that paragraph sums up everything I'm possibly trying to drive at.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Friday, December 28, 2012, 21:57 (4131 days ago) @ dhw
Another take on the issue of free will;the author has it:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/12/28/need-a-new-years-resolution-choose-to-believe-in-free-will/?WT_mc_id=SA_DD_20121228
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by romansh , Saturday, December 29, 2012, 21:01 (4130 days ago) @ David Turell
The blogger should add The Self Illusion and The Sleight of Mind to his reading list.
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Sunday, December 30, 2012, 00:24 (4129 days ago) @ romansh
Rom: The blogger should add The Self Illusion and The Sleight of Mind to his reading list.-I was interested but I can't find it as titled. Who is the author or is the title wrong?
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by romansh , Sunday, December 30, 2012, 01:32 (4129 days ago) @ David Turell
Free Will, Consciousness, Identity
by David Turell , Sunday, December 30, 2012, 14:54 (4129 days ago) @ romansh
http://www.amazon.com/Self-Illusion-Social-Creates-Identity/dp/019989759X &... > and > > http://www.amazon.com/Sleights-Mind-Neuroscience-Everyday-Deceptions/product-reviews/03... you for giving me a chance to review your source material. We are on opposite sides of a view of 'self'. I am a very concrete individual and have vivid memories from age two. I was myself then and I am now. I may have completely changed my politics from liberal to libertarian, but I can understand my evolution in thought.-Yes, I saw reviews of the book on illusions. I know the brain can be tricked, and the brain is trained to see patterns. So? Good example: Sitting in my car day dreaming and the car next to me moves; I have the illusion I am moving, until the moment I start to pay attention. The brain is marvelously built to help us make split-second decisions in order to deal with reality in a coordinated way. Magic tricks do not disprove self.-Also see my entry and Matts from, August 8, 2012 on Libet.-The other book has mixed reviews as one might imagine, considering the long debate on this subject.
Free Will, for romansh
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 01, 2013, 14:34 (4127 days ago) @ romansh
edited by unknown, Tuesday, January 01, 2013, 14:56
I sure both of us will agree to this interpretation of quantum mechanics and human mental functioning. For me it explains NDE's andthat we are all part of God.-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qngieHWZXcM-When we try to scientifically study brain activity we get this
Medical Xpress)—The apparent ease and immediacy of human perception is deceptive, requiring highly complex neural operations to determine the category of objects in a visual scene. Nevertheless, the human brain is able to complete operations such as face category tuning (the ability differentiate faces from other similar objects) completely outside of conscious awareness. Apparently, such complex processes are not sufficient for us to consciously perceive faces. Now, scientists from the University of Amsterdam used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) to show that while visible and invisible faces produce similar category-selective responses in the brain's ventral visual cortex, only visible faces caused widespread response enhancements and changes in neural oscillatory synchronization. The team concluded that sustained neural information integration is a key factor in conscious face perception. Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-12-facts-neural-unconscious-conscious-perception.htm...
Free Will, for romansh
by romansh , Tuesday, January 01, 2013, 17:43 (4127 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Tuesday, January 01, 2013, 18:02
Your refutation of Stenger the other day got me searching Stenger's works. I have not read anything of his yet. -Anyway here is his take on free will http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/FreeWillSkeptic.pdf-Regarding your video, these things always get me asking what is the meaning of measurement or observation? Here is a quote from John Bell, a proponent of Bohmian mechanics >> It would seem that the theory [quantum mechanics] is exclusively concerned about "results of measurement", and has nothing to say about anything else. What exactly qualifies some physical systems to play the role of "measurer"? Was the wavefunction of the world waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer, for some better qualified system ... with a Ph.D.? If the theory is to apply to anything but highly idealized laboratory operations, are we not obliged to admit that more or less "measurement-like" processes are going on more or less all the time, more or less everywhere. Do we not have jumping then all the time? - Here is another quote by Feynman asking the same question >>Does this mean that my observations become real only when I observe an observer observing something as it happens? This is a horrible viewpoint. Do you seriously entertain the thought that without observer there is no reality? Which observer? Any observer? Is a fly an observer? Is a star an observer? Was there no reality before 10^9 B.C. before life began? Or are you the observer? Then there is no reality to the world after you are dead? I know a number of otherwise respectable physicists who have bought life insurance. By what philosophy will the universe without man be understood?
Free Will, for romansh
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 01, 2013, 20:36 (4127 days ago) @ romansh
edited by unknown, Tuesday, January 01, 2013, 20:46
Rom: Your refutation of Stenger the other day got me searching Stenger's works. I have not read anything of his yet. > > Anyway here is his take on free will > http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/FreeWillSkeptic.pdf- Stenger's conclulsion:"That's what it all boils down to: that I'm in my right mind and in control of my behavior. Calling it "free will" (as compatibilists do) confuses people, since it suggests some form of dualism, supernatural or not; so let's call it "autonomy." Even if free will is an illusion, autonomous will is not. If you and I are not just some ephemeral consciousness but rather our physical brains and bodies— and the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports this conclusion—then it is still "we" who make our decisions. And after all, that's what the brain evolved to do, whatever role consciousness might play. Therefore, it is you who are responsible for your decisions, and thus society may justly hold you accountable for your actions."-A good conclusion. The brain uses sleight of hand to allow us to make decisions at times rather quickly as in sports responses, like hitting a pitched ball. I think saying we don't have free will is pushing a conclusion about the brain's processes to an excess. We need the sleight of hand and all of the quantum properties to feel like we run the show, and we do run the show. None of this tells us what consciousness is, but it is not physical, it is at a spiritual level. I follow David Bohm with the idea that consciousness and interconnectedness pervade the universe, which then provide information to support the processes of life. I believe life as inevitable, as does Paul Davies.
Free Will, for romansh
by romansh , Tuesday, January 01, 2013, 21:00 (4127 days ago) @ David Turell
I did not say I agreed with Stenger.-His appeal to the autonomous is a bait and switch.-Though the good thing about the word autonomous is that it is easier to discuss rationally and should be easier to view less emotively.- Regarding consciousness not being physical: are electrons physical according to your lexicon?
Free Will, for romansh
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 01, 2013, 21:30 (4127 days ago) @ romansh
> > Rom: Regarding consciousness not being physical: are electrons physical according to your lexicon?- No. We discuss them as physical points of energy, but really they are particles of energy, and subject to quantum indeterminism. I return to my training in college. Our philosophy professor had the best answer: "Matter is energy on the outside; mind is energy on the inside". The universe is only energy, with a small portion in the form of matter.(4%?) This is why I refer to universal consciousness.
Free Will, for romansh
by romansh , Tuesday, January 01, 2013, 22:14 (4126 days ago) @ David Turell
> > > > Rom: Regarding consciousness not being physical: are electrons physical according to your lexicon? > > No. We discuss them as physical points of energy, but really they are particles of energy, and subject to quantum indeterminism. I return to my training in college. Our philosophy professor had the best answer: "Matter is energy on the outside; mind is energy on the inside". The universe is only energy, with a small portion in the form of matter.(4%?) This is why I refer to universal consciousness. I suggest you should have been more questioning of your college professor.-Anyway I would go further and suggest that matter and energy are two sides of the same coin.-I still do not see how this is coherent with a personal nevermind universal consciousness.
Free Will, for romansh
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 02, 2013, 00:03 (4126 days ago) @ romansh
> rom: Anyway I would go further and suggest that matter and energy are two sides of the same coin.-No, energy is everything and matter is a form of energy. Sides of coins are almost equals. The basis of everything is energy. The Big Bang was pure plasma energy. > > rom:I still do not see how this is coherent with a personal nevermind universal consciousness.-Following Bohm, Rupert Sheldrake, and others who research NDE's I think there is species consciousness, a universal consciousness, all interconected thoughout the universe by quantum entanglement. Bohm is all theory, but Sheldrake's actual studies are suggestive.
Free Will, for romansh
by David Turell , Thursday, January 03, 2013, 15:17 (4125 days ago) @ romansh
rom: Anyway I would go further and suggest that matter and energy are two sides of the same coin. > > I still do not see how this is coherent with a personal nevermind universal consciousness.-John Searle is a philosopher of the mind. He has no idea what consciousness really is.-http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2013/01/03/philosopher-mind-john-searle-central-feature-conciousness-subjectivity/#more-12011
Free Will, for romansh
by romansh , Thursday, January 03, 2013, 20:48 (4125 days ago) @ David Turell
John Searle is a philosopher of the mind. He has no idea what consciousness really is. > > http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2013/01/03/philosopher-mind-john-searle-c... in that case he is honest.
Free Will, more debate
by David Turell , Saturday, January 12, 2013, 18:32 (4116 days ago) @ romansh
More results against Libet- http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17835-free-will-is-not-an-illusion-after-all.html