Science of Self (Humans)

by dhw, Tuesday, March 11, 2014, 20:13 (3908 days ago) @ romansh

ROMANSH: The definition you provided for emergence is the same as that for synergism I have no problem with that. What's the problem with providing a synergic example?-Ouellette made a straightforward comment about the soul as an emergent phenomenon, so I was surprised that you dismissed "emergent" as "a bit of a none word" and wanted to substitute the more recondite term "synergic". The example of reagents and metals and solutions is not a problem, but it rather distracts from the discussion on whether there is such a thing as an emergent self and free will!
 
ROMANSH: If I have no free will what exactly is this self that perceives itself as free?-Again I think you are conflating two different questions. I would describe (define is too precise) the self as being an individual's identity, which consists of attributes in a combination that is unique to him or her. These attributes obviously include individualized intelligence, memory, emotion, and ... crucially for our discussion ... will. Whether ANY of them are under our control remains a moot point, but whether they are or aren't does not prevent us from accepting that they are what constitute the "self".-Dhw: I don't understand how compatibilists can "escape" from these constraints without embracing the same mind/body dualism as libertarians. -ROMANSH: They [compatibilists] change the definition of free will subtly as we did before to something like the ability to make conscious choices. We have to throw in conscious here because computers make choices.-Whose earlier definition excluded consciousness? (Yes, we have clashed on this before!) For me, free will automatically entails CONSCIOUS decision-making. Of course that does not mean that the conscious decision is not subject to unconscious influences, and it is those that throw into question the term "free".
 
ROMANSH: The question remains are we actually conscious? ... I know Blackmore gets a lot of flack here, but in my opinion undeservedly so.-Why not go the whole way and ask if we actually exist? There is no limit to what we can question. That is why at the start of any discussion we have to agree to certain basic premises. For instance, if you and I wish to discuss whether we have free will or not, I will assume you exist and our correspondence is an exchange between two people who are aware (conscious) of their own and each other's words. The starting point is then what you and I mean by "free will" and what criteria we use to define freedom. Not whether we are conscious.
 
ROMANSH: And "some form of energy" does not allow the free will believer escape the clutches of cause and effect. Unless we deny cause and effect, then logically it leaves our ability to make choices independently of bioelectrochemistry or the interactions of unidentified forms of energy on shaky ground. A belief in even the possibility of free will is hard to rconcile.-I thought the compatibilists argued that it was not causal determinism but compulsion and constraint that were the antithesis of freedom ... an argument I do not understand, because I can't see a dividing line between causal determinism and the constraints of bioelectrochemistry, the environment, past history and experience, all of which may be beyond our control. But I cannot ignore the fact that I consciously weigh up options before I take certain types of decision, and I feel that in most cases those decisions are "mine" and under "my" control. No matter how much I may rationalize about the influences, and acknowledge that these may have moulded my choice, I simply do not know enough about the source and nature of consciousness to assume that it is robotic ... or on autopilot, as David puts it. Whether that sense of control is a delusion or stems from some form of personalized energy (perhaps emergent, perhaps not), I simply do not know. I can only repeat that until consciousness itself is explained, along with those psychic phenomena that appear to defy all materialistic explanations, I remain open-minded. "Shaky ground" is fine with me, though. It's an image I'd apply to most of the areas I peep at from my agnostic picket fence!