Science of Self (Humans)

by romansh , Wednesday, March 12, 2014, 04:11 (3908 days ago) @ dhw

Again DHW we go off in many directions here.
> 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!-According to 'your' definition emergent and synergic are synonymous. So I would argue my example of an emergent synergic phenomenon is relevant.-Chemical and metals ions etc as far as I can tell are very definitely connected to consciousness, self, free will etc.-> 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".-I don't think I am conflating the two DHW, I see them as connected. If you see them as sepearate I would argue that is purely a semantic issue.
 
> 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".
Mine.-> 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.-No need. I do not revert to a backward form of solipsim.
No one is saying that things don't exist. Just that they are not what they seem.-> 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!-Take the bolded bit ... This assumes that your "weighing up" is actually conscious. Your bioelectrochemistry did it for you unconsciously quite nicely without your assistance thank you. Unless you are suggesting your thoughts are somehow manipulating your bioelectrochemistry?-There are probably as many compatibilisms as there are compatibilists. But generally the one thing they have in common is that our decisions etc are caused either by deterministic processes or perhaps quantum phenomena. The hard determinist has trouble seeing freedom in this, the soft determinist lowers the bar.-That you don't know wrt free will is fair enough. Philosophically speaking I would say the same, but in the same breath I would say it is a concept that makes absolutely no sense to me.