Science of Self (Humans)

by dhw, Friday, March 14, 2014, 19:44 (3905 days ago) @ romansh

Dhw: You consider "emergence" to be a non word, and prefer "synergism", which means the same thing. Well, so long as we understand each other...-ROMANSH: Exactly. But you missed my point, we make a model - reality does not quite fit we call it emergence or synergy.-Since we do not know what "reality" is, all our concepts are models. I don't understand the rest of your sentence.-ROMANSH: For me the self is an arbitrary boundary we draw around ourselves. Quite literally every bit of your self has come from elsewhere and temporarily is considered dhw. Quite pragmatic, but has certain consequences.-We draw boundaries round ourselves and others, but I'm not sure how arbitrary they are. Of course we can never know 100% of anyone's character (including our own), but that doesn't necessarily mean that what we know is without foundation (which I take to be the implication of "arbitrary"). I agree with the rest of what you say, but the totality of my parts is still me, temporary though they and I undoubtedly are.-Dhw: "I cannot ignore the fact that I consciously weigh up options before I take certain types of decision."
ROMANSH: I would have written "I cannot ignore that I think I consciously weigh up options before I take certain types of decision." This is I think a little more agnostic on the subbject.
 
Or maybe: I think I cannot ignore that I think I consciously weigh up options before I think I take certain types of decision.-dhw: Our thoughts "manipulate" our bioelectrochemistry all the time. ....-ROMANSH: Here we dip our toes into Cartesian dualism.-Yes, we do, but my argument continued: "...your contention seems to be that our thoughts are the product of our bioelectrochemistry as well", which to me means that our bioelectrochemistry manipulates our bioelectrochemistry. Of course the whole discussion centres on dualism versus materialism. I think you are right to question the former, but you have ignored the problems that arise out of the latter. I did not defend dualism but asked you to explain how you think cells can be conscious of cells being conscious of cells manipulating cells.-Dhw: With regard to free will ... the ability to make conscious choices .......
ROMANSH: That you think you could have done otherwise is interesting. Thinking that you could do otherwise does not mean you have free will dhw.-Of course it doesn't. I wrote: "You may quite rightly argue that whatever unconscious factors influenced that decision may have been beyond my control, and that is why I say I do not know if I have free will." You have said you were in a hurry, so perhaps when you have a bit more time, you might put my arguments back in their contexts! (I do sympathize, though. You have complained before, I think, about the length of my posts!)-ROMANSH: And condolences on your loss. My heart goes out to you.-Thank you.-***********-Like George, I am having difficulty keeping up!-GEORGE: I find I largely agree with DT and DHW about 
the meaning of self and the existence of limited free-will, 
and with Romansch that 'emergence' is not a very helpful word.-Interestingly, if I put on my materialist hat, I find the term extremely useful, because if thought and consciousness and emotion and memory really are produced solely by materials, it describes (but does not explain) how the process must happen, i.e. that somehow these apparently immaterial phenomena emerge from the interplay between our material cells, which individually could not produce them. However, if I put on my dualist hat, I agree that it doesn't help.