Science of Self (Humans)

by dhw, Tuesday, March 18, 2014, 11:17 (3902 days ago) @ romansh

ROMANSH: emerge, result from - I have no problem with. I do have a problem with the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. You know, the first law of thermodynamics etc.-You say later that "this devolves into a game of semantics", and that is the game you are playing here. If you put a billion cells side by side, they will not produce what they produce when combined in a certain way. The product emerges (results) from the combination, and we say the whole is greater than the sum of its parts because when the parts are combined they produce something which the billion cells cannot produce without being combined in that particular way. Put thousands of letters side by side and they will mean nothing. Arrange them in a certain way, and you will get King Lear. You know this as well as I do, but you are a contrarian (and it is fun playing contrarian games with you!).-Dhw: I don't know what you are trying to prove. It doesn't matter what I absorb or what I spit out ... it's still me. Is it not the one and only Romansh reading these posts and writing these replies?
ROMANSH: I am not trying to prove anything ... just show my reasoning. All the things that we think of self are not intrinsically 'self'.-No, it is the combination that creates the self. The self emerges from the combination of its parts. But I'm pleased to hear that you are not trying to prove anything. Just playing games, I guess.-Dhw: I think both theories are equally flawed, though that doesn't mean free will is a delusion.
ROMANSH: I presume you are referring to libertarianism and compatibilism here? I have not come across a theory for free will that does not fall into one of these camps dhw.
 
Of course I am. That's why I said "both theories".-dhw: Manipulation is one-way, and interaction is two-way. Consciousness etc. can be manipulated by the physical, through drugs, alcohol, diseases such as Alzheimer's and dementia etc. Consciousness manipulates the physical by sending instructions to the cells (write a response to Romansh, go and cook your supper, take yourself upstairs). If consciousness is immaterial, yes of course it has to interact with the physical, because we live in a physical world. So what doesn't make sense to you? Cause and effect will still apply whether consciousness is material or immaterial. However, if it is immaterial, there is the possibility ... as David has argued in his post of 11 March at 23.13 ... that it can make its own decisions independently of materials (and can even influence those materials). Then it becomes a question of the extent to which its decisions are influenced by other causes (experiences, the environment, upbringing, accident, past history), and that is where I chicken out.
 
ROMANSH: I don't think manipulation is a one way street. We may think it is. This devolves into a semantic game.-My apologies to David for giving the wrong date. I gave examples of how the physical manipulates consciousness and of how consciousness manipulates the physical, and these are clearly one-way, which is how I interpret "manipulate" in this context. We should always define or clarify our terms, in the hope that we can then discuss the content (do we have free will?) rather than the semantics (let's argue about the meaning of "emergence", "manipulate"). I note that you have ignored the content.-ROMANSH: Either way ... free will (the definition I use) is an incoherent proposition, even in David's hypothesis.-David has asked you for your definition, though you gave it to us last time we discussed this topic. (It would take too long for me to find it and to find my own.) I see nothing incoherent in the proposition that we have the ability to make conscious choices. You don't believe the self can control its own mental processes owing to the endless chain of cause and effect. David presumably believes that an immaterial consciousness may be capable of influencing the chain of cause and effect (as opposed to being coerced by it). Two different beliefs. You may disagree, but that does not make the proposition incoherent. Your move.