Science of Self (Humans)

by romansh , Sunday, March 23, 2014, 18:01 (3896 days ago) @ dhw

You can find meaning in whatever you like, and you can bring in as much energy as you like, but energy, cells, letters as individual units will not produce the brain or King Lear unless they combine in a certain way, and that is what most of us mean when we use 'emergence' to indicate that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
> 
So very simply what I am saying is (trying to say):
The left hand side of the equation equals the right hand side.
so if:
The whole is greater and does not equal the sum of the parts
Fix the equation.
> 
> I agree with your conclusion ... we should neither believe nor disbelieve. But your definition of free will is: "the ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe". That is not the same as questioning the degree to which our decisions are influenced by chemicals etc. If the universe did not exist, we would not exist and the subjects of our choice would not exist (the endless chain of cause and effect), therefore your definition makes free will impossible. My definition allows for what most of us FEEL we have ... namely, the ability to control the above influences, and even to choose between them if we are aware of them. (My body says: "Chocolate!" My reason says: "Weight!" My will decides.) Experience sometimes teaches us that "feelings" are more reliable than reason, so they should not be dismissed, but as I see it, whether we have control or not depends initially on there being an immaterial part of the self (see later).
> 
The degree to which they are influenced by chemicals etc?
Yes my definition does make free will impossible or at least an incoherent concept. We can redefine it all we want ... the original concept of doing things independent of cause and the consequences of this does not go away.-Skirting the issue with alternative definitions does not avoid determinism.-> I do not believe for one moment that when faced with a choice in your pragmatic day to day activities you turn yourself into a zombie and allow all your subconscious influences to take you over. They may do so, but I'd be shocked if you said you did not FEEL responsible for your decisions and act as if you were.
>
In my pragmatic life on observation I am surprisingly zombie like . 
Its fun watching the moment I get out of bed ... how I choose it.
Yes I have a sense of 'moral' responsibility. I also have a sense of the colour blue. Do I think the colour blue actually exists. I have my severe doubts.-> Of course it is flawed, and I said so in the passage you responded to. If there was a theory without flaw we'd have nothing to discuss and we'd all know the truth. However, I did not say that the something "immaterial" does not respond to cause. If it did not respond to cause, there would be no choice to make. 
I would argue and yet rivers 'choose' a path as the meander across a plain. Of course you will say they are not conscious. David might say everything is conscious, I say the concept of conscious is irrelevant. Whether I have conscious or not it is responding to cause. 
> The question is (a) whether it exists, and (b) whether as a part of the unique combination of elements that is "me" it can overcome the influences we have listed and can control my decision-making process. I don't know the answer to that, but yes, I take it very seriously, because I don't know the source or nature of consciousness, and I don't understand vast areas of human experience, including some so-called psychic experiences. If you don't take this seriously, and since we are all clearly dependent on the universe, may I ask why you do not actively disbelieve in free will?
> 
The unique combination of phenomena that is me does not arbitrarily stop at my epidermis dhw. It took a whole universe to make you and each everyone of us.-If I don't take this seriously? I perceive myself as taking it seriously. Indeed. Otherwise I would not be here?-I have explained this ... simply because I can never be sure and I take an agnostic stance. But end of the day in the pragmatic world I have take up the mantle of a believer or disbeliever. I have chosen the latter; because I trust my logic more than I trust my perception. And this is despite 'feelings' can sometimes be right. I have very little control over my feelings other be aware of them and accept them for what they are.
> I would suggest that if you managed to convince everyone that nothing they do is their responsibility, you might find yourself living in a society that is even more chaotic than the one we live in now. But if you are prepared to limit the discussion to a philosophical level, I would say the default position ought to be that we just don't know.-This is utter supposition. The sun is responsible for hurricanes. Do you wish to argue against this? You put, I would say, a very poor interpretation into my mouth and then try to beat it. I am sorry if this comes across in a negative way.-I could argue we might live in a society without retribution and guilt ... much of the nonsense that traditional Abrahamic religions give us.