Ourcellves? (Identity)
The materialist view of the self is that it is composed of cells, and when the cells die, the self dies with it. This view is one argument against free will, because it is the cells (which are not of our making) that take the decisions. This view is disputed by libertarians and by dualists. Another school of thought is that consciousness and the self emerge from the interaction between the cells, and there is even the possibility that this emergent self (the soul) may survive the death of the cells (i.e. take on a form that is independent of them).-We have been discussing the use of language and logic, and so without committing myself to any of these schools of thought, I would like to examine the logical implications of the concept of the "cellf". If it is true that we are our cells (forget about dualism for now), how does that change the concept of self? The unique combination of cells that is "me" is still me, regardless of where those cells came from. The consciousness engendered by my cells is "my" consciousness, and the conscious decisions taken by my cells are "my" decisions, taken as a result of "my" cells weighing up the pros and cons. And although I think we would all agree that my upbringing, experiences etc. do somehow influence the behaviour of my cells, the way my cells respond to my upbringing and my experiences will still constitute "my" responses, because "I" am my cells. Therefore the argument that "we" are governed by our cells and consequently have no will of our own becomes a contradiction in terms, because if "we" ARE our cells, we are governed by ourselves. And that is as good a definition of autonomy as you can get.
Ourcellves?
by romansh 
, Sunday, April 06, 2014, 16:57 (3883 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Sunday, April 06, 2014, 17:33
To me this seems a very limited view of materialism.-When rowing on a pond, a swirl (eddie) can be induced on the surface of the water with an oar. The swirl draws in water and throws it out again. While not an accurate metaphor for the self, I think it is quite poetic and should suffice for now.-Did the swirl exist before the oar was drawn through the water? To use a Buddhist like cliche, the swirl is composed completely of non swirl water molecules, my table is made up of non table atoms as also is my 'self' composed of non self components and experiences.-And before we get drawn down the rabbit warren of emergence ... can we be clear which sense of emergent we are using the word ... strong or weak-And I will quote Bedau again ... >>> Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities?
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Sunday, April 06, 2014, 19:55 (3883 days ago) @ romansh
> Romansh: And before we get drawn down the rabbit warren of emergence ... can we be clear which sense of emergent we are using the word ... strong or weak > > And I will quote Bedau again ... > >>> Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities?-Why leave out the remainder of the quote? :-"Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."-Emergence is not a rabbit warren. We all experience it in our consclousness and our vision. Do not forget that quantum mechanics underlie all of our reality and we seem to get something for nothing because of that, and we really do not understand the quantum realm. Bedau's comments about discomfort, and traditional worry are non-material conscious thought disturbed about trying to apply reductionistic materialism to emergent thought.-Look at my entry about vision. (4/6 14:58)If it is reduced to retinal cells, travelling ions and reception by neurons that give us a sense of vision we still can't see the picture from the parts. Note I said a sense of vision, an energent phenomenon. We know the parts add up to pretty pictures in our heads. What we experience seems as sharp as a digital picture, but alot of fuzziness gets us there. Biological systems are not fully mechanistic. By virtue of the way they work they cannot be defined as just mechanistic, and that is the problem in trying to approach it that way. I am a proponent of strong emergence and rely on the weirdness of quantum mechanics to support my contention. Do I fully understand consciousness or my vision, as examples? Not really, but I have to accept what I experience.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Sunday, April 06, 2014, 20:28 (3883 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Sunday, April 06, 2014, 20:38
And I will quote Bedau again ... > > >>> Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? > > Why leave out the remainder of the quote? : > > "Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."-Because it does not really help the argument one way or the other. But if you are arguing for emergence as something like magic (magical), lets be clear about this. -Later you say > Comparing mechanistic movements of water to brain plasticity is so out of context, it is like comparing a waterfall to the act of urination. You've left out the action of a kidney, a miraculous organ.-You see emergence in a miraculous kidney. That gives me a reason that you do mean it in a magical sense. Fair enough.-Brain plasticity, waterfalls and urination all involve mechanistic processes as far as I can tell. Our brains and what we perceive as thoughts involve mechanistic processes.-And as for consciousness, we are under explicit orders to leave out consciousness in the dualistic sense. Which I am all to happy to do so.-But in short ... an eddie involves changes in electron density around atoms as does brain plasticity.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Sunday, April 06, 2014, 20:47 (3883 days ago) @ romansh
edited by unknown, Sunday, April 06, 2014, 21:12
> Romansh: You see emergence in a miraculous kidney. That gives me a reason that you do mean it in a magical sense. Fair enough. > > Brain plasticity, waterfalls and urination all involve mechanistic processes as far as I can tell. Our brains and what we perceive as thoughts involve mechanistic processes. > > But in short ... an eddie involves changes in electron density around atoms as does brain plasticity.-Brain plasticity involves the growth of new axon connections,new neurons, astrocytes and glial cells, and modulation of synapses as well as your reference to ion charge changes as your reference in an eddie. It is not the same breed of cat, by any stretch. Life is more than mechanistic, and your comparisons to purely mechanistic examples don't work for me.-Please see the following essay on the brain as a radio receiver. Note the early comments on psychic events. Be sure to get all the way to Eagleman's comments on the brain as a radio, as a result of his research and also the author's final views. I should comment that I have seen psychic events in my wife:-http://chronicle.com/article/Embrace-the-Unexplained/145557/
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Sunday, April 06, 2014, 21:15 (3883 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Romansh: You see emergence in a miraculous kidney. That gives me a reason that you do mean it in a magical sense. Fair enough. > > > > Brain plasticity, waterfalls and urination all involve mechanistic processes as far as I can tell. Our brains and what we perceive as thoughts involve mechanistic processes. > > > > But in short ... an eddie involves changes in electron density around atoms as does brain plasticity. > > Brain plasticity involves the growth of new axon connections,new neurons, astrocytes and glial cells, and modulation of synapses as well as your reference to ion charge changes as your reference in an eddie. It is not the same breed of cat, by any stretch. Life is more than mechanistic, and your comparisons to purely mechanistic examples don't work for me.-Yes I agree there are many of orders of magnitude difference in complexity. So what? ... A good number of them boil down to changes in electron density around a central nucleus. -Reductionism does not make things simpler. It simply (tries to) isolate a system and then understand what is going on ... the various interactions within that system. If there is a behaviour that is identifiable that system it can be described as weak emergence.-For immensly complicated systems whilst we may not be able to isolate and describe all the interactions within that system we have no reason to believe (well at least I don't) that there is something magical going on.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Sunday, April 06, 2014, 22:28 (3883 days ago) @ romansh
> Romansh:Yes I agree there are many of orders of magnitude difference in complexity. > So what? ... A good number of them boil down to changes in electron density around a central nucleus.-OK, a good number but not all. > > Romansh: Reductionism does not make things simpler. It simply (tries to) isolate a system and then understand what is going on ... the various interactions within that system. If there is a behaviour that is identifiable that system it can be described as weak emergence.-Granted. But you are describing "simpler". > > Romansh: For immensly complicated systems whilst we may not be able to isolate and describe all the interactions within that system we have no reason to believe (well at least I don't) that there is something magical going on.-Well, something like a kidney or a liver is so complex I don't see an arrival by chnce. I might say the same thing fo the brain. For liver and kidney reductionism can explain the functions, but at the level of the brain we cannot find the functions that produce consciousness. We can see the functions but cannot propose the result we experience. For me the brain gets to the magical level.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Sunday, April 06, 2014, 21:18 (3883 days ago) @ David Turell
Perhaps I should point you to Eagleman's book Icognito where he casts doubt on the concepts of free will and the self?
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Sunday, April 06, 2014, 22:30 (3883 days ago) @ romansh
Romansh:Perhaps I should point you to Eagleman's book Icognito where he casts doubt on the concepts of free will and the self?-I recognize that, but then he opens up the radio idea. We are back to Nagel's commentary.
Ourcellves?
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, April 06, 2014, 18:15 (3883 days ago) @ dhw
The materialist view of the self is that it is composed of cells, and when the cells die, the self dies with it. -Cells die all the time and may get replaced. What makes one's self is the way the cells are connected together and communicate with each other, particularly of course brain cells.-> This view is one argument against free will, because it is the cells (which are not of our making) that take the decisions.-This doesn't follow at all. The connections between the cells are indeed of our making. When we think, or undergo any experiences, we rewire the connections between our brain cells.-> The unique combination of cells that is "me" is still me, regardless of where those cells came from. The consciousness engendered by my cells is "my" consciousness, and the conscious decisions taken by my cells are "my" decisions, taken as a result of "my" cells weighing up the pros and cons.-I would largely agree with that. I am what I am!
--
GPJ
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Sunday, April 06, 2014, 18:40 (3883 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> The connections between the cells are indeed of our making. -The vortex in a swirl is of its own making too in that case, the hydrogen bonding drags other water molecules along.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Sunday, April 06, 2014, 20:03 (3883 days ago) @ romansh
> > George: The connections between the cells are indeed of our making. > > Romansh: The vortex in a swirl is of its own making too in that case, the hydrogen bonding drags other water molecules along.-Comparing mechanistic movements of water to brain plasticity is so out of context, it is like comparing a waterfall to the act of urination. You've left out the action of a kidney, a miraculous organ.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Sunday, April 06, 2014, 19:58 (3883 days ago) @ George Jelliss
dhw: The materialist view of the self is that it is composed of cells, and when the cells die, the self dies with it. > > George: Cells die all the time and may get replaced. What makes one's self is the way the cells are connected together and communicate with each other, particularly of course brain cells. > > > dhw: This view is one argument against free will, because it is the cells (which are not of our making) that take the decisions. > > George: This doesn't follow at all. The connections between the cells are indeed of our making. When we think, or undergo any experiences, we rewire the connections between our brain cells. > > > dhw: The unique combination of cells that is "me" is still me, regardless of where those cells came from. The consciousness engendered by my cells is "my" consciousness, and the conscious decisions taken by my cells are "my" decisions, taken as a result of "my" cells weighing up the pros and cons. > > George:I would largely agree with that. I am what I am!-George, I fully agree with you.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Sunday, April 06, 2014, 21:38 (3883 days ago) @ dhw
DHW I think there is a problem with either the way the question has been phrased or the way I have answered it.-From a materialist point of view I don't think there is any doubt that a physical self exists. And that all the bits and pieces exist. And that all the bits and pieces interact internally and in respond to external stimuli and inputs. -So while I might disagree with George's wording when he says: >The connections between the cells are indeed of our making. When we think, or undergo any experiences, we rewire the connections between our brain cells. It is the word we I have a problem with. I might be able to understand intellectually by "reviewing a thought" repetetively I can "manipulate" my underlying brain structure ... but what "manipulated" my brain structure to want to "manipulate" my brain structure ... I don't have a clue. When I use the word manipulate I don't want imply intent of any sort. Just to make sure there is no ambiguity.-A materialist would have no problem with us having a sense of intent much in the same way she would not have a problem with people having a sense of the colour blue. But the materialist would not assume that blue is actually blue.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Sunday, April 06, 2014, 23:00 (3883 days ago) @ romansh
> Romansh: So while I might disagree with George's wording when he says: > >The connections between the cells are indeed of our making. When we think, or undergo any experiences, we rewire the connections between our brain cells. > Romansh: It is the word we I have a problem with. I might be able to understand intellectually by "reviewing a thought" repetetively I can "manipulate" my underlying brain structure ... but what "manipulated" my brain structure to want to "manipulate" my brain structure ... I don't have a clue. When I use the word manipulate I don't want imply intent of any sort. Just to make sure there is no ambiguity.-But we do actually influence our own brains. George's experiences and education affected his brain to create memories (we still don't know how) and the change the wiring in many areas. Plasticity is shown all through life. The fact you 'don't have a clue'does not negate the fact that the mechanism exists. We make our brains in a sense. From my book "Science vs. Religion", pg. 134: -"The autopsy of Einstein's brain raised a chicken-and-egg type of question. His brain was 15 percent wider on both sides due to a one-centimeter enlargement of an area controlling "visual interpretations, mathematical thought and imagery of movement." (Scientific American, September 1999). As a child he was a left-handed dyslectic. Did his brain adapt to his brilliant thought processes, or did his brain start out with this very unusual anatomy permitting brilliant deductions to appear?"-Romansh:A materialist would have no problem with us having a sense of intent much in the same way she would not have a problem with people having a sense of the colour blue. But the materialist would not assume that blue is actually blue.-Your 'blue' is not my 'blue'. We know that, just as we know if we both have the same thought it will be a different experience in each of us. We are dealing with a property of the brain that is real to each of us, but its quality is assumed in others. That is why materialism won't get you there. I'm with Nagel. There is something more than materialism.
Ourcellves?
As is so often the case, a thread is opened with a particular subject in mind, and somehow everyone then shoots off along their own tangent. The tangents are interesting ... I'm not complaining in this case ... but I'm going to pursue the original line of thought, as follows: One materialist argument against belief in free will is that "we" consist only of materials, and "we" do not have control over them, but they control "us". Romansh, in one of yesterday's posts, tackled the problem of "WE" head on. It's not often we agree, so let me quote this passage in full:-ROM: It is the word we I have a problem with. I might be able to understand intellectually by "reviewing a thought" repetetively I can "manipulate" my underlying brain structure ... but what "manipulated" my brain structure to want to "manipulate" my brain structure ... I don't have a clue. When I use the word manipulate I don't want imply intent of any sort. Just to make sure there is no ambiguity.-IF (very large capitals) we accept the materialist argument that the brain and mind are synonymous, "we" ARE our cells (and, as George rightly points out, the way the cells are connected). We all know that there are different levels of cellular activity ... David has mentioned the processes which work automatically - but when we talk of free will, most of us are referring to a much higher level of awareness, e.g. Romansh's "manipulative" level, as opposed to that of digestion. That level is my focus. Even if the mind IS the brain, and all its activities are the direct products of our materials, it is still "me". And so the argument that our cells control "us" and therefore "we" have no free will is illogical because it creates a false dichotomy. Our cells ARE us, and so "we" control ourselves. And that is what people mean by free will. I will add as a postscript that Romansh's question and response are absolutely fundamental to the problem of consciousness and free will: "What manipulated my brain structure to want to manipulate my brain structure"...I don't have a clue." That is why some of us keep an open mind on all related subjects ... not just free will and consciousness, materialism and dualism, consciousness as an emergent property, but also psychic experiences such as NDEs and OBEs. None of us have a clue. I also accept, Romansh, that you use "manipulate" without implying "intent", but until we understand the nature of thought, consciousness, the mind, I hope you will also keep at least one section of your own mind open to the possibility of intent.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Monday, April 07, 2014, 14:56 (3882 days ago) @ dhw
dhw I hope you will also keep at least one section of your own mind open to the possibility of intent.-I have to go to work now and I will answer probably tomorrow in more depth.-BUT your wording belies your neutrality on the free will problem. Your wording suggests I have a little homunculus controlling my beliefs and the arguments of others that I should find convincing.-You have reduced the self to a semantic issue. Semantically I have no problem with this. The question again becomes philosophically where I should draw the border around the self?
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Monday, April 07, 2014, 19:10 (3882 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: I will add as a postscript that Romansh's question and response are absolutely fundamental to the problem of consciousness and free will: "What manipulated my brain structure to want to manipulate my brain structure"...I don't have a clue." That is why some of us keep an open mind on all related subjects ... not just free will and consciousness, materialism and dualism, consciousness as an emergent property, but also psychic experiences such as NDEs and OBEs. None of us have a clue. I also accept, Romansh, that you use "manipulate" without implying "intent", but until we understand the nature of thought, consciousness, the mind, I hope you will also keep at least one section of your own mind open to the possibility of intent.-I wish to repeat my medical observations. Our bodies are designed to run on automatic pilot. We don't have to think to breathe, circulate blood, produce urine adjusted to our blood's requirements, digest food, add or lose body fat, create reproductive cells, autmaticaly replace cells that are aging, or during a lifetime developing a library of antibodies to fight infection. All of this is done for us by our bodies. This makes us two layers of being. Our voluntary-action us and our autonomic or automatic us. When we train for some activity, physical or mental, our brain knows (somehow) that we are demanding a change in the brain. New neurons, new connections, etc., and so the brain modifies itself to allow us newly trained abilities. And we have no idea how such an ability evolved. Major guesses involve the development of useful hands with opposable thumbs, later the development of language with babies having a built in syntax. All by chance, of course.-The two of us are not entirely separate. I can control my breathing underwater. I can choose to gain or lose weight. I can choose my training to modify my brain. I obviously have freedom of choice. Does my brain reach out to control my choices? I am me and I cannot sense that. My background of experiencing life had pushed me in various directions, but I made those pushes myself by responding to my experiences. Do I control individual neurons? Of course not. But I control batteries of them. That is obvious. This is why I view reductive materialism as a wasted effort. Life is more than a sum of its parts. No mechanical machine with all its parts is like the living machine represented by our bodies. This is why I am sure that AI research will never produce a computer like our brain. For Matt, yes reasonable facsimiles. Our bodies are automatically designed to give us consciousness, a sense of self, and the right to choose thoughts and/or actions as we wish. Darwin's version of evolutionary theory gives no inkling of how this developed.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Tuesday, April 08, 2014, 06:30 (3881 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: One materialist argument against belief in free will is that "we" consist only of materials, and "we" do not have control over them, but they control "us".-This is one typical dualist type of response ... woe is my self ... trapped in a body that is controlled by materialistic forces. I do not accept such an interpretation. > DHW: "we" ARE our cells -And yet this is such a limiting boundary for our "selves". -> DHW: That level is my focus. Even if the mind IS the brain, and all its activities are the direct products of our materials, it is still "me". -No one here is denying that our physical bodies exist. But I would argue that my perception of what "me" is, is not what it seems. In my daily activities I behave as though I am that homunculus that I deny. I deny the homunculus, because, for me, it is a logical fallacy. -The wording you have used could have been replaced as the materials (cells) are mine. Who is this homunculus that says "mine"? You by-passed the problem by using "ours", but the problem is a little more obvious in the singular.-> DHW: And so the argument that our cells control "us" and therefore "we" have no free will is illogical because it creates a false dichotomy. Our cells ARE us, and so "we" control ourselves. And that is what people mean by free will.-We have been through this before DHW. We can define free will however we like. The central concept of everything being a result of cause and its consequences does not go away. Whether the cause is some baseball bat or a subtle quantum phenomenon ... our wills and actions are are result of cause. Whether there is a feedback loop or hundreds of millions it does not matter.
Ourcellves?
DHW: One materialist argument against belief in free will is that "we" consist only of materials, and "we" do not have control over them, but they control "us". ROMANSH: This is one typical dualist type of response ... woe is my self ... trapped in a body that is controlled by materialistic forces. I do not accept such an interpretation. ROMANSH (quoting dhw:)"we" ARE our cells I don't seem to be able to get my point across. You have taken "we ARE our cells" right out of its context, and nowhere did I offer such a dualist response. I am following through the logic of a particular materialist hypothesis, which began: "IF (very large capitals) we accept the materialist argument that the brain and mind are synonymous, we ARE our cells." I am not putting a case for materialism, dualism or a homunculus. I am pointing out that IF we ARE our cells (materialist view), it is illogical to claim that our cells control us because our cells and us are the same thing. Therefore we control ourselves. -ROMANSH: The wording you have used could have been replaced as the materials (cells) are mine. Who is this homunculus that says "mine"? You force me to labour the point. If the materials ARE me, it is the materials that say XYZ are mine. There is no homunculus, there is no soul or spirit, but only materials. Since you like equations, the equation is cells = me, at all their/its levels, from automatic processes through to thoughts and decisions. I am not defending any position, but simply following this one particular hypothesis through to its logical conclusion, as follows
HW: Even if the mind IS the brain, and all its activities are the direct products of our materials, it is still "me". [...] Our cells ARE us, and so "we" control ourselves. And that is what people mean by free will. [N.B. This argument is still preceded by IF.]-ROMANSH: We have been through this before DHW. We can define free will however we like. The central concept of everything being a result of cause and its consequences does not go away. Whether the cause is some baseball bat or a subtle quantum phenomenon ... our wills and actions are are result of cause. Whether there is a feedback loop or hundreds of millions it does not matter.-I agree there is no escaping the chain of cause and effect. I am merely pointing out that IF we ARE our cells. it is a false dichotomy to claim that "we" are controlled by our cells etc., etc. There are, however, ramifications in terms of cause and effect which I would like to discuss, but there is no point in doing so if this initial point is still not clear.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Wednesday, April 09, 2014, 04:36 (3880 days ago) @ dhw
I don't seem to be able to get my point across. You have taken "we ARE our cells" right out of its context, and nowhere did I offer such a dualist response. I am following through the logic of a particular materialist hypothesis, which began: "IF (very large capitals) we accept the materialist argument that the brain and mind are synonymous, we ARE our cells." I am not putting a case for materialism, dualism or a homunculus. I am pointing out that IF we ARE our cells (materialist view), it is illogical to claim that our cells control us because our cells and us are the same thing. Therefore we control ourselves. -You offer a dualist position here ... "we" do not have control over them, but they control "us".-You have limited "us" to "our cells" ... so therefore our cells control us, ie we control our selves by definition. Having got that out of the way this is a dualist/pluralist position. For someone with a monistic world view the self does not end at some arbitrary boundary defined into existence ... such our cells.-> You force me to labour the point. If the materials ARE me, it is the materials that say XYZ are mine. There is no homunculus, there is no soul or spirit, but only materials. Since you like equations, the equation is cells = me, at all their/its levels, from automatic processes through to thoughts and decisions. I am not defending any position, but simply following this one particular hypothesis through to its logical conclusion, as follows
Ourcellves?
I have failed miserably in my attempt to explain what I see as a logical fallacy in the materialist argument that we consist only of our cells (and their interactions), and that since our cells are not of our making, we cannot have free will. My point is that in that case, the cells and their interactions ARE ourselves, and so their decisions are OUR decisions ... cells and self being indivisible.-Romansh thinks I am offering a dualist position, am limiting us to our cells, and am suggesting that he is suggesting that "we are (just) our cells", but I am only trying to knock a hole in one particular hypothesis. I would have liked to develop this argument further, because of its relevance to the cause and effect argument against free will, but Romansh's latest response contains a remark of such importance that I'd prefer to abandon my own line of thought for the moment and concentrate on his:-ROMANSH: I am not suggesting that we are (just) our cells. We are much more than that. Poetically speaking we are a reflection of the universe and the universe is a reflection of us.-Forget the poetry for a moment, and please explain in clear prose what you think the "much more" consists of. After all, a reflection is just an image, but like yourself and others I am trying to find out what more "we" might be that cannot be subsumed under the activity of our cells. It may be that this will be a more fruitful line of thought than my pursuit of what I see as a logical fallacy in the above materialist argument.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Thursday, April 10, 2014, 02:55 (3879 days ago) @ dhw
I have failed miserably in my attempt to explain what I see as a logical fallacy in the materialist argument that we consist only of our cells (and their interactions), and that since our cells are not of our making, we cannot have free will. My point is that in that case, the cells and their interactions ARE ourselves, and so their decisions are OUR decisions ... cells and self being indivisible.-No DHW, if I may; where you have failed is not in your explanation of what you see as a logical fallacy but how you framed the logical proof.-It starts with "our cells". It fails on two counts ... 1) it begs the question of are they ours in any meaningful way. A good portion of mine come potatoes, roast lamb, and assorted fruit and veges. So framing the question as in this way it is not terribly surprising. and 2) when dealing with Cantorian sets if they are in some way self referential the proof is on dodgey ground. > Forget the poetry for a moment, and please explain in clear prose what you think the "much more" consists of. After all, a reflection is just an image, but like yourself and others I am trying to find out what more "we" might be that cannot be subsumed under the activity of our cells. It may be that this will be a more fruitful line of thought than my pursuit of what I see as a logical fallacy in the above materialist argument.-Much more = the universe.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Sunday, April 06, 2014, 23:17 (3883 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:The unique combination of cells that is "me" is still me, regardless of where those cells came from. The consciousness engendered by my cells is "my" consciousness, and the conscious decisions taken by my cells are "my" decisions, taken as a result of "my" cells weighing up the pros and cons. And although I think we would all agree that my upbringing, experiences etc. do somehow influence the behaviour of my cells, the way my cells respond to my upbringing and my experiences will still constitute "my" responses, because "I" am my cells. Therefore the argument that "we" are governed by our cells and consequently have no will of our own becomes a contradiction in terms, because if "we" ARE our cells, we are governed by ourselves. And that is as good a definition of autonomy as you can get.-I thoroughly agree. Romansh is reluctant to accept the feed-back that obviously exists by our personal use of our own brains. We change our brain's structure all through life with our education, experiencs, and memories. This cannot be acceptable to someone who is simply a reductionist materialist.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Monday, April 07, 2014, 00:29 (3883 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Monday, April 07, 2014, 00:38
> > dhw:The unique combination of cells that is "me" is still me, regardless of where those cells came from. The consciousness engendered by my cells is "my" consciousness, and the conscious decisions taken by my cells are "my" decisions, taken as a result of "my" cells weighing up the pros and cons. And although I think we would all agree that my upbringing, experiences etc. do somehow influence the behaviour of my cells, the way my cells respond to my upbringing and my experiences will still constitute "my" responses, because "I" am my cells. Therefore the argument that "we" are governed by our cells and consequently have no will of our own becomes a contradiction in terms, because if "we" ARE our cells, we are governed by ourselves. And that is as good a definition of autonomy as you can get. > > I thoroughly agree. Romansh is reluctant to accept the feed-back that obviously exists by our personal use of our own brains. We change our brain's structure all through life with our education, experiencs, and memories. This cannot be acceptable to someone who is simply a reductionist materialist.-I am begining to wonder if there is some difference in our physical structures in our brains. -I had never thought much about free will, self etc until six years ago. When discussing it with a member on the old agnostic forums, I was led to think about it with some care. But I immediately realized there was a problem with my conception of free will and eventually self. And funnily enough some people when presented with the same connundrum seem incapable of seeing the problem. Curious ... -Last year I bought a car with a automatic transmission ... it took a while to become accustomed to it. The car must have very slightly restructured my brain.-There is a big difference between I change my brain structure and my brain structure changes.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Monday, April 07, 2014, 02:10 (3882 days ago) @ romansh
edited by unknown, Monday, April 07, 2014, 02:39
> Romansh: I am begining to wonder if there is some difference in our physical structures in our brains. - Of course there is. My memories and education are not yours. I am left-handed. So I start with structural differences to a right-handed person, but I add my medical knowledge in school and experience over the years, and the neurons and connections will be different than yours. And these diffrences may be so small they would never appear on an fMRI. > > RomanshLast year I bought a car with a automatic transmission ... it took a while to become accustomed to it. The car must have very slightly restructured my brain. > > There is a big difference between I change my brain structure and my brain structure changes.-Your experience with the car changed some of your driving coordination and your brain is now different. And your practice in the new car made the brain change. There is not a big difference if yhou recognize that the brain interprets your new practices and adapts accordingly. Your brain is able to respond to new muscle coordination practices. How do you learn tennis or backetball maneuvers otherwise? Your physically repeated practice intentions modify the brain. How else do you gain new skills? What do you think practicing the piano does to your brain? Reading skills, finger skills, timing skills all must be learned, modifying the brain.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Monday, April 07, 2014, 01:34 (3882 days ago) @ dhw
Lets take a look at this axiom: > If it is true that we are our cells So we can manipulate subsequent axioms together with this one. It is not terribly surprising we can end up with a conclusions like my cells' decisions are mine?-Godel may have a comment on self referential proofs though.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Monday, April 07, 2014, 02:37 (3882 days ago) @ romansh
Romansh: Lets take a look at this axiom: > > If it is true that we are our cells > So we can manipulate subsequent axioms together with this one. > It is not terribly surprising we can end up with a conclusions like my cells' decisions are mine? > > Godel may have a comment on self referential proofs though.-You are right to infer that my intimate control of my cells may be a stretch. I am an agglomeration of the coordinated action of all my cells, but individual cells are not in my complete control. If that were the case I would spend all my time running my own living processes. A large part of our living is done automatically by the autonomic nervous system telling organs what to do. We don't think to breathe or create urine, or digest food. We choose what we eat and the digestion takes care of itself. -But we do choose to study and think with our brain and however the feed-back mechanism works, we are by that process constantly molding the brain. Simple example. Mothers reading to young children improves their eventual adult IQ. Final adult IQ can be manipulated by yourself as a child depending on how you used it in childhood. The brain's plasticity lasts a lifetime. I may be forgetful and my brain has shrunk (I've seen my MRI) with age, but what you observe me doing on this website is purposeful. My neurons are exercised every day to keep me mentally bright. My muscles are exercised also on a daily basis. And I'll bet my brain is different than it would have been if I had retired and sat on my duff.
Ourcellves?
by GateKeeper , Tuesday, April 08, 2014, 12:51 (3881 days ago) @ romansh
Like the happenings in a small Paraguay town's daily operations do not influence my daily operations at the local level. But the totality of system will define our available "cells".-The mother reading to the child changed/defined the domain set of available choices. The child then works with in that set to possibility change the set again. The question is can I act outside side of that set in the short term? Even at the atomic level if the information is not stored or in a usable format (pathways) then you will not have the ability to think it. -I see a time component in this discussion. The less we know, the more "outside of" cells it becomes. I just don't know if it is free or I just don't know enough. "Free as a bird" comes to mind. -The words "punctuated equilibrium" also come to mind. For the most part, a steady homeostasis exists. This is a dynamic EQ, which strongly implies feedback system. Every so often something comes along as rocks the system.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Tuesday, April 08, 2014, 14:59 (3881 days ago) @ GateKeeper
GK: Like the happenings in a small Paraguay town's daily operations do not influence my daily operations at the local level. But the totality of system will define our available "cells". Depends on how well we think chaos theory describes the universe. Does a butterfly flapping its wings in Sumatra affect a future event on the Eastern Seaboard? I think this speaks to your time component. > > GK: I see a time component in this discussion. The less we know, the more "outside of" cells it becomes. I just don't know if it is free or I just don't know enough. "Free as a bird" comes to mind. > I see it the other way round ... the more we understand the more outside it becomes. One of the cruelest things you can do to a person is deprive them of sensory input. Think of solitary confinemnet and taping a baby's eyes shut for some medical emergency during the important development time after birth. It is the act of getting sensory input that shapes us. >GK: The words "punctuated equilibrium" also come to mind. For the most part, a steady homeostasis exists. This is a dynamic EQ, which strongly implies feedback system. Every so often something comes along as rocks the system.-I think we are actually referring to steady state and a pseudo steady state at that.
Ourcellves?
by GateKeeper , Tuesday, April 08, 2014, 16:51 (3881 days ago) @ romansh
R: Depends on how well we think chaos theory describes the universe. Does a butterfly flapping its wings in Sumatra affect a future event on the Eastern Seaboard? I think this speaks to your time component.-butterfly won't work due to friction but I get it. Yes, small changes here and there can affect the system. "patterns" out of no "patterns". To me, Chaos is probably not so chaotic. -R: I see it the other way round ... the more we understand the more outside it becomes. One of the cruelest things you can do to a person is deprive them of sensory input. Think of solitary confinemnet and taping a baby's eyes shut for some medical emergency during the important development time after birth. It is the act of getting sensory input that shapes us.-That is true too for now. Your "looking deeper " can be equated to my "looking forward". How many states changes from now. Or, what is between state changes? are/can be the same thing. The more we "see" the more gaps appear. Maybe the fundamental structure isn't a wave. Maybe it is tiny specks if something. Thus the wave can travel. EMR only appears to "propagate through nothing". The cells looks and sees atoms. Atoms look and see Quarks. Qaurks look to see "outside" when in fact they see "you". Around and round we go. -One way to hide the view is to make it so complicated that the full picture cannot be seen. One way to do this, so that the interactions can be "conserved", is to link them all together. The "looker", we call "seekers" , see endlessness, when in fact it is a circle.-R: I think we are actually referring to steady state and a pseudo steady state at that.-yep, "pseudo" can be used. In the way I use the word.
Ourcellves?
by GateKeeper , Monday, April 07, 2014, 20:57 (3882 days ago) @ dhw
Feedback is the word that comes to mind. The cells make you. Your parents, or life as a child, set up the framework. You then, to the best of your ability take care of the cells in you and thus they respond in making you. This feedback interaction will the influence your choices.-You will be able to make choices within a given probability set and not outside of it. And you are not "free" of anything. But you can, over time with hard thinking, change that domain.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 08, 2014, 00:27 (3882 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> Gatekeeper: You will be able to make choices within a given probability set and not outside of it. And you are not "free" of anything. But you can, over time with hard thinking, change that domain.-Welcome to the discussion. Please read my commentary of 4/7 02:37 today. We are forced by our biology to work with a cellular mechinery that works for us but somewhat indrectly. It still works very well, and does not appear to constrain our choices in any way. At least my body seems to fit that description.
Ourcellves?
GATEKEEPER: Feedback is the word that comes to mind. The cells make you. Your parents, or life as a child, set up the framework. You then, to the best of your ability take care of the cells in you and thus they respond in making you. This feedback interaction will the influence your choices. You will be able to make choices within a given probability set and not outside of it. And you are not "free" of anything. But you can, over time with hard thinking, change that domain.-A belated welcome to the forum from me. I don't know how long you've been following these discussions on free will, and I need to stress that on this particular thread I myself am trying to follow the logic of just one particular, materialist hypothesis. I am not arguing in favour of it or of any other hypothesis, though I am hoping to develop the argument further.-In any discussion, it's important to define terms, and the definition of "free will" has caused much disagreement between Romansh and me. It might be interesting for both of us to know which of these definitions, if either, you would accept, and above all why. Romansh: "The ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe." dhw: "An entity's conscious ability to control the decision-making process within given constraints."-Once again, thanks for joining in.
Ourcellves?
by GateKeeper , Tuesday, April 08, 2014, 17:01 (3881 days ago) @ dhw
yw, and thank you.-Romansh: "The ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe."-dhw: "An entity's conscious ability to control the decision-making process within given constraints." Gate's:-for gate: An entity's conscious ability to control the decision-making process within given constraints. These constraints are Universe. -There is no "independent from", there is only "within constraints". so I am not sure if I understand rom's notion.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Wednesday, April 09, 2014, 04:16 (3880 days ago) @ GateKeeper
Romansh: "The ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe." > > dhw: "An entity's conscious ability to control the decision-making process within given constraints." > Gate's: > > for gate: An entity's conscious ability to control the decision-making process within given constraints. These constraints are Universe. > > There is no "independent from", there is only "within constraints". so I am not sure if I understand rom's notion.-The problem with throwing in consciousness into the defintion we end up debating whether consciousness exists, is it simply an after-the-fact phenomenon or does it actually control stuff. The latter is a classical dualist position.-Rather than discussing whether cause and effect is true or not. -What does rom mean?-> There is no "independent from" sums it up pretty nicely.-With or without Within constraints I'm not sure it clarifies anything for me.
Ourcellves?
by GateKeeper , Wednesday, April 09, 2014, 13:08 (3880 days ago) @ romansh
The problem with throwing in consciousness into the defintion we end up debating whether consciousness exists, is it simply an after-the-fact phenomenon or does it actually control stuff. The latter is a classical dualist position. >-true. But for me it is all we have right now. We do not know what "consciousness" is. The brain can make choices within the frame work of its design. Until we do know what it is the word "phenomena" fits. I think there is feedback loops everywhere so these loops should not be talked about as a fix state or "it is this". When the first neuron cells fire, they keep firing. The cells and the firing effect each other for the operational life of the machine. The frame work of the cell does affect how the transmitters will "lock on". How the transmitters "lock on" will affect how the cells "fire". We could keep going down or up, but we are fixed at the cell level here and it is good enough for what we do know (more accurate to say what we don't know).-'dualist" or not does not pin an answer down. First discuss what we have then fit the philosophical view to it. The "dualist" or the "monist" do not have enough information to pin the answer on the philosophical view. Rather the "answer" is the answer and philosophical view is an afterthought (phenomena).- > > There is no "independent from" > sums it up pretty nicely. > > With or without Within constraints I'm not sure it clarifies anything for me.->>-It doesn't for me either. But I don't think we have enough information to have it as clarified as we would like. That causes some of us to be uneasy, unsettled, maybe even a tad anxious. It does me anyway.-The good news is that this "uneasiness" motivates us to keep looking. "Q" from star trek comes to mind for me. The unknown may give some "A purpose".
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 09, 2014, 18:59 (3880 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> > GK: true. But for me it is all we have right now. We do not know what "consciousness" is. The brain can make choices within the frame work of its design. Until we do know what it is the word "phenomena" fits. > > I think there is feedback loops everywhere so these loops should not be talked about as a fix state or "it is this"...... but we are fixed at the cell level here and it is good enough for what we do know (more accurate to say what we don't know). > > 'dualist" or not does not pin an answer down. First discuss what we have then fit the philosophical view to it. The "dualist" or the "monist" do not have enough information to pin the answer on the philosophical view. - > > > > Romansh:With or without Within constraints I'm not sure it clarifies anything for me. > > >> > > GK: It doesn't for me either. But I don't think we have enough information to have it as clarified as we would like. That causes some of us to be uneasy, unsettled, maybe even a tad anxious. It does me anyway.-If I may comment, almost all observers are splitters or lumpers. As a dualist, I am a lumper. It seems to me we all experience consciousness and use it, even if we cannot fully or partially explain how it origniates or processes. But the success of the human condition and the enormous advances in science and in civilized lives, attests to the fact that it works. That it has to be based on a very complex bioelectrical brain is only a consequence of the mechanism we must use, since we have evolved from much simpler biology. I cannot envision any other way, but then again, I don't know any other way.
Ourcellves?
by GateKeeper , Wednesday, April 09, 2014, 20:53 (3880 days ago) @ David Turell
If I may comment, almost all observers are splitters or lumpers. As a dualist, I am a lumper. >> That is right. Although I must admit the part about limpers and splitters alludes me. Do you mean some of us look in? and some of us look up? They are only perspective views. I think we should move up and down. -To be truthful really don't know what a dualist is. First I talk about how things work. Then if we like we can slap a label on it. But what I have seen, dualism is the least useful description of what is around us. I don't see many "this only" or "that only" solutions. If I am even close in understanding what it is. I see feedback loops.-Maybe I am a loop-er?->>It seems to me we all experience consciousness and use it, even if we cannot fully or partially explain how it origniates or processes. But the success of the human condition and the enormous advances in science and in civilized lives, attests to the fact that it works. >>-Yeah, we all use it. "IT" is "real" enough. The words I am picking up from rom points me in the direction of ... "it may not be what we think it is". That's the words "phenomena" and "pseudo". Neither imply "not here" or "not real". Only that "consciousness" may be something other than we "see". I think that is a fair angle. And based on what we don't know is the best we can say.- >>That it has to be based on a very complex bioelectrical brain is only a consequence of the mechanism we must use, since we have evolved from much simpler biology. I cannot envision any other way, but then again, I don't know any other way. >>-The key phrase I see is "based on the mechanism". To build a "computer" you need a certain number of parts. It is based on the mechanism used. To do simple things you need less parts, to do more things you need more parts. -However the " quantum computing" possible with less parts is important. -The same with "awareness". We need a certain number of "interactions" to have "consciousness" in the body type we are in. I tend to agree with you on that, if that's what you mean.-We can argue that an atom is "aware" of its "electrons" but that is not what most people mean when they say "Consciousness". It is not what I mean.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Thursday, April 10, 2014, 01:53 (3879 days ago) @ GateKeeper
David: If I may comment, almost all observers are splitters or lumpers. As a dualist, I am a lumper. > > GK: To be truthful really don't know what a dualist is. First I talk about how things work. Then if we like we can slap a label on it.-As a dualist, I don't worry bout what each neuron is doing. I realize they are each doing their own thing, but when you step back and look at the whole extremely complex mechanism it is churning out an emergent phenomenon called consciousness. So there are two parts, the producer and what it produces, and I can accept that even if I don't know how it is done. Maybe one day subsequent humans will figure it out.-You are a splitter. You look at what each neuron does and thinks that what tells you the basis of what is going on. But as you add neurons signalling, and synapses transmitting and adjusting their transmissions to fit their curent job, you discover it doesn't explain anything. You can break down a washing machine and learn how it was designed and how it works, but living biology is not that simple. I view the condition of life as a emergent property just as I do with consciousness. Now take my favorite example, the kidney. It adjusts fluid balance, electrolyte blood levels and produces urine. It also makes hormones. We in medicine understand all of it. Nothing emerges. Each of its tasks are straight forward. Here reductionist materialism (splitter approach) works, but not at the level of what the brain does, or the whole body producing the condition we call life.
Ourcellves?
by GateKeeper , Thursday, April 10, 2014, 14:09 (3879 days ago) @ David Turell
I would have to disagree with you there, Although I must admit, at this point we are splitting hairs. And making broad "lumped" assumptions. Get it, splitting and lumping. :)-I am a looper.-I like the very small and I like the very big. I was lucky, blessed even, to learn about electron fields begin disrupted by an emr photon. I am lucky to have followed space up to the web and back to inflation. I am not an expert tho.-By looking at only half the "equation", the brain, we may be lead to conclusion based on half the view. The phenomena of consciousness out of the brain. Or by focusing on the "mind", we are lead to the conclusion of 'emergence". Now that we know a group of atoms in the states they are for our brain, then the mind because a function of this state. The next "emergent" quality will be an "all human consciousness". Or, we are the "brain" of Giai.-For me, There is a "you". If I take you apart and find "No You" what does that mean? For me, you do exist, "you" are a field that can describe you. Just because I took you apart and found "no piece of you" doesn't lead me to any one conclusion yet. We don't know enough for me to do that. For me, that's what dualism seems to be doing. It has a limited focusing knob. It is either course or fine. Which is ok in many instances. but when we look at "intermediate truth's" (we aren't sure truth's))we may need a "finer incremental" adjusting knob. Maybe not even one. We may not even have to "look through the "glass". Just stand ware we are and talk about it.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Thursday, April 10, 2014, 16:39 (3879 days ago) @ GateKeeper
GK: I would have to disagree with you there, Although I must admit, at this point we are splitting hairs. And making broad "lumped" assumptions. Get it, splitting and lumping. :) > > I am a looper.-I follow. I was splitting hairs. Your looper view is a wise one. Keeping a view of the parts and the sum of the parts and their emergent qualities is a fine overall way of looking at things. But I still have to view the emergent as something slightly separate from its origin, therefore, dualism. The emergence of life from its parts is filled with living feedback loops. That is the only way life can manage itelf.-> GK:By looking at only half the "equation", the brain, we may be lead to conclusion based on half the view. The phenomena of consciousness out of the brain. Or by focusing on the "mind", we are lead to the conclusion of 'emergence". Now that we know a group of atoms in the states they are for our brain, then the mind because a function of this state. The next "emergent" quality will be an "all human consciousness". Or, we are the "brain" of Giai.-I believe in a human species consciousness. It helps explain psychic phenomena which I have seen in action and know are real.(Described before in this website) > > GK: For me, There is a "you". If I take you apart and find "No You" what does that mean? For me, you do exist, "you" are a field that can describe you. Just because I took you apart and found "no piece of you" doesn't lead me to any one conclusion yet. We don't know enough for me to do that.-Very acceptable logic. > > GK: For me, that's what dualism seems to be doing. It has a limited focusing knob. It is either course or fine. Which is ok in many instances. but when we look at "intermediate truth's" (we aren't sure truth's))we may need a "finer incremental" adjusting knob. Maybe not even one. We may not even have to "look through the "glass". Just stand ware we are and talk about it.-I am not doing "coarse or fine". I'm simply observing that emergent is related to its origin but is something somewhat separate.
Ourcellves?
by GateKeeper , Friday, April 11, 2014, 11:55 (3878 days ago) @ David Turell
I am not doing "coarse or fine". I'm simply observing that emergent is related to its origin but is something somewhat separate. > I think see,-You look in, split. You see no "I". You pullback, lump. You see an "I". You look in again, split. You see no "I". You pullback again, lump. You see an "I". After some thinking, You then stand back and deal with this "I" of ours. Because that is the level of experience we "exist in". That makes perfect sense to me.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Friday, April 11, 2014, 16:15 (3878 days ago) @ GateKeeper
David: I am not doing "coarse or fine". I'm simply observing that emergent is related to its origin but is something somewhat separate. > > > GK: I think see, > > You look in, split. You see no "I". You pullback, lump. You see an "I". You look in again, split. You see no "I". You pullback again, lump. You see an "I". After some thinking, You then stand back and deal with this "I" of ours. Because that is the level of experience we "exist in". That makes perfect sense to me.-I am willing to accept my experiences as you describe and not worry about the intricacies of each neuron.
Ourcellves?
by GateKeeper , Friday, April 11, 2014, 17:32 (3878 days ago) @ David Turell
That is cool. My brother is the same. He has absolutely no interest in talking about how the brain works. It only becomes a problem when he begins ask why things work. Then when we begin defend, or rationalize a particle meme, we need to be honest with the information we choose to cast out. And would/can this ignored information effect the validity of a particular conclusion. For example, my brother. he "believes" and he does not care about the information I use to show him why the body did not rise. And if people are going to talk about psychology, or human experience, and they don't know how the neurons works. what would that tell me? I see people trying to "tell others" how/why people do the things they do and they don't know squat about how the "brain" "runs". That is a big problem.- Maybe I am not a looper, maybe "holisticism" would better describe me. I use all available information. as much as I can. And I look back and forth to see the solution at various points in the equations. Then narrow the answer for that unknown domain. Looking at Y=MX+B only leaves many open solutions. Looking at only y=5 limits the solution and may, or may not, solve our problem. Not knowing anything about how math works means just that. Maybe I would need to sit down and listen. It doesn't have to mean I am wrong. For example "I love riding". I don't need to know math (or understand neurons) to have "joy" in that.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Friday, April 11, 2014, 18:54 (3878 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK: It doesn't have to mean I am wrong. For example "I love riding". I don't need to know math (or understand neurons) to have "joy" in that.-Well, we have six horses. Come ride
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Thursday, April 10, 2014, 03:14 (3879 days ago) @ David Turell
I am a lumper. David Not by any understanding of the word or your position that I have.-Splitters parse things into is and is not Now a panentheist you come as close as can be to lumper but you won't cross into the lumped world of a pantheist. Where the the universe and god are one. For a panentheist god is in the physical world.-Also from what I undestand you see the mind (consciousnees) as somehow separate from the physical world. You see yourself as having free will that is somehow independent of cause. Again from what I understand of your position. All three are classical dualist positions.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Thursday, April 10, 2014, 06:11 (3879 days ago) @ romansh
David: I am a lumper. > David > Romansh: Not by any understanding of the word or your position that I have. > > Splitters parse things into is and is not > Now a panentheist you come as close as can be to lumper but you won't cross into the lumped world of a pantheist. Where the the universe and god are one. For a panentheist god is in the physical world.-Not by the definition of panentheist I use. i believe God is within and without the universe, a recognized definition. > > Romansh;Also from what I undestand you see the mind (consciousnees) as somehow separate from the physical world. You see yourself as having free will that is somehow independent of cause. Again from what I understand of your position. All three are classical dualist positions.-As a lumper I look at the whole function of the brain. i certainly understand how the cells and synapes work, but they are bits of reductionist materialism and don't ever tell us about the structure and results of the function of the whole. You impress me as a splitter, worried about each individual cell which tells yu very little about the whole.
Ourcellves?
by GateKeeper , Thursday, April 10, 2014, 14:32 (3879 days ago) @ David Turell
this is like M-theory. It is ok to think in terms of "outside". But if you have a multi-verse, from our "view" you really still have one universe.-So I stop at our universe alone for now. Until we see "more universes". So to say "believe in a outside of" leads us to a discussion with no observations as of yet. Although I believe we may be seeing them, just not knowing it.-This universe may be alive. At the very least it is reasonable to say this earth may be alive. The earth is so big to us that it looks flat. The entity earth is so big that it seems endless to us. "god".-I use every notion you said. lol, If I understand you that is.
Ourcellves?
by GateKeeper , Thursday, April 10, 2014, 14:25 (3879 days ago) @ romansh
I don't know if i understand you rom. -I took "physical world" as what we "know now". Which is based on less than 10% of what may be. When I say physical world, I mean universe. Then we have to lock predictions on what we know. -It is great to extrapolate and interpolate, as long we don't go to many steps. Kind of like Charles laws in context of pv=nrt in conjunction with van der waals. Although we know much less than the difference between ideal and real gas laws.-I agree with you. If you look at "lumping", then the reasonable conclusion that the universe is alive is sound. If we look at splitting, then the conclusion that the universe is alive is valid too. -We have two data sets converging on a conclusion. "emergence". Looping.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Thursday, April 10, 2014, 14:55 (3879 days ago) @ GateKeeper
edited by unknown, Thursday, April 10, 2014, 15:05
I don't know if i understand you rom. > > I took "physical world" as what we "know now". I take physical as whether it can respond to cause and effect.- > It is great to extrapolate and interpolate, as long we don't go to many steps. Kind of like Charles laws in context of pv=nrt in conjunction with van der waals. Although we know much less than the difference between ideal and real gas laws. That reality is more complex than any Law is fairly understandable.-People I think get confused by deterministic world views. While effects are to some degree predictable from causes ... the causes are complex (universal if you like) and the operators (Laws) are incomplete.-> > I agree with you. If you look at "lumping", then the reasonable conclusion that the universe is alive is sound. If we look at splitting, then the conclusion that the universe is alive is valid too. > For me if the universe is alive/conscious, then the distinction between animate and inanimate becomes moot. > We have two data sets converging on a conclusion. "emergence". Looping.-If your definition for emergence is processes with feedback .. fair enough.-But emergence simply reduces to something I can't predict easily.
Ourcellves?
by GateKeeper , Thursday, April 10, 2014, 15:53 (3879 days ago) @ romansh
edited by unknown, Thursday, April 10, 2014, 15:59
I take physical as whether it can respond to cause and effect. > I see Both (yours and mine) definitions as "limiting" and may force us to a particular conclusion. If the two converge on the same it may be telling us something.-> -> That reality is more complex than any Law is fairly understandable. > > People I think get confused by deterministic world views. While effects are to some degree predictable from causes ... the causes are complex (universal if you like) and the operators (Laws) are incomplete. > >true.--> For me if the universe is alive/conscious, then the distinction between animate and inanimate becomes moot. > - calling it "mute" releases responsibility for drawling a conclusion to me. So I am not sure of the intentions here. I am only interested in if it may be, or it may not be, based on what we know today. With just small steps "off the curve" that is. -So Flip your notion. First what is the data. Then What is/may the data telling us? Is it more probable that the universe may be alive or is more probable that the universe is not alive? based on what we know.- > If your definition for emergence is processes with feedback .. fair enough. > > But emergence simply reduces to something I can't predict easily.-right, something not easily predicted. Thats mine too.-I am a simple fellow. Words just mean standard def's that we see and/or may use in an area. I don't redefine words. Emergence for me is just the definition used. Something that we did not predict. Not that it wasn't there. Like the first pyramid "bent". -"looping" is a play on words. "loop job", which I am. Or, First I look, Then I describe what I think it is. Based on measurements. Not what "I think it is". Some parts will be dualist and some parts will be monist. -And we loop back and forth because neither alone answers what we see. But they both do when use together. -to me, Some people need to "fix" themselves in philosophy. For me, Philosophy should "be fixed" in what we know if we are going to judge people by their philosophy. "what we know" is not a fixed point.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Friday, April 11, 2014, 02:44 (3878 days ago) @ GateKeeper
edited by unknown, Friday, April 11, 2014, 03:11
I see Both (yours and mine) definitions as "limiting" and may force us to a particular conclusion. If the two converge on the same it may be telling us something. By definition all definitions are limiting ... is and is not.-Ultimately language is dualistic (or pluralistic at best). Hence I have problem describing a monistic world view. Consequently while I can understand DHW's point of view he claims to be non the wiser after my explanations. > calling it "mute" releases responsibility for drawling a conclusion to me. So I am not sure of the intentions here. I am only interested in if it may be, or it may not be, based on what we know today. With just small steps "off the curve" that is. Not sure what you mean by "mute" ... I meant moot. > So Flip your notion. First what is the data. Then What is/may the data telling us? Is it more probable that the universe may be alive or is more probable that the universe is not alive? based on what we know. The data are: that cause and effect seems to rule ... Cause and effect seems to stretch in an interlocking web back to some event 14 Gy ago or perhaps some event femtoseconds ago.-> "looping" is a play on words. "loop job", which I am. Or, First I look, Then I describe what I think it is. Based on measurements. Not what "I think it is". Some parts will be dualist and some parts will be monist. -Monism, dualism, pluralism and I suppose I should add nihilism are descriptions of the universe. While dualism and pluralism have their uses ultimately they don't seem accurate to me.
Ourcellves?
by GateKeeper , Friday, April 11, 2014, 15:32 (3878 days ago) @ romansh
> By definition all definitions are limiting ... is and is not. > -true.-> Ultimately language is dualistic (or pluralistic at best). Hence I have problem describing a monistic world view. Consequently while I can understand DHW's point of view he claims to be non the wiser after my explanations. >--Not for me. Ultimately langue is used to describe ideas between humans. Langue is not "this" or that". "words" are, maybe. You may be having trouble for other reasons. I am not an expert, but maybe drop the notion that "langue" is "dualist" and let langue be "langue". With all its limitations. You guys here seem to understand quite well.-DWH does not follow this monist religion because it a world view that does not match all observations. When you make a lego truck, it is a lego truck. To say the truck is 'something else" because it is made up of only legos does not fit observations. Maybe toss out the notion that 'it is only legoes" and then try to describe what you mean. > Not sure what you mean by "mute" ... I meant moot. > Moot = mute for me. Some ideas are "less" debatable than others. The notion that we may be part of a living thing, as we understand life, is beginning to approach this point. The key word here is "less" it does not mean "can't be".-- > The data are: that cause and effect seems to rule ... Cause and effect seems to stretch in an interlocking web back to some event 14 Gy ago or perhaps some event femtoseconds ago. > -yes. Cause and effect seem to rule. I agree ... now what?-I don't lock my conclusion to a philosophy. I let the answer come from the data. What mite these observations mean? -Based in these observations, is it more reasonable to say the universe is alive or that the universe is not alive. Please answer the question. Maybe you think the question is too far a prediction off the curve? I Don't think it is. As long as we both understand that we both could be wrong, or right. I am the type of person that has no problem being wrong. It means I learnt something new. And that's way cool.--> Monism, dualism, pluralism and I suppose I should add nihilism are descriptions of the universe. While dualism and pluralism have their uses ultimately they don't seem accurate to me. >-None of those philosophies are an accurate description of what I see. All together gives me a better one. In this respect I am like David. I pull back and deal with what I can. -you said "... to me". When you understand that those others include your data set (monism) you might understand why I don't follow monism as my world view (philosophy/religion). When I see you are including my data set (looper) I will ... well ... loop back. -When I talk to a monist I will talk monist. When I talk to a pluralist I talk pluralist. When either takes the data interpretation to far, I will question them.-We have an "emotional" component in us. This seems to based on the interactions of the universe. Although "emotion" is limiting when it comes to "logic" we need to understand that "emotion" must help guide "logic" for now. Your guy, albie said it best.-When I found this place I thought, "wow, two romanshs". But your writing style gives you away. do you recognize me yet Rom? by my writing style? its AB.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Friday, April 11, 2014, 16:22 (3878 days ago) @ GateKeeper
GK: When I found this place I thought, "wow, two romanshs". But your writing style gives you away. do you recognize me yet Rom? by my writing style? its AB.-I enjoy your thought patterns. we are similar in many ways. I know where Romansh comes from and his website. But you appear to know him, from that website?
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Saturday, April 12, 2014, 01:44 (3877 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> > By definition all definitions are limiting ... is and is not. > > true. > > > Ultimately language is dualistic (or pluralistic at best). Hence I have problem describing a monistic world view. Consequently while I can understand DHW's point of view he claims to be non the wiser after my explanations. -> Not for me. -While I don't doubt language can be used for other things, I can't see how language is not ultimately dualistic for you?-When you point to a tree and say "tree" are you not implying "not cow"?-If not, then I would say any explanation, say of woodlands, that you may have is just not going to cut it for me?
Ourcellves?
ROMANSH: Ultimately language is dualistic (or pluralistc at best). I have problem describing a monistic world view. Consequently while I can understand DHW's point of view he claims to be non the wiser after my explanations.-Sadly, we do seem to have great difficulty communicating! The context of our discussion was that if we are nothing but our cells (the materialist view), it is a false dichotomy to claim that our cells control us and therefore we have no free will. If our cells ARE us, logically we/they control ourselves/themselves. In your response you wrote:-"I am not suggesting that we are (just) our cells. We are much more than that. Poetically speaking we are a reflection of the universe and the universe is a reflection of us."-Although I had not suggested that YOU had suggested we were (just) our cells, it seemed that your comment might shed an interesting light on the subject under discussion (free will), and so I asked you to explain what aspects of ourselves could not be subsumed under the activity of our cells. You replied: "Much more = the universe". And I can only repeat (sadly) that this leaves me none the wiser about whether or not we have free will or, in a wider context, what is the nature of the self.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Saturday, April 12, 2014, 15:44 (3877 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: Sadly, we do seem to have great difficulty communicating! The context of our discussion was that if we are nothing but our cells (the materialist view), it is a false dichotomy to claim that our cells control us and therefore we have no free will. If our cells ARE us, logically we/they control ourselves/themselves. In your response you wrote:-Our we talking about materialism or your your logic for ourcellf?-The way I see your logic works is: 1) Lets define the cells in [our] bodies as our cells 2) The metabolism of our cells which results actions, consciousness etc can be described as ours Therefore ... It is perfectly reasonable call our collection of cells, actions consciousness etc as ours of a self-I have no problem with this is a sloppy, casual pragmatic way. Language has forced me to describe my thoughts and ideas as mine etc. ie Dualistically-But in a deeper philosophical and rigorous way I think this whole dualistic position is a nonsense. Just because I might use words, symbols, pictures to describe chemistry it does not mean chemistry is these things.-Again going back to the supposed view that materialists think there is nothing but our material self. A materialist would argue that material things respond to cause and effect. ie a photon does not have a mass but responds to gravity.-If we were to positively identify some "magical" energy (for a want of a better word) that is our supposed consciousness, this would be no problem for a materialist, she would just add it to the menagerie of energies that already exist. What would be a problem for a materialist if this magical energy was truly magical and was not described by the first and second laws of thermodynamics. -> Although I had not suggested that YOU had suggested we were (just) our cells, it seemed that your comment might shed an interesting light on the subject under discussion (free will), and so I asked you to explain what aspects of ourselves could not be subsumed under the activity of our cells. You replied: "Much more = the universe". And I can only repeat (sadly) that this leaves me none the wiser about whether or not we have free will or, in a wider context, what is the nature of the self.-The nature of the self (like free will) is that it is not what it seems. Our responses to the universe do not intrisically appear within the brain (choose whatever organ you feel comfortable with). It took the universe to make ourcellves and ourcellves unfold the universe. This is part of GK's feed back if we like.-Also if our cells don't come from the food we eat ... where does it come from?
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Saturday, April 12, 2014, 16:12 (3877 days ago) @ romansh
> Romansh: If we were to positively identify some "magical" energy (for a want of a better word) that is our supposed consciousness, this would be no problem for a materialist, she would just add it to the menagerie of energies that already exist. What would be a problem for a materialist if this magical energy was truly magical and was not described by the first and second laws of thermodynamics.-How do you define conscious thought as energy? It is not the sum of the energies of the neurons that create it.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Saturday, April 12, 2014, 16:44 (3877 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Romansh: If we were to positively identify some "magical" energy (for a want of a better word) that is our supposed consciousness, this would be no problem for a materialist, she would just add it to the menagerie of energies that already exist. What would be a problem for a materialist if this magical energy was truly magical and was not described by the first and second laws of thermodynamics. > > How do you define conscious thought as energy? It is not the sum of the energies of the neurons that create it.-That's how I might define it ... perhaps other than not what it seems.-But there is an inherent fallacy in the sum of the energies of the neurons that create it.-Imagine someone deprived from all sensory input from a very early age. This person will not develop a sense of self I would argue. It is our sensory inputs that shape our neural pathways together with other bodily functions.-Looking them separately is a fallacy ... as any lumper should understand. Unless you really are a splitter and you have a realtively coarse split at the body?
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Saturday, April 12, 2014, 19:20 (3877 days ago) @ romansh
> Romansh: But there is an inherent fallacy in the sum of the energies of the neurons that create it.-That is why I put it as I did. Thought may result from neural energy, but the thought itself is without any energy component in it. That is why consciousness is so tough to explain. > > Romansh; Imagine someone deprived from all sensory input from a very early age. This person will not develop a sense of self I would argue. It is our sensory inputs that shape our neural pathways together with other bodily functions.-Yes, our sensory inputs shape our neural pathways. Helen Keller had only touch and smell but she certainly developed a self. Are you saying that she had no sense of self, until she was taught? I don't buy that. > > Romansh; Looking them separately is a fallacy ... as any lumper should understand. > Unless you really are a splitter and you have a realtively coarse split at the body?-No, I lump. Self is molded by experiences, no doubt, but I don't worry about the strange bioelectrical apparatus we have been given to work with. We learn to play it like a fine violin, if we wish. And you and I couldn't be having this clear exchange of thoughts without it.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Saturday, April 12, 2014, 20:56 (3877 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 21:11
That is why I put it as I did. Thought may result from neural energy, but the thought itself is without any energy component in it. That is why consciousness is so tough to explain. You keep saying this David ... i have no way of verifying this statement.-> Yes, our sensory inputs shape our neural pathways. Helen Keller had only touch and smell but she certainly developed a self. Are you saying that she had no sense of self, until she was taught? I don't buy that. -Helen Keller is not the perfect example ... she lost her sight and hearing at nineteen months, so while her selfhood was not fully established at this stage but it was well on its way. She was also supplemented by a large amount of care which can be a proxy for sensory inputs. So no I am not saying Keller had no sense of self. But I am saying she had much loving and caring sensory inputs. > No, I lump. Self is molded by experiences, no doubt, but I don't worry about the strange bioelectrical apparatus we have been given to work with. We learn to play it like a fine violin, if we wish. And you and I couldn't be having this clear exchange of thoughts without it. I would not be here for whole bunch of reasons that extend beyond my brain. All I am saying you do split ... but yours is a much coarser split than that of a traditional reductionist.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Saturday, April 12, 2014, 21:54 (3877 days ago) @ romansh
Romansh: That is why I put it as I did. Thought may result from neural energy, but the thought itself is without any energy component in it. That is why consciousness is so tough to explain. > You keep saying this David ... i have no way of verifying this statement.-So you think there is possibility that an idea or thought contains energy, if spoken, voiced, or written? The energy is in the production, not the resultant thought itself.- > Romansh: All I am saying you do split ... but yours is a much coarser split than that of a traditional reductionist.-I don't think of myself as a reductionist at all. I underwstand the parts, but in no way do they control me.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Sunday, April 13, 2014, 18:01 (3876 days ago) @ David Turell
Romansh: That is why I put it as I did. Thought may result from neural energy, but the thought itself is without any energy component in it. That is why consciousness is so tough to explain. > > You keep saying this David ... i have no way of verifying this statement. > > So you think there is possibility that an idea or thought contains energy, if spoken, voiced, or written? The energy is in the production, not the resultant thought itself. > -You keep saying this David ... I have no way of verifying this statement.-Why can't thought be energy?-Why this continual dualistic mindset ... thought separate from matter, god separate from matter?
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Sunday, April 13, 2014, 19:37 (3876 days ago) @ romansh
Romansh: You keep saying this David ... i have no way of verifying this statement. > > > > So you think there is possibility that an idea or thought contains energy, if spoken, voiced, or written? The energy is in the production, not the resultant thought itself. > > > > You keep saying this David ... I have no way of verifying this statement. > > Why can't thought be energy? > > Why this continual dualistic mindset ... thought separate from matter, god separate from matter?-:>)) because I am stubborn, and I don't see your point at all. You cannot prove that an expressed thought, in and of itself, once expressed, contains any energy. Again , the philosophers I read agree with me. I believe this is why Shannon introduced his information theory, since he couldn't measure energy, to quantify it somehow.
Ourcellves?
DHW: The context of our discussion was that if we are nothing but our cells (the materialist view), it is a false dichotomy to claim that our cells control us and therefore we have no free will. If our cells ARE us, logically we/they control ourselves/themselves.-ROMANSH: Our we talking about materialism or your your logic for ourcellf? The way I see your logic works is: 1) Lets define the cells in [our] bodies as our cells 2) The metabolism of our cells which results actions, consciousness etc can be described as ours Therefore ... It is perfectly reasonable call our collection of cells, actions consciousness etc as ours of a self I have no problem with this is a sloppy, casual pragmatic way. Language has forced me to describe my thoughts and ideas as mine etc. ie Dualistically-That is a fair summary, and "sloppy" and "casual" don't offer much in the way of a rational response. If you don't think your thoughts are yours, it is perfectly possible to say your thoughts are not yours, and you can even use language to explain why you think this. Language does not force you into saying one thing or the other. I might even say that is your choice.-ROMANSH: But in a deeper philosophical and rigorous way I think this whole dualistic position is a nonsense. Just because I might use words, symbols, pictures to describe chemistry it does not mean chemistry is these things.-Then if it's a nonsense, why don't you stop faffing around with it? We all know that language is an inadequate tool in many areas, but in others it is adequate for our human needs. So forget chemistry and tell us, hand on heart, do you or do you not think your cells/thoughts are yours? ROMANSH: Again going back to the supposed view that materialists think there is nothing but our material self. A materialist would argue that material things respond to cause and effect. ie a photon does not have a mass but responds to gravity.-Materialists believe that the mind and body/brain are inseparable. No "supposed". But otherwise I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with what you say. Of course humans respond to cause and effect. That does not mean their cells are not their own, or that they are not conscious of cause and effect, or that they have no control over HOW they respond. ROMANSH: If we were to positively identify some "magical" energy (for a want of a better word) that is our supposed consciousness, this would be no problem for a materialist, she would just add it to the menagerie of energies that already exist. What would be a problem for a materialist if this magical energy was truly magical and was not described by the first and second laws of thermodynamics.-Another "supposed". David distinguishes between consciousness (neural energy) and its products (e.g. thoughts). I find it difficult to separate the two, because I don't understand how neural energy can lead to thought. On the other hand, I have equal difficulty with the concept of a "soul" that directs neural energy. And so I would say the whole process is "unexplained", not "magical". and until your materialist explains it, we can only speculate on its true nature ... apart of course from those who doubt whether we are conscious anyway. -Dhw: ...I asked you to explain what aspects of ourselves could not be subsumed under the activity of our cells. You replied: "Much more = the universe". And I can only repeat (sadly) that this leaves me none the wiser about whether or not we have free will or, in a wider context, what is the nature of the self. ROMANSH: The nature of the self (like free will) is that it is not what it seems.-So what aspects of the self do you think cannot be subsumed under the activity of our cells? As regards "what it seems", can you be more specific? I see no reason to believe, for instance, that all the characteristics which I associate with myself and which seem to me to be part of my individual identity are NOT "what they seem". How do you know they are not? ROMANSH: Our responses to the universe do not intrisically appear within the brain (choose whatever organ you feel comfortable with). It took the universe to make ourcellves and ourcellves unfold the universe.-What is the difference between a response and an intrinsic response? I agree that it took the universe to make ourcellves, but I don't know what you mean by ourcellves "unfolding" the universe. If our responses to the universe do not come from our cells, what do they come from? ROMANSH: Also if our cells don't come from the food we eat ... where does it come from?-Ask Mummy and Daddy. Unless they are potatoes.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Sunday, April 13, 2014, 22:19 (3876 days ago) @ dhw
I'll get back to you on the bulk of the post-I don't know about you ... Mummy gave me only one cell, I don't recall seeing a cell from Daddy.-That cell took potatoes and vegies then grew and split many times.
Ourcellves?
ROMANSH: I don't know about you...Mummy gave me only one cell, I don't recall seeing a cell from Daddy. That cell took potatoes and veggies then grew and split many times.-Well, I don't know about you, but if my Daddy's sperm cell hadn't said hello to my Mummy's egg cell, I wouldn't have been here. I don't recall it either, but that's what my Daddy told me. And I was also told that all my genes (those are the parts of my cells that control what I look like and how I have developed) were passed on to me by Mummy and Daddy and not by potatoes and veggies. But I have seen a rugby player with a cauliflower ear, so you may be right.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Monday, April 14, 2014, 15:38 (3875 days ago) @ dhw
ROMANSH: I don't know about you...Mummy gave me only one cell, I don't recall seeing a cell from Daddy. > That cell took potatoes and veggies then grew and split many times. > > dhw: Well, I don't know about you, but if my Daddy's sperm cell hadn't said hello to my Mummy's egg cell, I wouldn't have been here. I don't recall it either, but that's what my Daddy told me. And I was also told that all my genes (those are the parts of my cells that control what I look like and how I have developed) were passed on to me by Mummy and Daddy and not by potatoes and veggies. But I have seen a rugby player with a cauliflower ear, so you may be right.-I'm actually insulted by the glib silliness. We are supposed to be solvng the complexities of reality here. Going from fertilized egg to trillions of differentiated cells that compose a human baby is hardly something that can be seen as a result of a chance Darwinian mechanism. But then most atheists I know from reading are rather superficial thinkers. The result was my anti-Dawkins book.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Monday, April 14, 2014, 20:05 (3875 days ago) @ David Turell
Another level of silliness: describing consciousness, but there is no identification of how it really appears, just applied science to areas of the brain. It does identify 20,000 papers going nowhere:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/39596/title/Dissecting-Consciousness/
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Saturday, April 26, 2014, 18:34 (3863 days ago) @ dhw
Well, I don't know about you, but if my Daddy's sperm cell hadn't said hello to my Mummy's egg cell, I wouldn't have been here. I don't recall it either, but that's what my Daddy told me. -I could have been clearer here ... I only got one cell from my mother ... I'll agree a sperm cell had fused with it prior to that.-But it was that one cell (in my mother) that had started dividing. And due to the conservation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics a good deal of what is mean came from potatoes and roast.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Saturday, April 26, 2014, 18:43 (3863 days ago) @ romansh
Romansh: Well, I don't know about you, but if my Daddy's sperm cell hadn't said hello to my Mummy's egg cell, I wouldn't have been here. I don't recall it either, but that's what my Daddy told me. > > I could have been clearer here ... I only got one cell from my mother ... I'll agree a sperm cell had fused with it prior to that. > > But it was that one cell (in my mother) that had started dividing. And due to the conservation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics a good deal of what is mean came from potatoes and roast.-The Y chromosome may be small but it has powerful effects. DNA guides the energy consumed, so we are not dealing with a closed system and a complex human appears anti-entropy. We still don't have any answer to the question of how rocks and water got this life process started.
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Saturday, April 26, 2014, 18:54 (3863 days ago) @ David Turell
so we are not dealing with a closed system and a complex human appears anti-entropy.-Only to those that don't have a sufficient appreciation of what entropy is.-for those interested: http://secondlaw.oxy.edu/ http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/content.htm#second_law
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Sunday, April 13, 2014, 22:31 (3876 days ago) @ dhw
ROMANSH: Our responses to the universe do not intrisically appear within the brain (choose whatever organ you feel comfortable with). It took the universe to make ourcellves and ourcellves unfold the universe. > > dhw: What is the difference between a response and an intrinsic response? I agree that it took the universe to make ourcellves, but I don't know what you mean by ourcellves "unfolding" the universe. If our responses to the universe do not come from our cells, what do they come from?-I think by unfold he means understand how the universe works. And also there is the early quantum theory approach that the universe cannot exist without our intelligence to observe it. That has always been a weird approach to me.
Ourcellves?
by David Turell , Thursday, April 10, 2014, 16:26 (3879 days ago) @ romansh
GK: We have two data sets converging on a conclusion. "emergence". Looping. > > ROM: If your definition for emergence is processes with feedback .. fair enough. > > But emergence simply reduces to something I can't predict easily.-That is how I view emergence as someting which is greater than the parts nd therefore unpredictable
Ourcellves?
GATEKEEPER: But I don't think we have enough information to have it as clarified as we would like. That causes some of us to be uneasy, unsettled, maybe even a tad anxious. It does me anyway.-The good news is that this "uneasiness" motivates us to keep looking. "Q" from star trek comes to mind for me. The unknown may give some "A purpose". -Your remark about not having enough information puts into a nutshell my own feelings about virtually every subject we discuss on this forum, though I'm sorry this makes you anxious. I was anxious when I was young, but now I am simply fascinated and sometimes even excited by it all. I only become anxious when the fundamentalists of whatever persuasion attempt to belittle or even eliminate those who do not share their beliefs. Fortunately we have had very few on this website, and they have swiftly departed. The fact that we all keep looking is for me one of the most heartening and most admirable traits of our humanity ... and I have found this shared quest wonderfully stimulating and enlightening. Of course those with firm beliefs may find it frustrating too!
Ourcellves?
by romansh , Thursday, April 10, 2014, 03:42 (3879 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Thursday, April 10, 2014, 03:55
DHW: Your remark about not having enough information puts into a nutshell my own feelings about virtually every subject we discuss on this forum ...-We can't be certain. And yet I don't worry about waking up in the morning. For some strange reason I am fairly confident about that.-I know the sun does not rise in the east, But the Earth's surface rotates towards the sun in the morning. I also know this Euclidean interpretation of the evidence is likely incomplete.-I can't be certain I about free will. I might in the morning forget this and go about my day in belief of free will. And yet something may jar me out of my stupour and say ... free will is nonsensical concept ... it is an incoherent concept. -My point is we take our best evidence and we think we plot our course and try to navigate it. I am just very skeptical about this.