Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on April 12, 2016, 05:47:06 PM
-
Atheists. Do you subscribe to the idea of the illusion of self. If so why............ if not why not?
-
For many years I've read and continue to read a lot of material predicated on the idea that a self is illusory, much of it Buddhist (the concept of anatta - no-self - is central to Buddhism, for example).
I'm not at all sure that I buy into it, as interesting as it is - it's perfectly reasonable to accept that in each of us there's a constellations of likings and dislikings, attitudes, behaviours, habits and whatnot that makes us recognisably us and not somebody else, because that somebody else will have a different set of those things. A self is as good a word as any to call it - there are others, if you prefer them. I think a lot of the talk about self being illusory is based on a simple misunderstanding between illusory and temporary - everything that we are is temporary. We weren't here at one point and won't be here at another point. That doesn't make it somehow unreal in the here and now; that makes it transient. Unreal and fleeting are not synonyms.
-
Atheists. Do you subscribe to the idea of the illusion of self.
Do you?
If so why............ if not why not?
-
Do you?
If so why............ if not why not?
No......because there is always the question of what is it that is having the illusion.
What better way of avoiding any form of self responsibility than dissolving yourself into non existence?
How about you?.......or the illusion of you?
-
What better way of avoiding any form of self responsibility
Say that God commanded it via sacred scripture.
-
Say that God commanded it via sacred scripture.
Come again?
-
You asked:
What better way of avoiding any form of self responsibility than dissolving yourself into non existence?
I replied that the better way of avoiding any form of self responsibility according to the time-honoured traditions of theism is to say that your actions are commanded by God, either through an interpretation of sacred scripture or for the really bold, a claim of direct divine revelation.
In other words: nothing to do with me, squire - orders is orders and this comes straight from the top.
There's no greater dodge of personal responsibility than saying your actions are commanded by the Creator itself, is there?
-
You asked:
I replied that the better way of avoiding any form of self responsibility according to the time-honoured traditions of theism is to say that your actions are commanded by God, either through an interpretation of sacred scripture or for the really bold, a claim of direct divine revelation.
In other words: nothing to do with me, squire - orders is orders and this comes straight from the top.
Yes there are people like that....and we could also consider the logical conclusions of having a morality which is at the level of liking marmite or not liking it....in other words, a matter of mere taste.
However I think there are theisms in which the theist takes the uttermost responsibility and guilt.
I find in atheist apologetics that two contradictory caricatures are touted. The miserable sinner type and the God/devil made me do it type.
From my point of view, self responsibility vanishes in atheism in moral relativism or the more recent mere cog in a bigger thing (evolution or society) and illusion of self. So those excuses as well as religion contribute to a widespread avoidance of self responsibility. I particularly suffer it as a motorist..........but I guess you take full responsibility for everything like a good boy.
-
However I think there are theisms in which the theist takes the uttermost responsibility and guilt.
That's a matter for psychology and psychiatry.
I find in atheist apologetics that two contradictory caricatures are touted. The miserable sinner type and the God/devil made me do it type.
If
Yes there are people like that
is true then it's no caricature.
The miserable sinners bit comes straight out of the Book of Common Prayer. Caricature?
-
That's a matter for psychology and psychiatry.
If
is true then it's no caricature.
In your hands Shaker you make it typical and widespread and that's why it's a caricature.
So guilt is a psychological aberration then.
I guess that confirms your sociopathy.
-
In your hands Shaker you make it typical and widespread and that's why it's a caricature.
The Book of Common Prayer has Christians declaring that they are miserable offenders and that there is no health in them. Pretty sure that that document is more widespread than my opinions.
So guilt is a psychological aberration then.
I guess that confirms your sociopathy.
Not for the first time and surely not for the last you seem to be relating your own opinions rather than responding to anything I've written.
-
The Book of Common Prayer has Christians declaring that they are miserable offenders and that there is no health in them.
The Book of Common Prayer? I thought that was from ''The God Delusion'' by Richard Dawkins.
-
Nope. Very definitely the BCP.
-
The Book of Common Prayer? I thought that was from ''The God Delusion'' by Richard Dawkins.
Get a grip.
-
Atheists. Do you subscribe to the idea of the illusion of self. If so why............ if not why not?
There is no ontological basis for a self.
There cannot be a master neuron in a brain, corresponding to 'me'. Rather, a self is something emergent, a composite thing, an ephemeral thing, a transient thing, a collection of fairly persistent qualities and tendancies; it vanishes every night when we go to sleep, and is eroded irreversibly by dementia. More accurately, it is a sense, like a sense of balance, or a sense of right and wrong; it depends for its integrity on optimal brain functioning, on memory persistence and on the fidelity of cell replication. But it doesn't feel like that; it feels as if there is a person inside, and it feels as if that person is a thing in its own right, and that is why it is illusory - there is no ontological basis for a self, it is not a thing, it is a feeling of selfhood, of identity, of individuality aggregated up from underlying characteristics and integrated into a seeming unitary whole by (largely left-hemispheric) brain function.
-
There is no ontological basis for a self.
There cannot be a master neuron in a brain, corresponding to 'me'. Rather, a self is something emergent, a composite thing, an ephemeral thing, a transient thing, a collection of qualities and tendancies; it vanishes every night when we go to sleep, and is eroded irreversibly by dementia. More accurately, it is a sense, like a sense of balance, or a sense of right and wrong; it depends for its integrity on optimal brain functioning, on memory persistence and on the fidelity of cell replication. But it doesn't feel like that; it feels as if there is a person inside, and it feels as if that person is a thing in its own right, and that is why it is illusory - there is no ontological basis for a self, it is not a thing, it is a feeling of selfhood, of identity, of individuality produced (largely) by left-hemispheric brain function.
Where this falls down for me is that it doesn't adequately outline how and why what you describe as an illusion of self is actually different from an actual self.
Again we have the problem of what it is that is having the feeling...that is something that must be of great sophistication.
Also when we talk of illusion we are talking of an illusion of things which exist.
I'm finding it hard to look on the term illusion as being anything but a melodramatic touch in a reductionist narrative.
-
Where this falls down for me is that it doesn't adequately outline how and why what you describe as an illusion of self is actually different from an actual self.
Hark to the sound of Hell freezing over. I actually agree with Vlad.
I'm finding it hard to look on the term illusion as being anything but a melodramatic touch in a reductionist narrative.
Normal service has been resumed.
-
Where this falls down for me is that it doesn't adequately outline how and why what you describe as an illusion of self is actually different from an actual self.
Again we have the problem of what it is that is having the feeling...that is something that must be of great sophistication.
Also when we talk of illusion we are talking of an illusion of things which exist.
I'm finding it hard to look on the term illusion as being anything but a melodramatic touch in a reductionist narrative.
Has any neuroscientist identified a self using brain imaging ?
In neuroanatomy, is there a cortical structure where the self resides ?
Ancient peoples identified the heart as where the soul resides; now we regard that as a quaint and romantic notion; the heart is actually a pump.
What we do have is a unique collection of characteristics and memories, all of which have their own measure of persistence over time.
If you argue for an actual self, you'd have to be able to point to it, say what it is made of, where it is located.
-
Ancient peoples identified the heart as where the soul resides; now we regard that as a quaint and romantic notion; the heart is actually a pump.
What we do have is a unique collection of characteristics and memories, all of which have their own measure of persistence over time.
If you argue for an actual self, you'd have to be able to point to it, say what it is made of, where it is located.
You describe a self thus:
a self is something emergent, a composite thing, an ephemeral thing, a transient thing, a collection of fairly persistent qualities and tendancies; it vanishes every night when we go to sleep, and is eroded irreversibly by dementia.
How is the above a description of an illusion of self rather than a self?
You talk about the emergent and yet use reductionist methodology to state this:
Has any neuroscientist identified a self using brain imaging ?
In neuroanatomy, is there a cortical structure where the self resides ?
The self is an emergent property or it is not a property. You might be right you might be wrong but the above is reductionist.
If you go down that line you might as well say that the brain is an illusion because it is emergent from a group of tissues.
-
Atheists. Do you subscribe to the idea of the illusion of self. If so why............ if not why not?
I don't think we really have enough understanding or evidence to be sure. Vlad: that was in English not Vlad speak - I did not just say I was a dogmatic agnostic.
It could well be that the word illusion will turn out to be debatable anyway: Dennett, for example, uses the analogy of a centre of gravity - which is a well behaved and important part of physics but isn't actually a thing as such. Is a centre of gravity an illusion?
-
You describe a self thus:
a self is something emergent, a composite thing, an ephemeral thing, a transient thing, a collection of fairly persistent qualities and tendancies; it vanishes every night when we go to sleep, and is eroded irreversibly by dementia.
How is the above a description of an illusion of self rather than a self?
You talk about the emergent and yet use reductionist methodology to state this:
Has any neuroscientist identified a self using brain imaging ?
In neuroanatomy, is there a cortical structure where the self resides ?
The self is an emergent property or it is not a property. You might be right you might be wrong but the above is reductionist.
If you go down that line you might as well say that the brain is an illusion because it is emergent from a group of tissues.
A brain exists in any normal sense of the word; we can weigh it, measure it, dissect it. Not so with a self. A self is comprised of many underlying component characteristics. Say I have a love of marmite, and also I have a fear of heights; these things are part of what makes me, me. Does a fear of heights exist ? Well, there are primary neural correlates for the constituent characteristics of personhood. Our technology might not quite be up to it yet, but in principle we would be able to use scanning technology to observe my love of marmite and my fear of heights, but there is no primary neural correlate for the self. A feeling of self is something created on the fly as part of the fabric of conscious experience.
A quick thought experiment to flesh this out a bit : recall the last time you made a decision. Say the last time you were thirsty and were deciding whether to have a cup of tea or a cup of coffee. Put that moment of decision making under a microscope. How it feels is somewhat analogous to a court, where there are competing claims and a judge presiding over the case. He listens to both respondents and adjudicates, wisely, we hope. That's how it feels and that judge is the self or person within us; it is the executive wielding his power. But in reality brains do not make decisions like that. There is no judge in the inner courthouse of our mind, there are only competing desires, each rival desire has its own neural correlates and a moment of decision occurs when one circuit manages to gain precedence over the other circuit. That we feel there is a single point of authority and experience and volition is really an illusion, 'we' only find out about what decision occurred after the event; it is like a piece of flattery that helps to empower a sense of agency and independence. There cannot be a master neuron adjudicating in the brain - if there were then the master neuron would need its own brain with which to dispense wisdom and make choices.
-
Some good posts here. You could call the self a psychological construct, that is, I think I have a self. However, as torridon outlines, dementia seems to show its decay.
Buddhism has complicated ideas about the self, but a fairly common one is that there is no separate self. This is a bit like the idea that there is no agent.
-
No......because there is always the question of what is it that is having the illusion.
What better way of avoiding any form of self responsibility than dissolving yourself into non existence?
How about you?.......or the illusion of you?
The 'self' probably boils down to what you primarily identify with. Some identify much with their physical body and devote themselves to demonstrating a physical presence by developing its appearance. Some identify with an energetic body and indulge in exercise, sport, adventure. Some identify primarily with their intellect and use it to build a body of opinion. Some identify with their emotions. I would guess that usually it is a combination of all in varying degrees. It is illusory in the sense that its makeup changes over time. The self you identified with as a seven year old is not likely to be the same as when a thirty year old. The idea in many religions is to dis-identify with what drives the self centred, self willed individual and identify more with a consciousness free from those constraints. It's not about avoiding anything but more about being free from self driven interests. I don't know if you are a Christian, but Jesus' way was not to indulge in self interest or self preservation when his trial and death was imminent but to surrender to his God's will. It is the self and its dodgy covering the personality which creates much conflict in the world.
-
A brain exists in any normal sense of the word; we can weigh it, measure it, dissect it. Not so with a self.
But you have said that a self can decay. What did you mean by that if not in the sense of a body, organ or faculty decaying?
-
But you have said that a self can decay. What did you mean by that if not in the sense of a body, organ or faculty decaying?
That is what happens with dementia; a build up of proteins in the brain affecting cognitive function which frequently has the outcome that the individual loses his sense of self, they no longer know who or what they are. Physical brain decay is also the corresponding mind decay. With other psychiatric conditions like xenomelia and dysmorphic disorders people sometimes believe that a limb is not theirs, it belongs to someone else, and sometimes resort to self-amputation to get rid of it.
-
It is illusory in the sense that its makeup changes over time. The self you identified with as a seven year old is not likely to be the same as when a thirty year old.
Yes thats very true. We tend to think we are the same person from birth to death, but in fact that 'person' is always slowly changing. I am probably quite a different person now to what I was at 20 years old, but because change is slow, we don't notice it.
-
That is what happens with dementia; a build up of proteins in the brain affecting cognitive function which frequently has the outcome that the individual loses his sense of self, they no longer know who or what they are. Physical brain decay is also the corresponding mind decay. With other psychiatric conditions like xenomelia and dysmorphic disorders people sometimes believe that a limb is not theirs, it belongs to someone else, and sometimes resort to self-amputation to get rid of it.
But by suggesting mind equals brain by using the examples you do you are actually making the case for a real and functional school.
How does this eliminate a case made for the brain mediating between a consciousness and the material world since it could be argued that the brain is the line of communication? Since parsimony does not operate here because of the unknowns.
-
But by suggesting mind equals brain by using the examples you do you are actually making the case for a real and functional school.
How does this eliminate a case made for the brain mediating between a consciousness and the material world since it could be argued that the brain is the line of communication? Since parsimony does not operate here because of the unknowns.
The mind has a physiological basis (ie the brain), that doesn't equate to all products of mind being real - I can imagine a pink elephant now, that doesn't mean pink elephants are real because my brain is made of flesh. My pink elephant is a construct of mind, likewise, my sense of self is a construct of mind that has utility.
Not sure what you are getting at in the second para.
-
hmmm... I met up with a bunch of old friends, from school, the other day. Over the years all the cells in their brains and bodies have changed, and they don't look as they did when we were at school. Most of the views about things have also changed due to their varied experiences and so on. However they are still recognizably the same people (selves); we can even pick up the same conversations we were having 40 odd years ago.
My mum has dementia and her memory and some other thinking processes are disintegrating daily, are we supposed to pretend we don't know who she is?
What makes up this illusory self? It's not physical cells certainly .. it's not even information as this can also change, more to do with how information is processed.
-
hmmm... I met up with a bunch of old friends, from school, the other day. Over the years all the cells in their brains and bodies have changed, and they don't look as they did when we were at school. Most of the views about things have also changed due to their varied experiences and so on. However they are still recognizably the same people (selves); we can even pick up the same conversations we were having 40 odd years ago.
Me too, I met up with a guy that was one of my best friends at school recently. Hadn't seen him in 40 years. It was a bit strange, and rather unsettling in a way. I could recognise him and we had lots of shared memories to laugh about. But I did have trouble believing it was the same person, the thing that really threw me was his voice - much deeper now. I think voices are very individual and we recognise people by the sound of their voice as much as anything, yet 40 years on, this guy's voice was nothing like his 19 year old voice. So I got to pondering, is he the same person with changes applied, or a is he a different, a new person, a stranger to me, who has inherited some of the characters and memories of someone I used to know once by virtue of cell replication. Of course we run with the former concept normally, that is the more convenient, and it fits with our common intuitions about life and identity, but the latter might be truer to reality.
-
There seems to be a suggestion here that somehow an electrical system is being tricked into thinking it is something more than what it is. That is in fact a repudiation of the concept of emergent properties.
It is what it is.
I'm sorry Torridon but your idea of illusion is merely a construct to protect the doctrine and dogma of unconscious matter.
-
You describe a self thus:
a self is something emergent, a composite thing, an ephemeral thing, a transient thing, a collection of fairly persistent qualities and tendancies; it vanishes every night when we go to sleep, and is eroded irreversibly by dementia.
How is the above a description of an illusion of self rather than a self?
You talk about the emergent and yet use reductionist methodology to state this:
Has any neuroscientist identified a self using brain imaging ?
In neuroanatomy, is there a cortical structure where the self resides ?
The self is an emergent property or it is not a property. You might be right you might be wrong but the above is reductionist.
If you go down that line you might as well say that the brain is an illusion because it is emergent from a group of tissues.
Quite. That would make our ideas, memories, feelings et al just one big illusion; in fact our whole psychology.
And then we get to the Idealist view of the world...
-
A brain exists in any normal sense of the word; we can weigh it, measure it, dissect it. Not so with a self. A self is comprised of many underlying component characteristics. Say I have a love of marmite, and also I have a fear of heights; these things are part of what makes me, me. Does a fear of heights exist ? Well, there are primary neural correlates for the constituent characteristics of personhood. Our technology might not quite be up to it yet, but in principle we would be able to use scanning technology to observe my love of marmite and my fear of heights, but there is no primary neural correlate for the self. A feeling of self is something created on the fly as part of the fabric of conscious experience.
A quick thought experiment to flesh this out a bit : recall the last time you made a decision. Say the last time you were thirsty and were deciding whether to have a cup of tea or a cup of coffee. Put that moment of decision making under a microscope. How it feels is somewhat analogous to a court, where there are competing claims and a judge presiding over the case. He listens to both respondents and adjudicates, wisely, we hope. That's how it feels and that judge is the self or person within us; it is the executive wielding his power. But in reality brains do not make decisions like that. There is no judge in the inner courthouse of our mind, there are only competing desires, each rival desire has its own neural correlates and a moment of decision occurs when one circuit manages to gain precedence over the other circuit. That we feel there is a single point of authority and experience and volition is really an illusion, 'we' only find out about what decision occurred after the event; it is like a piece of flattery that helps to empower a sense of agency and independence. There cannot be a master neuron adjudicating in the brain - if there were then the master neuron would need its own brain with which to dispense wisdom and make choices.
But who feels the sensation of being thirsty?
And who feels or perceives this thirst in a particular and personal way. The electrical currents in the brain don't show this up as they all look the same no matter which brain you look at.
-
But who feels the sensation of being thirsty?
And who feels or perceives this thirst in a particular and personal way. The electrical currents in the brain don't show this up as they all look the same no matter which brain you look at.
the insertion of a who here is classic begging the question, assuming that such a thing needs a who to be felt. When a plant moves in line with the sun, is there a little who moving it?
-
The mind has a physiological basis (ie the brain), that doesn't equate to all products of mind being real - I can imagine a pink elephant now, that doesn't mean pink elephants are real because my brain is made of flesh. My pink elephant is a construct of mind, likewise, my sense of self is a construct of mind that has utility.
Not sure what you are getting at in the second para.
Where is that image or picture of the pink elephant? It is not found in the neurons. And someone must be viewing it...
And how does a brain with its fixed structure think of a pink elephant if the wiring or connections for such an image isn't there?
-
Where is that image or picture of the pink elephant? It is not found in the neurons. And someone must be viewing it...
And how does a brain with its fixed structure think of a pink elephant if the wiring or connections for such an image isn't there?
and so on ad infinitum. If there isn't a who viewing inside the 'who' that you inserted by begging the question, it's pink elephants all the way down.
-
The self as illusion is a metaphor, as indeed is the 'self'. Metaphors have limited explanatory powers though they may be about all we have at the moment. The question is about what is any individual's definition of what they mean by 'self' and how much explanatory power that has for what can be observed.
I don't see anything on the thread which makes clear what definition is being used, so how could one answer?
-
the insertion of a who here is classic begging the question, assuming that such a thing needs a who to be felt. When a plant moves in line with the sun, is there a little who moving it?
But does a plant think to itself, "I'm moving"?
The thing is I observe many aspects of myself in what is called consciousness and self reflection.
But my point was the way we feel things, which can't be seen or analysed in the neurons. The process of pain can be followed as it makes its way to the brain and so forth but how we feel pain isn't shown in this process.
-
and so on ad infinitum. If there isn't a who viewing inside the 'who' that you inserted by begging the question, it's pink elephants all the way down.
I don't follow. What do mean.
-
But does a plant think to itself, "I'm moving"?
The thing is I observe many aspects of myself in what is called consciousness and self reflection.
But my point was the way we feel things, which can't be seen or analysed in the neurons. The process of pain can be followed as it makes its way to the brain and so forth but how we feel pain isn't shown in this process.
I have no idea what a plant thinks, I'm not really sure what as Nagel would put it a bat thinks, and as for you, the problems of hard solipsism intervenes.
So that leaves this internal stuff, and despite Descartes, the idea of 'I' seems to begging the question again.
Oh, and, extra, extra, not sure how you can assert that there is a state that cannot be analysed. What's the difference here between 'sun moving ' and 'sore' as inputs?
-
I don't follow. What do mean.
If you follow dualism, and have an observer that has the ability to create observation, then you would need an observer within that observer, to give it the ability to create observation for that observer, etc etc
-
The self as illusion is a metaphor, as indeed is the 'self'. Metaphors have limited explanatory powers though they may be about all we have at the moment. The question is about what is any individual's definition of what they mean by 'self' and how much explanatory power that has for what can be observed.
I don't see anything on the thread which makes clear what definition is being used, so how could one answer?
I agree here that a definition of self would be hard to pin down.
-
I'm sorry Torridon but your idea of illusion is merely a construct to protect the doctrine and dogma of unconscious matter.
Eh ? I have no idea where that comes from.
One of the notions currently gaining weight in our efforts to understand consciousness is that consciousness may well be modelled as a fifth fundamental state of matter, to add to solid, liquid, gas and plasma; a state of rich particulate communication facilitated by the particular characteristic structural arrangements of matter found in brains. This is an example of us breaking out of classical views, boldy hypothesising new ways of thinking; hardly 'doctrine and dogma'.
-
But who feels the sensation of being thirsty?
And who feels or perceives this thirst in a particular and personal way. The electrical currents in the brain don't show this up as they all look the same no matter which brain you look at.
Trouble is, Jack, you're sounding like Alan Burns here, with his souls answering the need for a perceiver to do the perceiving. Even most atheists are still in the mind grip of Cartesian duallism. If we want to understand mind without recourse to magic and without invoking infinite regresses of minds within minds, we have to work with what there is, that means dropping duallism.
-
If you follow dualism, and have an observer that has the ability to create observation, then you would need an observer within that observer, to give it the ability to create observation for that observer, etc etc
But this is true for your system or approach but in reverse. Why does this ad infinitum necessity you explained above stop at the brain? It is quite plain to all of us that an observer is occurring at the point you wish it to stop at, i.e. our consciousness, but why should it do this if you say this then needs an observer? And, if what you say is true about this then to avoid the ad infinitum it can't/shouldn't start at all so your approach would say that consciousness shouldn't even be possible and even reach this point in the process that we human's have? Your system would say that at best there would be fairly simple chemicals that reproduce themselves, beyond that nothing would be possible.
And throwing in the term emergent properties doesn't even start to explain or deal with this problem.
-
Trouble is, Jack, you're sounding like Alan Burns here, with his souls answering the need for a perceiver to do the perceiving. Even most atheists are still in the mind grip of Cartesian duallism. If we want to understand mind without recourse to magic and without invoking infinite regresses of minds within minds, we have to work with what there is, that means dropping duallism.
See #44
-
But this is true for your system or approach but in reverse. Why does this ad infinitum necessity you explained above stop at the brain? It is quite plain to all of us that an observer is occurring at the point you wish it to stop at, i.e. our consciousness, but why should it do this if you say this then needs an observer? And, if what you say is true about this then to avoid the ad infinitum it can't/shouldn't start at all so your approach would say that consciousness shouldn't even be possible and even reach this point in the process that we human's have? Your system would say that at best there would be fairly simple chemicals that reproduce themselves, beyond that nothing would be possible.
And throwing in the term emergent properties doesn't even start to explain or deal with this problem.
What system do you think I have suggested?
-
Eh ? I have no idea where that comes from.
One of the notions currently gaining weight in our efforts to understand consciousness is that consciousness may well be modelled as a fifth fundamental state of matter, to add to solid, liquid, gas and plasma; a state of rich particulate communication facilitated by the particular characteristic structural arrangements of matter found in brains. This is an example of us breaking out of classical views, boldy hypothesising new ways of thinking; hardly 'doctrine and dogma'.
You're starting to sound like Alan Burns or perhaps I should say Nick Marks. Next you'll be sprinkling in the fairy dust...
-
What system do you think I have suggested?
The one where this process of consciousness stops at the brain and is a function of an emergent process. Your explanation of where/what consciousness comes from/is.
Now explain why the ad infinitum process in reverse as I have explained does not apply to your 'system'.
-
The one where this process of consciousness stops at the brain and is a function of an emergent process. Your explanation of where/what consciousness comes from/is.
and where have I laid out this system?
-
and where have I laid out this system?
Oh I see, you're just standing on the side-lines and picking fault with peoples' ideas without taking a position of your own. So nothing constructive to contribute then?
-
The one where this process of consciousness stops at the brain and is a function of an emergent process.
Are there any grounds to suppose that consciousness is not brain function ?
-
Are there any grounds to suppose that consciousness is not brain function ?
Are there any reasonable and plausible grounds to suggest it is wholly a function of the brain....I think not.
-
Are there any reasonable and plausible grounds to suggest it is wholly a function of the brain....I think not.
If you contend there is something else beyond brain also involved, then you have the burden of proof to substantiate that.
-
Are there any reasonable and plausible grounds to suggest it is wholly a function of the brain....
Well, let's see, it's all we have any evidence of, for a start. Then there's the fact that damage to the brain changes the mind.
What else do you think there is, what is its function and what evidence do you have?
-
Well, let's see, it's all we have any evidence of, for a start. Then there's the fact that damage to the brain changes the mind.
What else do you think there is, what is its function and what evidence do you have?
If I break a connection in my Hi-Fi it won't work. Do I then conclude that that connection was the sole part creating all the power? The brain is a connection in the process, without doubt, but how can a mass of atoms create ideas and thoughts? There has to be something else.....difficult to say what, but in my view my argument above points to that.
-
If I break a connection in my Hi-Fi it won't work. Do I then conclude that that connection was the sole part creating all the power? The brain is a connection in the process, without doubt, but how can a mass of atoms create ideas and thoughts? There has to be something else.....difficult to say what, but in my view my argument above points to that.
You mean your argument from personal incredulity?
-
If I break a connection in my Hi-Fi it won't work. Do I then conclude that that connection was the sole part creating all the power? The brain is a connection in the process, without doubt, but how can a mass of atoms create ideas and thoughts? There has to be something else.....difficult to say what, but in my view my argument above points to that.
That's a poor analogy. We have evidence of other parts of the process, for instance wall sockets, house wiring, the National Grid ...
Not so with mind.
If we have good evidence for other elements beyond the body and brain involved in the production of mental states then we have something to go on, otherwise it is just like some theists argue, wow, I can't understand this, therefore God.
-
I would think that brain damage (mentioned by Stranger) is relevant here. If certain kinds of brain damage result in impaired perception, this seems strong evidence that the brain is organizing those perceptions. A famous example is failure to recognize faces, even though vision is OK, (prosopagnosia).
-
Also, the stuff about paralyzed people using thought control over their own (paralyzed) body is pretty mind-blowing, isn't it? If I've got it right, your thoughts are transmitted to a computer as electrical signals, then software in turn drives his hand, which is normally paralyzed. So, we have the sequence, thought → neurostimulus → computer decoding → electrical stimulation to paralyzed arm.
Apart from therapy for the paralyzed, the implications seem incredible, e.g. thought-driven cars.
-
You mean your argument from personal incredulity?
That doesn't make sense.
But I gather this meaningless response indicates that you have no cogent reply to what I have said.
-
and so on ad infinitum. If there isn't a who viewing inside the 'who' that you inserted by begging the question, it's pink elephants all the way down.
But if there is viewing then there has to be something doing the viewing.
If there are no viewers in a viewing then there is no such thing as a drinker..say.
-
That doesn't make sense.
But I gather this meaningless response indicates that you have no cogent reply to what I have said.
Your 'argument' in the post boiled down to you saying you couldn't believe it could happen other than your position. That's an argument from personal incredulity and is a fallacy. One that Alan Burns indulges in frequently.
-
That's a poor analogy. We have evidence of other parts of the process, for instance wall sockets, house wiring, the National Grid ...
Not so with mind.
If we have good evidence for other elements beyond the body and brain involved in the production of mental states then we have something to go on, otherwise it is just like some theists argue, wow, I can't understand this, therefore God.
Sorry I wasn't clear, when I said connection I meant like cutting out a resistor or something - echoing the damage done to a part of the brain. The analogy is not a weak one it is about how easy it is to come up with wrong explanations based on prima facie.
I did say though I knew not what, but you conveniently ignored the other part of my argument which makes me say I know not what. That is, this lump of jelly that consists of nothing but atoms somehow creates and comes up with ideas, thoughts and emotions and most of all an awareness of oneself. This would imply that there are stray thoughts and ideas flowing through rocks and mountains etc. It can't be the atoms doing this hence why I don't accept the emergent property idea and as such my know not what...
-
I did say though I knew not what, but you conveniently ignored the other part of my argument which makes me say I know not what. That is, this lump of jelly that consists of nothing but atoms somehow creates and comes up with ideas, thoughts and emotions and most of all an awareness of oneself.
Personal incredulity fallacy.
This would imply that there are stray thoughts and ideas flowing through rocks and mountains etc.
Computer chips are just lumps of atoms, do you think there are stray computer programs in rocks and mountains?
It can't be the atoms doing this hence why I don't accept the emergent property idea and as such my know not what...
Personal incredulity fallacy (again).
-
Your 'argument' in the post boiled down to you saying you couldn't believe it could happen other than your position. That's an argument from personal incredulity and is a fallacy. One that Alan Burns indulges in frequently.
No Nearly, it is an argument based on rational thinking and reasonable speculation. Stuff - a large lump of atoms - does not conceivably, from present theory about matter, could create ideas, thoughts and consciousness. Where in the atomic structure would these thoughts and ideas lie - an energy field dedicated to these elements?
If this was so why are not thoughts and ideas coming from the rest of my body? Though there is some speculation about your arse!!! - sorry I couldn't resist.
-
Personal incredulity fallacy.
Straw man.
Computer chips are just lumps of atoms, do you think there are stray computer programs in rocks and mountains?
Another straw man. Computer chips don't think and are not conscious. The physics which govern them also governs the matter and world around us. There may not be actual chips in nature but the chemistry that allows them to work also functions in nature. The fundamental underlining principles are the same.
Personal incredulity fallacy (again).
Oh dear. Are you upset that I won't accept your little god? I've met little children like you who are so annoyed the adults won't believe their little version of the world. You do realise I could accuse you of the same thing about not accepting my idea - you know pot, kettle, black....
-
Straw man.
So, you don't understand the term straw man.
Another straw man. Computer chips don't think and are not conscious. The physics which govern them also governs the matter and world around us. There may not be actual chips in nature but the chemistry that allows them to work also functions in nature. The fundamental underlining principles are the same.
I didn't say computer chips were conscious - but they can run computer programs - something that atoms can't do.
Your previous 'argument' (using the term very loosely) was that because brains think, create ideas, thoughts and consciousness then these things must be present in the atoms themselves.
Atoms can't run software, but large groups of them can. Hell, atoms can't have a colour or texture but large groups can. So why do you think large groups of atoms thinking would imply that "there are stray thoughts and ideas flowing through rocks and mountains"?
Let's just reword what you said:-
Brains think and are conscious. The physics which govern them also governs the matter and world around us. There may not be actual brains in nature but the chemistry that allows them to work also functions in nature. The fundamental underlining principles are the same.
This is what all the evidence we have points to, so what makes you dismiss it - apart from incredulity, that is?
Oh dear. Are you upset that I won't accept your little god? I've met little children like you who are so annoyed the adults won't believe their little version of the world. You do realise I could accuse you of the same thing about not accepting my idea - you know pot, kettle, black....
Resort to insult - amusing.
-
That is, this lump of jelly that consists of nothing but atoms somehow creates and comes up with ideas, thoughts and emotions and most of all an awareness of oneself. This would imply that there are stray thoughts and ideas flowing through rocks and mountains etc.
That doesn't quite follow; the behaviour of materials depends upon context. Water can behave like a gas in one context, like a liquid in another, like a solid in another. What the evidence suggests, is that matter exhibits conscious behaviour given the right context. We are what we eat; I am the hamburger and fries I ate yesterday, thus the implication, very crudely. is that a hamburger and fries will start being conscious when rearranged into a brain shape. That is what the evidence is telling us; it is up to us to try to understand it.
-
So, you don't understand the term straw man.
Of course I know what a straw man is and what you have said here is a sub-species of it; say a Hay Man. It is also an ad hominem and a non sequitur. So well done in being grossly obnoxious!!!
I didn't say computer chips were conscious - but they can run computer programs - something that atoms can't do.
But consciousness is the topic or its relation to the self. You're trying to move the goal posts.
Your previous 'argument' (using the term very loosely) was that because brains think, create ideas, thoughts and consciousness then these things must be present in the atoms themselves.
No it was not. You really are all confused and mixed up. I was just following the logic of the argument of you lot.
Atoms can't run software, but large groups of them can. Hell, atoms can't have a colour or texture but large groups can. So why do you think large groups of atoms thinking would imply that "there are stray thoughts and ideas flowing through rocks and mountains"?
Who said anything about software? Again you are finding it hard to following the argument and 'seeing' what you won't to, not what has been presented.
Let's just reword what you said:-
This is what all the evidence we have points to, so what makes you dismiss it - apart from incredulity, that is?
Sounds to me you don't really understand the nature of emergent properties which is partially what my statement (not your reworking of it) was alluding to or getting at, that is, you people throw this (EPs) into the ring as if it answers anything but it has been misappropriated and misused.
Resort to insult - amusing.
You started it, mate. See first comment to this post.
-
If I break a connection in my Hi-Fi it won't work. Do I then conclude that that connection was the sole part creating all the power?
If I take a sledge hammer to your hi-fi, the music stops coming out of the speakers. Do you then conclude there must be something else you can't see that the hi-fi was merely channeling? No you don't, so why do the same with the brain?
How can a mass of atoms create ideas and thoughts?
These are the kinds of questions science is good at answering. In fact there are people around the World using it to try to find the answer to that one.
There has to be something else....
Why does there?
-
That doesn't quite follow; the behaviour of materials depends upon context. Water can behave like a gas in one context, like a liquid in another, like a solid in another. What the evidence suggests, is that matter exhibits conscious behaviour given the right context. We are what we eat; I am the hamburger and fries I ate yesterday, thus the implication, very crudely. is that a hamburger and fries will start being conscious when rearranged into a brain shape. That is what the evidence is telling us; it is up to us to try to understand it.
Well, yes, but I was making a point in a slightly humorous way.
Your (plural) argument presupposes that the nature of emergent properties will create this consciousness and self etc. from the constituents of the formation of the brain. My argument is that that is not how EPs work. They do not create aspects which are of a different nature to the base components. All emergent properties do is to rearrange in some fashion what is already there into another order or level based on some threshold which is reached, usually based on the increase in energy input which brings out qualities that were dormant and in potential form. So if you lot are saying that the brain does create an EP that reveals or presents a consciousness then this consciousness has to be in a dormant form within the atomic structure itself. It has to be part of the standard model and all that. It has to be a fundamental component, or aspect, of the law of physics for your proposition on this issue to work out and be true.
Because in my view consciousness, ideas, thoughts etc., the self, are not of the order of matter and can't fit into the known structure that makes up the material world and that thoughts and the self are a focused, malleable and willed process (but not always), something that is not compatible with the mechanisms of EPs, - an EP occurs and is fixed if all else is constant for its phenomena to occur, they do not wilfully shift to other orders and levels as it is dependant on the base's structure and properties and the required energy inputs etc. to bring about the phenomena of the EP - then something else has to be going on. In other words the direction and flow of thoughts as an act of will are not dependent upon the whim of the workings of the brain but in fact the boot is on the other foot and the brains actions are at times, like these wilful actions, dependant on the will of the thought process - this is not how the properties and nature of EPs function, and so this is in fact something else, but I know not what...
-
If I take a sledge hammer to your hi-fi, the music stops coming out of the speakers. Do you then conclude there must be something else you can't see that the hi-fi was merely channeling? No you don't, so why do the same with the brain?
My analogy is a thought process on the principle of reason and logic and how people arrive at conclusions etc. not a literal demonstration of the brutal facts of life. You need to read between the lines and see the principles being presented to understand it.
These are the kinds of questions science is good at answering. In fact there are people around the World using it to try to find the answer to that one.
How they are going to do that when no one knows exactly what consciousness and self is beats me. This is how science comes up with the wrong answer because they lack the depth needed to grasp the philosophical understanding behind it.
Why does there?
See my #71.
-
The trouble is "self " is all my experiences and illusions, including the one that might not subscribe to the illusion of self.
In fact the hardest thing to escape is yourself.
:-\
When I meet old childhood friends after many many years, they don't really know me anymore, and I don't know really know them.
All we share are a few memories in common, and even those seem to change with the passing of time.
-
Well, yes, but I was making a point in a slightly humorous way.
Your (plural) argument presupposes that the nature of emergent properties will create this consciousness and self etc. from the constituents of the formation of the brain. My argument is that that is not how EPs work. They do not create aspects which are of a different nature to the base components. All emergent properties do is to rearrange in some fashion what is already there into another order or level based on some threshold which is reached, usually based on the increase in energy input which brings out qualities that were dormant and in potential form. So if you lot are saying that the brain does create an EP that reveals or presents a consciousness then this consciousness has to be in a dormant form within the atomic structure itself. It has to be part of the standard model and all that. It has to be a fundamental component, or aspect, of the law of physics for your proposition on this issue to work out and be true.
Because in my view consciousness, ideas, thoughts etc., the self, are not of the order of matter and can't fit into the known structure that makes up the material world and that thoughts and the self are a focused, malleable and willed process (but not always), something that is not compatible with the mechanisms of EPs, - an EP occurs and is fixed if all else is constant for its phenomena to occur, they do not wilfully shift to other orders and levels as it is dependant on the base's structure and properties and the required energy inputs etc. to bring about the phenomena of the EP - then something else has to be going on. In other words the direction and flow of thoughts as an act of will are not dependent upon the whim of the workings of the brain but in fact the boot is on the other foot and the brains actions are at times, like these wilful actions, dependant on the will of the thought process - this is not how the properties and nature of EPs function, and so this is in fact something else, but I know not what...
I'm not sure I'd agree with your objections. Conscious experience is all about communication and information flow brought to a particular state of high integration, and at base levels of fundamental matter, all matter communicates with all other matter naturally; the action of brains is to procure a highly integrated communication state of what is already there in dilute form. We don't know all there is to know about consciousness for sure but there again our understanding of fundamental physics also has gaping holes in it; we cannot reconcile quantum theory with general relativity, noone knows what most of the cosmos is made of (dark matter), nobody understands entanglement, black holes are impossible but we know there are billions of them somehow. There's enough slack in our current knowledgebase to accommodate whatever new understandings of matter need to emerge for a sound model of consciousness.
All the stuff about 'will' is red herring I think; all will is merely part of the cause and effect cycle manifesting through phenomenological pathways of mind, and thus poses no major challenge in particular, or at least no greater than any other aspect of mind.
-
My argument is that that is not how EPs work. They do not create aspects which are of a different nature to the base components. All emergent properties do is to rearrange in some fashion what is already there into another order or level based on some threshold which is reached, usually based on the increase in energy input which brings out qualities that were dormant and in potential form. So if you lot are saying that the brain does create an EP that reveals or presents a consciousness then this consciousness has to be in a dormant form within the atomic structure itself. It has to be part of the standard model and all that. It has to be a fundamental component, or aspect, of the law of physics for your proposition on this issue to work out and be true.
You don't seem to understand emergence.
One of the classic examples is flocks of birds. This behaviour actually emerges from very simple local rules. Basically each bird wants to stay close to the birds next to it but not collide with them. No bird has the flock pattern in its mind, the pattern does not exist at any lower level than a big group of birds, each following simple, local rules. There are numerous implementations of a computer simulation called "boids" that produces flocking behaviour in exactly this way. The flock pattern doesn't exist in the computer program (I have the source code for one implementation, so I can confirm this) and yet a flock emerges.
Other examples include complex termite mounds and (away from biology) snowflakes.
It isn't to do with energy thresholds, it's to do with the way in which simpler components interact to produce some pattern or behaviour that isn't present in any of them.
Because in my view consciousness, ideas, thoughts etc., the self, are not of the order of matter and can't fit into the known structure that makes up the material world and that thoughts and the self are a focused, malleable and willed process (but not always), something that is not compatible with the mechanisms of EPs, - an EP occurs and is fixed if all else is constant for its phenomena to occur, they do not wilfully shift to other orders and levels as it is dependant on the base's structure and properties and the required energy inputs etc. to bring about the phenomena of the EP - then something else has to be going on. In other words the direction and flow of thoughts as an act of will are not dependent upon the whim of the workings of the brain but in fact the boot is on the other foot and the brains actions are at times, like these wilful actions, dependant on the will of the thought process - this is not how the properties and nature of EPs function, and so this is in fact something else, but I know not what...
Look, you are putting forward the idea that the mind and consciousness requires something more than the physical brain. Fine, it is possible you are right, however, I can see no reason at all to think it is at all probable.
In order to raise your idea above the level of incredulity and guesswork, you need to provide either actual evidence, or a logical argument. FYI the standard way to present a logical argument is to list out each premise and then set out the logical process and conclusion. This avoids word salad like the above.
-
I'm not sure I'd agree with your objections. Conscious experience is all about communication and information flow brought to a particular state of high integration, and at base levels of fundamental matter, all matter communicates with all other matter naturally; the action of brains is to procure a highly integrated communication state of what is already there in dilute form. We don't know all there is to know about consciousness for sure but there again our understanding of fundamental physics also has gaping holes in it; we cannot reconcile quantum theory with general relativity, noone knows what most of the cosmos is made of (dark matter), nobody understands entanglement, black holes are impossible but we know there are billions of them somehow. There's enough slack in our current knowledgebase to accommodate whatever new understandings of matter need to emerge for a sound model of consciousness.
The first bit is pretty much rubbish. There is a difference between conscious experience and consciousness. One is a process, the other is the subject or agent involved in that process. Your use of the word 'information' here is the usual semantic smoke screen the monists of the scientific world have used to trick themselves into conflating two aspects into one; by imbuing their beloved matter with the qualities that they have as conscious beings. And likewise the application of the word 'communicates' to describe the process of physics thereby giving it a status it doesn't have. Communication occurs between conscious agents, not stuff.
All the stuff about 'will' is red herring I think; all will is merely part of the cause and effect cycle manifesting through phenomenological pathways of mind, and thus poses no major challenge in particular, or at least no greater than any other aspect of mind.
If your version of consciousness/thoughts etc. was correct then it would act like a machine churning out the same stuff and being predictable and contingent on what cause and effect was next in line to act upon it. What I meant by will was that we, the self, can dictate or influence what thoughts and ideas we want to ponder on thereby turning 'on' and 'off' those part of the brain that facilitate such processes. It would be like water going up hill and not just flowing down the predictable path that the laws of physics would indicate.
A brain on your basis would be pretty much useless as it would be nothing but a mechanical entity functioning along set parameters and never having the ability to think through and ponder on issues and tasks nor find new and innovative solutions to problems.
-
You don't seem to understand emergence.
One of the classic examples is flocks of birds. This behaviour actually emerges from very simple local rules. Basically each bird wants to stay close to the birds next to it but not collide with them. No bird has the flock pattern in its mind, the pattern does not exist at any lower level than a big group of birds, each following simple, local rules. There are numerous implementations of a computer simulation called "boids" that produces flocking behaviour in exactly this way. The flock pattern doesn't exist in the computer program (I have the source code for one implementation, so I can confirm this) and yet a flock emerges.
Other examples include complex termite mounds and (away from biology) snowflakes.
It isn't to do with energy thresholds, it's to do with the way in which simpler components interact to produce some pattern or behaviour that isn't present in any of them.
Except the birds are putting energy into the system - and I did say "usually". Another point I made was that EP doesn't produce something that is not of its core nature, something wholly different to it. Birds flocking doesn't break this rule. It is all based on some kind of rule or law, rules which come into play when the threshold of crashing into each other and some useful aerodynamics are reached.
Termites are an instinctual issue and again following instinctual rules and they are putting the energy into the system by work. And again the nature of the mound isn't wholly different from them; they are all matter.
As you say "interact" - that means energy input, work. And what causes that interaction? A threshold is reached that activates some pattern or behaviour that is inherent, as a potential, in the system - simpler components reacting to each other in a given way as set out by some nature which is in a dormant state when such threshold or stimulus is not present.
In other words if we fully understood a system's basic, fundamental, initial components we could predict what all the inherent EPs would be before they were made manifest.
Look, you are putting forward the idea that the mind and consciousness requires something more than the physical brain. Fine, it is possible you are right, however, I can see no reason at all to think it is at all probable.
In order to raise your idea above the level of incredulity and guesswork, you need to provide either actual evidence, or a logical argument. FYI the standard way to present a logical argument is to list out each premise and then set out the logical process and conclusion. This avoids word salad like the above.
Your relative guesswork of classifying my argument with the terms possible and probable doesn't hold water because of its relativeness. "You can see no reason", well fine, I'll make a note of your shortcomings.
I have presented a cogent and thorough argument, quite obviously you have no real come back on it hence your preferred misapplication of a method meant for other purposes to deflect this fact. And I see that you're pretty good at whipping up word salads yourself. Perhaps you would like to use your preferred method for arguing to present your own case?
-
Except the birds are putting energy into the system - and I did say "usually". Another point I made was that EP doesn't produce something that is not of its core nature, something wholly different to it. Birds flocking doesn't break this rule. It is all based on some kind of rule or law, rules which come into play when the threshold of crashing into each other and some useful aerodynamics are reached.
Termites are an instinctual issue and again following instinctual rules and they are putting the energy into the system by work. And again the nature of the mound isn't wholly different from them; they are all matter.
As you say "interact" - that means energy input, work. And what causes that interaction? A threshold is reached that activates some pattern or behaviour that is inherent, as a potential, in the system - simpler components reacting to each other in a given way as set out by some nature which is in a dormant state when such threshold or stimulus is not present.
In other words if we fully understood a system's basic, fundamental, initial components we could predict what all the inherent EPs would be before they were made manifest.
Goodness, what a long splurge in order to cover up a basic misunderstanding. Little bits of code (boids), running on a computer aren't putting energy into a system (the only energy involved is running thorough the hardware). Of course you need energy to drive any interaction but it's the interaction that is important.
Your relative guesswork of classifying my argument with the terms possible and probable doesn't hold water because of its relativeness. "You can see no reason", well fine, I'll make a note of your shortcomings.
Until somebody comes up with logical reasoning or evidence, there is no reason to suppose your incredulity and guesswork is correct. Your failure to do so is telling.
I have presented a cogent and thorough argument...
Where...?
Remember: list of premises - logical statements - conclusion.
-
Goodness, what a long splurge in order to cover up a basic misunderstanding. Little bits of code (boids), running on a computer aren't putting energy into a system (the only energy involved is running thorough the hardware). Of course you need energy to drive any interaction but it's the interaction that is important.
Until somebody comes up with logical reasoning or evidence, there is no reason to suppose your incredulity and guesswork is correct. Your failure to do so is telling.
Where...?
Remember: list of premises - logical statements - conclusion.
Another post brim full of non sequiturs because you can't counter my argument and upsets you, hence your bilge. If you can't read and have no notion of what a rational and logical argument is then that is not my problem.
-
Another post brim full of non sequiturs because you can't counter my argument and upsets you, hence your bilge. If you can't read and have no notion of what a rational and logical argument is then that is not my problem.
I guess you've never studied logic or anything requiring it. ::)
Fine.
-
I guess you've never studied logic or anything requiring it. ::)
Fine.
You're the one who can't follow an argument and idea expressed in a dialogue form. If formal logic is all you know then you're pretty useless. Formal logic can be created without the need for a subject matter or objects or references etc. It is a vehicle not a content. And as the subject matter here can't be sufficiently defined but is just indefinite forms which we know we have (consciousness, a sense of self etc.) but can't be formulated into a clear definitional framework then your formal logical functions are inappropriate here - unless of course you wish to fully define what consciousness and the self etc. are for this discussion and get everybody's agreement on them?
-
You're the one who can't follow an argument and idea expressed in a dialogue form.
You have posted nothing but waffle and "hand waving", clearly don't know what the terms non sequitur and straw man mean, and obviously think that just putting them in your posts makes you look clever - it doesn't.
Formal logic can be created without the need for a subject matter or objects or references etc.
Gibberish.
...as the subject matter here can't be sufficiently defined but is just indefinite forms which we know we have (consciousness, a sense of self etc.) but can't be formulated into a clear definitional framework then your formal logical functions are inappropriate here - unless of course you wish to fully define what consciousness and the self etc. are for this discussion and get everybody's agreement on them?
So, you are claiming that something you can't define needs something other than the physical brain (that nobody fully understands) but you "know not what".
Well, I'm convinced.
::)
-
You have posted nothing but waffle and "hand waving", clearly don't know what the terms non sequitur and straw man mean, and obviously think that just putting them in your posts makes you look clever - it doesn't.
I haven't, but if you think my argument is so flawed then pull it apart with your erudite superior intelligence. The fact that you haven't even tried or started to do this just shows how absolutely lacking you are.
Gibberish.
Again no argument to clarify this unfounded assertion, so all I can conclude is that you're a blowhard.
So, you are claiming that something you can't define needs something other than the physical brain (that nobody fully understands) but you "know not what".
Well, I'm convinced.
My argument, put simply for your limited self (see what I did there? ;)), is that thoughts are not physical, or material in nature, and the process of emergent properties does not create something which is wholly different in nature from its base element. Hence my argument is based on comparison, and not on the definitional properties, of the various agents or entities involved. Neither are EPs independent of their base element but are governed by predictable laws inherent in the base element's structure and yet our thoughts are partially directional and controlled by our will, independent of the mechanistic and dogmatic workings of the brain, which is not how the laws of physics act for the material world. In other words we have the capacity of wilful concentration on a topic or item. We aren't (or most of us) suddenly whisked away, against our wishes, on to some other thought pattern just because some neural network has suddenly fired up due to the cause and effect of the laws of physics, and in the process totally forgetting what we were originally thinking about - unless one has some degenerative disease.
-
- sigh -
All that waffle and not a hint of reasoning or evidence....
...thoughts are not physical, or material in nature, and the process of emergent properties does not create something which is wholly different in nature from its base element.
Drivel. Emergent phenomena are created by the interaction of its parts - so a snowflake is not like a water molecule, a flock is not like a bird, a termite mound isn't like a termite.
Hence my argument is based on comparison, and not on the definitional properties, of the various agents or entities involved.
Comparison of what to what? What do you think "definitional properties" would be in this context?
Neither are EPs independent of their base element but are governed by predictable laws inherent in the base element's structure...
This is irrelevant unless you are claiming to know all the laws governing all the elements of brains, have calculated all their possible interactions, and also know what is needed to produce consciousness.
...and yet our thoughts are partially directional and controlled by our will, independent of the mechanistic and dogmatic workings of the brain, which is not how the laws of physics act for the material world.
Baseless assertion. How do you know the will is independent of the workings of the brain? The evidence suggests otherwise.
In other words we have the capacity of wilful concentration on a topic or item. We aren't (or most of us) suddenly whisked away, against our wishes, on to some other thought pattern just because some neural network has suddenly fired up due to the cause and effect of the laws of physics, and in the process totally forgetting what we were originally thinking about - unless one has some degenerative disease.
This is seriously surreal. You seem to be postulating that if our will was produced only by our brain then it could be overridden by our brain against its (that is the brain's) own wishes....
-
The first bit is pretty much rubbish. There is a difference between conscious experience and consciousness. One is a process, the other is the subject or agent involved in that process. Your use of the word 'information' here is the usual semantic smoke screen the monists of the scientific world have used to trick themselves into conflating two aspects into one; by imbuing their beloved matter with the qualities that they have as conscious beings. And likewise the application of the word 'communicates' to describe the process of physics thereby giving it a status it doesn't have. Communication occurs between conscious agents, not stuff.
There isn't a fundamental difference conscious experience and consciousness, in that the conscious agent, as you put it, is itself a product of the stream of experience. All experience is a product of brain function, be it the smell of coffee, the feel of wind on your face, a feeling of uneasiness, a sense of injustice, a sense of balance, or a sentimental longing for the places of your childhood. It is standard brain function to integrate, amalgamate and synthesise novel sensory data into a contextual framework that is unique and personal to the individual, thus we all experience things in our own unique and personal way and the feeling of 'conscious agent' is part of this product. This is the topic of this thread, what we are realising through research is that the feeling of self, or conscious agent, is itself part of the output of the stream of consciousness created in a waking brain; quite clearly every time we lose consciousness, our sense of self evaporates just as much as our sense of balance or place, and it fires back into action again when we wake up.
If your version of consciousness/thoughts etc. was correct then it would act like a machine churning out the same stuff and being predictable and contingent on what cause and effect was next in line to act upon it. What I meant by will was that we, the self, can dictate or influence what thoughts and ideas we want to ponder on thereby turning 'on' and 'off' those part of the brain that facilitate such processes. It would be like water going up hill and not just flowing down the predictable path that the laws of physics would indicate.
A brain on your basis would be pretty much useless as it would be nothing but a mechanical entity functioning along set parameters and never having the ability to think through and ponder on issues and tasks nor find new and innovative solutions to problems.
Clearly brains aren't useless; every species gets a brain fit for the complexity of its lifestyle, humans brains having developed in the extended prefrontal lobes our particular cognitive specialisations to do with social living, dextrous tool making, abstract contemplation, music making, language and so forth. But the basic underlyng remit of the brain remains the same across all species - to optimise the individual's chances of survival and reproduction within the context of its lifestyle and does so by the sophisticated interpretation of novel sensory data to produce optimal motor responses. Don't get too hung up on comparisons with computers though, organic brains are much more plastic than any silicon computer and are constantly 'rewiring' themselves through incessant learning. That we can come up with novel solutions is really a process of cross fertilisation within a brain disposed to a synasthesia of sorts; have you never heard it said there there is no such thing as a truly novel idea ? True originality is probably impossible; just try explaining to someone who has never tasted salt what saltiness tastes like.
-
- sigh -
All that waffle and not a hint of reasoning or evidence...
But you have no evidence for your churnings. What aspect of the word argument didn't you understand?
Drivel. Emergent phenomena are created by the interaction of its parts - so a snowflake is not like a water molecule, a flock is not like a bird, a termite mound isn't like a termite.
But all those are inherent in the constituent parts that make them up because the nature of those parts dictate how they interact. So neither are these EPs different in nature to their constituent elements - though the termite example is stupid. Thoughts though are not in away of the same nature as the actions of neurons.
Comparison of what to what?
The atoms and material make up of neurons and thoughts which are non-materialistic.
This is irrelevant unless you are claiming to know all the laws governing all the elements of brains, have calculated all their possible interactions, and also know what is needed to produce consciousness.
This makes no sense as a reply or comment with regards to the bit of my post it is aimed at.
Baseless assertion. How do you know the will is independent of the workings of the brain? The evidence suggests otherwise.
No it doesn't. It is just an assumption made by the myopic researchers. How do they tell who or what is guiding/controlling who or what?
This is seriously surreal. You seem to be postulating that if our will was produced only by our brain then it could be overridden by our brain against its (that is the brain's) own wishes....
No. The brain has no will it is governed by the laws of physics like all matter, the acts of material cause and effect.
-
There isn't a fundamental difference conscious experience and consciousness, in that the conscious agent, as you put it, is itself a product of the stream of experience. All experience is a product of brain function, be it the smell of coffee, the feel of wind on your face, a feeling of uneasiness, a sense of injustice, a sense of balance, or a sentimental longing for the places of your childhood. It is standard brain function to integrate, amalgamate and synthesise novel sensory data into a contextual framework that is unique and personal to the individual, thus we all experience things in our own unique and personal way and the feeling of 'conscious agent' is part of this product. This is the topic of this thread, what we are realising through research is that the feeling of self, or conscious agent, is itself part of the output of the stream of consciousness created in a waking brain; quite clearly every time we lose consciousness, our sense of self evaporates just as much as our sense of balance or place, and it fires back into action again when we wake up.
And how does the brain know how to do that? The brain, at any one moment in time, is a fixed entity and therefore hasn't the capacity to respond to new stimuli, let allow know how to refigure itself to take in that new stimuli and interpret it. And how does a certain way of connecting its neurons correspond to certain elements from the environment, via sensory channels? To do this it needs 'software' that is 'pre-programmed' to such possible encounters - a foreknowledge.
Clearly brains aren't useless; every species gets a brain fit for the complexity of its lifestyle, humans brains having developed in the extended prefrontal lobes our particular cognitive specialisations to do with social living, dextrous tool making, abstract contemplation, music making, language and so forth. But the basic underlyng remit of the brain remains the same across all species - to optimise the individual's chances of survival and reproduction within the context of its lifestyle and does so by the sophisticated interpretation of novel sensory data to produce optimal motor responses. Don't get too hung up on comparisons with computers though, organic brains are much more plastic than any silicon computer and are constantly 'rewiring' themselves through incessant learning. That we can come up with novel solutions is really a process of cross fertilisation within a brain disposed to a synasthesia of sorts; have you never heard it said there there is no such thing as a truly novel idea ? True originality is probably impossible; just try explaining to someone who has never tasted salt what saltiness tastes like.
This is more of an account of our observations of the brain than any explanation of why it seems to do what it does. This amounts to seeing a volcano going off and saying Mother Earth must be angry. All set in your preconceived ideas of what the answer should be according to the science perspective - i.e. bias.
-
This makes no sense as a reply or comment with regards to the bit of my post it is aimed at.
You said:
Neither are EPs independent of their base element but are governed by predictable laws inherent in the base element's structure...
That, together with a lot of your preceding "argument" revolves around the idea that any emergent phenomenon is produced from properties of the elements. While this is, in principle, correct, it is irrelevant to the argument here unless you are claiming complete knowledge of said elements and have done an exhaustive analysis of all the possible ways they could interact.
Remember you are claiming that it is impossible for consciousness to be produced from matter, so you need to know everything that matter can do and also be sure that none of those things produce consciousness.
No it doesn't. It is just an assumption made by the myopic researchers. How do they tell who or what is guiding/controlling who or what?
How do you? It is you who is claiming certainty here. It is down to you to provide the evidence.
No. The brain has no will it is governed by the laws of physics like all matter, the acts of material cause and effect.
How do you know the will is not governed by the laws of physics and cause and effect?
It is just a matter of logic (not matter or physics) that the will can only be the result of some combination of deterministic and (pseudo-)random processes because there is nothing else. Either something is determined or it isn't and not being determined by anything is random. That includes all our decisions - whether or not they are produced by our brains alone or "something else". Why, then, postulate anything else...?
-
It is just a matter of logic (not matter or physics) that the will can only be the result of some combination of deterministic and (pseudo-)random processes because there is nothing else. Either something is determined or it isn't and not being determined by anything is random. That includes all our decisions - whether or not they are produced by our brains alone or "something else". Why, then, postulate anything else...?
Pure escapism.
-
Another post brim full of non sequiturs because you can't counter my argument and upsets you, hence your bilge. If you can't read and have no notion of what a rational and logical argument is then that is not my problem.
Your argument looks like the argument from incredulity to me. You don't understand how consciousness of the conscious could be emergent behaviour of a network of neurones, and frankly, neither do I, but that doesn't make it impossible.
-
There isn't a fundamental difference conscious experience and consciousness, in that the conscious agent, as you put it, is itself a product of the stream of experience. All experience is a product of brain function, be it the smell of coffee, the feel of wind on your face, a feeling of uneasiness, a sense of injustice, a sense of balance, or a sentimental longing for the places of your childhood. It is standard brain function to integrate, amalgamate and synthesise novel sensory data into a contextual framework that is unique and personal to the individual, thus we all experience things in our own unique and personal way and the feeling of 'conscious agent' is part of this product. This is the topic of this thread, what we are realising through research is that the feeling of self, or conscious agent, is itself part of the output of the stream of consciousness created in a waking brain; quite clearly every time we lose consciousness, our sense of self evaporates just as much as our sense of balance or place, and it fires back into action again when we wake up.
And how does the brain know how to do that? The brain, at any one moment in time, is a fixed entity and therefore hasn't the capacity to respond to new stimuli, let allow know how to refigure itself to take in that new stimuli and interpret it. And how does a certain way of connecting its neurons correspond to certain elements from the environment, via sensory channels? To do this it needs 'software' that is 'pre-programmed' to such possible encounters - a foreknowledge.
Brains do pre-programmed to a considerable degree. As soon as a baby's eyes can focus they start doing face recognition and picking up language. Even before birth many autonomous skills are already in place - regulation of breathing, monitoring of blood glucose, coordination of major organs, temperature control etc and the brain continues learning at a phenomenal rate creating two million new synaptic connections per second during the first two years of life before it starts paring back. Clearly a brain cannot some prefigured for every circumstance, a time comes when it has to make sense of novel input, the first taste of salt, for instance, but it has to make some sort of sense and memory of it although it might vary from person to person.
-
Clearly brains aren't useless; every species gets a brain fit for the complexity of its lifestyle, humans brains having developed in the extended prefrontal lobes our particular cognitive specialisations to do with social living, dextrous tool making, abstract contemplation, music making, language and so forth. But the basic underlyng remit of the brain remains the same across all species - to optimise the individual's chances of survival and reproduction within the context of its lifestyle and does so by the sophisticated interpretation of novel sensory data to produce optimal motor responses. Don't get too hung up on comparisons with computers though, organic brains are much more plastic than any silicon computer and are constantly 'rewiring' themselves through incessant learning. That we can come up with novel solutions is really a process of cross fertilisation within a brain disposed to a synasthesia of sorts; have you never heard it said there there is no such thing as a truly novel idea ? True originality is probably impossible; just try explaining to someone who has never tasted salt what saltiness tastes like.
This is more of an account of our observations of the brain than any explanation of why it seems to do what it does. This amounts to seeing a volcano going off and saying Mother Earth must be angry. All set in your preconceived ideas of what the answer should be according to the science perspective - i.e. bias.
Not sure I follow that, I was quite clearly attempting an explanation of why it does what it does; a brain is an outgrowth of a central nervous system and creatures have brains when the survival demands of their lifestyle are too complex for a simple nervous system to deal with. If you are an earthworm you don't need to cognitive resources of a fixed interest trader. Brains are the outcome of natural selection favouring development of cortical structures that best fit the survival needs of the individual within its environmental context.
-
If you are an earthworm you don't need to cognitive resources of a fixed interest trader.
Seemingly though, being able to shoehorn 'ontology' and 'methodology' into almost every sentence is an inherent ability! :-\
-
That, together with a lot of your preceding "argument" revolves around the idea that any emergent phenomenon is produced from properties of the elements. While this is, in principle, correct, it is irrelevant to the argument here unless you are claiming complete knowledge of said elements and have done an exhaustive analysis of all the possible ways they could interact.
Remember you are claiming that it is impossible for consciousness to be produced from matter, so you need to know everything that matter can do and also be sure that none of those things produce consciousness.
You then need to define what you mean by matter because you seem to be saying that what ever turns up you will include in the nomenclature of matter. That's cheating.
One of the things I'm implying is that if something does turn up that the likes of you would class as matter, and all that, then it would override the laws of physics which include the cause and effect in the material world.
How do you? It is you who is claiming certainty here. It is down to you to provide the evidence.
I did say, assuming you can understand English, that it was only speculation. Even in the scientific world when they come across something they don't understand hypotheses are proposed. Look at dark matter, so to speak, that I think has generated about 100 theories as to what it could be.
How do you know the will is not governed by the laws of physics and cause and effect?
Thoughts are not random or fickle in the way they come and go. They are, in part at least, directed by our will.
It is just a matter of logic (not matter or physics) that the will can only be the result of some combination of deterministic and (pseudo-)random processes because there is nothing else. Either something is determined or it isn't and not being determined by anything is random. That includes all our decisions - whether or not they are produced by our brains alone or "something else". Why, then, postulate anything else...?
So your thoughts are pushed here and there by the actions of the laws of cause and effect, a predictable but undirected process? How ever do you manage to type out a post and concentrate on the subject matter for so long?
-
This is more of an account of our observations of the brain than any explanation of why it seems to do what it does. This amounts to seeing a volcano going off and saying Mother Earth must be angry. All set in your preconceived ideas of what the answer should be according to the science perspective - i.e. bias.
Not sure I follow that, I was quite clearly attempting an explanation of why it does what it does; a brain is an outgrowth of a central nervous system and creatures have brains when the survival demands of their lifestyle are too complex for a simple nervous system to deal with. If you are an earthworm you don't need to cognitive resources of a fixed interest trader. Brains are the outcome of natural selection favouring development of cortical structures that best fit the survival needs of the individual within its environmental context.
So you are saying that a certain arrangement of atoms and molecules just happens to give organisms the ability to do certain behavioural attributes and dispositions? Kind of like magic.....?
-
So you are saying that a certain arrangement of atoms and molecules just happens to give organisms the ability to do certain behavioural attributes and dispositions? Kind of like magic.....?
No, not magic, just the result of millions of years of evolution arriving inexorably at that ability.
-
Thoughts are not random or fickle in the way they come and go. They are, in part at least, directed by our will.
Yes, but your will has to work somehow; there must be an internal mechanism that produces the decisions you make.
It is just a matter of logic (not matter or physics) that the will can only be the result of some combination of deterministic and (pseudo-)random processes because there is nothing else. Either something is determined or it isn't and not being determined by anything is random. That includes all our decisions - whether or not they are produced by our brains alone or "something else". Why, then, postulate anything else...?
So your thoughts are pushed here and there by the actions of the laws of cause and effect, a predictable but undirected process? How ever do you manage to type out a post and concentrate on the subject matter for so long?
Again - this utterly bizarre view of a deterministic will. Why do you think it would be like that? Why would it be "undirected"? Why would we not be able to concentrate?
You also haven't even attempted to answer the point I made; probably because it's inescapable. The idea that you can have something directed but non-deterministic and non-random is a logical contradiction. It doesn't matter how our will works or whether it is produced from just matter or "something else", you can't escape that logic.
So you are saying that a certain arrangement of atoms and molecules just happens to give organisms the ability to do certain behavioural attributes and dispositions? Kind of like magic.....?
Classic personal incredulity.
-
So you are saying that a certain arrangement of atoms and molecules just happens to give organisms the ability to do certain behavioural attributes and dispositions? Kind like magic.....?
Well there is no just happens about it. The spatial arrangements of matter are significant at all levels from molecular biology up to cosmology. An elephant has optimally designed load bearing legs and feet for its bulk but it didn't get them just by chance and it didn't get them by magic; it got them through natural selection operating on countless generations of previous elephant-like creatures.
The same base laws of nature that result in elephants legs or spiral galaxies are at work to produce rich sentience in complex living organisms. Imagine you go out early morning with your Canon DSLR and find a daffodil and wait for the sun to rise in the sky. All three of you - the camera, the daffodil, the human, all three react to the light and process it in your own ways.
Photoelectric sensors in the camera detect the changing photon density triggering a corresponding and equivalent change through the camera's electronic circuitry that result in an aperture and shutter speed that are appropriate for the incoming light levels. Information encoded in the light patterns ends up being encoded in equivalent patterns in my flash memory card, but there are no photons buzzing about in my card.
In a heliotropic response photosensitive proteins in the flower tips react to the density and direction of incoming photons triggering a hormonal reaction cascading down the flower stem stiffening and turning and opening the flower head in the direction of the sun which in turn is an optimally inviting prospect in the tiny but still rather more complex brain of a pollinating insect thus maximising the reproduction chances of the flower.
Similar principles are at work in the human vision system - photons focussed by a lens optimally fashioned through natural selection reacting with light sensitive proteins in the retina triggering cascades of bioelectrical flow up the optic nerve where they encounter the massive tangle of interconnected nerve cells that store encoded memories of previous encounters with light information. Just as with my flash card, there are no photons buzzing about in visual cortex, rather, the sensation of seeing, of vision, is a neurochemical information flow through cortex and thalamus that corrresponds in a very derivative way to the patterns of photon information flow detected around 400ms earlier by the retina.
We might not understand all the complexities of sentience and cognition, but we know enough to be able to start modelling them using our existing understandings of natural law without recourse to 'magic' which is always a position of defeat in our struggle to understand.
-
No, not magic, just the result of millions of years of evolution arriving inexorably at that ability.
We are talking about consciousness and the self, and all that, and evolution does not explain those and doesn't even claim to. All it explains is how the body, the soma, the organism, came about.
-
We are talking about consciousness and the self, and all that, and evolution does not explain those and doesn't even claim to. All it explains is how the body, the soma, the organism, came about.
The brain is part of the body. Evolution shows how the body came about; consciousness and self-awareness are simply two of the brain's functions.
-
Yes, but your will has to work somehow; there must be an internal mechanism that produces the decisions you make.
Depends on what you mean by internal mechanism, but yes something has to be doing the willing. The question that really arises then is can you lot find this in the brain; some kind of dominant neuron that makes the final decision?
Again - this utterly bizarre view of a deterministic will. Why do you think it would be like that? Why would it be "undirected"? Why would we not be able to concentrate?
Who is 'we' here?
The brain is materialistic and so governed by the laws of physics, and so deterministic in its actions. It follows a path of causation which it can't turn from and diverge from. It is like a train on tracks, yet we can move our thoughts around at will bringing into focus things which would not necessarily be so due to a mere fixed causation process.
You also haven't even attempted to answer the point I made; probably because it's inescapable. The idea that you can have something directed but non-deterministic and non-random is a logical contradiction. It doesn't matter how our will works or whether it is produced from just matter or "something else", you can't escape that logic.
If I'm proposing a duality then they are both deterministic but function by different criteria, which is of a different nature all together in their fundamental make up to each other. They both affect each other hence one isn't necessarily dominant over the other. It is the conjunction of the two that I would propose as being what we feel to be us and the self. My reason for this is as I have said is more due to the fact that the qualities of consciousness, thought, the sense of self, are alien to the mundane stuff of matter - which you have not yet defined, as I asked.
Classic personal incredulity.
You didn't answer the question. This would only be true if you had proved your point which you haven't. You hold your position by faith alone. This is also a stupid comment as I could say the same about you.
-
Well there is no just happens about it. The spatial arrangements of matter are significant at all levels from molecular biology up to cosmology. An elephant has optimally designed load bearing legs and feet for its bulk but it didn't get them just by chance and it didn't get them by magic; it got them through natural selection operating on countless generations of previous elephant-like creatures.
The same base laws of nature that result in elephants legs or spiral galaxies are at work to produce rich sentience in complex living organisms. Imagine you go out early morning with your Canon DSLR and find a daffodil and wait for the sun to rise in the sky. All three of you - the camera, the daffodil, the human, all three react to the light and process it in your own ways.
Photoelectric sensors in the camera detect the changing photon density triggering a corresponding and equivalent change through the camera's electronic circuitry that result in an aperture and shutter speed that are appropriate for the incoming light levels. Information encoded in the light patterns ends up being encoded in equivalent patterns in my flash memory card, but there are no photons buzzing about in my card.
In a heliotropic response photosensitive proteins in the flower tips react to the density and direction of incoming photons triggering a hormonal reaction cascading down the flower stem stiffening and turning and opening the flower head in the direction of the sun which in turn is an optimally inviting prospect in the tiny but still rather more complex brain of a pollinating insect thus maximising the reproduction chances of the flower.
Similar principles are at work in the human vision system - photons focussed by a lens optimally fashioned through natural selection reacting with light sensitive proteins in the retina triggering cascades of bioelectrical flow up the optic nerve where they encounter the massive tangle of interconnected nerve cells that store encoded memories of previous encounters with light information. Just as with my flash card, there are no photons buzzing about in visual cortex, rather, the sensation of seeing, of vision, is a neurochemical information flow through cortex and thalamus that corrresponds in a very derivative way to the patterns of photon information flow detected around 400ms earlier by the retina.
We might not understand all the complexities of sentience and cognition, but we know enough to be able to start modelling them using our existing understandings of natural law without recourse to 'magic' which is always a position of defeat in our struggle to understand.
We are talking about things like consciousness and the self all you have done is describe the physical attributes of the material world and made link to the topic's subject matter.
-
The brain is part of the body. Evolution shows how the body came about; consciousness and self-awareness are simply two of the brain's functions.
A statement proves nothing, Leonard. This is pure assumption on your part; blind faith.
-
A statement proves nothing, Leonard. This is pure assumption on your part; blind faith.
No Jack, the evidence points that way, even though discrete knowledge lags behind. There is no evidence for any other process.
-
We are talking about things like consciousness and the self all you have done is describe the physical attributes of the material world and made link to the topic's subject matter.
Understanding consciousness is not easy so we have to find ways to approach it. Since Kant and even earlier philosophers have struggled with the fact that there seems to be two sorts of stuff - things we can touch and measure, and things like feelings or ideas which are undeniably real to us but seem at the same time to be intangible. We can approach the problem by modelling consciousness in terms of information flow and that was what I was getting at - by comparing the flow of information originally encoded on top of an electromagnetic radiation substrate and follow its transformations as it passes through more complex substrates such as through a flower or through the neurochemical substrate of a brain, we can start to ask ourselves - what is different about the passage of information in these systems. I don't think there is anything magic about neural cortex, it is after all made of the same underlying stuff, it is today the hamburger you ate yesterday, just rearranged, in essence. The way to understand will come by understanding the particular complexities of information flow that a brain procures. Mental things seem intangible because in essence they are pure information, conscious experience is what information feels like as it passes through cortex.
-
The fact that the brain has the ability to create scenarios and experiences that are not actually happening (i.e., dreaming) is evidence enough that no outside agent is necessary for it to do so.
-
Depends on what you mean by internal mechanism, but yes something has to be doing the willing. The question that really arises then is can you lot find this in the brain; some kind of dominant neuron that makes the final decision?
Who is 'we' here?
The model of a master neuron cannot be right. A master neuron would need a brain of its own with which to make decisions and so that model ends up with an infinte regress of master neurons. Neural networks don't work like that, rather they make decisions by recruiting weights amongst competing networks and a choice is made when one network acheives a significant weight advantage over its rivals.
The brain is materialistic and so governed by the laws of physics, and so deterministic in its actions. It follows a path of causation which it can't turn from and diverge from. It is like a train on tracks, yet we can move our thoughts around at will bringing into focus things which would not necessarily be so due to a mere fixed causation process.
That's a rather naive take on brain function. Brains are very dynamic, never fixed; people have this tendency to get hung up on hardware / software analogies with computers which don't really translate very well. The fact that we feel like we have control over our thought processes does not licence us to throw logic out of the window or abandon science in favour of magic. What we can consciously feel is only a tiny fraction of what the brain is doing and that feeling of control is part of the phenomenological package of conscious experience - there is plenty of research showing that real control lies in deeper levels of mind, of which 'we' are not aware.
-
Depends on what you mean by internal mechanism, but yes something has to be doing the willing. The question that really arises then is can you lot find this in the brain; some kind of dominant neuron that makes the final decision?
No, it's you who is making the assertion here. Us "lot" don't need to show anything.
Who is 'we' here?
The brain is materialistic and so governed by the laws of physics, and so deterministic in its actions. It follows a path of causation which it can't turn from and diverge from. It is like a train on tracks, yet we can move our thoughts around at will bringing into focus things which would not necessarily be so due to a mere fixed causation process.
Your total inability to grasp the point is becoming comical. The "at will" bit is what we are talking about. What you will can only logically be the result of deterministic and random processes.
If I'm proposing a duality then they are both deterministic but function by different criteria, which is of a different nature all together in their fundamental make up to each other. They both affect each other hence one isn't necessarily dominant over the other. It is the conjunction of the two that I would propose as being what we feel to be us and the self. My reason for this is as I have said is more due to the fact that the qualities of consciousness, thought, the sense of self, are alien to the mundane stuff of matter - which you have not yet defined, as I asked.
So you assert. The point is that the qualities of conscious thought, and sense of self are intuitively alien to any system we can imagine. Your waffle above is nothing but vague hand-waving that is based on nothing and gets us nowhere.
Some set of deterministic (and possibly random) processes produces consciousness - that is logically inescapable - what you need to do is show why it can't be done by physics - as you keep asserting.
What do you want a definition of matter for? It has no clear scientific definition; it refers to a subset of particles but which subset depends on who you talk to. Any definition will include everyday "stuff" made of atoms but what else isn't clearly defined.
You didn't answer the question. This would only be true if you had proved your point which you haven't. You hold your position by faith alone. This is also a stupid comment as I could say the same about you.
I don't really have a position on what causes consciousness, so it can hardly be held by faith. You are proposing the need for this "something else" of which you speak. I'm still waiting for any evidence or arguments that aren't a rewording of "I can't understand how it can be just the brain, so it can't".
-
Your total inability to grasp the point is becoming comical.
Well that's strange because I've been thinking the same thing for some time about your inability to grasp my argument.
The "at will" bit is what we are talking about. What you will can only logically be the result of deterministic and random processes.
So is that how you think then, randomly? You can't concentrate on a topic then, but instead get blown about like a leaf in the wind?
So you assert. The point is that the qualities of conscious thought, and sense of self are intuitively alien to any system we can imagine. Your waffle above is nothing but vague hand-waving that is based on nothing and gets us nowhere.
Some set of deterministic (and possibly random) processes produces consciousness - that is logically inescapable - ....... - as you keep asserting.
So you assert!!!
I don't really have a position on what causes consciousness, so it can hardly be held by faith. You are proposing the need for this "something else" of which you speak. I'm still waiting for any evidence or arguments that aren't a rewording of "I can't understand how it can be just the brain, so it can't".
If you can't follow a logical argument that's your problem. If you don't understand the notion of presenting a hypothesis or theoretical idea then....
-
The "at will" bit is what we are talking about. What you will can only logically be the result of deterministic and random processes.
So is that how you think then, randomly? You can't concentrate on a topic then, but instead get blown about like a leaf in the wind?
Let's concentrate on this bit. Childish comments aside; what are you finding difficult about the idea that will must come about from some combination of deterministic and (possibly) random processes...?
-
Let's concentrate on this bit.
Are you (who ever 'you' is) sure your brain, governed by the deterministic laws of physics, will allow you?
Childish comments aside
What childish comments? I haven't made any. I'm not too sure I like your presumptuous and haughty attitude.
what are you finding difficult about the idea that will must come about from some combination of deterministic and (possibly) random processes...?
"Must"? On what grounds do you make this assertion?
-
what are you finding difficult about the idea that will must come about from some combination of deterministic and (possibly) random processes...?
"Must"? On what grounds do you make this assertion?
You really haven't been paying attention at all, have you? Random means not determined by anything, so everything is either determined, random or a combination. To the extent something is not determined, it is random, and vice versa. There is, logically, nothing else. Hence, conscious decisions are produced by some combination of the two.
That is, unless you are proposing self-contradictory magic...?
-
"Must"? On what grounds do you make this assertion?
You really haven't been paying attention at all, have you? Random means not determined by anything, so everything is either determined, random or a combination. To the extent something is not determined, it is random, and vice versa. There is, logically, nothing else. Hence, conscious decisions are produced by some combination of the two.
That is, unless you are proposing self-contradictory magic...?
On what grounds are you asserting that I'm proposing magic? My hypothesis on the topic of conscious/self etc. didn't contradict, negate or oppose your three conditions! You just didn't understand it because of your blinkered outlook.
Though what you say is right* EPs provide a type of, but restricted or limited, modification or different path to your 'three' conditions. But whether you can apply EPs the way you want to, to account for consciousness et al, is another question.
And linked to this would be a clear definition of what materialism is, which I've asked for before but didn't receive one. I ask because without this it would leave you free to just account for everything by your materialistic dogma just as the theists use their Gods to explain anything that has no explanation. Materialism-did-it! because it can be made to encompass everything we encounter.
* There is nothing purely random only things we can't fathom or comprehend into an ordered system which we then label as random due to our ignorance or limited capacities.
-
On what grounds are you asserting that I'm proposing magic? My hypothesis on the topic of conscious/self etc. didn't contradict, negate or oppose your three conditions! [rant]
Because when I pointed out that "will must come about from some combination of deterministic and (possibly) random processes", you responded by saying: ""Must"? On what grounds do you make this assertion?"
Now, you seem to have changed your mind again....
Though what you say is right* EPs provide a type of, but restricted or limited, modification or different path to your 'three' conditions. But whether you can apply EPs the way you want to, to account for consciousness et al, is another question.
I don't want to apply EPs in any way at all - I have no theory of consciousness. It appears to be something that the brain does somehow and research is ongoing - I will watch with interest.
It is you who are saying that it needs "something" apart from the brain, so it's up to you to provide the argument and justification.
And linked to this would be a clear definition of what materialism is, which I've asked for before but didn't receive one. [rant]
Again, it is you who wants to introduce "something else". Something else apart from what? I've been assuming the brain but it's your dogma argument, so you need to define what you mean.
Personally, I dislike the word "materialism" - it tends to be used by the religious and superstitious in order to say something "non-material" (whatever that means) exists. I'm happy to accept as real anything we can find objective evidence or sound arguments for.
You really do need to grasp the fact that I am not putting forward a theory of consciousness. You are trying to tell people that there needs to be this "something else" of which you speak - the job of defining and justifying that is all yours.
* There is nothing purely random only things we can't fathom or comprehend into an ordered system which we then label as random due to our ignorance or limited capacities.
It's an open question. There certainly is pseudo-randomness as you describe but there may be real randomness too; as described by quantum mechanics. Whether either of these has a significant role in consciousness is yet another question.
-
Because when I pointed out that "will must come about from some combination of deterministic and (possibly) random processes", you responded by saying: ""Must"? On what grounds do you make this assertion?"
Now, you seem to have changed your mind again....
"Again"? I don't remember more than once, and only this time when I saw what you were trying to say. As you have not engaged in my idea and argument but just sniped at it I have only speed read, quickly flipped though, your posts.
I don't want to apply EPs in any way at all - I have no theory of consciousness. It appears to be something that the brain does somehow and research is on going - I will watch with interest.
It is you who are saying that it needs "something" apart from the brain, so it's up to you to provide the argument and justification.
So you have jump in here to wave your arms about and you have no hypothesis of your own. I prefer people who engage in a discussion of ideas and not those who just kick up the dust for the sheer fun of it.
I have provide an argument, which is a hypothesis, so at this stage no solid justification is required. The argument itself points to the justification in the reasoning and logic of it.
Again, it is you who wants to introduce "something else". Something else apart from what? I've been assuming the brain but it's your dogma argument, so you need to define what you mean.
Personally, I dislike the word "materialism" - it tends to be used by the religious and superstitious in order to say something "non-material" (whatever that means) exists. I'm happy to accept as real anything we can find objective evidence or sound arguments for.
But I've presented my argument. I have nothing more to add, unless someone wants to comment on it constructively and with intelligence, and then I will respond to that, thus adding to it if need be.
Just to note and comment on your 'Objective Evidence' term. This means a collective recognition, does it not?. Thus all personal experience is excluded. Do you negate all your personal experiences a being worthless and of no value? As being unreal? If so you would have to classify all your personal thoughts and feelings as being mere fantasies.
-
So you have jump in here to wave your arms about and you have no hypothesis of your own. I prefer people who engage in a discussion of ideas and not those who just kick up the dust for the sheer fun of it.
I joined the discussion because you had made the claim that there needs to be "something else" involved and were unable to back it up with anything but personal incredulity.
I have provide an argument, which is a hypothesis, so at this stage no solid justification is required. The argument itself points to the justification in the reasoning and logic of it.
It has become clear that you have no concept of what a rational argument consists of. You haven't even been able to define what this "something else" is in addition to, let alone gone any way towards an argument as to why it is needed (except incredulity).
You are right that a hypothesis doesn't necessarily need justification - although most would have some; just churning out hypotheses, for no good reason, would be a fool's errand. That aside, calling what you have put forward here a hypothesis is even more ludicrous than calling it an argument. If it was a hypothesis, it would be detailed enough to make testable predictions...
Just to note and comment on your 'Objective Evidence' term. This means a collective recognition, does it not?. Thus all personal experience is excluded. Do you negate all your personal experiences a being worthless and of no value? As being unreal? If so you would have to classify all your personal thoughts and feelings as being mere fantasies.
You are obviously very confused.
Objective evidence is evidence that is testable regardless of any personal bias; "inter-subjectively testable" as Popper puts it. In other words it resides in the external world that we share, not just in an individual's mind. Other stuff that goes on in individual minds is, of course, very real and very important; just not relevant to determining the truth of propositions concerning objective reality.
Hope that helps.
-
It has become clear that you have no concept of what a rational argument consists of. You haven't even been able to define what this "something else" is in addition to, let alone gone any way towards an argument as to why it is needed (except incredulity).
You are right that a hypothesis doesn't necessarily need justification - although most would have some; just churning out hypotheses, for no good reason, would be a fool's errand. That aside, calling what you have put forward here a hypothesis is even more ludicrous than calling it an argument. If it was a hypothesis, it would be detailed enough to make testable predictions...
Do you know what philosophizing is? You know, thinking out of the box - the one you're stuck in.
Objective evidence is evidence that is testable regardless of any personal bias; "inter-subjectively testable" as Popper puts it. In other words it resides in the external world that we share, not just in an individual's mind. Other stuff that goes on in individual minds is, of course, very real and very important; just not relevant to determining the truth of propositions concerning objective reality.
Which is what I said. Which makes me wonder whether your English is good enough. You seem very presumptive in your approach. You are the one who brought in the objective evidence bit not me. I made no references to it at any stage independently of your inclusion. As I said above, do you know what philosophizing is?
-
For many years I've read and continue to read a lot of material predicated on the idea that a self is illusory, much of it Buddhist (the concept of anatta - no-self - is central to Buddhism, for example).
I'm not at all sure that I buy into it, as interesting as it is - it's perfectly reasonable to accept that in each of us there's a constellations of likings and dislikings, attitudes, behaviours, habits and whatnot that makes us recognisably us and not somebody else, because that somebody else will have a different set of those things. A self is as good a word as any to call it - there are others, if you prefer them. I think a lot of the talk about self being illusory is based on a simple misunderstanding between illusory and temporary - everything that we are is temporary. We weren't here at one point and won't be here at another point. That doesn't make it somehow unreal in the here and now; that makes it transient. Unreal and fleeting are not synonyms.
Isn't that calling on outside material to make sense of what already is you?
Where do you find yourself outside all those things and sense of self-worth/value?