Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Choice implies a decision between more than one option. How can you choose without options? (Other than randomly)

Human will

[Sebastian Toe]

Human will

That is not really an answer and you know it, I know it and anyone with half an ounce of intelligence reading this knows it.

[Sriram]

So the same question to you. How does this external source reach a decision of what to do? Is the process random, predetermined by previous events or what?

Suppose we have a glass room full of robots who are unaware of our presence outside the room.  Their life would be largely deterministic...ie. dependent on their physical limitations, hardware, software and the usual laws of Nature.

But their life would also be dependent on us humans. The level of interactions and influences that we have on them would also determine their life and their future...even though the robots would be entirely unaware of our interference and would probably assume that these external influences are just random environmental occurrences.

The fact that we humans are governed by our own natural laws and limitations is irrelevant to them.

Similarly, whatever limitations or laws that might  govern those external forces that influence us...it is irrelevant to us. We are not likely to understand them.

The idea of life being entirely deterministic is only in a closed system. If the system is open, it can be subject to external influences and there can be intelligent and deliberate interventions.

Our freedom from determinism would lie only in that external environment.

[Stranger]

Similarly, whatever limitations or laws that might  govern those external forces that influence us...it is irrelevant to us. We are not likely to understand them.

The idea of life being entirely deterministic is only in a closed system. If the system is open, it can be subject to external influences and there can be intelligent and deliberate interventions.

Our freedom from determinism would lie only in that external environment.

Opening a system to an "external environment" with different laws that we don't understand, doesn't change the basic logic of the situation. This isn't about a specific set of known laws, it's about the logic that has to govern any self-consistent system.

It isn't hard: either things happen entirely as a result of a set of reasons, or not. To the extent that it is not fully decided by reasons, it must be decided for no reasons, which is randomness.

[Stranger]

Human will

Is not an answer - it's avoiding the question. Human will makes up its mind somehow: entirely due to reasons or not.

[torridon]

Our conscious awareness perceives information contained in many parts of the brain [and please do not confuse it with reaction to information, or information flow - neither of which define conscious perception]....

Have to disagree that I'm afraid, conscious perception clearly is information flow. Just try this experiment : close your eyes. What we find is that eliminates at a stroke the flow of visual information from your conscious perception. Open your eyes again and your visual system immediately starts processing new information to the tune of around 10 Gigabits per second; this information is transduced and refined many times before ending up frictionlessly and silently as part of the overall mix that is your stream of conscious experience around 400 ms later.  Conscious experience is the most sophisticated information processing system yet discovered and yet we all take it for granted.  Just like magic, in effect, but it isn't.

[torridon]

...  How this information gets drawn into a single entity of awareness is still a mystery, but it is clear that this awareness is intricately involved with the conscious choices we make, and ultimately it is the definitive definition of what comprises the identity of each human being.  All the material bits of our bodies are replaceable, just as in a machine.  It is this single entity of awareness which gives us continuity and defines who we are, and which continues to defy any form of material definition.

Agree that to certain extent, although I'd absolutely disagree any suggestion that the 'single entity of awareness' is something separate to the overall system.  The 'single entity of awareness' is born, constructed, formed out of all that vast information flow.  I'd hazard that this is one of the distinguishing factors that separates humans forms of consciousness to that in other creatures - that in humans a stronger and richer sense of self and identity forms, and this underpins why we tend to think of ourselves as persons, not animals.  A sense of continuity of identity transcending cell replacement comes courtesy of cell replication in memory.  Every morning waking up is somewhat analogous to waking up your laptop after sleep - the last active state before sleep is recovered from memory.  Trying to explain this sense of self as something ontologically separate is hopelessly inadequate in the light of modern insights into mind/brain function.

[Maeght]

Suppose we have a glass room full of robots who are unaware of our presence outside the room.  Their life would be largely deterministic...ie. dependent on their physical limitations, hardware, software and the usual laws of Nature.

But their life would also be dependent on us humans. The level of interactions and influences that we have on them would also determine their life and their future...even though the robots would be entirely unaware of our interference and would probably assume that these external influences are just random environmental occurrences.

The fact that we humans are governed by our own natural laws and limitations is irrelevant to them.

Similarly, whatever limitations or laws that might  govern those external forces that influence us...it is irrelevant to us. We are not likely to understand them.

The idea of life being entirely deterministic is only in a closed system. If the system is open, it can be subject to external influences and there can be intelligent and deliberate interventions.

Our freedom from determinism would lie only in that external environment.

How would we be free in such a scenario?  The external influence would stoll need a process to make its choices, regardless of whether  what it is is relevant to us, so is this rzndom, predetermined or what?

Your scenario seems very much like the model of the sub conscious and conscious elements of the brain's processes, interacting yet unaware of that. But is that process free or predetermined by previous events or what? That os the questin.

[torridon]

Suppose we have a glass room full of robots who are unaware of our presence outside the room.  Their life would be largely deterministic...ie. dependent on their physical limitations, hardware, software and the usual laws of Nature.

But their life would also be dependent on us humans. The level of interactions and influences that we have on them would also determine their life and their future...even though the robots would be entirely unaware of our interference and would probably assume that these external influences are just random environmental occurrences.

The fact that we humans are governed by our own natural laws and limitations is irrelevant to them.

Similarly, whatever limitations or laws that might  govern those external forces that influence us...it is irrelevant to us. We are not likely to understand them.

The idea of life being entirely deterministic is only in a closed system. If the system is open, it can be subject to external influences and there can be intelligent and deliberate interventions.

Our freedom from determinism would lie only in that external environment.

Rather confused thinking here.  A system is either deterministic or it isn't.  If a system containing subsystems exchanges information with the subsystems then it isn't closed at all and the distinction between system and subsystem is irrelevant to the deterministic state of the overall system.  In this case the entire system is either deterministic or it is not.

[Alan Burns]

Is not an answer - it's avoiding the question. Human will makes up its mind somehow: entirely due to reasons or not.

But reasons are not reactions.  Reasons are formulated in our conscious awareness.  They can be fabricated, imagined or selectively chosen by the driving force within our conscious awareness.  Reasons are not a firm foundation on which to prove that the human mind is entirely driven by chains of physical cause and effect.

[Alan Burns]

Have to disagree that I'm afraid, conscious perception clearly is information flow. Just try this experiment : close your eyes. What we find is that eliminates at a stroke the flow of visual information from your conscious perception. Open your eyes again and your visual system immediately starts processing new information to the tune of around 10 Gigabits per second; this information is transduced and refined many times before ending up frictionlessly and silently as part of the overall mix that is your stream of conscious experience around 400 ms later.  Conscious experience is the most sophisticated information processing system yet discovered and yet we all take it for granted.  Just like magic, in effect, but it isn't.

Of course we will not see anything if something blocks the flow of light, because it will not be perceived by our entity of awareness.  Closing your eyes merely makes our entity of perception aware that our vision is blocked - it does not close down the source of perception.  And processing of information does not define perception, it merely prepares data into a state which allows it to be perceived.

[BeRational]

Of course we will not see anything if something blocks the flow of light, because it will not be perceived by our entity of awareness.  Closing your eyes merely makes our entity of perception aware that our vision is blocked - it does not close down the source of perception.  And processing of information does not define perception, it merely prepares data into a state which allows it to be perceived.

It takes more than light, as demonstrated in the David Eagleman Brain series,  where a blind man had his sight completely restored, but he still could not see in any real sense.  This was due to the brain using the parts that normally process the light sensations to build a virtual reality in the brain, being used for other stuff.

You do not see what is really there, the  brain builds an internal model of reality, and it can get it wrong.

In the real world, there is no sound, no colour,  no smell, no taste etc. These are all contrived in the brain to try to make sense of the world.

[Gordon]

But reasons are not reactions.  Reasons are formulated in our conscious awareness.  They can be fabricated, imagined or selectively chosen by the driving force within our conscious awareness.  Reasons are not a firm foundation on which to prove that the human mind is entirely driven by chains of physical cause and effect.

The identification, rightly or wrongly, of these reasons and the subsequent assessment of the details and consequences of each of these, leading to selection or dismissal of some (or all) of these reasons, is just a matter of biology and, as such, is subject to all those elements of cause and effect that influence these deliberations. In brief: you have the biological capacity to think.

You're looking to slot in something that isn't required - namely some sort of interfering divine agency that you can't say anything meaningful about anyway.

[torridon]

Of course we will not see anything if something blocks the flow of light, because it will not be perceived by our entity of awareness.  Closing your eyes merely makes our entity of perception aware that our vision is blocked - it does not close down the source of perception.  And processing of information does not define perception, it merely prepares data into a state which allows it to be perceived.

That rather slightly confusing seems to be suggesting that perception is perception of perception.  Perception occurs as the transformation of information into the common neural currency of the brain.  Conscious perception is the outcome of further refinement processing on that information as novel information is weighed against an internal model derived from past experience; what we end up experiencing, as vision, for instance, is a derivative product of that process.

[Alan Burns]

That rather slightly confusing seems to be suggesting that perception is perception of perception.  Perception occurs as the transformation of information into the common neural currency of the brain.  Conscious perception is the outcome of further refinement processing on that information as novel information is weighed against an internal model derived from past experience; what we end up experiencing, as vision, for instance, is a derivative product of that process.

But no matter how much processing goes on, none of it can be used to define the entity of awareness which perceives what is being processed.

[ekim]

Agree that to certain extent, although I'd absolutely disagree any suggestion that the 'single entity of awareness' is something separate to the overall system.  The 'single entity of awareness' is born, constructed, formed out of all that vast information flow.  I'd hazard that this is one of the distinguishing factors that separates humans forms of consciousness to that in other creatures - that in humans a stronger and richer sense of self and identity forms, and this underpins why we tend to think of ourselves as persons, not animals.  A sense of continuity of identity transcending cell replacement comes courtesy of cell replication in memory.  Every morning waking up is somewhat analogous to waking up your laptop after sleep - the last active state before sleep is recovered from memory.  Trying to explain this sense of self as something ontologically separate is hopelessly inadequate in the light of modern insights into mind/brain function.

Yes, and it is this sense of self which some 'spiritual' methods attempt to transcend by detaching consciousness from information flow, mental forms or concepts and emotional forces which support them.  This tends to be through inner stillness which is not the same as deadness or unconsciousness.  It is the nature of the 'self' you outline to self preserve and so any attempts is often met with fierce resistance and opposition.  Satan is from a Hebrew word meaning 'opposer' and the opposer is not some entity 'out there' but the self centred forces mentioned including the 'collective self' centred forces of religions and ideologies which try to impose themselves.

[torridon]

But no matter how much processing goes on, none of it can be used to define the entity of awareness which perceives what is being processed.

I think you are defining perception in a circular manner then.  As if perception is something that perceives perception.  If there were some inner perceiver 'watching' my perception, then how does perception work in that inner perceiver.  Looks like an infinite regress looming.

[BeRational]

But no matter how much processing goes on, none of it can be used to define the entity of awareness which perceives what is being processed.

How do you know this?

Where is your Nobel prize or published papers demonstrating this?

Or is it just your hope

[Stranger]

But reasons are not reactions.  Reasons are formulated in our conscious awareness.  They can be fabricated, imagined or selectively chosen by the driving force within our conscious awareness.

And does this "driving force" do things for reasons too, or does it do them for no reason? You seem intent on inventing ever more and more entities to avoid facing the fact that decisions are made because of things (deterministic) or because of nothing (random).

When you formulate a reason for something, there are either reasons for you to have done that (memories, experience, beliefs, and so on) or not, in which case it can only be random.

Reasons are not a firm foundation on which to prove that the human mind is entirely driven by chains of physical cause and effect.

How many times do I have to say that 'physical' has nothing to do with the logic?

Whether the mind is physical or not, it can only be driven by some sort of cause and effect, or be, to an extent, random. In other words, inventing a non-physical part of us in order to escape cause and effect, is futile.

[Alan Burns]

I think you are defining perception in a circular manner then.  As if perception is something that perceives perception.  If there were some inner perceiver 'watching' my perception, then how does perception work in that inner perceiver.  Looks like an infinite regress looming.

Conscious perception is achieved by perceiving what is being processed.  Your confusion about the infinite regress is due to you trying to understand it in material terms, but there is nothing in material entities which can define perception - all these entities can do is react to information.  You need an entity of perception to perceive these reactions - the reactions do not perceive themselves.

[Alan Burns]

And does this "driving force" do things for reasons too, or does it do them for no reason? You seem intent on inventing ever more and more entities to avoid facing the fact that decisions are made because of things (deterministic) or because of nothing (random).

When you formulate a reason for something, there are either reasons for you to have done that (memories, experience, beliefs, and so on) or not, in which case it can only be random.

How many times do I have to say that 'physical' has nothing to do with the logic?

Whether the mind is physical or not, it can only be driven by some sort of cause and effect, or be, to an extent, random. In other words, inventing a non-physical part of us in order to escape cause and effect, is futile.

You still do not seem to acknowledge the property of human will.  Our will is not entirely defined by past events - it is influenced by them, and we have conscious control driven ultimately by human will, not past physical events.  And I must insist that the word physical is entirely relevant, because it differentiates the unavoidable events from the wilfully controlled events.

[torridon]

Conscious perception is achieved by perceiving what is being processed.  Your confusion about the infinite regress is due to you trying to understand it in material terms, but there is nothing in material entities which can define perception - all these entities can do is react to information.  You need an entity of perception to perceive these reactions - the reactions do not perceive themselves.

If you are going to state that 'perception is achieved by perceiving ... ' then clearly your conceptualising of the situation is circular.  Further, there is no reason to suppose that perception cannot be defined in 'material' entities.  To the best of our knowledge, perception and consciousness evolved over 500 million years ago in marine vertebrates in Cambrian oceans and it has become such a central aspect of life that all higher life forms since have featured these phenomena in some or other form. We have to move on from thinking in fixed Victorian notions of matter towards seeing matter as a substrate for information exchange, and it is this information flow through cortex, be it human cortex or penguin cortex or fruit fly cortex, that is experience.

[torridon]

You still do not seem to acknowledge the property of human will.  Our will is not entirely defined by past events - it is influenced by them, and we have conscious control driven ultimately by human will, not past physical events.  And I must insist that the word physical is entirely relevant, because it differentiates the unavoidable events from the wilfully controlled events.

Completely wrong.

Human will, just like will in any other primate, is formed by past events, otherwise is must be random.  If you form an intention for absolutely no reason, then that defines it as random.  Your favourite terms, 'uncontrollable', 'material', 'physical' are just noise.  They don't alter the meaning of the concepts involved. Determined means not random; random means not determined.

[Stranger]

You still do not seem to acknowledge the property of human will.  Our will is not entirely defined by past events - it is influenced by them, and we have conscious control driven ultimately by human will, not past physical events.

I don't acknowledge the "property of human will" because it isn't an explanation, it's just meaningless label you've chosen to avoid the logic of the situation.

By my reckoning, you've described the decision making process as "human will", "conscious perception", the "driving force within our conscious awareness" and now back to "human will".

Inventing names isn't an explanation and cannot change the fact that, whatever you call it, it has to make its choices somehow. A choice can be the result of reasons (deterministic), or for no reasons (random) - there isn't a third option.

And I must insist that the word physical is entirely relevant, because it differentiates the unavoidable events from the wilfully controlled events.

No, it doesn't. Events are either deterministic ("unavoidable") or not - whether they are physical or not is irrelevant. The physical world need not be deterministic and the term "wilfully controlled" doesn't imply anything about determinism at all.

[Alan Burns]

Completely wrong.

Human will, just like will in any other primate, is formed by past events, otherwise is must be random.  If you form an intention for absolutely no reason, then that defines it as random.  Your favourite terms, 'uncontrollable', 'material', 'physical' are just noise.  They don't alter the meaning of the concepts involved. Determined means not random; random means not determined.

And I must repeat -
Physically determined infers an inevitable consequence over which we can have no control.
Spiritually determined is what I believe is essential to facilitate the existence of human will.