Atheists, do you subscribe to the idea of the illusion of self?

[Stranger]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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?

[Stranger]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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?

[Stranger]

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.

 

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Stranger]

- 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....

[torridon]

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.

[Jack Knave]

- 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.

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Stranger]

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...?

[Leonard James]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[torridon]

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.

[torridon]

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.

[Sebastian Toe]

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! 

[Jack Knave]

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?

[Jack Knave]

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.....?

[Leonard James]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[torridon]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.