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

[Leonard James]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Leonard James]

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.

[torridon]

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.

[Leonard James]

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.

[torridon]

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.

[Stranger]

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".

[Jack Knave]

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....

[Stranger]

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...?

[Jack Knave]

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?

[Stranger]

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...?

[Jack Knave]

"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.

[Stranger]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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?

[Sassy]

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?