Causes and mechanisms

[torridon]

Conscious interaction is not random.
....

Well stop insisting that it is then.  Every time you claim that human will is its own cause you are defining human will to be random.  If our hopes and fears and choices are not part of the flow of cause and effect then our hopes and fears and choices are random.  You can't have it both ways, if you want to be 'free' from cause and effect then you are random, that is what free from cause and effect means. If you want meaningful choice making, then you cannot be free from causality. You still haven't come to terms with this reality.

[Stranger]

Conscious interaction is not random.
Neither is it a predetermined reaction.

If it does not involve randomness then it is subject to the logic of determinism (as I explained here), and so is a deterministic reaction.

You seem to be stuck in the groove of trying to shoe horn reality to fit in with the mechanistic cause and effect scenario we observe in physical material reactions.

You're the one who is mindlessly repeating the same nonsense that has all been addressed countless times before with answers you just ignore. It is  you who is trying to shoehorn reality into being the way you need it to be to support your superstitions. And, to round off, you've once again misrepresented the argument against you as being based on the physical world.

Are you just going to spam this thread with all the same fallacy-ridden, reasoning-free, dishonest nonsense you posted on SfG?

[Alan Burns]

Well stop insisting that it is then.  Every time you claim that human will is its own cause you are defining human will to be random.  If our hopes and fears and choices are not part of the flow of cause and effect then our hopes and fears and choices are random.  You can't have it both ways, if you want to be 'free' from cause and effect then you are random, that is what free from cause and effect means. If you want meaningful choice making, then you cannot be free from causality. You still haven't come to terms with this reality.

As I said previously, you persist in trying to squeeze the reality of our human free will to fit in with your observance of time related chains of cause and effect in material elements.  You need to come to terms with the fact that your "experience" of conscious freedom is not an illusion - it is a reality.  Enjoy your freedom - it is real.

[torridon]

As I said previously, you persist in trying to squeeze the reality of our human free will to fit in with your observance of time related chains of cause and effect in material elements.  You need to come to terms with the fact that your "experience" of conscious freedom is not an illusion - it is a reality.  Enjoy your freedom - it is real.

What 'real freedom' is, is freedom from coercion.  This is the only honest and meaningful usage of the word 'free' in the context of will. You cannot meaningfully be 'free' from anything else - you cannot be 'free' from yourself, this would be incomprehensible; you cannot be 'free' from cause and effect, that would render all your choices random.  I am merely speaking the plain truth in these matters, you are the one ducking and diving to avoid engagement, to avoid actually thinking it through.

[Outrider]

Conscious interaction is not random.

Ok.

Neither is it a predetermined reaction.

If you're saying that it hasn't been chosen in advance by some advanced intelligence, I'd agree with you.  If you're suggesting that it's not inevitable given the starting condition, I'd have to disagree.

You seem to be stuck in the groove of trying to shoe horn reality to fit in with the mechanistic cause and effect scenario we observe in physical material reactions.

You keep trying to squeeze in something else, with no evidence that it's necessary, no evidence that it exists, and no logical way for it to actually exist... that's 3-1 in your favour, if that's how you want to score it.

There is more to human life.

Why does there need to be more than that amazing realisation? Every nuance and subtlety of affection, anger, joy, sadness, excitement, ennui, amazement, tedium, avarice and charity is an incalculable interaction of millions, billions of tiny neuroelectric signals that in each and every one would produce a marginally different but utterly unique combination of emotional and intellectual responses.  And in the face of that realisation, in the wake of that finding, you want to run away to fairy stories and magic to try to justify impossibilities.

O.

[Alan Burns]

If you're saying that it hasn't been chosen in advance by some advanced intelligence, I'd agree with you.  If you're suggesting that it's not inevitable given the starting condition, I'd have to disagree.

And do you honestly presume that your conscious choice to proclaim your disagreement was an inevitable reaction to past events, which you could not possibly have avoided?

And if you do claim this to be an honest presumption - what precisely is the source which can define such a claim of honesty?

You keep trying to squeeze in something else, with no evidence that it's necessary, no evidence that it exists, and no logical way for it to actually exist... that's 3-1 in your favour, if that's how you want to score it.

The evidence you continue to take for granted is your existence and your own capabilities.

Why does there need to be more than that amazing realisation? Every nuance and subtlety of affection, anger, joy, sadness, excitement, ennui, amazement, tedium, avarice and charity is an incalculable interaction of millions, billions of tiny neuroelectric signals that in each and every one would produce a marginally different but utterly unique combination of emotional and intellectual responses.  And in the face of that realisation, in the wake of that finding, you want to run away to fairy stories and magic to try to justify impossibilities.

What is that comes to this realisation?
Is it definable by nothing but electrons buzzing round in your material brain?

[Alan Burns]

What 'real freedom' is, is freedom from coercion.  This is the only honest and meaningful usage of the word 'free' in the context of will. You cannot meaningfully be 'free' from anything else - you cannot be 'free' from yourself, this would be incomprehensible; you cannot be 'free' from cause and effect, that would render all your choices random.  I am merely speaking the plain truth in these matters, you are the one ducking and diving to avoid engagement, to avoid actually thinking it through.

And what precisely can give me the freedom needed to "think things through"?
Your ability to consciously think things through requires much more than freedom from coercion.  It requires the freedom to guide your own thoughts.  Without such guidance, your thought up conclusions could not claim any viability.

[torridon]

And what precisely can give me the freedom needed to "think things through"?
Your ability to consciously think things through requires much more than freedom from coercion.  I requires the freedom to guide your own thoughts.  Without such guidance, your thought up conclusions could not claim any viability.

As explained exhaustively already, to 'guide' your thoughts would itself be a thought process.  There is no sense in which your thoughts are separate from 'you'. And anyway, irrational circularity notwithstanding, to whatever extent it is reasonable to describe thought processes as 'free', the same applies to birds and rabbits and hedgehogs. In this sense, whatever cognitive functioning we have in common with other species, we also share in that thought processes are usually free from external coercion, whatever the species.  What distinguishes humans from other species is the range and sophistication of cognitive functions; this is not 'freedom', it is complexity, sophistication; it is not supernatural, but entirely natural.  An adult human has much greater intellectual capacities than a human infant; so, do we imagine that the process of growing up is a process of becoming gradually supernatural ? Of course not, we grow cortex, we build neural connections, this is not some spooky supernatural 'freedom', it is increasing mental capacity supported by an increasingly complex brain.

[Enki]

And what precisely can give me the freedom needed to "think things through"?
Your ability to consciously think things through requires much more than freedom from coercion.  I requires the freedom to guide your own thoughts.  Without such guidance, your thought up conclusions could not claim any viability.

Most animals have brains which can produce thoughts which are viable(I.E. capable of working successfully) or they would have long ago become extinct.

[Alan Burns]

Most animals have brains which can produce thoughts which are viable(I.E. capable of working successfully) or they would have long ago become extinct.

In this you appear to presume that externally observed reactions in animals is indicative of conscious thought.  But such reactions can be produced by programmed instinct coupled with automated learning processes.  The logic behind the theory of evolution would indicate that the development of instinctive reactions to sensory data is all that is needed to give survival benefit.  To extrapolate this instinctive reaction into conscious thought would be a huge step for evolution to cross.

[Roses]

Humans are species of animal, our thinking processes are rather more advanced than that of other animals.

[torridon]

In this you appear to presume that externally observed reactions in animals is indicative of conscious thought.  But such reactions can be produced by programmed instinct coupled with automated learning processes.  The logic behind the theory of evolution would indicate that the development of instinctive reactions to sensory data is all that is needed to give survival benefit.  To extrapolate this instinctive reaction into conscious thought would be a huge step for evolution to cross.

No higher animals exhibit automated learning.  There is a difference between artificially intelligent machines and living creatures.  Artificially intelligent bots are not conscious and learn without consciousness. Living creatures are different, they learn whilst conscious.  Have you ever seen a bear refining its hunting skills whilst in hibernation ?  Of course you haven't.

[Enki]

In this you appear to presume that externally observed reactions in animals is indicative of conscious thought.  But such reactions can be produced by programmed instinct coupled with automated learning processes.  The logic behind the theory of evolution would indicate that the development of instinctive reactions to sensory data is all that is needed to give survival benefit.  To extrapolate this instinctive reaction into conscious thought would be a huge step for evolution to cross.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/07/150714-animal-dog-thinking-feelings-brain-science/


https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/smarter-you-think/202003/do-animals-think


https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2002/03/scientists-think-that-animals-think/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Cambridge_Declaration_on_Consciousness


http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

[Stranger]

As I said previously, you persist in trying to squeeze the reality of our human free will to fit in with your observance of time related chains of cause and effect in material elements.

More dishonest misrepresentation. As I explained at length on SfG, it has nothing to do with observations of "material elements", it's basic logic applied to anything that changes state over time, as any choice-making entity must do.

It really is laughable that you accuse others of trying "squeeze reality" into their point of view, when you totally refuse to even to accept the reality of the nature of the arguments against you. It appears as if you dare not accept that people have a different argument to the one you've got fixed in your mind and are too terrified to even try to adapt your argument to that fact. Hence the endless, pointless repetition of the same fallacy-ridden, nonsensical script that you dare not even try to adapt to what people are actually saying.

If you're not afraid you may be wrong, why won't you even try to learn some basic logic? Why does it never bother you when your fallacies (poor reasoning) are pointed out?

[Alan Burns]

No higher animals exhibit automated learning.  There is a difference between artificially intelligent machines and living creatures.  Artificially intelligent bots are not conscious and learn without consciousness. Living creatures are different, they learn whilst conscious.  Have you ever seen a bear refining its hunting skills whilst in hibernation ?  Of course you haven't.

By automated learning I was referring to the capability of animal reactions to be influenced by past experiences - just another evolutionary trait which does not necessarily require conscious thought.

[Alan Burns]

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/07/150714-animal-dog-thinking-feelings-brain-science/


https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/smarter-you-think/202003/do-animals-think


https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2002/03/scientists-think-that-animals-think/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Cambridge_Declaration_on_Consciousness


http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

None of which can actually perceive what an animal is thinking.
We have the ability to describe our thoughts - animals do not have such an ability, so we cannot presume to know their thoughts.

[Gordon]

By automated learning I was referring to the capability of animal reactions to be influenced by past experiences - just another evolutionary trait which does not necessarily require conscious thought.

Has it ever occurred to you, Alan, that conscious thought is just another evolutionary trait too?

[torridon]

None of which can actually perceive what an animal is thinking.
We have the ability to describe our thoughts - animals do not have such an ability, so we cannot presume to know their thoughts.

The same applies to humans in some degree.  Humans have more sophisticated language and so are able to communicate their thoughts in greater detail; although this same ability means that humans also have a greater ability to deceive and mislead others.  Having said that, other animals are not entirely innocent in that regard, many species exhibit devious behaviours calculated to trick rivals.  Humans have the greater cognitive sophistication in many respects but certainly not all respects, and in areas where humans outperform other species that indicates our superior sophistication in those aspects; it does not mean we have acquired supernatural powers, that is a ridiculous position for an educated person to take.

[Alan Burns]

Has it ever occurred to you, Alan, that conscious thought is just another evolutionary trait too?

The fact that it is impossible to replicate thoughts outside the human mind would indicate that such a property is way beyond the capacity of being generated by the crude process of the random, purposeless events involved with evolutionary theory.

[Stranger]

The fact that it is impossible to replicate thoughts outside the human mind would indicate that such a property is way beyond the capacity of being generated by the crude process of the random, purposeless events involved with evolutionary theory.

Show your working.

[Roses]

The fact that it is impossible to replicate thoughts outside the human mind would indicate that such a property is way beyond the capacity of being generated by the crude process of the random, purposeless events involved with evolutionary theory.

I don't see that at all. The theory of evolution makes one heck of a lot more sense than the rather silly creation tale in the bible.

[Gordon]

The fact that it is impossible to replicate thoughts outside the human mind would indicate that such a property is way beyond the capacity of being generated by the crude process of the random, purposeless events involved with evolutionary theory.

If a' fact' then show your method and evidence: else cut out the inane, fallacy-ridden and infantile theobabble.

[torridon]

The fact that it is impossible to replicate thoughts outside the human mind would indicate that such a property is way beyond the capacity of being generated by the crude process of the random, purposeless events involved with evolutionary theory.

Something that took 3 billion years to come about through natural processes and we haven't managed to reproduce in an artificial model with twenty years, therefore it must be magic.   

Luckily, not everyone gives up so easily.

[Alan Burns]

If you're not afraid you may be wrong, why won't you even try to learn some basic logic? Why does it never bother you when your fallacies (poor reasoning) are pointed out?

Repetitive quoting of your short sighted logic, which presumes that everything must happen within the time dependent "cause and effect" scenario found in material reactions, can never take away my conscious freedom.

Do you honestly believe that in every choice I make I could not possibly have chosen anything different?  If so why bother trying to point out my apparent "faults" which in your logical scenario are beyond my control?

[torridon]

Do you honestly believe that in every choice I make I could not possibly have chosen anything different?  If so why bother trying to point out my apparent "faults" which in your logical scenario are beyond my control?

If you could have chosen differently, that would mean your actual choice was random, then ...