Since we have no free will, what purpose does/did consciousness serve?

[Endercreeper01]

13 hours ago, Ten oz said:

There are well regarded scientific models out there for how consciousness evolved.  Attention Schema Theory is testable and being peer reviewed:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4407481/

https://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/Consciousness_Research.html

 

Those models do not explain how the brain, which is a machine, can produce consciousness. There isn't any possible physical mechanism by which consciousness can arise from a machine such as the brain, which is just a unique arrangement of atoms and molecules. In spite of that, we are still conscious somehow... 

 

13 hours ago, Ten oz said:

There is no example in history of a single person every having consciousness without a brain. Doctors regularly recommend those who have been determined to be brain dead be removed from all support systems and their bodies allowed to die. There is no medical/scientific theory out there which supports human consciousness existing free from the human brain. I can't prove that a tree falling in the woods with no one around to hear or record it makes noise but there is absolutely no reason on earth to assume it wouldn't. Asking people to prove negatives doesn't provide supporting evidence for anything. It merely attempts to make the threshold of evidence more burdensome.

If there is no possible physical mechanism that could produce a conscious entity, which experiences sentience and has subjective experience, it shouldn't be assumed that it is bound by the same physicality which does not have a way of creating it's existence. Remember that correlation does not equal causation. Just because the brain and consciousness are correlated with each other, does not mean that the brain has to produce consciousness.

On 11/9/2017 at 11:08 PM, iNow said:

In the end, we are little more than the universe expressing itself as a human being for a little while.

The sum total of that expression is by definition subject to the laws of physics. 

Chemical interactions drive all neural, physiological, respitory, pulminary, and related activities.

Neural activity drives the entirety of our experience, our sense of self, and our consciousness. 

It’s misguided to suggest our will is free and mistaken to assume we control our choices.

All available data shows our minds are made up and decisions locked in well BEFORE the parts of our brains responsible for active executive function, sense of self, and consciousness ever show any activation whatsoever. 

The only remaining plausible explanation is to regard freewill as a postdictive illusion. Said another way, freewill is a fiction; a narrative of assumed structure we mistakenly impose on an otherwise objectively unstructured organic/chemical set of processes. 

In practical terms, this changes nothing about our everyday experience. It does, however, remove a significant amount of baseless assumption, conceit, and need for various emergent “ghosts in the machine” when discussing the subject. 

As I asked in that other thread: If it’s not just chemistry, then WTF is it?

How do you suppose consciousness can be the result of strictly physical processes in the first place? There is no physical mechanism by which a machine such as a brain, which is fundamentally a complicated specific arrangement of atoms of molecules, could produce consciousness. If such a thing as consciousness could exist in spite of any physicality, why should you assume that it would be bound by those same physical mechanisms which should not give rise to it's emergence?

[iNow]

This isn’t a thread about the source of consciousness or whether it can be sufficuently explained on the basis of biology and chemistry.

[Eise]

16 hours ago, Ten oz said:

1 - Organisms are born and hatched with this ability. Genetics leading the way and not conscious choice. Did you consciously choose to take your first breath?

2 - We do not have control over the whole system. One cannot control their genetics. A short person cannot will themselves tall, a bald person will new hair growth, will away cancer, will  20/20 visions, and on and on and on. There are many more things we can empirically say we do not have control over than there are things we can anecdotally say we do have control over. 

3 - This makes no sense.

4- What does and doesn't matter is purely relative. If the car is needed to travel at 130 mph than it wouldn't matter at all that it can travel at 120mph. 

1. This does not touch on the fact that organisms have control over their environment, and that was all what I am saying.
2. I was talking about control of the system over the environment, not some control over the system. 
3. It does. Is there a 'you' somewhere in the brain, controlling its functions? When not, does that mean you do not exist? For free will the same: there is no free will in the brain; free will can exist in the control the brain exerts on its environment.
4. Yes. But given dimreepr's position, only the God of the universe has unlimited control. He wouldn't even be content with a car that can at least drive with warp 10. Oh, no, that is a limitation too.

 

16 hours ago, Prometheus said:

A single cell organism can exert control over its environment, by chemotaxis for instance - a completely determined process. But that doesn't mean it has free will, does it? Is the only difference that humans have a self image?

I thought my list of conditions for free will's existence was a bit longer than just having a self-image. A single cell organism has no wishes, beliefs or a picture of its environment and its possible futures. 

16 hours ago, Prometheus said:

So you might say that a dog has free will, but that a spider does not (if we make the assumption that spiders do not have a self image)?

With a little bit of precaution, yes. The more an organism has the capabilities listed above, the better it is potentially able to have free will. Of course I am not sure where we can draw a line, even if we can draw a line, but given your examples, I would say yes.

16 hours ago, Ten oz said:

What is control; does a teacher have control over a students grades or do students have control over their grades? Sticking with that analogy studies show teacher to student ratio, parenting, school budget, and etc all impact grades so can any individual fact truly said to be control?

This tastes after dimreepr's 'absolute control'. The point is that every organism has some control over its environment. Stronger, every negative feedback system has control of some part of its environment. 

[Prometheus]

53 minutes ago, Eise said:

1. I thought my list of conditions for free will's existence was a bit longer than just having a self-image. A single cell organism has no wishes, beliefs or a picture of its environment and its possible futures. 

For free will a system must have some additional futures: the capability to picture its environment, to evaluate different possible futures against its own interests, how these possible futures might arise dependent on its own actions, have a self image. I other words, I think it is only possible to exert free will when a system is conscious.

But a self-driving car does picture its environment, evaluates futures against its interests (not crashing), judges futures that might arise dependent on its actions, all it lacks is a self-image. Same as our spider. So it's this self-image which interests me. 

So what properties does self-image have that allow free-will, where otherwise you would no free-will (assuming all your other conditions are met)?

Sorry if i'm being dense but it isn't making sense to me.

 

[Eise]

57 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

But a self-driving car does picture its environment, evaluates futures against its interests (not crashing), judges futures that might arise dependent on its actions, all it lacks is a self-image. Same as our spider. So it's this self-image which interests me. 

The self-image is the image of the own interests, motivations, reasons, beliefs etc the system has. A self-driving car does not have these. So I think what I essentially I am saying that consciousness is a necessary condition for free will. 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

1. This does not touch on the fact that organisms have control over their environment, and that was all what I am saying.
2. I was talking about control of the system over the environment, not some control over the system. 
3. It does. Is there a 'you' somewhere in the brain, controlling its functions? When not, does that mean you do not exist? For free will the same: there is no free will in the brain; free will can exist in the control the brain exerts on its environment.
4. Yes. But given dimreepr's position, only the God of the universe has unlimited control. He wouldn't even be content with a car that can at least drive with warp 10. Oh, no, that is a limitation too.

 

 

This thread is about the purpose of consciousness. Pointing out environmental interaction traits which all organism exhibit as anecdotal proof of control or free will sort of lays the bar on the ground.  There is no debate over whether or not organisms interact with their environment. The debate is about conscious free will and don't feel you are addressing that.

1 - No free will is required for basic environmental interaction

2 - Again, no free will required.

3 - I am me; brain included. When the brain dies I die. All genetic limitations of my body (Brain included) are limitation my "you" has. The "you" inside of us is purely ego. It is not capable of a single thing more than genetically designed for.

4 - Correct, only a supernatural all powerful limitless being isn't constrained by relativism. 

9 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

If there is no possible physical mechanism that could produce a conscious entity, which experiences sentience and has subjective experience, it shouldn't be assumed that it is bound by the same physicality which does not have a way of creating it's existence. Remember that correlation does not equal causation. Just because the brain and consciousness are correlated with each other, does not mean that the brain has to produce consciousness.

All organisms exist physically. Humans have a physical form. So I don't understand what you mean by there is no  possible physical mechanism that could produce a conscious entity. Are you not a conscious entity?

Correlation doesn't equal causation but in this case it has been repeated tested. We have seen neurons firing in the brain in direct association with thought. We understand which parts of the brain are responsible for different feelings and knowledge. You are basically saying that because we can't disprove that their is another dimension of existence not bound by natural physics where all consciousness continues after brain death all options remain equal. Why is there absolutely no burden of evidence required? Can you provide a single reason why I should suspect there might be a magical place out in the ether where all consciousness continues free from the brain?

[Eise]

26 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

1 - No free will is required for basic environmental interaction

2 - Again, no free will required.

Of course. But without control over the environment free will is impossible. So control over the environment is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition. So idf somebody can prove that we have no control over our environment at all, free will simply does not exist.

30 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

3 - I am me; brain included. When the brain dies I die. All genetic limitations of my body (Brain included) are limitation my "you" has. The "you" inside of us is purely ego. It is not capable of a single thing more than genetically designed for.

Right. There is no 'you' inside your brain. 'You' is just a function of the software running on the brain, its hardware. But we are surely not completely determined by our genes. Our upbringing, culture, books we read, and thoughts we have have all have influence on my actions. We are not dedicated computers that can only do the one thing for what is was designed. Our hardware allows a giant multiplicity of programs that are also rewritten every moment, partially based on internal functions only (e.g. when I change my plans for the future).

One of the chimeras about free will that it should be completely unconditioned. It is not. Such a kind of free will could only be chaotic, has nothing to do with what I am. 

10 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

There isn't any possible physical mechanism by which consciousness can arise from a machine such as the brain, which is just a unique arrangement of atoms and molecules.

Really? How do you know? You have an overview of all possible physical mechanisms? Do you so precise what consciousness is, that you can exclude that is implemented on any high complex system?

[Prometheus]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

So I think what I essentially I am saying that consciousness is a necessary condition for free will. 

I can accept that consciousness is a necessary condition for free will, but that in it itself doesn't prove that we do have free will.

Isn't this just a case of different definitions of free will? I imagine it as asking given the exact same conditions in two instances,  would we 'decide' to do the exact same thing? To which i imagine the answer being yes. You seem to agree (in saying that you believe in determinism), but say that the process of coming to the determined decision is exactly what free will is - even though it couldn't be otherwise. Is this a correct understanding?

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Eise said:

But without  control over the environment choice, free will is impossible.

 

FTFY

2 hours ago, Eise said:

So idf somebody can prove that we have no control over our environment at all, free will simply does not exist.

No one can control what culture we're born into, but that doesn't negate free will because we do have choices and can affect that culture (politically), however, we can't control what those choices will lead to.

37 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

 I imagine it as asking given the exact same conditions in two instances,  would we 'decide' 

 

Winning WWI the choice was, control Germany; winning WWII the choice was, help them chose their own future. 

Edited November 13, 2017 by dimreepr

[Eise]

3 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Isn't this just a case of different definitions of free will?

Yes, it is. In my opinion the western view on free will is still heavily loaded with Christian theology: that we have a soul, which can freely decide what to do, unconditioned by a causal history. Without such a soul, it is difficult to justify that souls could be damned to eternal suffering in hell. It makes us absolutely responsible. From a naturalistic point of view this makes of course no sense. The inheritance of of this view however is that we think that because we have no soul we have no free will either.

Still we have the experience of free will: that what we do in certain situations depends on what I will do, and what I will do I can consider. Do I take the schnitzel or the cordon blue? Of course this is all determined by brain processes, but in such situations I cannot just refrain from choosing. To say it a bit awkward: I still have to process the decision with my brain. And given who I am and the circumstance I will come to a decision (usually...). 

The point I am trying to make, is that I cannot be overruled by my brain processes, because I am my brain: I am not a soul that is forced by my brain. The element of free will is that I am not forced to choose something by some form of coercion. In daily life, I mostly know very well if I do something out of free choice, or was forced by somebody else. My slogan-way of saying this is: we cannot be what we want; but we can do what we want. 

17 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I imagine it as asking given the exact same conditions in two instances,  would we 'decide' to do the exact same thing?

Yes, of course. If the conditions are exactly the same, including my brain state.

18 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

You seem to agree (in saying that you believe in determinism), but say that the process of coming to the determined decision is exactly what free will is - even though it couldn't be otherwise.

That is an error in what 'could be otherwise' means. I think somebody else explained that much better than I can so here it is:

Quote

Suppose that, while I am standing in some field during a thunderstorm, a bolt of lightning narrowly misses me. If I say that I could have been killed, I might be using ‘could’ in a categorical sense. I might mean that, even with conditions just as they actually were, it would have been causally possible for this bolt of lightning to have hit me. If we assume determinism, that is not true, since it was causally inevitable that this lightning struck the ground just where it did. I may instead be using ‘could’ in a different, hypothetical or iffy sense. When I say that I could have been killed, I may mean only that, if conditions had been in some way slightly different—if, for example, I had been standing a few yards to the West—I would have been killed. Even if we assume determinism,that claim could be true.

Derek Parfit - On what matters.

In this way we are perfectly justified to say that I could have done otherwise - namely when I would have decided otherwise. If there was nothing in the situation that forced me to decide what I wanted to decide, then the decision was free. I could have decided otherwise, but in the above sense.

Parfit again:

Quote

 

Someone might now object:

If all of our decisions, choices, and acts are causally inevitable,
we would have acted differently only if we had miraculously
defied, or broken, the laws of nature. It is pointless to ask
whether we ought to have acted in some way that would have
required such a miracle.

Such questions, however, can be well worth asking. What we do often depends on our beliefs about what we ought to do. And if we come to believe that some act of ours was wrong, or irrational, because we ought to have acted differently, this belief may lead us to try to change ourselves, or our situation, so that we do not act wrongly, or irrationally,in this kind of way again. These changes in us or our situation may affect what we later do. It does not matter that, for us to have acted differently in the past, we would have had to perform some miracle. If we come to believe that we ought to have acted differently, this change in our beliefs may cause it to be true that in similar cases, without any miracle, we do in the future act differently. That is enough to make it worth asking whether we ought to have acted differently.

 

So even if we are completely determined, it still makes sense to think about our decision.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Eise said:

 we cannot be what we want; but we can do what we want. 

1

So, no control just choice?

[Eise]

53 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

FTFY

No, you fixed nothing. Slowly I am thinking you are not seriously interested in the subject. Your cursory one-liners don't show you are trying to think.

53 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No one can control what culture we're born into, ...

Right. And? Still thinking that one needs Godlike capabilities to have at least some control?

53 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

... but that doesn't negate free will because we do have choices and can affect that culture (politically), however, we can't control what those choices will lead to.

You can control your own actions. The better you plan them, the better your strategy may work out. But of course life can suck. But again, you seem still to think that control per definition means complete control. Stop thinking in absolutes.

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, no control just choice?

A choice that does not lead to an action? With your choice you cause your behaviour: with your behaviour you exert at least some control over your environment. Again, if you would not exert this control ('I go the supermarket when my fridge is empty'. You have control over what is in your fridge. If you do not exert this control you will be dead soon (unless you go to a restaurant, where your decision also has some control over the situation: if you order the beef menu you do get it. Or do you never get what you order in restaurants?))

Edited November 13, 2017 by Eise

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Eise said:

But again, you seem still to think that control per definition means complete control. Stop thinking in absolutes.

 

Control is the only absolute here, choice, by definition, isn't.

[Prometheus]

18 minutes ago, Eise said:

Still we have the experience of free will: that what we do in certain situations depends on what I will do, and what I will do I can consider. Do I take the schnitzel or the cordon blue? Of course this is all determined by brain processes, but in such situations I cannot just refrain from choosing. To say it a bit awkward: I still have to process the decision with my brain. And given who I am and the circumstance I will come to a decision (usually...). 

We also have the experience of a ghost in the machine. 

Instead of saying we have the experience of free will, we could just as accurately say we have the illusion of free will. 

 

27 minutes ago, Eise said:

That is an error in what 'could be otherwise' means. I think somebody else explained that much better than I can so here it is:

But we agreed it couldn't be otherwise given the same preconditions, so why is it a category mistake? The lightening couldn't have struck elsewhere, but as far as we can tell before the incident it could have struck elsewhere - this is just a limitation of our understanding of the exact conditions. In the same way our 'free will' is a result of us not knowing the preconditions which cause our choices.

I can understand the view that we need to pretend free will exists in order that people so not simply give up on life. 

 

[Eise]

41 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

We also have the experience of a ghost in the machine. 

No, we don't. Simply because we do not experience the machine. Or do you have direct insight of the inner workings of your brain?

43 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Instead of saying we have the experience of free will, we could just as accurately say we have the illusion of free will. 

The only illusion of free will is that of libertarian free will: that under exactly the same circumstances, including my brain states, I could have done otherwise.

45 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

But we agreed it couldn't be otherwise given the same preconditions, so why is it a category mistake? The lightening couldn't have struck elsewhere, but as far as we can tell before the incident it could have struck elsewhere - this is just a limitation of our understanding of the exact conditions.

It is a category mistake because you are using the categorical meaning of 'could have been otherwise'. But there is also the hypothetical reading, as Parfit shows. Don't you see the difference? In the case of free will it means that there was nothing outside me that forced me to a decision. The brain cannot force me: I am my brain. But of course, because the brain is determined, we are too. So, as Parfit says, there is a way that I could have been struck by the lightning, because I was very close. If I know during a thunderstorm that I could get being hit by lightning, I try to get at a safe place. If then the lightning strikes, at the place where I was standing, it is perfectly valid to say 'I would have been struck if I did not decide to find shelter'.

So what I do depends on me. But there is no me inside me. 

Say I am in a vegetarian restaurant. I can choose between 5 dishes. E.g. I choose the tofu-burger with salad. When I look back afterwards, I can justifiably say that I could have chosen some of the other dishes. Why? Because they were on the menu card, and nobody forced you to take the tofu-burger. But being in this vegetarian restaurant I could not have chosen a beef burger, simply because it is not on the menu card. So there is a very relevant meaning of 'could have' completely independent of the question if I am determined. This is the 'could have' that is relevant for free will. 

For me the experience of free will is that I can act according my ideas. If something is obstructing me from acting as I want, I am not free. If I get the tofu-burger because I wanted it, it was a free action. If somebody points a gun at me and says that I should take the dish with the Brussels sprouts, then I am not acting according my ideas, and then it is not a free action. It has nothing to do with determinism.

[Prometheus]

24 minutes ago, Eise said:

No, we don't. Simply because we do not experience the machine. Or do you have direct insight of the inner workings of your brain?

You don't feel like you are a little homunculus 'driving' your body around? You don't need direct insight into the workings of the brain to experience this, it's quite natural, to me at least. I've a feeling we are talking about different things.

 

24 minutes ago, Eise said:

The only illusion of free will is that of libertarian free will: that under exactly the same circumstances, including my brain states, I could have done otherwise.

So we agree on this point, but just call it different things.

 

29 minutes ago, Eise said:

It is a category mistake because you are using the categorical meaning of 'could have been otherwise'. But there is also the hypothetical reading, as Parfit shows. Don't you see the difference? In the case of free will it means that there was nothing outside me that forced me to a decision. The brain cannot force me: I am my brain. But of course, because the brain is determined, we are too. So, as Parfit says, there is a way that I could have been struck by the lightning, because I was very close. If I know during a thunderstorm that I could get being hit by lightning, I try to get at a safe place. If then the lightning strikes, at the place where I was standing, it is perfectly valid to say 'I would have been struck if I did not decide to find shelter'.

So what I do depends on me. But there is no me inside me. 

Say I am in a vegetarian restaurant. I can choose between 5 dishes. E.g. I choose the tofu-burger with salad. When I look back afterwards, I can justifiably say that I could have chosen some of the other dishes. Why? Because they were on the menu card, and nobody forced you to take the tofu-burger. But being in this vegetarian restaurant I could not have chosen a beef burger, simply because it is not on the menu card. So there is a very relevant meaning of 'could have' completely independent of the question if I am determined. This is the 'could have' that is relevant for free will. 

For me the experience of free will is that I can act according my ideas. If something is obstructing me from acting as I want, I am not free. If I get the tofu-burger because I wanted it, it was a free action. If somebody points a gun at me and says that I should take the dish with the Brussels sprouts, then I am not acting according my ideas, and then it is not a free action. It has nothing to do with determinism.

I don't understand about half of what you are talking about. Maybe i'm just uncouth and missing lots of nuances but this seems like an awfully long winded way of simply saying you have a different definition of free will.  I think i'll just choose to disagree (or do you agree i can't even tell that much) with you and leave it there.

[Outrider]

3 hours ago, Eise said:

Slowly I am thinking you are not seriously interested in the subject. Your cursory one-liners don't show you are trying to think

Oddly enough I came to the same conclusion in the "inner peace" thread about a week ago. Maybe its just us?

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Control is the only absolute here, choice, by definition, isn't.

From your link:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/control

Quote

 

1 mass noun The power to influence  or direct people's behaviour or the course of events.

‘the whole operation is under the control of a production manager’

‘the situation was slipping out of her control’

More example sentences

Synonyms

1.1 The ability to manage a machine, vehicle, or other moving object.

‘he lost control of his car’

‘improve your ball control’

 

The word influence indicates something less than total.

How can one improve their ball control if control if it is an all or nothing concept. 

 

On 11/11/2017 at 3:47 PM, Ten oz said:

People actually believe consciousness is above biology itself

See I think the above is a different concept from the below.

On 11/11/2017 at 3:47 PM, Ten oz said:

and can exist beyond it somehow;

Because consciousness is an emergent phenomenon it has a sum greater than its parts. Do we agree so far? As such we can consider it more than just biology or above if you prefer. All the while recognizing consciousness is still completely dependant on the biology. 

The "can it exist beyond it somehow", for me, ventures into the supernatural realm and as such deserves its own thread. A thread I will most likely will not even read much less participate in.

iNow, Ten oz and whomever.

Are you strictly deterministic? Do you think that given enough of the initial conditions of the BB and enough computing power that you could have predicted that I would make this post today?

If so why do you try so hard in the political (and other) threads to change things for the better?

Edited November 13, 2017 by Outrider
Numerous typhos maybe I'm not so good at typing on a phone.

[iNow]

I'm not strictly anything, other than interested in this topic and more accurately understanding our cosmos and existence

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, Outrider said:

Because consciousness is an emergent phenomenon it has a sum greater than its parts. Do we agree so far?

No, I don't think consciousness is either an emergent phenomenon or greater than the sum of it parts to any degree beyond other traits. Being an emergent phenomenon greater than the sum of its parts is how I would describe the existence of life itself. I view consciousness as a function of the brain no more of an emergent phenomenon eyes, lungs or the brain itself. Evolution has produce many thinks which we humans can selectively be in awe of.

3 hours ago, Outrider said:

As such we can consider it more than just biology or above if you prefer. All the while recognizing consciousness is still completely dependant on the biology. 

The "can it exist beyond it somehow", for me, ventures into the supernatural realm and as such deserves its own thread. A thread I will most likely will not even read much less participate in.

I am not sure in context how you are defining "above" but will concede that on my part it was a poor choice of words. I should have used the word separate rather than above.

3 hours ago, Outrider said:

Are you strictly deterministic? Do you think that given enough of the initial conditions of the BB and enough computing power that you could have predicted that I would make this post today?

If so why do you try so hard in the political (and other) threads to change things for the better?

I cannot predict the precise route or speed drift wood washed out to sea in a storm will travel or if that drift  wood will ever make it to land again but that isn't anecdotal proof drift wood has free will.

A couple pages back I asked the question does a teacher have control over the grade they give a student or does the student? The question being directed at grade school. I know parents who move to specific neighborhoods, feed their kids specific diets,medicate their kids, buy them specific type of entertainment (toys, games, books, puzzles), and etc assuming they can influence the type of student their children will be; do parents have control over the grade? Then of course they are school boards members and elections (in some places) for those jobs. Candidate argue their policies will increase academic performance. They claim they can increase the average grade but can they? Making things messier is the fact that students are forced to go to school and the whole grading system is measuring how well they are learning the mandatory information they must learn per the direction of others.

I think that if you provided a psychologist, sociologist, statistician, or any smart person who is decide at understanding people and likelihoods key points about a child's life they would be able to predict what type of grades that child receives. I wouldn't call that determinism. Even if we assume free will is 100% thing and everyone is exercising choice all the time people would still make predictable choices over and over again. 

[Endercreeper01]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

No, I don't think consciousness is either an emergent phenomenon or greater than the sum of it parts to any degree beyond other traits. Being an emergent phenomenon greater than the sum of its parts is how I would describe the existence of life itself. I view consciousness as a function of the brain no more of an emergent phenomenon eyes, lungs or the brain itself. Evolution has produce many thinks which we humans can selectively be in awe of.

 

How do you suppose such a mathematical system as the brain could ever produce something as real as consciousness?

9 hours ago, Eise said:

Really? How do you know? You have an overview of all possible physical mechanisms? Do you so precise what consciousness is, that you can exclude that is implemented on any high complex system?

Because physical mechanisms are fundamentally systems based on mathematics, which in and of itself could not produce consciousness.

10 hours ago, Ten oz said:

All organisms exist physically. Humans have a physical form. So I don't understand what you mean by there is no  possible physical mechanism that could produce a conscious entity. Are you not a conscious entity?

Correlation doesn't equal causation but in this case it has been repeated tested. We have seen neurons firing in the brain in direct association with thought. We understand which parts of the brain are responsible for different feelings and knowledge. You are basically saying that because we can't disprove that their is another dimension of existence not bound by natural physics where all consciousness continues after brain death all options remain equal. Why is there absolutely no burden of evidence required? Can you provide a single reason why I should suspect there might be a magical place out in the ether where all consciousness continues free from the brain?

Consciousness is not something which should be expected to exist in a purely mathematical and geometrically based universe. Which is why it implies something that exists beyond the boundaries of space and time. If geometry has no reason to give rise to our existence, it implies that there should be more to the idea of consciousness that we do not know about. Because of what we don't know about consciousness, we shouldn't assume that it is limited to the brain, or that the brain cannot be influenced by it in such a way as to allow free will.

 

[Strange]

32 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Because physical mechanisms are fundamentally systems based on mathematics, which in and of itself could not produce consciousness.

You have provided no evidence or other support for this claim (other than your personal belief / incredulity).

[Outrider]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I am not sure in context how you are defining "above" but will concede that on my part it was a poor choice of words. I should have used the word separate rather than above.

I'm not sure that makes much difference for me. I think consciousness can be seperate from the chemical processes it depends on. 

 

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I cannot predict the precise route or speed drift wood washed out to sea in a storm will travel or if that drift  wood will ever make it to land again but that isn't anecdotal proof drift wood has free will.

I can't either but I think there are some alive today if given enough information and an adequate computer who could.

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

A couple pages back I asked the question does a teacher have control over the grade they give a student or does the student? The question being directed at grade school. I know parents who move to specific neighborhoods, feed their kids specific diets,medicate their kids, buy them specific type of entertainment (toys, games, books, puzzles), and etc assuming they can influence the type of student their children will be; do parents have control over the grade? Then of course they are school boards members and elections (in some places) for those jobs. Candidate argue their policies will increase academic performance. They claim they can increase the average grade but can they? Making things messier is the fact that students are forced to go to school and the whole grading system is measuring how well they are learning the mandatory information they must learn per the direction of others.

I think the students have the control over their grades. All others have influence and that influence is a very big part of the equation. The parents, teachers, system etc. can give the students better and better chances to do well but in the end its the students choice what they do with the chance that is offered. 

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Even if f we assume free will is 100% thing and everyone is exercising choice all the time people would still make predictable choices over and over again

I can agree with that.

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

No, I don't think consciousness is either an emergent phenomenon or greater than the sum of it parts to any degree beyond other traits. Being an emergent phenomenon greater than the sum of its parts is how I would describe the existence of life itself. I view consciousness as a function of the brain no more of an emergent phenomenon eyes, lungs or the brain itself. Evolution has produce many thinks which we humans can selectively be in awe of.

I'm going to have to chew on this awhile longer. Thanks for an awesome post I wish I had better answers for you.

 

[Endercreeper01]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

You have provided no evidence or other support for this claim (other than your personal belief / incredulity).

Consider logic and reasoning for a moment. There is no reason why mathematical operations of information processing should give rise to an independent consciousness. We shouldn't be expected to be sentient beings if the universe is just composed of mathematical systems, operations, and geometry.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Endercreeper01

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, Outrider said:

I can't either but I think there are some alive today if given enough information and an adequate computer who could.

During search and rescue cases, oil spills, plane crashes, and etc many attempt to predict using currents, tides, winds, and etc but it is still not an exact thing. The environment changes minute by minute with each passing hour any prediction regarding drift wood would increase in error margin. 

10 hours ago, Outrider said:

I think the students have the control over their grades. All others have influence and that influence is a very big part of the equation. The parents, teachers, system etc. can give the students better and better chances to do well but in the end its the students choice what they do with the chance that is offered. 

 I can think of numerous ways a student wouldn't have control over their grade. In general children have little to no control over much. Children get up when they are told, eat what they are told, read what they are told, go to bed when they are told, and etc. Does a student who is being abused emotionally or physically at home have control; they don't even have a safe environment to study from. Saying a student has control is a bit of an all things being equal conclusion in my opinion. It doesn't account for environmental factors. Some children are molested, beaten, bullied, ignored, malnourished, sometimes all of the above. Then there are illnesses which impact mood, strength, stamina, dexterity, and etc.  

In my opinion all the influences of a students grade have the potential to control it. Example: If you are floating in a current that current is controlling where you float however 10 knots of wind is equal to a knot of current. So if it were windy enough the wind would control where you floated. In light to moderate conditions both current and wind would have marginally equal influence but in server conditions either could dominate.

[Eise]

Sorry for the late reaction, I was a away a few days.

On 11/13/2017 at 7:04 PM, Prometheus said:

You don't feel like you are a little homunculus 'driving' your body around? You don't need direct insight into the workings of the brain to experience this, it's quite natural, to me at least. I've a feeling we are talking about different things.

My objection was against the the 'machine' part. I do not experience myself as a machine: I have no direct access to my machine-layer of the brain. Because of science I know I have a brain, and know basic principles of its functioning. But I do not have access to this functioning of my own brain. I cannot decide to let neuron 1,435,460,822 fire at will. I think my own experience in this is that 'I' am somewhere behind my eyes, and between the ears¹. And I know I can move as I want, but I have really no idea how I do this. 

On 11/13/2017 at 7:04 PM, Prometheus said:

I don't understand about half of what you are talking about. Maybe i'm just uncouth and missing lots of nuances but this seems like an awfully long winded way of simply saying you have a different definition of free will.

Well, it is more than that: I try to show what this different definition of free will is. I try to show that it does not conflict with determinism and that it fits to my experience about what free will is. It does not fit to an ideological view of what free will is: the possibility to 'could have done otherwise under exactly the same circumstances', and that it is not caused by previous conditions. We are so to speak totally bathed in this ideological view on free will that we think we have such experience, where I am convinced that we have not.

Part of this change of view is what it means to have been able to do otherwise, therefore was my vegetarian restaurant example. In the vegetarian restaurant I could not have done otherwise, i.e. I could not choose for a beef burger. In a 'mixed' restaurant I could have chosen the beef burger. But I took the tofu-dish. But I could have chosen otherwise. This is a relevant meaning of 'could have done otherwise' that is still relevant in a determined universe. It means the choice depends on me. But 'me' is not a homunculus in the brain. It is me as a whole.

Does that help in understanding my previous reaction to you?

¹ A small funny anecdote: for about a year the company where I work replaced the telephone system with Skype. We could choose what kind of end-device we would use: an IP-telephone connected to the PC, or different kind of headsets. I chose a headset (so I can use the phone handsfree), but only with one earphone in it. I didn't want to hear the voice of some colleagues as if they would come from the middle of my head. It would place them in my head, where normally only my thoughts reside... Greetings from the Borg.

On 11/13/2017 at 7:39 PM, Outrider said:

Are you strictly deterministic? Do you think that given enough of the initial conditions of the BB and enough computing power that you could have predicted that I would make this post today?

If so why do you try so hard in the political (and other) threads to change things for the better?

What you describe is fatalism, not determinism. Fatalism does not follow from determinism. Fatalism means that what will happen is fixed, and nothing you can do will change it. But that is simply not true: what you do matters even if determinism is true. It will make the future different from what it would have been if you did something else. And what you will do depends on you inner mental activities, even if these are determined. 

On 11/13/2017 at 11:49 PM, Endercreeper01 said:

Because physical mechanisms are fundamentally systems based on mathematics, which in and of itself could not produce consciousness.

So mathematics is also not able to produce life, don't you think? Aren't we, and all other organisms alive?