Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 3:19 PM
125 online now:
Diomedes, dwise1, Meddle, PaulK, Tanypteryx (5 members, 120 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,459 Year: 3,496/19,786 Month: 491/1,087 Week: 81/212 Day: 11/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
111213
14
1516Next
Author Topic:   The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 236 (190882)
03-10-2005 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Syamsu
03-09-2005 10:29 PM


quote:
Let's remember that no evolutionist here save 1, even knew an "official" term for the point where a probability changes, realization on a probability. So if I would use that word in stead of decision then all but 1 person would know what I was talking about.

Nonsesne - its been competently addressed many times - the problem is YOU don't even understand your "point", becuase you don't have one.

quote:
You have 2 options in this debate. Either you show credible support for a science about decisions, turningpoints, realization or whatever u insist it should be called, or you stick your heels in the ground and object to all mention of things going one way or the other in science, for lack of evidence.

You don't even seem to know what "turning points" are in your own argument. Being familiar with bath statistics and information science, I can assure you that the concepts of decision and "turning point" are alive and well, and used all the time. The fact is you are sucking your argument out of your thumb.

quote:

The first will lead you to a generic science of creationism, where you view the origin of things from the point(s) at which they became likely to appear, the second lays you wide open to the charge that science and evolutionists especially are destroying knowledge about decision, with justifiable accusations of facillitating predeterminist ideologies such as nazism, communism, social darwinism.

Not only is this complete gibberish, but it then becomes gibberish squared by somehow constructing a link with "predeterminist" ideologies, and its unlikely that Syamsu is able to explain what he means by "determinist" or why these should apply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Syamsu, posted 03-09-2005 10:29 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Syamsu, posted 03-11-2005 1:40 AM contracycle has not yet responded

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 236 (190883)
03-10-2005 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Silent H
03-01-2005 5:02 AM


quote:
I am totally admitting that decision, or the force which makes a decision, is a theoretical problem for those who believe in a mechanistic (material) universe.

What? Why? If that were true, how can we build computers?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Silent H, posted 03-01-2005 5:02 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Silent H, posted 03-10-2005 12:10 PM contracycle has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3893 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 198 of 236 (190939)
03-10-2005 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by contracycle
03-10-2005 3:46 AM


What? Why? If that were true, how can we build computers?

Computers are rule systems which have set decision making guidance systems. Indeed without a program to force the computer to engage a problem, it will sit and do nothing. All of this has been programmed in by people, and it is unlikely that a computer "feels" like it is doing anything. They certainly do not have free will.

Human decision making is different. I know for certain that I feel like I have free will. While I might have predispositions, I am capable of choosing anything at any time, including overriding longheld decisionmaking "rules". If everything is purely mechanistic, that is any particular decision is up to a mechanical-chemical hardwired rule system (like computers have) then there is no open decision making process at all.

While that may not pose a problem for a person who simply believes in a mechanistic universe, it does pose a problem for such a person if they also believe in free will. Where does the ability to choose on single action between several choices come from, if it is not merely enough chemical stimulants determining choice A must be chosen over all others (meaning the rest were illusory as choices)?

Remember, despite saying that it is a problem, I am not saying it is unsolvable. I am simply recognizing that Syamsu has a point. If those believing in a purely mechanical universe (that is all we see is the natural result of chemicals interacting as they had to given initial conditions) advance free will, then they have a theoretical problem (inconsistency) they must deal with.

I hope this makes sense.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by contracycle, posted 03-10-2005 3:46 AM contracycle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by DominionSeraph, posted 03-10-2005 8:04 PM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 201 by contracycle, posted 03-11-2005 6:43 AM Silent H has responded

    
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2828 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 199 of 236 (190993)
03-10-2005 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Silent H
03-10-2005 12:10 PM


holmes writes:

Computers are rule systems which have set decision making guidance systems. Indeed without a program to force the computer to engage a problem, it will sit and do nothing. All of this has been programmed in by people, and it is unlikely that a computer "feels" like it is doing anything. They certainly do not have free will.

Human decision making is different. I know for certain that I feel like I have free will. While I might have predispositions, I am capable of choosing anything at any time, including overriding longheld decisionmaking "rules".

Are you overriding the rules, or is it just that the situation has changed, and the reaction called for has followed suit?
For example, a discussion on free will can generate a contrarian mindset. When I went out for a smoke just now, I gave the cat's litter box a little kick. Why? Because I was looking for an example of something that's outside my usual routine, and something so nonsensical fit the bill. However, in light of the situation, kicking it makes perfect sense. I needed an example -- "kicking the litter box" popped to mind -- so I did it to make a point.
I did what the situation called for. The factors weren't obvious (someone who didn't know I was talking about the decision-making process right beforehand wouldn't be able to figure out why I kicked the litter box) but the factors were there.

This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 03-10-2005 20:06 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Silent H, posted 03-10-2005 12:10 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 200 of 236 (191017)
03-11-2005 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by contracycle
03-10-2005 3:43 AM


I request contracycle get's banned for a while. There is no argument, there is nothing but insult and unsubstantiated accusation, which is against forum guidelines.

regards,
Mohammad Nor syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by contracycle, posted 03-10-2005 3:43 AM contracycle has not yet responded

    
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 236 (191035)
03-11-2005 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Silent H
03-10-2005 12:10 PM


quote:
Computers are rule systems which have set decision making guidance systems. Indeed without a program to force the computer to engage a problem, it will sit and do nothing. All of this has been programmed in by people, and it is unlikely that a computer "feels" like it is doing anything. They certainly do not have free will.

Neither do people IMO. I don't think you can make this distinction - the hardware is itself code. The hardware specifically is comprised of logical arithmetic expressed as circuit diagrams; and a programme is just a set of logical arithmetic expressed in terms of procedural switches and logical gates. The difference between the two is similar to the translation of matter and energy - same thing in different phases or forms.

quote:
Human decision making is different.

According to whom?

quote:
I know for certain that I feel like I have free will. While I might have predispositions, I am capable of choosing anything at any time, including overriding longheld decisionmaking "rules".

I suggest that this is an illusion - work with CAT scanners has shown the decisions is made first, and rationalised post facto. That is, the REASON a person gives for their action is always a justification of a non-conscious decision.

I'm prepared to allow for some modification in that position, and say that there are some decisions that are really made by the part of you that thinks of itself as you. But still, I maintain your sense of purposefuleness and free will is mostly illusion.

quote:
If everything is purely mechanistic, that is any particular decision is up to a mechanical-chemical hardwired rule system (like computers have) then there is no open decision making process at all.

No thats not a valid comparison. For example, your copmputer has a rule that tells it display large fonts or small fonts, and the computer cannot change that by itself. But you can click in a certain place and change the rule, and the next time the box boots the new rule will apply. Now, that means that some rules can be hard-CODED rather than being hard-WIRED (I did not get the impression you really followed this when it came up before).

And even a hard WIRED rule can be changed with the appropriate hardware - its actual just the logical extension of changing a hard CODED rule. If I attach a device for writing circuit boards, and a robotic arm, to a sufficiently sophisticated computer, then yes indeed I could get it to write, compile, carve, and install the circuit board, and then reboot itself so the new hard-WIRED rules take effect.

quote:
While that may not pose a problem for a person who simply believes in a mechanistic universe, it does pose a problem for such a person if they also believe in free will. Where does the ability to choose on single action between several choices come from, if it is not merely enough chemical stimulants determining choice A must be chosen over all others (meaning the rest were illusory as choices)?

To quote myself, "questions of free will are the vermiform appendix of philosophy". Free Will is only a meaningful concept in theistic terms, and I cannot see what value any non-theist sees in contemplating the topic. The only reason the free will discussion exists at all is to explain how god can be all powerful;, and yet we remain responsible for our sins. If you and I are materialists discussing life as it is known to be, we have no need to touch any of those topics.

And I can provide a perfectly valid machanistic model that explains the variability in human decision-making: monocultures are prone to catastrophe. It's better to produce individual systems that are variations on a theme to maximise resilience to single pint of failure.

quote:
Remember, despite saying that it is a problem, I am not saying it is unsolvable. I am simply recognizing that Syamsu has a point. If those believing in a purely mechanical universe (that is all we see is the natural result of chemicals interacting as they had to given initial conditions) advance free will, then they have a theoretical problem (inconsistency) they must deal with.

Well, OK - that point I concede. I just don't understand why any materialist wants to speculate about immaterial notions - it kinda defeats the purpose of being a materialiust, I would have thought. I'm not sure someone interested in such topics can be said to be a materialist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Silent H, posted 03-10-2005 12:10 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by 1.61803, posted 03-11-2005 4:11 PM contracycle has responded
 Message 204 by Silent H, posted 03-12-2005 7:44 AM contracycle has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 202 of 236 (191095)
03-11-2005 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by contracycle
03-04-2005 4:25 AM


Describe a choice which goes from past to present.

It would mean to have a chance that is in the past, and have it realized in the present.

It is impossible for as far as common knowledge goes, and science as well I suspect, for what little science there is on the subject.

So what do you actually know about decision again?

This is just to demonstrate that basicly all of contracycle's replies in this thread are unthinking. To the other contributors in the thread, please ignore his posts.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by contracycle, posted 03-04-2005 4:25 AM contracycle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by contracycle, posted 03-14-2005 6:05 AM Syamsu has responded

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2817
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 203 of 236 (191100)
03-11-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by contracycle
03-11-2005 6:43 AM


Hello Contracycle,
Contracycle writes:

The difference between the two is similar to the translation of matter and energy-same thing in different phases or forms.

Problem is we do not know what exactley IS energy. And comparing a human mind with a computer is fine but not the same thing. IMO A computer is nothing more than a turing device. It writes a 1 erases a 0 . There is no true content other than 0's and 1's. When you say the word "tree" that word is more than a word to a human, it is a thousand memories and feelings and emotions of trees all collective to mean the word TREE. To a computer the word tree is data represented by 0's and 1's. If humans are no different than computers it is because we are all made of atoms. And on that level everything is the Same. :D
This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by contracycle, posted 03-11-2005 6:43 AM contracycle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by contracycle, posted 03-14-2005 6:03 AM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3893 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 204 of 236 (191152)
03-12-2005 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by contracycle
03-11-2005 6:43 AM


I suggest that this is an illusion - work with CAT scanners has shown the decisions is made first, and rationalised post facto. That is, the REASON a person gives for their action is always a justification of a non-conscious decision.

I would like to see the studies which purport to show this. I do believe that there are many hardwired and hardcoded action-rule sets. It is certainly possible that on some level perhaps most decisions a person makes are external stimulus-->run through several algothrithms-->action taken, without the need for deliberation.

Where I have a problem is when this is thought to be all human action. It does not match my experience, and seems contrary to evidence when we look at people going through serious deliberation and theorizing to reach wholly new rule sets and actions based on them.

If it is an illusion then I would like to know why we have a program that exists merely to incorrectly observe the world around it. I mean it what you are positing is that we have a form of consciousness but it is a slave program that does nothing but incorrectly process all information as if it has been in control.

I'm prepared to allow for some modification in that position, and say that there are some decisions that are really made by the part of you that thinks of itself as you. But still, I maintain your sense of purposefuleness and free will is mostly illusion.

Even slight free will is free will and will pose a theoretical problem.

Free Will is only a meaningful concept in theistic terms, and I cannot see what value any non-theist sees in contemplating the topic.

If you check my first post on this subject (free will) within this thread you will see that I said I do not like discussing free will and consider it mental masturbation, which even if that does not make it bad, its serious discussion by philosophers has helped drag philosophy in general into a gutter.

You are right that it is not practical. Interestingly though, I come to the opposite conclusion of whether there is FW or not. I believe it is a moot question in that whether we do have it or not, if it is an illusion it is so strong that discussion of action without assuming FW is sort of pointless. It is not human experience.

I can provide a perfectly valid machanistic model that explains the variability in human decision-making: monocultures are prone to catastrophe. It's better to produce individual systems that are variations on a theme to maximise resilience to single pint of failure.

I can go one further. A system capable of multiple layers of rules with the ability and internal urge to recheck and rewrite those rules based on outcomes or predicted outcomes will have an advantage over those entities which are slave to rules that are more hardwired, hardcoded, etc.

It is the urge to recheck, the ability to do so, as well as the ability to override the recheck which gives us free will. It still may be a purely mechanical system, but with that level of intricacy we have free will, specifically to create our own personality.

Well, OK - that point I concede. I just don't understand why any materialist wants to speculate about immaterial notions - it kinda defeats the purpose of being a materialiust, I would have thought. I'm not sure someone interested in such topics can be said to be a materialist.

It keeps coming up and it is a theoretical problem so it is interesting to try and solve. You can still be a materialist, and I certainly am one.

I entertain a lot of unusual ideas just to see where they lead. As I freely admit it is mental masturbation, but I like to masturbate.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by contracycle, posted 03-11-2005 6:43 AM contracycle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Syamsu, posted 03-13-2005 8:23 AM Silent H has responded
 Message 209 by contracycle, posted 03-14-2005 6:30 AM Silent H has responded

    
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 205 of 236 (191274)
03-13-2005 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Silent H
03-12-2005 7:44 AM


If you don't like discussing free will, then just accept it. Accept it by the logic about it in common language, incomplete as though it may be.

I accuse:

1. that evolutionists have been destroying knowledge about decision

2. that this destruction has led to much human suffering

3. that they have put up a wall of intellectual dishonesty to escape dealing with their responsibility for causing human suffering

The support for decision in science is weak at best, and denial at worst. That this would lead common knowledge about decision to be destroyed, depends mostly on how big the influence of science is on common knowledge. This influence is big IMO.

That this would lead to human suffering, depends on how fundamental knowledge about decision is in people's lives. It is very fundamental IMO.

The argument for part 3 is in the replies by evolutionists to this post.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Silent H, posted 03-12-2005 7:44 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Silent H, posted 03-13-2005 12:06 PM Syamsu has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3893 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 206 of 236 (191287)
03-13-2005 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Syamsu
03-13-2005 8:23 AM


If you don't like discussing free will, then just accept it.

Not only have I just gone through explaining that I do accept free will, but the very post you are replying to is one where I am explaining to someone else that i accept free will.

This just goes to show that you do not want to actually understand what others are saying.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Syamsu, posted 03-13-2005 8:23 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Syamsu, posted 03-14-2005 11:52 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 236 (191391)
03-14-2005 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by 1.61803
03-11-2005 4:11 PM


quote:
Problem is we do not know what exactley IS energy.

True, but as far as information is concerned, thats an unimportant question.

quote:
It writes a 1 erases a 0 . There is no true content other than 0's and 1's. When you say the word "tree" that word is more than a word to a human, it is a thousand memories and feelings and emotions of trees all collective to mean the word TREE.

... no, all those things are other bits of information - noughts and ones - linked together. Thats my whole point - neither in computers nor humans can there be any "true content" - there can only be information. Bits.

Your position is a bit like saying a picture of a mountain is not a picture of a mountain -0 becu7ase displayed on screen "its just noghts and ones". No, the noughts and ones are codes that produce action, such as "draw pixel 158 x 137 colour "royal blue"" - and it is those results that we see as the picture. Or the associations attached to the word "tree".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by 1.61803, posted 03-11-2005 4:11 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 236 (191393)
03-14-2005 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Syamsu
03-11-2005 3:08 PM


quote:
Describe a choice which goes from past to present.

It would mean to have a chance that is in the past, and have it realized in the present.


Like flipping a coin then. Gee that was hard.

quote:
So what do you actually know about decision again?

Lots. But you are not asking serious questions and sucking jargon out of your thumb.

This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-14-2005 06:05 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Syamsu, posted 03-11-2005 3:08 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Syamsu, posted 03-14-2005 11:33 PM contracycle has responded

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 236 (191397)
03-14-2005 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Silent H
03-12-2005 7:44 AM


quote:
I would like to see the studies which purport to show this. I do believe that there are many hardwired and hardcoded action-rule sets. It is certainly possible that on some level perhaps most decisions a person makes are external stimulus-->run through several algothrithms-->action taken, without the need for deliberation.

Consider: walking trunning jumping blinking catching driving. These are all actions which are learned, but for which engaging too much conscious thought is counterproductive. A lot of martial arts depends on training specific routines and then implementing them without thought.

quote:

Where I have a problem is when this is thought to be all human action. It does not match my experience, and seems contrary to evidence when we look at people going through serious deliberation and theorizing to reach wholly new rule sets and actions based on them.

If you change a config or setting or something in a programme, the machine might "freeze" for a while before it resumes activity while it runs calculations. Commonly engineers say the machine is "thinking about it".

Its quite possible to write a programme that itself has the facility to write a programme - this is one of the things I was getting at with the robot arm analogy. So when a person is confronted by a new situation, they must develop a rule-set to deal with it; at least in part that process is conscious, and we describe thinking as an action.

quote:

If it is an illusion then I would like to know why we have a program that exists merely to incorrectly observe the world around it. I mean it what you are positing is that we have a form of consciousness but it is a slave program that does nothing but incorrectly process all information as if it has been in control.

No no - rather, there is not one holistic prog that does everything, I expect. Some things like autonomic reflexes clearly don't bother your thinking mind at all. There is definitely a "command" programme that controls high level functions - a sort of strategy department if you will. It's purpose is not to falsely represent the world - it is to represent the world as accurately as it can, but there are inherent limits on that accuracy. But the limits on that strategy prog are derived from other experiences, past rules compiled, etc.

quote:
Even slight free will is free will and will pose a theoretical problem.

Theres a level of wuantum uncertainty no mechanical system,. not even a programme, can overcome, which is the caveat I accept.

quote:
You are right that it is not practical. Interestingly though, I come to the opposite conclusion of whether there is FW or not. I believe it is a moot question in that whether we do have it or not, if it is an illusion it is so strong that discussion of action without assuming FW is sort of pointless. It is not human experience.

Yes I agree with your analysis of FW, and that it is a moot question. I fully agree that subjectively, we feel like free deciding agents. But FW is only important in a theistic context IMO.

quote:
It is the urge to recheck, the ability to do so, as well as the ability to override the recheck which gives us free will. It still may be a purely mechanical system, but with that level of intricacy we have free will, specifically to create our own personality.

No it just feels that way. Becuase the rules that make up you are not in large part conscious decisions - external changes will impose rules on you, you do not acceede to them. I agree though that it is the degree of intricacy that makes it feel as it does.

In effectm, Free Will as a loose description of our sense of self can be assumed as given. But it has no underlying ontological validity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Silent H, posted 03-12-2005 7:44 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Silent H, posted 03-14-2005 8:43 AM contracycle has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3893 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 210 of 236 (191406)
03-14-2005 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by contracycle
03-14-2005 6:30 AM


These are all actions which are learned, but for which engaging too much conscious thought is counterproductive. A lot of martial arts depends on training specific routines and then implementing them without thought.

Absolutely. Coming from a martial arts background it was very interesting to discover how muscles could be trained, and afterward let go on autopilot for better results. That is even true regarding senses. I took part in blindfolded combat and was quite capable of defending myself by giving up on purely visual assessments, which did allow the brain to interfere... I had to rely on instincts or undeveloped (or overdeveloped) sensory analysis.

I think we are both in agreement on this, that there are purely mechanical routines and subroutines which do not need a higher cognitive analysis to take place. They are almost entirely hardwired/coded and at best may have the higher consciousness programs turn them on.

Commonly engineers say the machine is "thinking about it".

This appears to me to be an anthropomorphism, and not a real assessment. Yes it is processing many calculations based on hardcoded algorithms. I suppose there could even be some algorithms which allow for the writing of new formulas based on ongoing calculations (my own chemical modelling work allowed for some of this), but that is a bit different than how a human will eventually reach a conclusion.

It may be similar, but there is ultimately more choice, or openended choice which can allow for practical abandonment of algorithms.

A computer is unlikely to come out of its freeze with a decision that it wants to have someone press the a button for a while and then go get a sandwich before it moves on to the next part of the problem.

Some things like autonomic reflexes clearly don't bother your thinking mind at all. There is definitely a "command" programme that controls high level functions - a sort of strategy department if you will. It's purpose is not to falsely represent the world - it is to represent the world as accurately as it can, but there are inherent limits on that accuracy. But the limits on that strategy prog are derived from other experiences, past rules compiled, etc.

Agreed, yet I think you are not going far enough. It seems to me this "command program" or "strategy program" is layered enough that for all practical purposes it is a free will program. That is to say, given enough freedom in analysis and rewriting during decisionmaking it becomes quite different than purely a machine following strict programmed rules. I also think there is a built in rule or "perpetual input" which is a drive to reassess or coordinate thinking and action. That would act as a device for an individual to continually create new rules and test them and based on results (which will differ between individuals because of differing physical natures) will result in individual "personalities".

The drive to reassess and coordinate and then observe onesself, indeed "feel" some emotional (sensory) inputs regarding self, makes one autonomous.

Theres a level of wuantum uncertainty no mechanical system,. not even a programme, can overcome, which is the caveat I accept.

Although I cannot fully reject this possibility, I find it unnecessary to accept and rather hard to believe. How does quantum uncertainty (which will at best affect one atom on a nanosecond scale) come to be the major player in a complex multicellular process regarding decisions and selfhood?

I think I'd accept the influence of lunar gravitational effects as well as other stellar phemonenon on brain chemistry mechanics, before resorting to something that tiny and temporal in nature. Even fluctuations in earth's magnetic or gravitational field, would seem to have more bearing.

But FW is only important in a theistic context IMO.

I'm not sure if this is completely true, but it isn't really important to me. For a guy that says he doesn't find it it important you certainly seem to be concerned about it.

No it just feels that way. Becuase the rules that make up you are not in large part conscious decisions - external changes will impose rules on you, you do not acceede to them.

This seems counterintuitive to me. I can decide simply never to finish this post, or finish it and not post it, or post it and never look at your reply, or post it and then write something completely opposite within my next reply to you. I could even up and decide never to come to EvC again because I "feel" it is wasting my time and I prefer something else.

Your argument is that none of these are actual options and none of the feelings I use to make my final decision are real, other than phantom images of the chemistry that forced me to make the final decision. Isn't that unnecessary given Occam's razor?

Why not rather accept that choice is real and find how a mechanical system would develop the ability to choose freely based on purely mechanical inputs? Maybe it involves a rule which is beyond choice and so our free will itself is beyond choice, but that does not reduce our capacity of creating our own identities by selecting actions based on preferences or deciding to reject preferences to test new rules. That is to say it does not need to posit we do not consciously pick based on what we feel.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by contracycle, posted 03-14-2005 6:30 AM contracycle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by contracycle, posted 03-14-2005 11:36 AM Silent H has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
111213
14
1516Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019