Fore Will (origin at its finest)

Originally posted by Jezus
I think if you really thought about the nature of consciousness and awareness you would realize that freewill is an unavoidable result of consciousness.

Even attempting to remove responsibility and create an external locus of control is a product of freewill.

However, you cannot escape your own freewill; it is your reality.

The lotus is a example of will by all that have free will yet do not have will power.

This is the nature of will.

reply to post by dzonatas


Says you, with no evidence. *shocker*

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
What makes you think consciousness exists, exactly?

If you can feel you have consciousness.

Originally posted by davesidious
Says you, with no evidence. *shocker*

The only evidence you will get is that you haven't proven this:

* 99.999% seen
* 99.999% not seen

Remember, that was your facts based on what you used from wikipedia. Complete that proof, first. You still have to acknowledge that post and show you used 'listening skills' and not just 'ignore' these requests. It's just what you said that they can't be made-up, so prove it.

reply to post by dzonatas

A mirror? A virtual reality device that only shows what it wants to show and not what you see.

So mirrors have free will, too? Nice going.

You only see the light of the reflection... you see the light and not the mirror.

This is true of everything you see.

Now you really must excuse me, I have grown-up stuff to discuss with the Zaviour.

* * *

reply to post by Jezus

Well consciousness individually is primary evidence. It is directly observable. I am conscious.

You haven't thought it through. What is doing the observing? An unconscious part of yourself? Then how are you conscious of it? Down that route lies absurdity.

The alternative is to hold that consciousness is observing itself. But then, how can you prove that the self it observes is not an illusion?

Remember, consciousness cannot prove that anything it observes is not manufactured by it. That is why solipsism, insane though it is, remains philosophically valid. The entire world could quite conceivably be a self-created illusion. You have no way of knowing.

And if it were, then the self-created illusion could, obviously, include consciousness itself. You have no way to tell whether it does or not. And because you have previously defined yourself in terms of consciousness, you cannot be sure whether you are truly conscious, or indeed whether you exist at all.

The quest for the final ground of being is a fool's quest. The Buddha, who was smart like that, pointed out that the self is like an onion: you can go on peeling away at it, layer after layer after layer till at last there's nothing left, and still you will never find the essence of it. Reality is like one of those Mandelbrot figures, in which new dimensions of complexity keep unfolding the closer and closer you look.

However, understanding that you can NEVER prove scientifically another person has conscious, even though logically it might seem obvious, is important in understanding the relationship of consciousness to science. Science is based on physical observable moving pieces.

It is important to your argument, I agree--because it implies that consciousness is beyond the scope of physical enquiry. However, that could well be because consciousness is nonexistent. Until you can demonstrate a functional difference between the states 'outside the scope of physical enquiry' and 'nonexistent', your argument has no force, I'm afraid. And--here's the catch-22--you cannot demonstrate a functional difference that is not in some way physical!

Our mind responds to this “feeling” (conscious is fundamentally a feeling) and the second part of the equation is our mind’s response going back in the opposite direction of information.

What is doing the feeling? Where is it located? Is the feeling feeling the feeling?

It has been experimentally established that you do not become conscious of your actions until you have acted, and recent studies seem to indicate that you don't even become aware of a decision you have made until after you have decided--a good half-hour or more after in some cases. Consciousness is the perennial latecomer to its own party--so how can one insist that it is anything more than a side-effect, an electrochemical backwash or ripple effect like the tsunami that spread across the Pacific yesterday, bringing warning of the Chilean earthquake to faraway places hours after it had happened?

I think if you really thought about the nature of consciousness and awareness you would realize that freewill is an unavoidable result of consciousness.

As attested by the foregoing, I have thought about it a great deal. I invite you to think as much, and as hard. Also, be fearless in your thought. You are not your consciousness. You are a machine that has something it experiences as consciousness.

Why do we have it? Perhaps for God's entertainment. Perhaps we only exist to be perceptual stages or movie screens on which He watches the drama of Creation, which He invented for his own amusement. Of course He could apprehend it directly through His own omniscience, but that would be no fun--he'd be forever reminded of the backstage mechanicals, the contrivances by means of which the show is presented. No--God sits in the darkened theatre of the human mind, His Almighty senses deliberately blinkered by the limits of human consciousness, and enjoys the show. It explains a lot, you know--why there are no miracles, why amputees are never healed, why prayers fall on deaf ears, why nature is so cruel, and oftentimes perverse--and why the universe must contain tragic beings who know that they must die.

As for free will, He probably just added it to spice up the entertainment with a few surprises. For Himself, of course. And He knows He's perfectly safe, because deterministic inertia ensures that the surprises will never be too big, too uncomfortable or too permanent.

Can you tell I'm an atheist?


[edit on 28/2/10 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax

Well consciousness individually is primary evidence. It is directly observable. I am conscious.

You haven't thought it through. What is doing the observing? An unconscious part of yourself? Then how are you conscious of it? Down that route lies absurdity.

This isn't the part that needs to be thought through. It is the only real truth. I feel. I am aware that I am feeling.

Why is it absurd to be self aware?

Originally posted by Astyanax
The alternative is to hold that consciousness is observing itself. But then, how can you prove that the self it observes is not an illusion?

It is irrelevant.

Regardless of whether my feeling is connected to some objective external world I am still feeling. I am still conscious.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Remember, consciousness cannot prove that anything it observes is not manufactured by it. That is why solipsism, insane though it is, remains philosophically valid. The entire world could quite conceivably be a self-created illusion. You have no way of knowing.

I agree.

Originally posted by Astyanax
And if it were, then the self-created illusion could, obviously, include consciousness itself. You have no way to tell whether it does or not. And because you have previously defined yourself in terms of consciousness, you cannot be sure whether you are truly conscious, or indeed whether you exist at all.

I am sure I am conscious. I know I exist, it is the only thing you can really ever know but it is undeniable. I don’t know if you are conscious but I am certainly feeling something.
Am I feeling myself or something else?

Originally posted by Astyanax
The quest for the final ground of being is a fool's quest. The Buddha, who was smart like that, pointed out that the self is like an onion: you can go on peeling away at it, layer after layer after layer till at last there's nothing left, and still you will never find the essence of it. Reality is like one of those Mandelbrot figures, in which new dimensions of complexity keep unfolding the closer and closer you look.

I agree.

Originally posted by Astyanax
It is important to your argument, I agree--because it implies that consciousness is beyond the scope of physical enquiry.

It doesn't because the correlation between consciousness and the physical moving pieces we study is legitimate.

This is obvious because people have actually become convinced that they are those moving pieces.

The correlation is useful to us, it certainly is informing us about conscious but we still aren't seeing the other side of the equation in a physical way simply because it doesn't exist physically.

Originally posted by Astyanax
However, that could well be because consciousness is nonexistent. Until you can demonstrate a functional difference between the states 'outside the scope of physical enquiry' and 'nonexistent', your argument has no force, I'm afraid. And--here's the catch-22--you cannot demonstrate a functional difference that is not in some way physical!

I agree all other consciousness could be nonexistent except my own, I am certainly feeling.

Originally posted by Astyanax
It has been experimentally established that you do not become conscious of your actions until you have acted, and recent studies seem to indicate that you don't even become aware of a decision you have made until after you have decided--a good half-hour or more after in some cases. Consciousness is the perennial latecomer to its own party--so how can one insist that it is anything more than a side-effect, an electrochemical backwash or ripple effect like the tsunami that spread across the Pacific yesterday, bringing warning of the Chilean earthquake to faraway places hours after it had happened?

Time is an illusion. The source of the decision is the same as that which is aware of it.

Originally posted by Astyanax
As attested by the foregoing, I have thought about it a great deal. I invite you to think as much, and as hard. Also, be fearless in your thought. You are not your consciousness. You are a machine that has something it experiences as consciousness.

I am a consciousness that happens to be connected to a machine.

The time we have spent here has made the connection strong and it may feel as though you ARE that machine but this is an illusion.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Why do we have it? Perhaps for God's entertainment. Perhaps we only exist to be perceptual stages or movie screens on which He watches the drama of Creation, which He invented for his own amusement. Of course He could apprehend it directly through His own omniscience, but that would be no fun--he'd be forever reminded of the backstage mechanicals, the contrivances by means of which the show is presented. No--God sits in the darkened theatre of the human mind, His Almighty senses deliberately blinkered by the limits of human consciousness, and enjoys the show. It explains a lot, you know--why there are no miracles, why amputees are never healed, why prayers fall on deaf ears, why nature is so cruel, and oftentimes perverse--and why the universe must contain tragic beings who know that they must die.

God does heal amputees, he sets them free.

Mortality is a Good thing. We can never be trapped.

Originally posted by Astyanax
As for free will, He probably just added it to spice up the entertainment with a few surprises. For Himself, of course. And He knows He's perfectly safe, because deterministic inertia ensures that the surprises will never be too big, too uncomfortable or too permanent.

Can you tell I'm an atheist?

Consciousness loves the unknown.

Are free will and God mutually exclusive?

No, just because something may know me well doesn't change the fact that I make decisions.

--

The physical body creates a message and the brain synthesizes the message.
Something FEELS this message.
The brain is just hardware, it doesn’t feel.
This message becomes part of us because we are feeling. Consciousness is a changing feeling.

The physical world is the other side of the equation and we send information back and forth.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
What makes you think consciousness exists, exactly?

If you can feel you have consciousness.

That's meaningless. All you're doing is making a lazy definition here to defend the existence of consciousness, while ignoring my arguments against it. You might as well say "If you have toes..." or "If you like 80's music..."

It's an illusion, caused by your living in a middle-sized world. You are incapable of seeing your own nerve cells firing faster than you can register that information. By the time your brain realizes you're moving your arm, the arm has already moved.

You are not conscious, in the philosophical sense. You are a meat robot powered by very small internal combustion engines that generate electricity and chemical reactions.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Consciousness exists, that isn't debatable.

You’re trying to say that you believe that consciousness is a product of the physical vehicle?

I don't see that as logical or even possible, something non-physical that feels must be responding to the message.

The vehicle doesn’t feel; it creates a message.

You have become so connected to this vehicle you have come to believe you ARE moving pieces.

You are temporarily connected to these moving pieces.

Originally posted by Astyanax
So mirrors have free will, too? Nice going.

Try to convince people that the light of god carries no will. I merely just try to corroborate the evidence. Prove your accusation.

Now you really must excuse me, I have grown-up stuff to discuss with the Zaviour.

Glad you excused yourself. I wouldn't want to die young.

reply to post by Jezus


And I'm explaining to you that everything you just said in this post is the product of illusion. You perceive it this way, but that's not the way it actually is. This is because our sensory perspective is very limited; Just as we can't see the inside of our own eye, we can't percive the nerve impulses that rule us.

We are not separate entities "connected to" our bodies. We are our bodies. What you describe as "consciousness" is simply a side effect o our physical being. it is not separate, it is not even real, any more than the voices in the head of a schizophrenic are real; HE sees them as very real, you see your consciousness as very real. But both are actually illusory sensations caused by the imperfect human brain.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Jezus

 

And I'm explaining to you that everything you just said in this post is the product of illusion. You perceive it this way, but that's not the way it actually is. This is because our sensory perspective is very limited; Just as we can't see the inside of our own eye, we can't percive the nerve impulses that rule us.

Ironically I believe you becoming convinced that "you" somehow "are" these moving pieces is the illusion.

Nerve impulses are just the message going back and forth.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
We are not separate entities "connected to" our bodies. We are our bodies. What you describe as "consciousness" is simply a side effect o our physical being. it is not separate, it is not even real, any more than the voices in the head of a schizophrenic are real

How can something physical create something that isn't physical?

The body cannot create the mind it can only interact with it.

The senses create a message from the outside world; the brain synthesizes this message, the mind feels and responds to this message.

Just because our mind may correlate with the moving pieces doesn't mean it IS those moving pieces.

You are in a temporary vehicle.

It is a complex vehicle and it has evolved a deep connection to our minds but it is simply a vehicle. It is nothing but moving pieces.

You are something much more than moving pieces.

reply to post by Astyanax



The best post I have seen of yours Yet... And Seriously deserves a Star from me...strange as that may seem to you... LOL

But on a more serious note...

I agree to much of what you have written but there is more to it, than that..

I don't have all the answers and don't pretend to...

But I think Jezus has many very Valid points that I also agree with...

Originally posted by Jezus
Ironically I believe you becoming convinced that "you" somehow "are" these moving pieces is the illusion.

Nerve impulses are just the message going back and forth.

The nerves fire before there is a message. Your hand moves independently, tells your brain "I'm moving" and then your brain either ignores it or tells the hand to stop.

How can something physical create something that isn't physical?

The body cannot create the mind it can only interact with it.

The mind is part of the body. And the mind is physical - it's electricity and chemicals flicking across the neurons and synapses within a clump of spongy grey tissue encased inside your skull.

The senses create a message from the outside world; the brain synthesizes this message, the mind feels and responds to this message.

correct, the mind is a set of electrical impulses that translate information into a usable form for the rest of the body. Works the same for cockroaches.

Just because our mind may correlate with the moving pieces doesn't mean it IS those moving pieces.

It's a side product of them. The actual "piece" is the brain. The brain is the computer, the mind is the internet browser.

You are in a temporary vehicle.

It is a complex vehicle and it has evolved a deep connection to our minds but it is simply a vehicle. It is nothing but moving pieces.

You are something much more than moving pieces.

Okay. Separate a mind from the body and show it to me. I want to see a mind that is independent of a body. Since you're making this claim you certainly have evidence, don't you?

WalkingFox is correct. In order for consciousness to exist, one must have a brain. The concept of the mind is merely an illusion created by the brain in order to make sense of the world. There is no little man in your brain nor Descartes' portal to God. There are simply neurons and glial cells that create one's perception of reality. While the way that consciousness manifests is still argued, people like Antonio Damasio and Joseph Ledoux provide a compelling argument that it stems from emotion. Also, there is evidence to suggest that "will" comes from the frontal lobe.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
The nerves fire before there is a message. Your hand moves independently, tells your brain "I'm moving" and then your brain either ignores it or tells the hand to stop.

Nerves may be the first part of the message we observe but it is still just a message being sent.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
The mind is part of the body. And the mind is physical - it's electricity and chemicals flicking across the neurons and synapses within a clump of spongy grey tissue encased inside your skull.

The mind is the opposite of physical.

What your describing is simply more of the information going back and forth; to or from the mind.

Correlation is not causation.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
It's a side product of them. The actual "piece" is the brain. The brain is the computer, the mind is the internet browser.

The physical body cannot create a non-physical mind; it can only interact with it.

The brain sends a message and the mind "feels" this message.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Okay. Separate a mind from the body and show it to me. I want to see a mind that is independent of a body. Since you're making this claim you certainly have evidence, don't you?

The experience of consciousness is the evidence for its distinction from the physical world.

The brain responds to your mind and your mind responds to your brain but your brain is still nothing but a message sender; it cannot feel.

The physical world is only one side of the equation.

One area of study that might help in undertanding this is lingustic brain damage studies.

Originally posted by Jezus
This isn't the part that needs to be thought through. It is the only real truth. I feel. I am aware that I am feeling.

Oh dear. You refuse to think through the part that most needs thinking through. At the point where intellectual clarity is most urgently needed, you decide to put your faith in a feeling: a physical sensation derived from the very meat machine whose primacy you dispute. This is very insecure ground on which to base a philosophical position.

Why is it absurd to be self aware?

It is absurd, indeed a contradiction in terms, for an unconscious faculty to have conscious awareness. Perhaps you missed the import of what I was saying? I admit it is hard to write with clarity about such things.

I am not going to deal with your responses point by point. It is not necessary, because they all spring from your voluntary, paradoxical and--if you will pardon me--somewhat irrational embrace of physical sensation as the determinant of a hypothetical nonphysical reality. Because that is what a hunch, or a belief, or a conviction, or whatever you want to call it, amounts to: a physical sensation, a feeling of 'rightness' that is derived simply from chemical activity in the brain, and which can as easily be generated by a drug or electrical stimulus as by your internal processes. You're mistaking meat for mind.

You must understand that no-one is claiming consciousness and mind do not exist. Obviously consciousness does exist, and so does mind (so long as you don't start thinking of it as some kind of disembodied spirit or something). But they are not the essence of the being you are. They come and they go, they are Protean and fungible, and they are absent for most of your life, both waking and sleeping. The real you is meat and it is mortal.

Originally posted by Jezus
Nerves may be the first part of the message we observe but it is still just a message being sent.

Just 'cause you say something and it makes sense to you... doesn't mean it actually makes sense.

The mind is the opposite of physical.

What your describing is simply more of the information going back and forth; to or from the mind.

Correlation is not causation.

No, the causation is the flow of chemicals and electrical impulses along your entire nervous system. It is intrinsically part of your body.

The physical body cannot create a non-physical mind; it can only interact with it.

The brain sends a message and the mind "feels" this message.

Again, the mind is physical. It is chemicals and electricity. Both of these are very physical. They are measurable.They are quantifiable. When they are active in the nervous system, they can do all sorts of things.

You are laboring under an illusion, and illusion fostered and encouraged from bad philosophy from ignorant philosophers. You are your body. Everything going through your head right now is physical, the result of chemicals - be they drugs, hormones, salts, whatever - and electricity of various strengths.

The experience of consciousness is the evidence for its distinction from the physical world.

Circular arguments don't actually support themselves.

The brain responds to your mind and your mind responds to your brain but your brain is still nothing but a message sender; it cannot feel.

I'll repeat; Just because something makes sense to you doesn't mean it actually makes sense. This is butchered. Do better.

The physical world is only one side of the equation.

You're mixing metaphors. No, physical reality isn't "one side of the equation;" it is the equation, the whole and sum of it. Everything you are going on about is physical, is generated by your body with tangible, measurable methods that will wholly cease when you die.

One area of study that might help in undertanding this is lingustic brain damage studies.

Yes, it might; you should look into it. I think you'd see the same information in my posts looking back at you

Both of you are discussing physical moving pieces in relationship to consciousness.

Obviously the correlation between brain chemicals and behavior is useful to us but it is just that, correlation.

It is the message going from the external world to the mind and from the mind to the body.

But correlation is not causation; the movement of the message is not consciousness.

When you view the chemicals in the brain you are not viewing consciousness you are only viewing the changing of information.

Consciousness is the single point of feeling. Consciousness is the response to the message. The fundamental nature of consciousness is abstract and non-physical.

The physical vehicle cannot create everything the mind is, it simply is not possible.

The brain is a message synthesizer, but it is physical just like your left toe; it cannot FEEL or can only pass the message of what is felt.

You are looking at complex hardware and have become convinced that it is self powered. This is absolutely ridiculous, the hardware NEEDS electricity.

Your mind is that electricity.

Originally posted by Jezus
Both of you are discussing physical moving pieces in relationship to consciousness.

Obviously the correlation between brain chemicals and behavior is useful to us but it is just that, correlation.

What evidence do you have for this claim? We have seen that chemicals and behavior are extremely closely linked, close enough to be one and the same. Where is your evidence that there is something more?

When you view the chemicals in the brain you are not viewing consciousness you are only viewing the changing of information.

Again, evidence?

Consciousness is the single point of feeling. Consciousness is the response to the message.

The response is also an electrochemical reaction.

The physical vehicle cannot create everything the mind is, it simply is not possible.

Argument from personal incredulity, bare assertion. Give your evidence for this claim.

The brain is a message synthesizer, but it is physical just like your left toe; it cannot FEEL or can only pass the message of what is felt.

You are looking at complex hardware and have become convinced that it is self powered. This is absolutely ridiculous, the hardware NEEDS electricity.

Your mind is that electricity.

Actually, the electrical impulses in the brain are that electricity.

reply to post by Jezus

You are looking at complex hardware and have become convinced that it is self powered.

From my perspective that could be a description of you!

But I won't labour the point. We're beginning to repeat ourselves. Let me ask you a different question instead.

Why is the hypothesis of disembodied mind useful? What does it explain that a purely materialist theory of mind doesn't?