Fore Will (origin at its finest)

Originally posted by Golden Boy
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?[

The chemicals and the behavior are part of the same series of events, the consciousness is the initial source and final recipient of information.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
The response is also an electrochemical reaction.

The response causes an electrochemical reaction.

Originally posted by Golden Boy

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.

It is a fundamental characteristic of the mind as a responder to the physical message.

It isn't a matter of evidence it is a matter of comprehension.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Actually, the electrical impulses in the brain are that electricity.

Your taking the analogy too literally. I'm talking about the power behind the information. Something must receive and respond to the information.

The brain is nothing but a synthesizer, it cannot feel.

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

It explains the existence of a FEELING.

Without the non-physical response to information we would be biological robots just reacting to stimuli without consciousness.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy
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?[

The chemicals and the behavior are part of the same series of events, the consciousness is the initial source and final recipient of information.

Again, we have evidence that the chemical reactions are the source and the recipient. If you assert the existence of another entity to act as these, provide your evidence for its existence.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
The response is also an electrochemical reaction.

The response causes an electrochemical reaction.

Evidence?

It isn't a matter of evidence it is a matter of comprehension.

Yes, jezus, it is a matter of evidence. You can assert all you want. Unless you can back your claims with hard facts, you're just spouting nonsense.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Actually, the electrical impulses in the brain are that electricity.

Your taking the analogy too literally. I'm talking about the power behind the information. Something must receive and respond to the information.

And I'm saying that the electrochemical reactions in the brain are the receiver and the responder.

Originally posted by Jezus

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

It explains the existence of a FEELING.

Without the non-physical response to information we would be biological robots just reacting to stimuli without consciousness.

Your evidence for this assertion is...?

Originally posted by Golden Boy
And I'm saying that the electrochemical reactions in the brain are the receiver and the responder.

That is not ideal.

Your evidence for this assertion is...?

You.

Who said that the human brain was ideal? There are many problems with the way it works, which should be evident from all the disorders it can cause in a person. The brain is slow and is prone to sending the wrong messages, and no one that has ever studied the human brain will claim it's ideal.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy
And I'm saying that the electrochemical reactions in the brain are the receiver and the responder.

That is not ideal.

Ideal for what? And what does it matter if it is not ideal?

Your evidence for this assertion is...?

You.

Not evidence.

Originally posted by dzonatas
That is not ideal.

No, it's not. But it is real. Idealism is a useless philosophy because nothing is ever perfect. All it does is make people disappointed.

You are your body. I suggest you get comfortable with this fact, because I'm sure you've got several decades left to your name, and it's a terrible thing to see someone kill their body because they believe that it is somehow not part of them.

Has the human species ((a bipedal primates belonging to the species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in Hominidae, the great ape family)), produced A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) , or any Computer based robotic system that duplicates or replaces our species, at the same level or above our species, having free will and Conscious so as to integrate into society with humankind in the same way as humankind or of superior nature???


[edit on 1-3-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this post. We simply don't have the technology to create strong AI at this point. Our computers aren't powerful enough and we don't have the technology to reverse-engineer the brain completely. We have however made great strides towards developing a working model of the brain.

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
Has the human species ((a bipedal primates belonging to the species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in Hominidae, the great ape family)), produced A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) , or any Computer based robotic system that duplicates or replaces our species, at the same level or above our species, having free will and Conscious so as to integrate into society with humankind in the same way as humankind or of superior nature???

You are assuming that free will exists. As there is no evidence that it does, there is no reason to believe that we should be able to program robotic beings with it. However, yes, we should in future (and in theory) be capable of creating androids with consciousness.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Again, we have evidence that the chemical reactions are the source and the recipient.

No evidence suggests that.

You are confusing correlation for causation.

The chemicals don't "decide" to innate and they certainly don't "feel" their own reactions.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Yes, jezus, it is a matter of evidence. You can assert all you want. Unless you can back your claims with hard facts, you're just spouting nonsense.

I'm not trying to insult you but this isn't a matter of evidence it is a matter of comprehending the fundamental nature of consciousness.

It is the other side of the equation, the observer/responder/mind.

The brain can only create an experience, it cannot feel.

However, linguistic brain damage studies might give you a better understanding of what I'm discussing if you want something specific to look into. It really makes the distinction between abstract thought and the physical information stored in the brain clear.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
And I'm saying that the electrochemical reactions in the brain are the receiver and the responder.

Our consciousness is not made up of chemicals.

Electrochemical reactions are nothing but moving pieces; patterns of information.

They may a stage of the message very close to that which experiences the message, but it is still nothing but a moving message.

Our consciousness interrupts this activity as a feeling and also creates this activity when we emotionally react and make decisions.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
You are assuming that free will exists. As there is no evidence that it does, there is no reason to believe that we should be able to program robotic beings with it. However, yes, we should in future (and in theory) be capable of creating androids with consciousness.

Free will is an unavoidable result of consciousness. Awareness = Free Will. The attempt to divert responsibility and create an external locus of control is still a decision and a result of free will.

We may one day make robots that appear to have consciousness and react in complex ways but they will not have true consciousness in the sense that they will not FEEL, only interrupt and react.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
You are assuming that free will exists. As there is no evidence that it does, there is no reason to believe that we should be able to program robotic beings with it. However, yes, we should in future (and in theory) be capable of creating androids with consciousness.

Free will is an unavoidable result of consciousness. Awareness = Free Will. The attempt to divert responsibility and create an external locus of control is still a decision and a result of free will.

We may one day make robots that appear to have consciousness and react in complex ways but they will not have true consciousness in the sense that they will not FEEL, only interrupt and react.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by Jezus]

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Ideal for what? And what does it matter if it is not ideal?

Schroedinger's cat has a proof, yet we don't prove it. Review my two threads about conspiracy against metaphysics and the 3rd eye.

Then consider you as a parent and your child tries to give you a gift. With your attitude here, we can expect you to tell your child: prove what is inside the gift. In other words, you defeat the purpose of a gift if you don't let your child surprise you with a gift.

Ask yourself if it ideal to let a child surprise their parent with a gift.

Not evidence.

Because you are no surprise.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Again, we have evidence that the chemical reactions are the source and the recipient.

No evidence suggests that.

Yes, it does. Again, we have seen that the consciousness can be directly altered by the introduction of chemicals into the brain.

You are confusing correlation for causation.

You are asserting that it is correlation rather than causation, with absolutely no backing for this. All of our evidence points to the fact that the reactions and consciousness are one and the same. Again, if you posit the existence of some third entity which regulates both, present your evidence.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Yes, jezus, it is a matter of evidence. You can assert all you want. Unless you can back your claims with hard facts, you're just spouting nonsense.

I'm not trying to insult you but this isn't a matter of evidence it is a matter of comprehending the fundamental nature of consciousness.

No, it is a matter of evidence. If you claim that the fundamental nature of consciousness is as you say it is, then you should be able to prove it. In the end, it comes back to evidence.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
And I'm saying that the electrochemical reactions in the brain are the receiver and the responder.

Our consciousness is not made up of chemicals.

Electrochemical reactions are nothing but moving pieces; patterns of information.

They may a stage of the message very close to that which experiences the message, but it is still nothing but a moving message.

Our consciousness interrupts this activity as a feeling and also creates this activity when we emotionally react and make decisions.

Evidence?

reply to post by Golden Boy

Free will aside.... the situation is still the same...

Why Not now.... with the great knowledge the human species has.

Or is something missing ???

Perhaps this is because our knowledge is Incomplete, or we don't really understand at all... Just pretend to know or understand ???

We discus these things, because we simply don’t know YET.
Otherwise we would Not be having this discussion now would we???

All is very subjective and only in the realm of human interpretation according to the Laws laid down by the human species.

Human interpretation is Not the only LAW that exists…

Even though the human species is born and dies, the system and processing behind the universe carries on.


But my thoughts are.... that there does exist a processing system that few know of, and the human species is now entering a stage in development, that will discover this processing system underlying Evolution, governing its behaviour, responses etc.

This will bring about, another Scientific revolution....

But sorry I can't provide proof...
So guess we will have to just be patient and see what happens....

If such a change doesn't occur in the next 100 years, then this will prove me wrong for now.... but on the other hand IF you see this happen in your lifetime, then I guess I may be seen to be right...

50/50 chance…. a bit like predicting the weather on an island...
Changeable.... LOL

I believe we are at the Beginning or early stages of discovering Science
and NOT at the Finish Line…

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Idealism is a useless philosophy because nothing is ever perfect. All it does is make people disappointed.

See previous message to Golden Boy not being a surprise and a gift a child tries to hand to a parent. Ask yourself the same question.

You are your body.

The comparison itself is no different than Godwin's law. Read my thread about conspiracy against metaphysics.

I suggest you get comfortable with this fact, because I'm sure you've got several decades left to your name, and it's a terrible thing to see someone kill their body because they believe that it is somehow not part of them.

I just try to die naturally. If natural selection and evolution is true then I need to know how to die naturally. This is no secret.

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by Golden Boy

 

Free will aside.... the situation is still the same...

Why Not now.... with the great knowledge the human species has.

Or is something missing ???

Yes. The ability to manufacture a computer system of sufficient power and complexity.