[QUOTE=Benstokes;33926939]We can't go out and touch the sun either, that doesn't mean we can't explain it; we can observe the effect it has and extrapolate from similar processes that are easier to observe directly. The human mind may be hard to study, but it certainly isn't impossible. We're doing quite well already, and I'm sure we'll get even better at it in the future.[/QUOTE]
Actually, 'the human mind' can be studied in terms of some*thing*, but not in terms of a subject. That's what I said when compared a third-person wit ha first-person point of view. We CAN study the human mind in terms of an object we perceive as a third-person observer, but we may never be able to completely understand subjective experience in terms of it.
[QUOTE=matsta;33942216]Actually, 'the human mind' can be studied in terms of some*thing*, but not in terms of a subject. That's what I said when compared a third-person wit ha first-person point of view. We CAN study the human mind in terms of an object we perceive as a third-person observer, but we may never be able to completely understand subjective experience in terms of it.[/QUOTE]
I see your point, but just because we can't be entirely subjective doesn't mean we can't meaningfully study the human mind. It makes it more difficult, sure, but it's still entirely possible.
[QUOTE=Benstokes;33942482]I see your point, but just because we can't be entirely subjective doesn't mean we can't meaningfully study the human mind. It makes it more difficult, sure, but it's still entirely possible.[/QUOTE]
Actually, imo, it makes it impossible. There are things in subjectivity which even the most detailed third-person (or so called 'objective') analysis can't gasp just because it IS A THIRD-PERSON ANALYSIS and tries to draw itself back from subjectivity.
Edit:
It must be clear that I'm not at all saying that we can't conclude that some facts about ourselves are true. I'm saying that we can only conclude them as long as they are 'objective' facts, that's how science works.
[QUOTE=dgg;33931429]I'm still asking what you think actually makes the mind work.
I think it's silly to claim that people have blind faith and such and then you seem to do the exact same. Believeing that the brain is affected by something else as well but having no theories for it (or at least not sharing them).
"No, the mind must be affected by something else, but I have absolutely no idea what, whatsoever and I will not even attempt to understand what that other thing is whatsoever". That's what I'm hearing right now.[/QUOTE]
Believing that the mind is affected by something else? I said that I didn't believe that the physicalist account was necessarily true, and that the brain was that what defined us and was the mind.
Anything else you've said, has been layered on by you.
So, let me put this crystal clear for you dgg.
"I do not believe that the physicalist accounts for consciousness are necessarily correct, and that consciousness or personal identity are the mere result of chemical reactions".
Just because I don't believe something is true because of flaws in the explanation provided by it, does not necessitate I have an alternative.
[editline]29th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33928891]Working under a theoretical assumption (e.g. consciousness has wholly physical causes) based on previous data (nothing supernatural has been shown to exist) which may not be provable yet because the study of related phenomena is still in its infancy, but continuing to use it because it has not been shown to be wrong, is not blind faith. It is how science works.[/QUOTE]
You're having faith in the solution of the problem eventually, based on the fact that you believe another aspect of the problem has been ruled out.
I do not believe there is anything but faith in this solution, because I don't believe that science has made any headway into the problem of consciousness or identity, or the science has successfully ruled out non-physical explanations or other explanations of consciousness.
I am also not the only one who has questions about the way science functions in this respect.
[QUOTE=Benstokes;33940141]True, except I'd use the word "amazing" or "unlikely" rather than miraculous, to keep the tiller from pointing due religious debate.
That said, how is this relevant to the discussion?[/QUOTE]
How is it not relevant? Our brains are like no other.
[QUOTE=matsta;33942590]Actually, imo, it makes it impossible. There are things in subjectivity which even the most detailed third-person (or so called 'objective') analysis can't gasp just because it IS A THIRD-PERSON ANALYSIS and tries to draw itself back from subjectivity.
Edit:
It must be clear that I'm not at all saying that we can't conclude that some facts about ourselves are true. I'm saying that we can only conclude them as long as they are 'objective' facts, that's how science works.[/QUOTE]
Oh, well yes, now that I see what you're saying a little more clearly, I agree. Just like anything else, we will only be able to observe objectively.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;33944414]How is it not relevant? Our brains are like no other.[/QUOTE]
Our brains are certainly more developed than that of other creatures, but I don't see how that matters in a discussion about free will; if humans have free will, dogs must have it as well and vice versa. We both make decisions by the same processes, even if ours are more complex.
So it's almost like we have a free will. If you don't go by the weird definition of it, we have a free will.
The only thing that restricts our free will is handcuffs or a prison cell or something like that. Imo anyway.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;33945305]So it's almost like we have a free will. If you don't go by the weird definition of it, we have a free will.
The only thing that restricts our free will is handcuffs or a prison cell or something like that. Imo anyway.[/QUOTE]
Well, the only issue is that free will isn't "free," in the usual sense of the word; we have no control over it. So I wouldn't exactly call it a weird definition, that's the usual meaning of "free."
[QUOTE=Benstokes;33951523]Well, the only issue is that free will isn't "free," in the usual sense of the word; we have no control over it. So I wouldn't exactly call it a weird definition, that's the usual meaning of "free."[/QUOTE]
I just realized that both sides of this argument are correct, while your actions may have been predetermined, that is still you and you still have free will.
[QUOTE=Thoughtless;33957583]I just realized that both sides of this argument are correct, while your actions may have been predetermined, that is still you and you still have free will.[/QUOTE]
How so? If your actions are predetermined then you don't have any other possible actions to choose from. If you can't choose any other possible actions when you act, then you don't have the ability to act freely. So unless we're defining free will as something other than the ability to act freely, I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying.
[QUOTE=Noble;33958095]How so? If your actions are predetermined then you don't have any other possible actions to choose from. If you can't choose any other possible actions when you act, then you don't have the ability to act freely. So unless we're defining free will as something other than the ability to act freely, I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying.[/QUOTE]
One side is arguing that our actions are predetermined and the other side is arguing that they can chose. On a lower level yes they can chose, even though they where always going to make that decision in that exact scenario.
On a lower level we can choose whatever the fuck we want and nothing really is predetermined about what we do.
On a higher level though.. we don't have any choice, only what the world has to offer. lol dno
[QUOTE=Thoughtless;33957583]I just realized that both sides of this argument are correct, while your actions may have been predetermined, that is still you and you still have free will.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I started to notice this too. Since the chemical reactions are part of us, we are technically still choosing. Just not choosing in the way we define choosing.
We do have free will, but God (im atheist but for the sake of this conversation I'm going to refer to the universe/entropy as God) already knows what's going to happen. In a minute I'm going to go grab a snack. While God may already know that I'm going to get some nachos and a coke, I still have free will because I chose those things for my own reasons. The prophecy wasn't fulfilled because of the prophecy, it was fulfilled because of me. I could get a PB&J sandwich, but I won't because[B] I choose[/B] nachos over PB&J.
You need to think of "predetermination" as [U]telling you what you already know[/U], rather than deciding it for you.
[QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;33976677]We do have free will, but God (im atheist but for the sake of this conversation I'm going to refer to the universe/entropy as God) already knows what's going to happen. In a minute I'm going to go grab a snack. While God may already know that I'm going to get some nachos and a coke, I still have free will because I chose those things for my own reasons. The prophecy wasn't fulfilled because of the prophecy, it was fulfilled because of me. I could get a PB&J sandwich, but I won't because[B] I choose[/B] nachos over PB&J.
You need to think of "predetermination" as [U]telling you what you already know[/U], rather than deciding it for you.[/QUOTE]
That's not free will.
You COULD get a sandwhich, but the logical occurences and chain reactions happening in the world and your brain binds you to nachos meaning you only had the ILLUSION OF CHOICE, there was 0% possibility you would ever chose the sandwhich, and if you ask me, 0% of doing another choice isn't free will. The choice is there, but the possibility isn't.
Argh, so many improper conclusions and half-baked thoughts ITT.
If our consciousness is dictated by the chemical processes that occur in our brains, those chemical process directly correlate to the so called "choices" we "make". these chemical processes govern our actions in a way such that we have only a perception of control over them.
Let's take it this way. I have the choice of taking a drink from the plastic Pepsi bottle to my left or not. What I'm going to do is already certain because whatever I choose to do is a direct responsibility of a chemical reaction that happens in my brain, whether I know it or not. If I "choose" to take a drink right now, it's because that was what was going to happen based on the aforementioned chemical reactions.
Knowing this, if I try to turn it around and not take a drink, it would appear that I've "beaten the system" so to speak, but in reality I've just made it all the more concrete. No matter what I do in relation to the Pepsi bottle, that action will always be predetermined (and I use that word [I]very[/I] loosely) by the chemical reactions. Ass dgg said above, the illusion of choice was present, but there was a 0% possibility that the other option would have been chosen, and this is the same way for everything that goes on in the universe.
Hopefully the people who are arguing that free will exists now can understand that it's physically impossible. I say physically because some here believe in more than a physical presence of thought; a soul, if you will. If this soul were able to control directly the actions being taken by dictating the reactions of chemicals in the brain, this could be considered free will. Since the existance of a soul is impossible to prove, we are left with only the fact that free will is a physical impossibility. Tada.
For the record, I consider myself a nondenominational Christian, though I don't feel this at all hinders my ability to use reason and logic to decipher such puzzling concepts as these.
[QUOTE=MrWhite;33978821]For the record, I consider myself a nondenominational Christian, though I don't feel this at all hinders my ability to use reason and logic to decipher such puzzling concepts as these.[/QUOTE]
Slightly off topic, but if you know free will doesn't exist, how do you reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of an all powerful loving god? Most Christians I've spoke to tend to argue that evil exists due to free will (there are gaping holes in that idea but obviously there's no reason to bring that up here).
[QUOTE=Noble;33979843]Slightly off topic, but if you know free will doesn't exist, how do you reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of an all powerful loving god? Most Christians I've spoke to tend to argue that evil exists due to free will (there are gaping holes in that idea but obviously there's no reason to bring that up here).[/QUOTE]
I do my best to avoid the matter. I've been saved and baptized according to my religion, I actively pursue my God, and I work to integrate Him in my daily work. That said, I keep as open a mind as possible to the sciences, as I feel they can better solve problems that religion sometimes can't. To get back to the free will debate; I'm certain that, at least physically, free will cannot exist. As it's impossible to prove the existence of a level of consciousness outside our physical selves as of yet(such as what has been discussed already in this thread), I'm unable to back up my beliefs with any substantial proof or reason. That being said, I've yet to come up with a scientific explanation as to how our consciousness works. Science can explain the chemicals involved and their roles, but it can't really delve into what actually produces the fabric of consciousness as far as I've known. This could mean, theoretically, that our minds exist in both our physical bodies and elsewhere, but that's all nothing but ideas for now. Since I have neither a religious or scientific explanation for this, I can safely ignore it until one side solves the mystery.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
