[QUOTE=matsta;33900036]I seriously don't understand why do you all discuss about something like free will if you believe that human mind is just "a bunch of chemical reactions". A discussion like this will boil to describing if the future phenomena in our universe is physically predictable or not, and that has nothing to do with free will.
IMHO if we attempt to describe ourselves and our lives by a conception we use to describe phenomena in our universe (in this case physics) we'll just fail. We'll fail because physics is a human effort to understand relationships between observable and measurable phenomena; if you try to determine something by physics then you will transform that thing into something that can be measurable.
But some things in our lives (like emotions or free will) can't be measured or observed by a third-person observer, and you can't make science out of them. When we try to transform them into something measurable we just look for something measurable related to them, but that 'looking' makes the concept vanish and be replaced by 'what it relates to'.
For example, when you try to answer the question about free will you say something like
"[...] It's the same way with the human mind. It may be sensitive and difficult to predict, but it still obeys physical laws."
In this view, the poster identified the human mind with the brain (although he didn't say it explicitly). Of course, you can say that the human mind is *caused by* the chemical interactions in our brain and that it's affected by them, but saying that is something totally different than saying that the human mind *is* the chemical reactions in our brains. Mind and subjective experiences are not just some physical phenomena occurring in our brain, nor they can be studied that way.
Actually, physical phenomena tell you little more than nothing of what a subjective experience is. When we study thing like free will or some other concept derived from the subjective experience we have no choice (excuse de pun) but to study them in subjective experiences.
Free will is something that just presents to a conscious observer: right now, as a conscious observer, I am presented with a series of things I could do, I could choose from. The fact that I was motivated by what I previously saw or thought doesn't mean that I didn't chose. In fact, a choice is always motivated by something, but that doesn't mean it's no a choice.[/QUOTE]
are you saying that brain matter does not "think" by chemical reactions? that the laws of science do not apply to our minds? that they not a physical phenomena? You use a lot of words, but that doesn't make you smart.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33901036]are you saying that brain matter does not "think" by chemical reactions? that the laws of science do not apply to our minds? that they not a physical phenomena? You use a lot of words, but that doesn't make you smart.[/QUOTE]
It seems as if you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying our minds aren't derived from physical phenomena, I'm saying they themselves are not physical phenomena.
But those are equivalent. If something is entirely reducible to a product of physical phenomena then it is itself a physical phenomenon. Otherwise, you have to introduce some supernatural component to the mind.
[QUOTE=matsta;33901102]It seems as if you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying our minds aren't derived from physical phenomena, I'm saying they themselves are not physical phenomena.[/QUOTE]
so what are they? and if they are derived from physical phenomena, why doesn't physics apply to them? I am made of atoms, and as such anything that affects atoms affect me. why is it not the same for minds?
[editline]25th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33901131]But those are equivalent. If something is entirely reducible to a product of physical phenomena than it is itself a physical phenomenon. Otherwise, you have to introduce some supernatural component to the mind.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Unless there is such thing as a soul, there is no free will.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33901131]But those are equivalent. If something is entirely reducible to a product of physical phenomena then it is itself a physical phenomenon. Otherwise, you have to introduce some supernatural component to the mind.[/QUOTE]
It depends on what you mean by "supernatural". If by supernatural you mean that it goes beyond our understanding of nature, then yes. If you mean that it goes beyond nature itself, well, I cannot tell what is nature beyond what I understand of it, so I can't tell you.
And I didn't say in any moment that mind is entirely reducible to physical phenomena. For example, the essence of a subjective experience isn't. You can't, by virtue of science and knowledge, show what it is like to see the color green to someone who can't see it for himself.
[QUOTE=matsta;33901186] For example, the essence of a subjective experience isn't. You can't, by virtue of science and knowledge, show what it is like to see the color green to someone who can't see it for himself.[/QUOTE]
That is unrelated. Ofcourse you can't, because the mind has never seen light, it can not understand it. That does not prove your point that it is not completely physical.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33901225]That is unrelated. Ofcourse you can't, because the mind has never seen light, it can not understand it. That does not prove your point that it is not completely physical.[/QUOTE]
It actually does. If you were able to reduce all the experience of seeing the color green in some physical phenomena you would be able to explain exactly why does green looks like it does. And you're not.
[QUOTE=matsta;33901271]It actually does. If you were able to reduce all the experience of seeing the color green in some physical phenomena you would be able to explain exactly why does green looks like it does. And you're not.[/QUOTE]
You can. But blind people don't understand what LOOK is. That's like expecting a person to understand what a fourth dimension would look like. yeah we can understand it, but we will never understand how it looks. our minds can't handle it.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33901293]You can. But blind people don't understand what LOOK is. That's like expecting a person to understand what a fourth dimension would look like. yeah we can understand it, but we will never understand how it looks. our minds can't handle it.[/QUOTE]
I never said the man was blind (in my example he was colorblind, nvm). I really didn't expect that answer. It seems you are a very talented man. Explain to me how you can explain someone who has never seen some color how it looks like.
[QUOTE=matsta;33901348]I never said the man was blind (in my example he was colorblind, nvm). I really didn't expect that answer. It seems you are a very talented man. Explain to me how you can explain someone who has never seen some color how it looks like.[/QUOTE]
I never said I could. did you read the question you asked?
[quote]explain exactly why does green looks like it does. [/quote] Now I can not personally do this, but I am sure some scientists can. It is not a question of explanation, it is a question of whether the brain can interpret it. and anyways, how does proving green looks green have to do with free will?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33901367]I never said I could. did you read the question you asked?
Now I can not personally do this, but I am sure some scientists can. It is not a question of explanation, it is a question of whether the brain can interpret it. and anyways, how does proving green looks green have to do with free will?[/QUOTE]
It is related to something you denied in my original post. First I said that subjective experience *is not* only chemical reactions in our brains. Of course, it's highly dependent, but it doesn't exhausts itself there. All chemistry in the world wouldn't describe what an experience is: the only thing that can tell you what it is is to experience it.
It just proofs that you can't fully describe mind in terms of physical interactions. So you conclusions about free will based on the analysis of physical and chemical processes in the brain would be false.
[QUOTE=matsta;33901408]It is related to something you denied in my original post. First I said that subjective experience *is not* only chemical reactions in our brains. Of course, it's highly dependent, but it doesn't exhausts itself there. All chemistry in the world wouldn't describe what an experience is: the only thing that can tell you what it is is to experience it.
It just proofs that you can't fully describe mind in terms of physical interactions. So you conclusions about free will based on the analysis of physical and chemical processes in the brain would be false.[/QUOTE]
no. The mind operates on the the laws of physics, so it can be described with physics. With enough research, we could explain exactly what makes our mind see the color green. We could explain why it is green and not yellow. We could describe all of that. But we will never be able to describe the experience. why? because without experiencing it our minds can't understand it. I could spend all day talking about how green is the mix of blue and yellow, but it wouldn't matter. The person's mind can process that mix. It doesn't know what to imagine. It's like a computer. If it's not programmed to do a task (see green) then it can't.
[QUOTE=matsta;33901186]It depends on what you mean by "supernatural". If by supernatural you mean that it goes beyond our understanding of nature, then yes. If you mean that it goes beyond nature itself, well, I cannot tell what is nature beyond what I understand of it, so I can't tell you.
And I didn't say in any moment that mind is entirely reducible to physical phenomena. For example, the essence of a subjective experience isn't. You can't, by virtue of science and knowledge, show what it is like to see the color green to someone who can't see it for himself.[/QUOTE]
Who is to say that you can't? The problem is one of information transfer. I can't show someone a color who cannot experience color, by necessity. But I can explain to a blind man what the color green is. He can understand it. I can give him a device that detects the color around him.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33901466]Who is to say that you can't? The problem is one of information transfer. I can't show someone a color who cannot experience color, by necessity. But I can explain to a blind man what the color green is. He can understand it. I can give him a device that detects the color around him.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm I think it was clear that the color green is not the wavelength but the *color*. You cannot explain how a *color* looks like using any other means than the direct experience of seeing it.
[editline]26th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33901461]no. The mind operates on the the laws of physics, so it can be described with physics. With enough research, we could explain exactly what makes our mind see the color green. We could explain why it is green and not yellow. We could describe all of that. But we will never be able to describe the experience. why? because without experiencing it our minds can't understand it. I could spend all day talking about how green is the mix of blue and yellow, but it wouldn't matter. The person's mind can process that mix. It doesn't know what to imagine. It's like a computer. If it's not programmed to do a task (see green) then it can't.[/QUOTE]
Well, suppose that research is made and studied by a colorblind man, he would lear nothingabout how does green look like.
No suppose you show that to people who can look green, now that doesn't add ANYTHING to the experience of seeing green. They would learn nothing on how the color green looks because they already know.
Actually, it is very difficult to imagine some research done on *HOW*does green look.
How does that change anything? A certain range of wavelengths of light cause a stimulus to the brain which manifests as the perception of the color green. The quale that we would call perceiving green is just a manifestation of physical interactions. No one, as far as we know, experiences green without a physical cause.
[QUOTE=matsta;33901522]Hmmm I think it was clear that the color green is not the wavelength but the *color*. You cannot explain how a *color* looks like using any other means than the direct experience of seeing it.
[editline]26th December 2011[/editline]
Well, suppose that research is made and studied by a colorblind man, he would lear nothingabout how does green look like.
No suppose you show that to people who can look green, now that doesn't add ANYTHING to the experience of seeing green. They would learn nothing on how the color green looks because they already know.
Actually, it is very difficult to imagine some research done on *HOW*does green look.[/QUOTE]
That is what I said. He would not understand it because his brain CAN NOT PROCESS GREEN. no explanation will ever make sense to him, unless whatever in his brain (or eyes) is fixed.
and just a question: are you religious?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33901603]That is what I said. He would not understand it because his brain CAN NOT PROCESS GREEN. no explanation will ever make sense to him, unless whatever in his brain (or eyes) is fixed.
and just a question: are you religious?[/QUOTE]
And what about the people who have seen green already? Will the so-called explanation add something on how does green looks?
PD: nope
[QUOTE=matsta;33901631]And what about the people who have seen green already? Will the so-called explanation add something on how does green looks?
PD: nope[/QUOTE]
of course not. They know what green looks like, why would they need explanation? I know what a tree looks like, someone explaining it again to me won't do anything. Where did you get the idea that the explanation would add something?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33901658]of course not. They know what green looks like, why would they need explanation? I know what a tree looks like, someone explaining it again to me won't do anything. Where did you get the idea that the explanation would add something?[/QUOTE]
If it is an explanation then a subject can 'understand it' and 'explain it'. The explanation would clearly add something to the understanding of the subject for which it's intended.
But a subject can't *understand* how does green look, he can just *know* it. Basically it is that we cant *understand* why does an experience feels exactly the way it feels, (HOW does it feel) and there are no reason that can explain that to us. We just *know* that they are the way they are.
When someone feels anger it is ridiculous saying "why does anger feels like this" (apart from effects on your body like accelerated heart-beating which is easily explainable). It doesn't make any sense asking whether anger 'really exists': you are feeling it, there is nothing you can do apart from describing it.
[QUOTE=matsta;33901714]If it is an explanation then a subject can 'understand it' and 'explain it'. The explanation would clearly add something to the understanding of the subject for which it's indented.
But a subject can't *understand* how does green look, he can just *know* it. Basically it is that we cant *understand* why does an experience feels exactly the way it feels, (HOW does it feel) and there are no reason that can explain that to us. We just *know* that they are the way they are.
When someone feels anger it is ridiculous saying "why does anger feels like this" (apart from effects on your body like accelerated heart-beating which is easily explainable). It doesn't make any sense asking whether anger 'really exists': you are feeling it, there is nothing you can do apart from describing it.[/QUOTE]
This does not support your point. The reason why we can't describe feelings and experiences to those without them? because their minds can't understand them. We can get close using examples (Marroon is like a dark red) but they can't really understand it without experiencing it. It does not mean that the laws of physics have some special exceptions for the mind. That explanation doesn't make any sense.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33901736]This does not support your point. The reason why we can't describe feelings and experiences to those without them? because their minds can't understand them. We can get close using examples (Marroon is like a dark red) but they can't really understand it without experiencing it. It does not mean that the laws of physics have some special exceptions for the mind. That explanation doesn't make any sense.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33901736]that the laws of physics have some special exceptions for the mind[/QUOTE]
No, I didn't said that and you know it.
[QUOTE=matsta;33901751]No, I didn't said that and you know it.[/QUOTE]
yes you did. You said that the mind is caused by a series of chemical reactions, yet it can not be explained completely by the rules of physics. That means there must be an exception to the rule.
Really you don't get the point. There is nothing apart from experience that can tell you what experience is. It is not that we *can*explain what experience is but others won't understand. We just can't explain it without the help of experience itself.
And by experience I mean subjective experience. Those 'laws of physics' are that, they describe phenomena in our universe. They are far from 'capturing' the essence of asubjective experience.
Actually, we can't *explain*an experience. Thinking we can is just silly.
[QUOTE=matsta;33901780]Really you don't get the point. There is nothing apart from experience that can tell you what experience is. It is not that we *can*explain what experience is but others won't understand. We just can't explain it without the help of experience itself.
And by experience I mean subjective experience. Those 'laws of physics' are that, they describe phenomena in our universe. They are far from 'capturing' the essence of asubjective experience.[/QUOTE]
you really don't get the point. I completely agree with you that only experience can tell you what experience is. I have said it many, many times. What I am saying is that whether we can describe an experience is irrelevant. The mind operates on chemical reactions, and therefore has no free will. We have covered it in this thread before, and we will most likely have to cover it again. But experiencing experiences does not mean free will exists.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33901775]yes you did. You said that the mind is caused by a series of chemical reactions, yet it can not be explained completely by the rules of physics. That means there must be an exception to the rule.[/QUOTE]
Yet I didn't said the mind *was* a series of chemical reactions. Then things like concepts or ideas would be nothing really, yet they exist.
[editline]26th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33901808]you really don't get the point. I completely agree with you that only experience can tell you what experience is. I have said it many, many times. What I am saying is that whether we can describe an experience is irrelevant. The mind operates on chemical reactions, and therefore has no free will. We have covered it in this thread before, and we will most likely have to cover it again. But experiencing experiences does not mean free will exists.[/QUOTE]
Surely you understand free will as "choosing freely", without 'external factors' or rather 'unpredictability'. I think i described my conception of free will in my first post.The fact that the mind operates on something doesn't mean we don't have free will
[QUOTE=matsta;33901812]Yet I didn't said the mind *was* a series of chemical reactions. Then things like concepts or ideas would be nothing really, yet they exist.[/QUOTE]
they don't exist. They are illusions. our own consciousness is an illusion. an Illusion that "is *caused* by chemical reactions".
Free will is nothing more than the freedom of choosing according to your...will.
[editline]26th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33901835]they don't exist. They are illusions. our own consciousness is an illusion. an Illusion that "is *caused* by chemical reactions".[/QUOTE]
Wait, so they don't exist but they are something? How can something that doesn't exist be something?
[editline]26th December 2011[/editline]
Then math and the laws of physics themselves don't exist.
PD: i gtg
[QUOTE=matsta;33901837]Free will is nothing more than the freedom of choosing according to your...will.
[editline]26th December 2011[/editline]
Wait, so they don't exist but they are something? How can something that doesn't exist be something?
[editline]26th December 2011[/editline]
Then math and the laws of physics themselves don't exist.[/QUOTE]
But we are not free to choose our will. "Choice" is a complex equation with many variables. It is not an actual choice. and when I say they don't exist, I mean they are an illusion. Not something physical. And yes, by that definition math doesn't exist.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33901854]But we are not free to choose our will. "Choice" is a complex equation with many variables. [...]And yes, by that definition math doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
Well, good luck trying to say that we actually don't choose what we want based on illusions. I still have to go to sleep cause I want that right now.
PD: yes, I know you'll say I was sleepy, but I chose to go to sleep now and not when I started being sleepy. Anyway, my mind is a complex equation that doesn't exist made with maths that doesn't exist, so it has no sense to debate over this stuff. Peace.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33901587]How does that change anything? A certain range of wavelengths of light cause a stimulus to the brain which manifests as the perception of the color green. The quale that we would call perceiving green is just a manifestation of physical interactions. No one, as far as we know, experiences green without a physical cause.[/QUOTE]
It changes a lot of things. When we try to know about something subjective (like free will) from a third-person point of view we'll just completely ignore subjectivity an thus, completely ignore the subjective thing.
When we see *another* human like a third-person we'll conclude that he is just 'machina animata'. But it's completely different when you're human.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
