Thread: What is consciousness?

I have had this problem with you Laughing man. I think this last question is the most important one. Since the laws of physics pretty much govern everything else, why would they not govern human action?

Originally Posted by DuB

Did I not make myself utterly clear, or is it really just a complete spinal response for you to restate whatever I say as a question? Invoking a preference for chocolate ice cream is not an explanation for why someone chooses chocolate ice cream because it doesn't tell us anything we couldn't already tell from the information given in the question. The fact that someone has a preference for chocolate ice cream is the very thing which needs explaining. A true explanation would therefore explain where this preference comes from.

I think that is what he was trying to say in his post. He was basically using a question to show how ridiculous it seems that a want is caused by an action brought about because of the want.

Originally Posted by Indecent Exposure

I have had this problem with you Laughing man. I think this last question is the most important one. Since the laws of physics pretty much govern everything else, why would they not govern human action?

Because human action is not a natural science. You cannot look at an individual and say 'Oh yes, he/she is buying chocolate ice cream because it is in line with the first law of thermodynamics.' In order to understand human action, you must place yourself in the mindset of the individual your viewing. You can't put yourself in the mindset of a rock being thrown in the air, can you?

Originally Posted by DuB

Here's another stab at explicating my argument (although I encourage you to return to the original post as well). "Wanting" exists as an instrumental concept, not as a causal antecedent of action. It is an abstraction that we use to describe and predict action, but it doesn't itself cause action--physical laws do (laws which may or may not include quantum indeterminacy--lest I be misunderstood by others, I should emphasize that that issue is irrelevant to my argument). So if we take "wanting" to be a causal determinant of behavior, as I think you would, then my response would be that neither single cells nor masses of cells "want" things in that causal sense which I reject. But if we take "wanting" simply as a potentially useful abstraction, as I would, then the question of whether single cells or masses of cells "want" things depends entirely on whether one personally thinks that it makes useful sense to apply such an abstraction to that particular unit of analysis. Whether or not any given person thinks such an attribution makes useful sense is not important for my argument; my point is simply that such attributions are for the cognitive benefit of the attributer, and that they ought not to be interpreted as making claims about the actual causal determinants of action.

It is hypocritical to claim I make 'vague claims' and yet you just say 'physical laws.' Your argument continues to be absurd though. Wanting is not a determination of action? Why commit action if want is not involved? Action is the application of means to ends. Ends are the wants. What else constitutes a goal that isn't established by a desire to have it or to at least try to obtain it?

Originally Posted by DuB

How is this a relevant question? The words "logic" and "rationality" do not even appear in the text you quoted. As I tried to say earlier, this discussion would go a lot smoother if you would make actual propositions rather than just offering a series of vague questions. I "tire of such things." As a hint, try to follow the model of argument that I laid out and that you apparently ignored.

Because you said everything outside the 'natural laws' by which I assume you mean, science, is supernatural. Logic is the basis for all human thought but all human thought isn't regulated into just 'science' and 'the supernatural'. Math is not a science. Art is not a science. Nor are they supernatural. There exists beyond science, axioms that concern human action that must follow from logic. Things such as the action axiom.

Originally Posted by DuB

Did I not make myself utterly clear, or is it really just a complete spinal response for you to restate whatever I say as a question? Invoking a preference for chocolate ice cream is not an explanation for why someone chooses chocolate ice cream because it doesn't tell us anything we couldn't already tell from the information given in the question. The fact that someone has a preference for chocolate ice cream is the very thing which needs explaining. A true explanation would therefore explain where this preference comes from.

Where it comes from is as subjective as the individual. That is something you didn't read. It could be that throughout my childhood, I ate no ice cream except for chocolate, therefore I am bound to always buy chocolate. Perhaps I just like the brown color of it. Perhaps I just like the name. There can be a different reason for every individual. What the action does show however is that the individual prefers having it to not having it, and perhaps it over all the other ice creams available. Therefore in some capacity, they want the ice cream.

Originally Posted by DuB

And pray, what superior justification do you have for propounding that the laws of physics don't govern human action?

Because they can be broken by human actions. If they were actual laws then nothing should be able to do such a thing. I am not bound to say Newton's law of cooling. I can move from a cool zone to a hot zone then back and forth to my hearts content. Now I await to hear your argument, if you've actually devised one, about how laws of physics do govern human action.

I have invested considerable time and effort in making my arguments as lucid and relevant as possible, yet it is clear from your post (e.g., statements such as "why commit action if want is not involved?") that you still refuse to seriously engage with it on even the most basic level. One can only speculate whether this is because you really don't understand or because you are motivated not to seriously engage with it. In any case, this argument has not made one single bit of progress--which is unfortunate, because I think it's an interesting and important topic--and without any reason to expect this to change, I'm withdrawing from the thread for now. I'll leave it to the audience of this debate to determine who has made a more compelling case.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Because human action is not a natural science. You cannot look at an individual and say 'Oh yes, he/she is buying chocolate ice cream because it is in line with the first law of thermodynamics.' In order to understand human action, you must place yourself in the mindset of the individual your viewing. You can't put yourself in the mindset of a rock being thrown in the air, can you?

What is this I don't even

Now you're just being silly. Tell me, do you actually have any clue as to how the universe works? Or do you just like arguing in circles for the hell of it?

Let's take your example. Instead of spouting nonsense, I would go "I hypothesize that this woman is buying chocolate ice cream because her brain, governed solely by the laws of the universe, controlled her body in such a way as to execute the exchange of money for frozen dairy products." Everything within our universe, as long as it remains within this universe, is governed by the laws within it. What you propose is an incredulous claim, and as it is the more extraordinary, the burden of proof rests solely on you. Now, instead of some half-baked fallacious argument, could you possibly give us a substantial reason, hypothesis, and most importantly EVIDENCE to show exactly why humans are not governed by the laws of the universe like everything else? Until you do so, there is absolutely no reason to take you seriously. Good day.

Hmm I was watching the movie waking life that has a few lines about this. The speaker seems to prefer the deterministic view but still thinks there must be something that we cannot understand about free will.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

If they were actual laws then nothing should be able to do such a thing. I am not bound to say Newton's law of cooling. I can move from a cool zone to a hot zone then back and forth to my hearts content. Now I await to hear your argument, if you've actually devised one, about how laws of physics do govern human action.

This is a precious post.

You are either a successful troll or a successful mental patient. Either way, congratulations.

Originally Posted by Mario92

What is this I don't even

Now you're just being silly. Tell me, do you actually have any clue as to how the universe works? Or do you just like arguing in circles for the hell of it?

Let's take your example. Instead of spouting nonsense, I would go "I hypothesize that this woman is buying chocolate ice cream because her brain, governed solely by the laws of the universe, controlled her body in such a way as to execute the exchange of money for frozen dairy products." Everything within our universe, as long as it remains within this universe, is governed by the laws within it. What you propose is an incredulous claim, and as it is the more extraordinary, the burden of proof rests solely on you. Now, instead of some half-baked fallacious argument, could you possibly give us a substantial reason, hypothesis, and most importantly EVIDENCE to show exactly why humans are not governed by the laws of the universe like everything else? Until you do so, there is absolutely no reason to take you seriously. Good day.

So I will ask you what I ask another, if our actions are governed simply by brain chemicals, why aren't we having sex in the streets? Committing senseless violence because of rage? The reason we don't is because we have reason. The ability of reason to govern our emotions puts it above our emotions ( it controls them but they don't control it ). So unless you can show that there is a brain chemical that is 'reason' then you have to accept that our actions aren't governed by brain chemicals. And again, people keep saying 'laws of the universe,' which laws!? Name these laws! Which specific laws govern human action?!

Originally Posted by Xei

This is a precious post.

You are either a successful troll or a successful mental patient. Either way, congratulations.

Calling the kettle black? Dub has yet to name one, ONE law of physics and how it governs human action. In fact, not one person has named a law that governs action except for myself, ie. the action axiom.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So I will ask you what I ask another, if our actions are governed simply by brain chemicals, why aren't we having sex in the streets? Committing senseless violence because of rage? The reason we don't is because we have reason. The ability of reason to govern our emotions puts it above our emotions ( it controls them but they don't control it ). So unless you can show that there is a brain chemical that is 'reason' then you have to accept that our actions aren't governed by brain chemicals. And again, people keep saying 'laws of the universe,' which laws!? Name these laws! Which specific laws govern human action?!

We aren't having sex in the streets because we have a society and with that come ethics and social norms. Society is advantagous to humans from an evolutionary standpoint and so are ethics and so are taboos. I could ask you why aren't bears organizing mass bear riots to take back their forests from humans. I mean, we ripped down their homes and kill alot of them. If all emotions are chemical why aren't those bears getting pissed off and destroying our cities/raping our women in a bear-testosterone induced fury?!?

Ok you just kinda replied to his post by confirming it in another way.

Are you saying now that what ever natural laws control human behavior dont apply to bears? Spockman I thought you were on the side of everything being controlled by natural laws. With this last post you seem to be saying that either bears are above nature or humans are.

Where does society come from? Dont we have to be aware of ourselves to form into groups with rules and norms? What has more affect on the other society or self?

Prove me wrong!

I don't know how.

Prove me right?

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Ok you just kinda replied to his post by confirming it in another way.

Are you saying now that what ever natural laws control human behavior dont apply to bears? Spockman I thought you were on the side of everything being controlled by natural laws. With this last post you seem to be saying that either bears are above nature or humans are.

Where does society come from? Dont we have to be aware of ourselves to form into groups with rules and norms? What has more affect on the other society or self?

On the contrary, I am trying to illustrate how ridiculous it is to presume that if human emotion is chemical a complete societal breakdown would occur. Bears emotions are chemical as well, so why aren't they ignoring what is beneficial to their species and living on raw emotion? I am attempting to show that if human dualism surpasses the laws of physics, so must bears be dualistic as well.

Ok well can you now address the second part of my post? How does society form? Why do bears not organize themselves in the same way?

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Ok well can you now address the second part of my post? How does society form? Why do bears not organize themselves in the same way?

I do believe the formation of society was Divinely guided. However, I also think that society is a natural evolution. Humans, with our intelligence, have been able to take great advantage of society in so far as raising our carrying capacity substantially. Because that is what evolution allows animals to do, reach their population density. Since society allows man to do that, Va-voom, we have ethics and cities and language and such. Plenty of animals form society and a social structure. Most bears just happen to survive best by being lone/small familial units. If Bears could fill their niche better with complex social structure, there is no guarantee of course, but there is a good chance they would evolve society as well.

Hmm that makes sense I guess. Now to go back to the very begining

What is consciousness?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Calling the kettle black? Dub has yet to name one, ONE law of physics and how it governs human action. In fact, not one person has named a law that governs action except for myself, ie. the action axiom.

Thinking that walking from a cold place to a hot place constitutes a violation of Newton's law of cooling is pretty hilarious.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So I will ask you what I ask another, if our actions are governed simply by brain chemicals, why aren't we having sex in the streets? Committing senseless violence because of rage? The reason we don't is because we have reason. The ability of reason to govern our emotions puts it above our emotions ( it controls them but they don't control it ). So unless you can show that there is a brain chemical that is 'reason' then you have to accept that our actions aren't governed by brain chemicals. And again, people keep saying 'laws of the universe,' which laws!? Name these laws! Which specific laws govern human action?!

This post is laden with fail.

First, reason and logic are functions of the brain.
Second, you are making the extraordinary claim by saying that reason is something beyond the brain. That it comes from some other unknown unobserved force. I don't have to accept anything until YOU provide evidence for YOUR crackpot hypothesis. You must prove to me that there is some higher power or other entity beyond that of normal brain processes influencing our behavior. I don't have to prove to you that thinking isn't part of the brain.
Third, try Newton's laws of motion (e.g. every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Consider carefully how this applies to the ions, chemicals, and cellular processes in your brain that create thought).

I guess this whole argument is trivial and predetermined. There's no need to get annoyed at each other, we can't help what we post.

>_>

I can't be bothered to read the five pages of posts - can someone inform me where we're at with the original question?

General note: I do not believe that natural laws control human behaviour, but that they simply guide it.

Originally Posted by MrTransitory

I guess this whole argument is trivial and predetermined. There's no need to get annoyed at each other, we can't help what we post.>_>

I can't be bothered to read the five pages of posts - can someone inform me where we're at with the original question?

General note: I do not believe that natural laws control human behaviour, but that they simply guide it.

If that is true, then absolute determinism is also true.

Originally Posted by spockman

If that is true, then absolute determinism is also true.

I was being facetious given the 'mood' I gathered from this discussion.

I will address the general question in the first post. What is consciousness?

In my opinion, consciousness is simply awareness, the harder question is, "Who" is the one aware or conscious.

I have emailed the guy who talks about all this stuff in waking life. I asked him a few questions about free will and in his reply he said something interesting. We may not even really understand the question we are asking. We both agree that absolute determinism and absolute indeterminism can't be completely true. Being human it is hard not to think that we are somehow seperate in mind and body but we also shy away from an explanation like that because we have no physical scientific proof.

We have a need to rationalize everything around us and in my opinion we try to do that even with things that are way beyond our scope of understanding.