What is consciousness?

I'd like to start this discussion with saying that I don't believe in free will, but I don't think everything is predestined either. I just believe that there is a kind of randomness in the whole universe (like some of quantum mechanics says) so you can never calculate what will happen. Here comes the problem with not having free will, if we don't then surely we have no consciousness either?

I'm not even sure what consciousness really means. Here's a quote from wikipedia:

"Consciousness is variously defined as subjective experience or awareness, or wakefulness, or the executive control system of the mind. It is an umbrella term that may refer to a variety of mental phenomena. Although humans realize what everyday experiences are, consciousness refuses to be defined"

They talk about awareness or wakefulness, which doesn't make any sense if we don't have free will and are just manifestations of randomness and chance. What would be the thing that is aware or awake?

The whole thing about "experience" doesn't make sense either. What is experiencing, is it the molecules in you body, you'r nervous system reacting to chemical reactions (which are still just molecules in your body) or what?

The executive control system of the mind makes the most sense to me as it accepts that there is nothing more than a center (molecules) which "control" things around the body to make it survive in a world of randomness. This system has then become better by evolution so it chooses the most rational option, the option that left most of it's ancestors alive.

So, I've come to the conclusion that there is no consciousness and we are just machines, formed by random chance and evolution, which react to the random surroundings in the way that left most of our ancestor's alive

Prove me wrong!

It's not that we don't have consciousness.

While we don't have free will, we still make choices. YES, these choices are determined by our mechanical, automatic biological processes. But, we still make them. Therefore, we are conscious.

Experiencing is everything. At one moment, the atoms and particles and molecules in your body that make you up are experiencing energy flowing through them, breaking and making bonds. At that same moment, your consciousness is experiencing this exact same energy flow, paradoxically in an entirely different way.

Of course we are just machines. But we ARE conscious, thinking, experiencing machines. Consciousness is the universe's way of observing itself.

But, you know, that's just like, my opinion, man.

You're having the subjective experience of seeing a computer monitor in front of you right now, are you not? That's called consciousness, it's pretty much undeniable.

Unless you're a Philosophical Zombie (look it up.)

As far as, "How can subjective experience possibly result from the interaction of inanimate neurons?"

That's called "The Hard Problem of Consciousness" (look it up.)

And... nobody has any idea whatsoever.

Literally, no one has anything close to the first clue as to what a plausible answer would even look like.

No one has seemed to give the moral definition so haven't you ever felt bad or good about doing something bad or good if you have, you have a conscious.

You're confusing "conscious" with "conscience," oof. Two different things...

Consciousness is you and its your job to make the desicions that will effect the rest of the body for good or for bad. Thats what i believe anyway...

Oh well then nevermind lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valmancer

I'd like to start this discussion with saying that I don't believe in free will, but I don't think everything is predestined either. I just believe that there is a kind of randomness in the whole universe (like some of quantum mechanics says) so you can never calculate what will happen. Here comes the problem with not having free will, if we don't then surely we have no consciousness either?

---

I don't see how uncertainty proves free-will erroneous. In fact I think it only strengthens its claim because if the future were determined then all present action would be in line with such a time line. This would also presuppose that all previous action dictates the current preference choices. Basically your presenting Newcomb's problem. We cannot change the past with current preferences (backward causation) therefore in determining our present preferences we are not dependent upon the covarying of previous events and therefore present preference presents an uncertainty principle in future causal chains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackALope2323

It's not that we don't have consciousness.

While we don't have free will, we still make choices. YES, these choices are determined by our mechanical, automatic biological processes. But, we still make them. Therefore, we are conscious.
.

---

Please read what I just wrote in my previous statement concerning Newcomb's problem. You are presenting the idea that we are governed by automatic, biological process with the aspect of choice and denying free-will. Apart from this blatant contradiction of being able to choose but not having free-will, all action in life is the result of purposeful application of means to ends. Something cannot be automatically determined and yet still capable of presenting choice. It would be like saying your heart automatically beats but you have the choice to keep it from beating through thought alone. Action is not reflexes. It is not of the involuntary, biological nature. It is a conscious decision making process. I should probably stop here to see if you are still interested in this topic.

Such an insane mind-rape.

I just don't get why when people can explain things, they become invalid to those same people. Example: Ethics are largely an evolved social funtion. People: Oh, so there isn't morality.
Example: Determinism in obvious and undeniable. Your choices are a result of brain chemistry. Your mind chooses what it does because of a cause and effect relationship. People: Oh, so there are no such things as choices.

I don't understand the train of thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

I just don't get why when people can explain things, they become invalid to those same people. Example: Ethics are largely an evolved social funtion. People: Oh, so there isn't morality.
Example: Determinism in obvious and undeniable. Your choices are a result of brain chemistry. Your mind chooses what it does because of a cause and effect relationship. People: Oh, so there are no such things as choices.

I don't understand the train of thought.

---

Well to say it is an automatic, mechanical process is to characterize decision making as a mechanistic chore. A happens therefore B follows. It cannot be surmised as saying A happens therefore ... which would establish the ability of choice and therefore free will in choosing varying options. Also choice is not so simple as A to B. It could be A to B and C or A to B and C while excluding C.

Well there can be many arguments that can be made against the "randomness". First one and the best one in my opinion is the concept of "what goes around comes around" which delivers justice. Such is the case, the existence of Karma can not be denied, if done so, trust me dear, you do not want to test it, it is very strict. So then it can be said that if injustice is done, justice is delivered, it is hard to say that this comes from randomness.

Like I said, if you want prove of this, then I caution you much in causing injustice to see how justice will get delivered to you. That is up to you if you want it proven or not.

Another thing, being interested in such things, I recommend meditation, it increases your awareness and you will see the flow of experience with a wider awareness, you will see much more things that are not shown to us in our normal consciousness. See the things that you will be shown, see it for yourself and then after decide if it is random or is everything perfect in its time and place.

Second, it depends on how you first of all define consciousness. I define it as Self-awareness, since you are self-aware (as I assume), consciousness exists. If you say that consciousness does not exist, then this thing of self-awareness might just have to get a different word for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elucid

Well there can be many arguments that can be made against the "randomness". First one and the best one in my opinion is the concept of "what goes around comes around" which delivers justice. Such is the case, the existence of Karma can not be denied, if done so, trust me dear, you do not want to test it, it is very strict. So then it can be said that if injustice is done, justice is delivered, it is hard to say that this comes from randomness.

---

Agreed that justice is not random. I even agree in forces of justice beyond our understanding, but I would never say that this idea cannot be denied. One could argue justice is just a social function.

Yeah, agree or disagree, there are many other arguments that can be made as to the randomness of things, which was the focus of my post. Such as the existence of such eloquent designs in the body. That alone for me is enough proof that it is not randomness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well to say it is an automatic, mechanical process is to characterize decision making as a mechanistic chore. A happens therefore B follows. It cannot be surmised as saying A happens therefore ... which would establish the ability of choice and therefore free will in choosing varying options. Also choice is not so simple as A to B. It could be A to B and C or A to B and C while excluding C.

---

While I do believe in freedom of choice, it is deterministic. There is no other alternative BUT determinism. Whatever is going to happen in fifty years or in five seconds cannot be changed. If went back in time five minutes ago without changing anything, I would choose to write this post EVERY time even if we did it for all of eternity. There is no deviation from the paths set into motion ever since the first event. Likewise, if one could know every single universal/extra-universal variable right now, they could predict everything that will ever happen with absolute certainty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

While I do believe in freedom of choice, it is deterministic. There is no other alternative BUT determinism. Whatever is going to happen in fifty years or in five seconds cannot be changed. If went back in time five minutes ago without changing anything, I would choose to write this post EVERY time even if we did it for all of eternity. There is no deviation from the paths set into motion ever since the first event. Likewise, if one could know every single universal/extra-universal variable right now, they could predict everything that will ever happen with absolute certainty.

---

That doesn't address what I have said about backward casualty. You have no idea what is going to happen in 50 years or 5 seconds so how do you know it cannot be changed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That doesn't address what I have said about backward casualty. You have no idea what is going to happen in 50 years or 5 seconds so how do you know it cannot be changed?

---

I don't know what is going to happen, but if I knew all of the variables then I would. What is going to happen cannot be changed because it is just that... What is going to happen.

Another issue Spockman, since you seem to be basing this off the first event that sparked everything, and everything else is based of that first event. We can also argue that everything can be put to a complete halt, and then restarting, thus making it so that it is not based off the first event. Of course this is theoritical.

And since it can be put to a complete halt, then in this sense, you can change what is going to happen.

This is based off the worldview that this is like a computer program that can be stopped, restarted, and modified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Basically your presenting Newcomb's problem.

---

Newcomb's paradox is first and foremost a problem in rational choice theory, and I really don't see how it's instructive or even relevant here. Care to convince me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

We cannot change the past with current preferences (backward causation) therefore in determining our present preferences we are not dependent upon the covarying of previous events and therefore present preference presents an uncertainty principle in future causal chains.

---

You seem to be saying that because backward causation is impossible, forward causation is impossible. How does this follow?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elucid

Another issue Spockman, since you seem to be basing this off the first event that sparked everything, and everything else is based of that first event. We can also argue that everything can be put to a complete halt, and then restarting, thus making it so that it is not based off the first event. Of course this is theoritical.

And since it can be put to a complete halt, then in this sense, you can change what is going to happen.

This is based off the worldview that this is like a computer program that can be stopped, restarted, and modified.

---

Even if there was no beginning of time, it wouldn't matter. What will happen will happen. Everything that happens was effected by something previous to it. Determinism is a basic truth. It's fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Even if there was no beginning of time, it wouldn't matter. What will happen will happen. Everything that happens was effected by something previous to it. Determinism is a basic truth. It's fact.

---

You aren't talking about determinism, you are talking about cause and effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

You aren't talking about determinism, you are talking about cause and effect.

---

That's what determinism is.

Definitions-
Princeton- a philosophical theory holding that all events are inevitable consequences of antecedent sufficient causes; often understood as denying the possibility of free will

Wikipedia- Determinism is the view that every event, including human cognition, behavior, decision, and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. Determinists believe the universe is fully governed by causal laws resulting in only one possible state at any point in time
London Sonomo- the principle that all information and events embody natural laws.

Every single thing that was ever going to happen was already set in motion in the beginning, (if there was one,) or else was inevitably going to occur at any point in time before it. Everything is theoretically predictable. The above definitions aren't even philosophy, to me. It is just the way that the universe works.

It isn't that clear cut of course. Many think that quantum uncertainty is inherent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

It isn't that clear cut of course. Many think that quantum uncertainty is inherent.

---

It is pretty clear as long as the basic principles of logic are held to be the highest standard. I've heard about the studies which show how the universe operates differently while being observed and predictions can never be 100 percent. Alright, cool. Even if that is totally spot on there is just a force driving this observation that we don't yet understand. To come to the conclusion, 'Oh, the universe must be broken!' is psuedo-science at its best.

If quantum uncertainty is inherent in the universe, then it is a law of the universe. Things will effect it and there will be a scientific reason for its operation. Surely you are not suggesting that it is possible for a non-understood idea of to defy all other laws and work seperate from the rest of the universe? If one could understand all the variables of quantum mechanics, the universe isn't going to spit out something contrary to what those variables pointed to.

And any time quantum mechanics tries to deny basic rules of logic/how things work, I call B.S. I don't care how many think it is true when a scientist says something about universal mechanics, if he uses his thought experiments to deny something as simple as 1+1=2 and sticks to that conclusion he may as well switch his field to cryptozoology or become a sociologist. (To all the sociologists out there... I was just joking about that last one, guys! I :smitten: you.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lakona

And... nobody has any idea whatsoever.

Literally, no one has anything close to the first clue as to what a plausible answer would even look like.

---

bravo you nailed it. im glad someone had the balls to say it. I would say consciousness is being aware that you are aware of being separate from everything else...but that doesnt explain it either. The tough question is what is the origin of consciousness? is it a material substance in the brain? if so why cant we locate it? i have no clue, sorry to waste your time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

I don't know what is going to happen, but if I knew all of the variables then I would. What is going to happen cannot be changed because it is just that... What is going to happen.

---

Determinism is the exaggerated exultation of cause and effect. It goes beyond the logical constitution of the world and says that because X happens then Y must follow. A simple exercise will show this. Because I am human, I must seek subsistence in order to survive. Cause, effect. A determinist would say that because I am human, I will seek subsistence to survive. However, I can choose to not seek subsistence can I not? I am not bound to carry out the effect even though there is a cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well that isn't determinism then. You are speaking of cause and effect.

---

There isn't a difference. Determinism means a philosophy which accepts that all of the things in the universe are affected by cause and effect and the course of events can never-ever under any circumstances possibly 'even if you really want it to' change. Ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

Newcomb's paradox is first and foremost a problem in rational choice theory, and I really don't see how it's instructive or even relevant here. Care to convince me?

---

Because Newcomb's problem concerns free-will and how it is acted upon in relation to the clear/opaque box choices. The choosing of one or two boxes which contain a set amount of money/goods and whether our choices affect the predictions of the predictor. I think that has everything to do with whether or not free will has an effect on the course of events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

You seem to be saying that because backward causation is impossible, forward causation is impossible. How does this follow?

---

Yes backward causation is impossible but forward causation, what I am taking to mean as events having an effect on the future, is possible. In fact the world operates on cause and effect but determinism takes a step beyond just simple laws of logic and states that preordained events will occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

There isn't a difference. Determinism means a philosophy which accepts that all of the things in the universe are affected by cause and effect and the course of events can never-ever under any circumstances possibly 'even if you really want it to' change. Ever.

---

And thus it goes beyond the laws of logic which demand cause and effect and into a world were preordained events are destined to transpire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Because Newcomb's problem concerns free-will and how it is acted upon in relation to the clear/opaque box choices. The choosing of one or two boxes which contain a set amount of money/goods and whether our choices affect the predictions of the predictor. I think that has everything to do with whether or not free will has an effect on the course of events.



Yes backward causation is impossible but forward causation, what I am taking to mean as events having an effect on the future, is possible. In fact the world operates on cause and effect but determinism takes a step beyond just simple laws of logic and states that preordained events will occur.

---

Pre ordained is not the right word. That makes it sound like it had to have been set about by some conciousness. Lots of determinists are atheists. Determinism says nothing about atheism/theism. Determinism 'does' say that events which occur today were unavoidable and part of the natural course that existed a billion, a trillion, etc. years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

And thus it goes beyond the laws of logic which demand cause and effect and into a world were preordained events are destined to transpire.

---

No. If you say that cause and effect works, then by saying that what is going to happen next week based on the variables of today can be changed you are either trying to imply that things outside of reality affect nature or else you are not following 'the laws of logic' along it's full course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Because Newcomb's problem concerns free-will and how it is acted upon in relation to the clear/opaque box choices. The choosing of one or two boxes which contain a set amount of money/goods and whether our choices affect the predictions of the predictor. I think that has everything to do with whether or not free will has an effect on the course of events.

---

The issue of backward causation arises in the background analysis of Newcomb's paradox but certainly has little to do with the primary purpose of the problem. As I said, it's first and foremost a problem concerning rational choice (the impossibility of backward causation is only brought up to the extent that it justifies the rationality of one of the choices) and on no reading other than your own does it have anything useful or interesting to say about free will. If you are so convinced that it "has everything to do with" the present discussion, then as I said earlier, I'd be happy to be convinced of why or how this is so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Yes backward causation is impossible but forward causation, what I am taking to mean as events having an effect on the future, is possible. In fact the world operates on cause and effect but determinism takes a step beyond just simple laws of logic and states that preordained events will occur.

---

Okay, perhaps I misunderstood you then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valmancer

So, I've come to the conclusion that there is no consciousness and we are just machines, Prove me wrong!

---

I cannot decide if this is a self-denial or a confession. I do know that if one desires truth by wordcraft that they would devote their life to understanding what has not yet been written. But then, of course, one would have to be consious that they did not know what they thought they knew, so, I suppose this is a confession.

You want something of which you will never be conscious of. I say, it is clear that the principles of grammar itself is one thing you certainly are not conscious of, however, were a machine made as well, I trust you would not have a working computer.

All proof starts with well defined terms, not with undefined terms. You are trying to retrace the gibberish in regards to Euclid's 5th which led to the non-sense called non-Euclidean Geometry. Trust me, if you are unconscious enough not to know how to use what you have already been given, like a history of want to be philosophers, the field will always be wide open. There is one, and only one person, which will have the will to open your eyes, and that is you.

In the hundreds of years of trying to prove or disprove Euclid's 5th, did even one of those fools ever go back to the first principles of proof to see just how foolish they were? You are no match for them-but you follow them well.

At the foundation of any logic system, even the one called common grammar, is a convention of names.-which is the establishment of a one-to-one correspondence between a name and one of the three primitive categories of namables. The name of which abstractions are made, that is a thing, and the two elements of that thing, its form and material difference.

Thus names are not proven, they are assigned by one's participation in the naming convention. The inability to make an abstraction means that one can not participate in the convention, and thus has no idea of the meaning of terms--no matter how they use them otherwise.

So it does not matter if you are Einstein, Russell, Whitehead, Cantor, or whomever you worship as an intellectual god, not one of them could take the first step without making the first logical error in reasoning, the self-referential fallacy. As clever as they might have been, a pile of gibberish is a pile of gibberish. But, if you really want to know, and have a fascination with the occult, this very same thing, perception is the very same thing that was said to be rejected, as Christ represented perception--his so called miricles were a test, can you say what you saw? The foundation of a working conciousness. Perception determines conception, conception determines will. Proof of conciousness is directly proportional to its ability to craft its environment such that the products maintain and promote life.

I would like to thank you for this post, though, as you reminded me of when I was very young. This disproof of the results of trying to disprove Euclid's 5th was my first understanding of the error, long before I learned the foundation of grammar. Since a word is not different from a word, a word can neither prove nor disprove a word. Proof is only checking that the original naming convention has not been violated.

A string of letters, devoid of that which makes it something, is simply a form. A form is one of the two elements, of which nothing can either be asserted or denied. Predication is the inverse function of abstraction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Pre ordained is not the right word. That makes it sound like it had to have been set about by some conciousness. Lots of determinists are atheists. Determinism says nothing about atheism/theism. Determinism 'does' say that events which occur today were unavoidable and part of the natural course that existed a billion, a trillion, etc. years ago.

---

Unavoidable events future events, and pre-ordained is not the right word?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

No. If you say that cause and effect works, then by saying that what is going to happen next week based on the variables of today can be changed you are either trying to imply that things outside of reality affect nature or else you are not following 'the laws of logic' along it's full course.

---

You are not taking into account the actions of others which can effect future events. You seem to be implying that we live in a bubble where everything we want to do gets to be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

The issue of backward causation arises in the background analysis of Newcomb's paradox but certainly has little to do with the primary purpose of the problem. As I said, it's first and foremost a problem concerning rational choice (the impossibility of backward causation is only brought up to the extent that it justifies the rationality of one of the choices) and on no reading other than your own does it have anything useful or interesting to say about free will. If you are so convinced that it "has everything to do with" the present discussion, then as I said earlier, I'd be happy to be convinced of why or how this is so.

---

Well you seem to only focus on one aspect of Newcomb's problem. The actual choosing process of the boxes shows whether we are determined to get both items by our choice or whether free will determines it. If I choose the opaque, is it already determined before I make the choice that I am going to get the prize? Or is it my free will that brought it about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Unavoidable events future events, and pre-ordained is not the right word?





You are not taking into account the actions of others which can effect future events. You seem to be implying that we live in a bubble where everything we want to do gets to be done.

---

Pre-ordained makes it sound like God planned it all out.

As far as the other half of your post I don't know what you are saying. Are you implying that there are things outside the bubble, (the laws of the universe being the bubble,) and that the actions of others don't affect us and can't be predicted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Pre-ordained makes it sound like God planned it all out.

---

preordained - definition of preordained by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

As far as the other half of your post I don't know what you are saying. Are you implying that there are things outside the bubble, (the laws of the universe being the bubble,) and that the actions of others don't affect us and can't be predicted?

---

No I'm saying that the actions of others do affect us and that we don't reside in an atomistic lifestyle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

preordained - definition of preordained by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.




No I'm saying that the actions of others do affect us and that we don't reside in an atomistic lifestyle.

---

Of course the actions of others affect us. But those actions are not independant of the rest of the universe. They are the culmination of countles prior events and are predictable.

And that definition site is why preordained is not the right word. That definition says appointed. The next definition uses the word destiny. It doesn't have to be destiny for the universe to just follow the laws of physics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Of course the actions of others affect us. But those actions are not independant of the rest of the universe. They are the culmination of countles prior events and are predictable.

---

Determinism isn't prediction. It is the belief that event X WILL happen, not that it is likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

And that definition site is why preordained is not the right word. That definition says appointed. The next definition uses the word destiny. It doesn't have to be destiny for the universe to just follow the laws of physics.

---

The laws of physics do not apply to human action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Determinism isn't prediction. It is the belief that event X WILL happen, not that it is likely.

---

There isn't such a thing as probability when you get right down to it. It is really nice as a tool, but not as a way the universe works. It's just a tool. How can you determine if something is likely or not? By eliminating variables and understanding what affects the thing you are trying to predict. The more variables eliminated, the better the prediction. Guess what? There aren't an infinite number of variables. Or, to say it better, there aren't any magic variables that will spontaneously change their path.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

The laws of physics do not apply to human action.

---

Sorry, but that's a load of crock. So what, are our brains just these magical things that are there for looks? Human action is seperate from the rest of the universe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

There isn't such a thing as probability when you get right down to it. It is really nice as a tool, but not as a way the universe works. It's just a tool. How can you determine if something is likely or not? By eliminating variables and understanding what affects the thing you are trying to predict. The more variables eliminated, the better the prediction. Guess what? There aren't an infinite number of variables. Or, to say it better, there aren't any magic variables that will spontaneously change their path.

---

Well that is nonsensical. Probability doesn't exist but its a tool? I think your getting turned around in your argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Sorry, but that's a load of crock. So what, are our brains just these magical things that are there for looks? Human action is seperate from the rest of the universe?

---

Not at all. Human action is apart of the universe but the natural sciences and social sciences are not viewed in the same limelight. The philosophical outlook of physics does not apply to the philosophical outlook of praxeology ( the study of human action ). It's called methodological dualism. So when I say that the laws of physics don't apply to human action I am not inferring that something so simple as gravity doesn't affect the human body. You are saying that determinism is applicable because of the 'laws of physics' but human action is not a natural science therefore how we interpret and view human action cannot be through the 'laws of physics.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well that is nonsensical. Probability doesn't exist but its a tool? I think your getting turned around in your argument.

---

No, you are not understanding what I am saying. This argument I am making is a common one, so if I go into only a basic explanation I will assume you will realize what argument I am employing and understand. There is only one possible outcome to everything. Only one. If I roll a die, based on what variables I know, it will land on 6 just about 1 out of 6 times. So I can use my knowledge of probability as a tool to predict how often certain events will play out. We know enough about a dies variables to predict that much. However, say I roll a die and hope it lands on 6 and then it lands on 4. There was never a chance that it would land on 6, not even a 1 in 6 chance. Not really. It was always going to land on 4. If I rewound time and played out that scene of me rolling the die over and over again without changing anything it would always land on 6. Always. FOREVER. The die could not have ever landed on 6. The variables that affected it made anything else impossible. So, while the principles behind probability are useful, (making it a tool,) it is really an illusion to think that there are chances that certain events will occur. To employ a phrase, 'God doesn't play with dice.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Not at all. Human action is apart of the universe but the natural sciences and social sciences are not viewed in the same limelight. The philosophical outlook of physics does not apply to the philosophical outlook of praxeology ( the study of human action ). It's called methodological dualism. So when I say that the laws of physics don't apply to human action I am not inferring that something so simple as gravity doesn't affect the human body. You are saying that determinism is applicable because of the 'laws of physics' but human action is not a natural science therefore how we interpret and view human action cannot be through the 'laws of physics.'

---

Human action is largely the same as rabbit action and salmon action and praying mantis action and microbe action and viral action and grass action and water action and solar action and any kind of action you can imagine. It all equates to the same thing. Unless you are saying that our brains do not interpret signals in a manner that defines our actions, or say that we are magic, then human action is fully defined by the laws of physics. I am not going to let that one slide. I respect your intelligence too much to let you get away with such pseudoscientific nonsense. I know what dualism is. I even agree with it so some extent. But even assuming that dualism is spot on and human minds are more than neurons, whatever metaphysical forces affect our minds will still have a pattern and still act according to stimuli or else they will act according to certain variables. They just will. So, in essence, our action is like that of any animal. Even considering the possibility of us having astral selves or whatever you prefer to call it, we will respond according to whatever path the universe sent us on. Just like any rock or frog. To say otherwise is no better than saying gravity shouldn't affect us if we don't want it to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well that is nonsensical. Probability doesn't exist but its a tool? I think your getting turned around in your argument.

---

I think his point is that probability exists as an expression of subjective uncertainty, not as an objective feature of the universe. Regardless of whether this is true or not, I don't think it's nonsensical by any means. Most philosophical interpretations of probability (but not all) treat it in basically this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Human action is apart of the universe but the natural sciences and social sciences are not viewed in the same limelight. The philosophical outlook of physics does not apply to the philosophical outlook of praxeology ( the study of human action ). It's called methodological dualism. So when I say that the laws of physics don't apply to human action I am not inferring that something so simple as gravity doesn't affect the human body. You are saying that determinism is applicable because of the 'laws of physics' but human action is not a natural science therefore how we interpret and view human action cannot be through the 'laws of physics.'

---

Okay, but saying that it's not always useful or desirable to describe human action in the reductionist language of physics is very different from saying that human action is not ultimately founded in--and in a deep sense caused by--principles from physics which describe the workings of the natural universe. This latter view is good old fashioned ghost-in-the-machine dualism, and it does not follow at all from the former point (which I happen to agree with). Are you prepared to commit yourself to this view?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

I think his point is that probability exists as an expression of subjective uncertainty, not as an objective feature of the universe. Regardless of whether this is true or not, I don't think it's nonsensical by any means. Most philosophical interpretations of probability (but not all) treat it in basically this way.

---

Uncertainty is an objective feature of the universe. It exists regardless of individual interpretation. Even evolution is uncertain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

Okay, but saying that it's not always useful or desirable to describe human action in the reductionist language of physics is very different from saying that human action is not ultimately founded in--and in a deep sense caused by--principles from physics which describe the workings of the natural universe. This latter view is good old fashioned ghost-in-the-machine dualism, and it does not follow at all from the former point (which I happen to agree with). Are you prepared to commit yourself to this view?

---

So are you saying that human action is or isn't founded upon principles within physics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

It is pretty clear as long as the basic principles of logic are held to be the highest standard. I've heard about the studies which show how the universe operates differently while being observed and predictions can never be 100 percent. Alright, cool. Even if that is totally spot on there is just a force driving this observation that we don't yet understand. To come to the conclusion, 'Oh, the universe must be broken!' is psuedo-science at its best.

If quantum uncertainty is inherent in the universe, then it is a law of the universe. Things will effect it and there will be a scientific reason for its operation. Surely you are not suggesting that it is possible for a non-understood idea of to defy all other laws and work seperate from the rest of the universe? If one could understand all the variables of quantum mechanics, the universe isn't going to spit out something contrary to what those variables pointed to.

And any time quantum mechanics tries to deny basic rules of logic/how things work, I call B.S. I don't care how many think it is true when a scientist says something about universal mechanics, if he uses his thought experiments to deny something as simple as 1+1=2 and sticks to that conclusion he may as well switch his field to cryptozoology or become a sociologist. (To all the sociologists out there... I was just joking about that last one, guys! I :smitten: you.)

---

You are only asserting that probability is illogical, hence your claim that if the universe behaves in this way it is 'broken'. Physicists don't say 'the universe is broken', they just say 'the universe functions in this manner', and indeed quantum mechanics actually provides precise functions for its predictions. To think of quantum physics as chaos and lawlessness is a gross mischaracterisation.

The way in which logic works is you have some axiomatic facts and also some rules of deduction, and using these you can generate further facts.

Axioms themselves, however, cannot be proven. We simply obtain them from empirical observation.

Hence, there is no such thing as an a priori truth. Sometimes axioms can be further reduced to more fundamental axioms, but it is obvious that this cannot go on indefinitely. An interesting exercise is to repeatedly ask 'why' of something; for example, why do logs burn, or why does pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7...

It seems to me that you are using the observation of the macroscopic world that things don't appear probabilistic and attempting to apply it to the microscopic world. This is flawed because there is no reason to assume that such an axiom would be appropriate in the microscopic world, and when you do observe the microscopic world, things appear at least to be probabilistic.

If you can provide some logical argument based on axioms that can also be observed in the microscopic world then please do so, but if you cannot then you must realise that you are not basing your views on logic but rather presumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So are you saying that human action is or isn't founded upon principles within physics?

---

I wasn't actually saying anything at all about my own view--I was critiquing yours--but since you asked, I do believe that human action is founded upon principles from physics. To be clear, when I say "founded upon," I mean that it is in principle possible to precisely describe human action (decisions, overt behavior, and everything else) in the language of physics, regardless of whether or not this is in practice possible or even desirable.

What do you believe? As I wrote above, you seem to be endorsing a simple notion of dualism, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

You are only asserting that probability is illogical, hence your claim that if the universe behaves in this way it is 'broken'. Physicists don't say 'the universe is broken', they just say 'the universe functions in this manner', and indeed quantum mechanics actually provides precise functions for its predictions. To think of quantum physics as chaos and lawlessness is a gross mischaracterisation.

The way in which logic works is you have some axiomatic facts and also some rules of deduction, and using these you can generate further facts.

Axioms themselves, however, cannot be proven. We simply obtain them from empirical observation.

Hence, there is no such thing as an a priori truth. Sometimes axioms can be further reduced to more fundamental axioms, but it is obvious that this cannot go on indefinitely. An interesting exercise is to repeatedly ask 'why' of something; for example, why do logs burn, or why does pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7...

It seems to me that you are using the observation of the macroscopic world that things don't appear probabilistic and attempting to apply it to the microscopic world. This is flawed because there is no reason to assume that such an axiom would be appropriate in the microscopic world, and when you do observe the microscopic world, things appear at least to be probabilistic.

If you can provide some logical argument based on axioms that can also be observed in the microscopic world then please do so, but if you cannot then you must realise that you are not basing your views on logic but rather presumption.

---

Do adress this partially and to address laughing man, uncertainty only exists insomuch as we are ignorant. If we knew everything about the universe as it is right now, we could predict everything. So uncertainty is inherent in HUMANS. There is no discernable reason I can see that would make it uncertain as a principle.

If built upon axioms then Quantum Mechanics are built upon the same standards as mathematics. So Quantum Mechanics must admit that 1+1=2, so 1+2=3, so 1+3=4, etc. etc. etc. 1+1=3 will never be true and should quantum mechanics think it is possible, quantum mechanics would become a load of rubbish. As far as macro vs. micro scopic predictability, microscopic particles interact with each other the same way that macroscopic particles interact with each other. Micro may 'appear' more random because it is tougher to observe and there are more variables we have yet to comprehend. But microscopic particles interact with one another. A proton doesn't wake up one day and decide, 'I am going to act independant of the universe, work outside of stimulu, and do things contrary to what my various interactions with other particles would suggest!' To suggest that microscopic particles interact with one another in a totally random manner as opposed to macro particles is to suggest such a thing.

Look at it like this. Assume that the universe was layed out a certain way 20 billion years ago by me. (In this analogy I have unlimited cosmic power, okay?) That includes the positioning of any astral forces if they exist, any spiritual beings, whatever. It doesn't matter. Everything is in a certain fashion with certain energies and forces already in motion. I make another universe that is identical to the first in every singal way, including likes to metauniverse and metaphysical stuff should any of those be real. In fact, I make an infinite number of those perfectly identical universe. To deny determinism is to suggest that, at this moment 20 billion years after I made all these universes, the various universes will have variations and be different. (SPOILER ALERT: They will be exactly the same in every way.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

I wasn't actually saying anything at all about my own view--I was critiquing yours--but since you asked, I do believe that human action is founded upon principles from physics. To be clear, when I say "founded upon," I mean that it is in principle possible to precisely describe human action (decisions, overt behavior, and everything else) in the language of physics, regardless of whether or not this is in practice possible or even desirable.

---

Really? Then pray tell how do the laws of physics explain why I buy chocolate ice cream?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

What do you believe? As I wrote above, you seem to be endorsing a simple notion of dualism, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

---

Yes, there is a difference between the natural sciences and the social sciences in terms of methodology and philosophical outlooks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Do adress this partially and to address laughing man, uncertainty only exists insomuch as we are ignorant. If we knew everything about the universe as it is right now, we could predict everything. So uncertainty is inherent in HUMANS. There is no discernable reason I can see that would make it uncertain as a principle.

---

So you think if the earth were a conscious actor, it would know where an event such as a hurricane would transpire? Or perhaps the next mutation in the evolution of a species?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

.

Axioms themselves, however, cannot be proven. We simply obtain them from empirical observation.

Hence, there is no such thing as an a priori truth. Sometimes axioms can be further reduced to more fundamental axioms, but it is obvious that this cannot go on indefinitely. An interesting exercise is to repeatedly ask 'why' of something; for example, why do logs burn, or why does pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7...

---

So you are saying that math, which is a priori, doesn't exist?

And if you read the definition of axiom, it is a concept which cannot be disproved without being proven. I point to the action axiom. I think we talked about this before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So you think if the earth were a conscious actor, it would know where an event such as a hurricane would transpire? Or perhaps the next mutation in the evolution of a species?

---

If the Earth were somehow conscious and could understand everything that went on within it's atmosphere and knew all that would affect it outside of it's atmosphere then yes that is how it would be. It could not be any other way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

If the Earth were somehow conscious and could understand everything that went on within it's atmosphere and knew all that would affect it outside of it's atmosphere then yes that is how it would be. It could not be any other way.

---

Well if anything conscious knew everything then there would be no uncertainty regardless of humans or other actors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well if anything conscious knew everything then there would be no uncertainty regardless of humans or other actors.

---

Take that logic back one step. If anything conscious knew everything about just this moment, it could know everything about every subsequent moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Take that logic back one step. If anything conscious knew everything about just this moment, it could know everything about every subsequent moment.

---

Which is impossible because of the infinite amount of variables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Which is impossible because of the infinite amount of variables.

---

That doesn't change the fact that the course of those variables only has one potential outcome. Like my created universe analogy, nothing that will happen won't happen. If that sounds tautological, it is because it is. It is the simplest explanation of determinism and it is why it is not a philosophy as much as a way the universe works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Really? Then pray tell how do the laws of physics explain why I buy chocolate ice cream?

---

I said it is in principle possible, not that it is currently possible given our current state of scientific knowledge, and certainly not that I could personally provide an answer to such a question in any case. The best I or anyone can do is to describe what such an answer would look like. It would be to explain your decision in terms of particular patterns of neural activity, to explain those patterns of neural activity in terms of cell biology, to explain the workings of the cells in terms of chemical processes, and to explain those chemical processes in terms of physical laws. In this way, the explanation for your decision would ultimately be founded in physical laws.

As for where we currently stand in our ability to provide such an explanation--we can barely explain most decisions in terms of psychology, let alone neuroscience and the increasingly reductive levels, so it's safe to say that if we are ever able to achieve such a state of scientific knowledge at all, it certainly will not be soon. However, the point apparently bears repeating that this view only states that such an explanation is possible in principle, even if it cannot or will not ever be provided by humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Yes, there is a difference between the natural sciences and the social sciences in terms of methodology and philosophical outlooks.

---

That's a truism and it's clearly not what I asked about. We've established that scientists commonly approach these types of questions in different ways and that we are currently unable to provide a satisfactory bridge between the two, but what I want to know is whether you believe (a) that the sort of explanation I described above is possible in principle, even if not by us now or in the future, or (b) that no such explanation is possible even in principle, presumably because human psychology operates independently of physical laws (or if for a different reason than this, please explain the reason).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Do adress this partially and to address laughing man, uncertainty only exists insomuch as we are ignorant. If we knew everything about the universe as it is right now, we could predict everything. So uncertainty is inherent in HUMANS. There is no discernable reason I can see that would make it uncertain as a principle.

If built upon axioms then Quantum Mechanics are built upon the same standards as mathematics. So Quantum Mechanics must admit that 1+1=2, so 1+2=3, so 1+3=4, etc. etc. etc. 1+1=3 will never be true and should quantum mechanics think it is possible, quantum mechanics would become a load of rubbish. As far as macro vs. micro scopic predictability, microscopic particles interact with each other the same way that macroscopic particles interact with each other. Micro may 'appear' more random because it is tougher to observe and there are more variables we have yet to comprehend. But microscopic particles interact with one another. A proton doesn't wake up one day and decide, 'I am going to act independant of the universe, work outside of stimulu, and do things contrary to what my various interactions with other particles would suggest!' To suggest that microscopic particles interact with one another in a totally random manner as opposed to macro particles is to suggest such a thing.

Look at it like this. Assume that the universe was layed out a certain way 20 billion years ago by me. (In this analogy I have unlimited cosmic power, okay?) That includes the positioning of any astral forces if they exist, any spiritual beings, whatever. It doesn't matter. Everything is in a certain fashion with certain energies and forces already in motion. I make another universe that is identical to the first in every singal way, including likes to metauniverse and metaphysical stuff should any of those be real. In fact, I make an infinite number of those perfectly identical universe. To deny determinism is to suggest that, at this moment 20 billion years after I made all these universes, the various universes will have variations and be different. (SPOILER ALERT: They will be exactly the same in every way.)

---

I am aware of what determinism entails; but again, you are still just making assertions. Not one of your statements was actually a logical argument against probability: you just gave me lots of different ways of asserting 'it is impossible'.

'The various universes will be different; this is impossible.'

'Microscopic particles interacting in a manner different to macroscopic particles is impossible.'

'It is possible to know everything about the universe.'

You're just using macroscopic axioms again. A couple of other things you should be aware of:

Mathematics is also built upon axioms, and these axioms cannot be proven; in general, they are based on empirical observation of how the world functions. Sometimes it is not clear whether an axiom is correct or not, in which case different and contradictory axioms are assumed, creating different mathematics. Famous examples of this are Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries, and the axiom of choice. The degree to which the resultant mathematics will resemble the real world depends on how well the original axioms resembled the real world.

The second thing is that quantum physics does not lack causes, per se. As in determinism, all events affect other events by altering the probabilities of future events, and this happens in a precise manner; the wave function is an exact and deterministic object.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

That doesn't change the fact that the course of those variables only has one potential outcome. Like my created universe analogy, nothing that will happen won't happen. If that sounds tautological, it is because it is. It is the simplest explanation of determinism and it is why it is not a philosophy as much as a way the universe works.

---

How can you make such a comment when you don't even know how many variables there are in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

I said it is in principle possible, not that it is currently possible given our current state of scientific knowledge, and certainly not that I could personally provide an answer to such a question in any case. The best I or anyone can do is to describe what such an answer would look like. It would be to explain your decision in terms of particular patterns of neural activity, to explain those patterns of neural activity in terms of cell biology, to explain the workings of the cells in terms of chemical processes, and to explain those chemical processes in terms of physical laws. In this way, the explanation for your decision would ultimately be founded in physical laws.

---

So my cells desire chocolate ice cream? What creates this desire?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

As for where we currently stand in our ability to provide such an explanation--we can barely explain most decisions in terms of psychology, let alone neuroscience and the increasingly reductive levels, so it's safe to say that if we are ever able to achieve such a state of scientific knowledge at all, it certainly will not be soon. However, the point apparently bears repeating that this view only states that such an explanation is possible in principle, even if it cannot or will not ever be provided by humans.

---

We absolutely can describe the explanations of our decisions in relation to our ends. Why do we choose eating ice cream over scorpions? Subjective social utility derived from preferences. I eat chocolate ice cream because I derive social utility from it. My ultimate goal and the goal of all others is to achieve a state of eudiamonia in which we flourish as an individual. Such a flourishing can be under the guise of many facets such as a notable intelligence, a high standard of living, a state of bliss etc. Why do you go to school? To get a job. Why do you get a job? To be financially secure. Why do you want to be financially secure? Because it ensures the ability to achieve goals that allow for happiness which is eudiamonia. There is one ultimate goal for each of us and our preferences are an instrumental or constitutive means to achieving that ultimate goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

That's a truism and it's clearly not what I asked about. We've established that scientists commonly approach these types of questions in different ways and that we are currently unable to provide a satisfactory bridge between the two, but what I want to know is whether you believe (a) that the sort of explanation I described above is possible in principle, even if not by us now or in the future, or (b) that no such explanation is possible even in principle, presumably because human psychology operates independently of physical laws (or if for a different reason than this, please explain the reason).

---

I think human action does act independently from physical laws and when I say this I don't mean to infer that we don't have the concept of gravity therefore it doesn't apply. I don't think that something like the law of thermodynamics gives any hints as to why I like cold weather or that the law of gravity can explain how I arrive at the concept of beauty. Psychology is apart of the social sciences therefore the methodology of the natural sciences doesn't apply to it just like the methodology of the social sciences doesn't apply to the natural sciences. Let me give an example so you can better understand. The historian looks at Alexander the Great and tries to envision himself in the mind of such an individual. Why did Alexander do what he did? What was the objective? etc. Now if a scientist were to throw a rock across the room, would he put himself in the mindset of a rock? Would he ask what the rock's goal is? Why the rock is doing what it is doing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So my cells desire chocolate ice cream? What creates this desire?

---

If you want to advance an actual argument I'll think about responding to it.

If not...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I think human action does act independently from physical laws

---

So human action is magic?

Gee, this style of arguing is really easy! That hardly took any thought at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

We absolutely can describe the explanations of our decisions in relation to our ends. Why do we choose eating ice cream over scorpions? Subjective social utility derived from preferences.

---

This is no different from Moliere's doctor who "explained" why opium makes one sleepy by referring to its "dormitive virtue." Neither you nor the doctor have explained anything at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Even if there was no beginning of time, it wouldn't matter. What will happen will happen. Everything that happens was effected by something previous to it. Determinism is a basic truth. It's fact.

---

I agree with this.

On what logical basis? Read my response to spockman, you're just making assertions.

And what about the first event?

There are two elements to every thing, that things material difference and that things form. Neither form, nor material difference is a thing.
One cannot predicate of either of these. One cannot predicate a form i.e. limit beginning of a material difference. Or a material difference of a form.

One cannot predicate of first principles, i.e. these two elements. All one can do is use them to construct things with. They are givens. All else is constructed.

No rational person asks for the limit of a material difference, when that is the topic, it does not have one. Time qua time has neither beginning nor end. The same holds true for space, for example, only a moron would say that space bends, or that time is different from time, that it can slow down or speed up.

The ability to manipulate first principles in thought is a prerequisite to any rational discourse. Consult Plato, one of the better two element metaphysicians. Or the Elements of Euclid. The point (boundary) is that which has no part (difference). These are givens and neither can be predicated of the other. Predication is the inverse function of abstraction. Therefore we bring together these two in order to make some one thing. Logic is a craft, and with it we craft.

Demanding that someone be irrational is an irrational demand.

Plato's Parmenides is written so that the reader can learn the consequence of not being able to understand the principles of predication. The results is gibberish. The most vulernable times of irrational thought is when we have the same name for a thing, that things form, and that things material difference. Thought becomes impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

On what logical basis? Read my response to spockman, you're just making assertions.

And what about the first event?

---

On the basis that I tl'dr'ed this thread. All I'm saying is that I think determinism stands a shot, at least as far as human decisions are made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

On the basis that I tl'dr'ed this thread. All I'm saying is that I think determinism stands a shot, at least as far as human decisions are made.

---

Yes, it does, but determinism is not opposed to the function of the human mind, i.e. responsibility of choice. Cause and effect are real, but the function of the human mind is craft, and craftmen do have varying degrees of ability. However, because there is causality, it does not mean that the human mind is devoid of function. As I said, they are in no wise opposed. Using causality to negate a causal relationship is irrational, for thought, and the responsibility of choice is causally effected.

To turn to causality to discredit the the human mind is as rational as using it to discredit the digestive system, or the respiratory system.

Determinism as a false method of denying responsiblity of judgment is a very old method of arguing. The most popular is religion, manifest destiny, divine right, etc. it echos in various forms throughout history.

Consciousness is a causal relationship, but so is unconciousness. This does not mean that either is superfluous or that there is no distinction between the two.

The human mind can produce something or nothing. Plato distinguished the difference between doing what one pleases, and willing something. Will is a product of the human mind, in accordance with its function. Doing what one pleases is the results of a dysfunctional mind--lack of performance.

virtue and vice as well as good and evil are based on the same distinction. The mind has a job to do, in order to maintain and promote the life of the body. As a living organism, causality for us is a great deal more involved than that of being a rock--one has a recognition of responsibility for its existence, the other has no recognition at all.

In regard to human will, Plato, the Judeo-Christian Scripture, and the definition of an environmental acquisition system all agree, human will is a very specific product of very specific functions. This is its causality. It is far more involved than the simple animation of the human body.

Xei, you say my statements are just thrown out there, but there is a logic behind it. It is the principle that once a chain of events is set into motion, (and everything that occurs in the universe is an eventof some sort,) each event no matter how large or small is affected by a previous event. It is this assertion that all of my claims are based on. Things don't just happen because they want to and nothing exists that is independant from the universe, nothing happens that is independant of every other force. (The word universe here means the totality of all things.) You either believe in determinism or you think that things can just sort of happen without being the result of something previous, (which is total nonsense to me,) or else you are deluding yourself. No one in this entire argument has brought up an alternative to those first two choices. Should someone provide a fourth option and it is valid and not just a sub-set of one of those two, I am more than willing to retract that statement. If you can provide a real alternative, I am ready to listen. Until then, I will go with choice A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Yes, it does, but determinism is not opposed to the function of the human mind, i.e. responsibility of choice. Cause and effect are real, but the function of the human mind is craft, and craftmen do have varying degrees of ability. However, because there is causality, it does not mean that the human mind is devoid of function. As I said, they are in no wise opposed. Using causality to negate a causal relationship is irrational, for thought, and the responsibility of choice is causally effected. etc etc etc

---

Not entirely sure what you're saying in entirety, but I think I agree in the point I think you're making in that we should still hold humans accountable for their actions, regardless of whether they have genuine free will or not.

In Platonic terms, nobody errs willingly. This seems like a mystery to many, but it is based on the fact that human will is a product of reason, and reason is a causal relationship. So too is the inability to reason, but that is not the function of the mind, but dysfunction.

This result is in agreement with Plato, Scripture, and the definition of mind. I just cannot fault it.

Actually, it gets quite mystic in scripture, as it is how the whore becomes a virgin. The error is not a product of human will, judgment. It is also how the dead come to life. It is simply biological definition. Thinking in accordance with definition provides a lot of material to create mythology based on fact.

One cannot blame the lame for not being able to walk, nor can you blame the mentally dysfunctional for their behavior. All correction that is correct, is based on helping the lame to walk, and the mentally dysfunctional to think. It is not about evening scores.

Or, in old metaphore, making the lame walk, and the blind to see, and resurrecting the dead.

Let he among you who has not sinned cast the first stone. This goes with the metaphor, I am the only rock. It means truth--that which does not change. The real meaning of stoning someone to death is then compatable with thou shall not kill. Reasoning brings agreement in function, to have life and to have it more abundantly. Otherwise, there is only death. By definition and fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

If you want to advance an actual argument I'll think about responding to it.

---

Well I'm asking if you think human cells desire chocolate ice cream. Can't really make an argument if you refuse to set the perimeters in which we argue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

If not...So human action is magic?

---

Not at all. Human action is the purposeful application of means to ends. You will have to explain how the oppose of a natural law of science is 'magic.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

This is no different from Moliere's doctor who "explained" why opium makes one sleepy by referring to its "dormitive virtue." Neither you nor the doctor have explained anything at all.

---

Well if you are saying that physician can diagnose the side effects of a chemical then that is apart of chemistry which is apart of the natural sciences and therefore different from the social sciences. I think it was Plato who said that that a doctor can tell you how to be healthy but not whether you should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Not at all. Human action is the purposeful application of means to ends. You will have to explain how the oppose of a natural law of science is 'magic.'

---

magic: any art that invokes supernatural powers

supernatural: Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

magic: any art that invokes supernatural powers

supernatural: Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

---

Human action is apart of the natural world. It is just not governed by the laws of physics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Human action is apart of the natural world. It is just not governed by the laws of physics.

---

And thus, magic. Magic is invoking the supernatural. The supernatural means outside of natural laws. Thus, if humans exist outside of natural laws, we are in the same class of being as Chimeras and Wizards. Besides, I have reason to believe human action IS guided by the laws of physics. Our brain chemistry has been proven to affect our actions and our personalities have been tied to genetics and such. Besides, why we should act differently on a fundamental level then every other animal? I have a logic based reason for me opinion. What reason could you have for believing that certain things about people are guided by physics and certain things aren't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Human action is apart of the natural world. It is just not governed by the laws of physics.

---

Which brings us to: why are humans so special that they get to defy the laws of physics? Humans aren't special. We are one life form on one mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. Our actions and thoughts are just as subject to the universal laws of physics as anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

And thus, magic. Magic is invoking the supernatural. The supernatural means outside of natural laws. Thus, if humans exist outside of natural laws, we are in the same class of being as Chimeras and Wizards. Besides, I have reason to believe human action IS guided by the laws of physics. Our brain chemistry has been proven to affect our actions and our personalities have been tied to genetics and such. Besides, why we should act differently on a fundamental level then every other animal? I have a logic based reason for me opinion. What reason could you have for believing that certain things about people are guided by physics and certain things aren't?

---

There isn't just the laws of science in the world. There are laws of logic and axioms. You will also have to explain how chemistry is a law of physics, especially brain chemistry. If you believe this then you think we are slaves to our emotions which is absurd. If ever we have a rise in sexual attraction towards another, why don't we simply act instantly upon that emotion? Why do we hold back when we are angry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

Which brings us to: why are humans so special that they get to defy the laws of physics? Humans aren't special. We are one life form on one mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. Our actions and thoughts are just as subject to the universal laws of physics as anything else.

---

It is not that humans defy the laws of physics, it that human action is not understood or view through the laws of physics. So far no one has pointed to a single law of physics and how it explains human action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well I'm asking if you think human cells desire chocolate ice cream. Can't really make an argument if you refuse to set the perimeters in which we argue.

---

Obviously I don't, as you know I don't, and if you're really interested in having a proper argument then you'll refrain from responding with smart-assed questions and instead point out what exactly you think are the logical flaws in my argument and lay out counter-arguments.

A "want" doesn't have any greater ontological status than does "democracy" or "good manners." Wanting is an instrumental and purely abstract notion that we use to describe and predict action--including our own action. That's all. Action, in turn, is produced by the firings of nerve cells (working through muscles and the like), which operate according to a certain biological and chemical principles, and so on. In this way, physical laws ultimately drive the action tendencies that we would look upon and refer to as "wanting;" however, a neuron does not properly have "wants" any more than an H2O molecule has "wetness" or a wrench has "usefulness."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Not at all. Human action is the purposeful application of means to ends. You will have to explain how the oppose of a natural law of science is 'magic.'

---

Natural laws describe the workings of the natural universe. That is the definition of a natural law. So that means...
(Pay attention: this is what a proper argument looks like.)

If something is part of the natural universe, it is described by natural laws. (From the definition above.)
If something is not described by natural laws, it is not part of the natural universe. (Modus tollens)
If something is not part of the natural universe, it is--by definition--supernatural.
"Supernatural" is a synonym for "magical" (From the dictionary definition of "magic.")
Therefore, if human action "opposes natural law," human action is magic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well if you are saying that physician can diagnose the side effects of a chemical then that is apart of chemistry which is apart of the natural sciences and therefore different from the social sciences. I think it was Plato who said that that a doctor can tell you how to be healthy but not whether you should be.

---

That's not even close to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that explaining why someone chooses chocolate ice cream by saying that "they have a preference for chocolate ice cream" is not an explanation at all. The allusion that I made was to illustrate that this is just as ridiculous an attempt to explain something as saying that opium makes one sleepy because it has sleepiness-inducing properties. Just like the doctor's explanation, your "explanation" merely restates the explanandum in different words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

It is not that humans defy the laws of physics, it that human action is not understood or view through the laws of physics. So far no one has pointed to a single law of physics and how it explains human action.

---

And I don't view or understand my PC in terms of electrical currents. But that doesn't change the fact that nearly everything it does is due to electrical currents. In just the same way, the fact that human action is not viewed or understood in terms of physical laws does not change the fact that human action is ultimately due to physical laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

It is not that humans defy the laws of physics, it that human action is not understood or view through the laws of physics. So far no one has pointed to a single law of physics and how it explains human action.

---

Human thought (and by extension, decision making) is the process of cellular processes within the brain. We know that the brain uses electrochemical signals to communicate. These signals, being comprised of matter and energy, are subject to the laws of physics.

inb4 soul/divine creator/nobody has proven that yet/blah blah blah. If I die and it turns out that there is such a thing as a soul, I will kill my afterlife-self and banish my soul from this universe.

Here is food for thought: the brain actually makes a decision several seconds before you do. By the time you make a decision, your mind made it for you a couple seconds prior. Sauce

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valmancer

I'd like to start this discussion with saying that I don't believe in free will, but I don't think everything is predestined either. I just believe that there is a kind of randomness in the whole universe (like some of quantum mechanics says) so you can never calculate what will happen.

---

We have consistently working axioms (physics) to calculate what will happen if under the appropriate conditions.

Quote:

---

Here comes the problem with not having free will, if we don't then surely we have no consciousness either?

---

We're not sure if consciousness is exclusive to freewill.

Quote:

---

I'm not even sure what consciousness really means. Here's a quote from wikipedia:

"Consciousness is variously defined as subjective experience or awareness, or wakefulness, or the executive control system of the mind. It is an umbrella term that may refer to a variety of mental phenomena. Although humans realize what everyday experiences are, consciousness refuses to be defined"

They talk about awareness or wakefulness, which doesn't make any sense if we don't have free will and are just manifestations of randomness and chance. What would be the thing that is aware or awake?

---

That thing would be "consciousness", like the wiki description explains. So, are you asking what are the abstract entities of "consciousness?" We're still pin-pointing that.

Quote:

---

The whole thing about "experience" doesn't make sense either. What is experiencing, is it the molecules in you body, you'r nervous system reacting to chemical reactions (which are still just molecules in your body) or what?

---

Could you stipulate the definition of "experience?"

Quote:

---

The executive control system of the mind makes the most sense to me as it accepts that there is nothing more than a center (molecules) which "control" things around the body to make it survive in a world of randomness. This system has then become better by evolution so it chooses the most rational option, the option that left most of it's ancestors alive.

---

lol.

Quote:

---

So, I've come to the conclusion that there is no consciousness and we are just machines, formed by random chance and evolution, which react to the random surroundings in the way that left most of our ancestor's alive

Prove me wrong!

---

I don't see how you concluded that there is no consciousness. Besides, weren't you not so sure as to what "consciousness" even meant? I also don't see how you concluded that we were formed by random chance. You've done nothing but asked vague questions, and made unscientifically backed claims. Also, how could you possibly conclude that there is no "consciousness", when your description of "consciousness" is the molecular based controller of the very machine you say we are!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

There isn't just the laws of science in the world. There are laws of logic and axioms. You will also have to explain how chemistry is a law of physics, especially brain chemistry. If you believe this then you think we are slaves to our emotions which is absurd. If ever we have a rise in sexual attraction towards another, why don't we simply act instantly upon that emotion? Why do we hold back when we are angry?

---

The laws of science are built upon logic which is built upon the same principles as math. Don't pretend like these are separate. To deny one is to deny the other. And chemistry is directly related to physics. If you think otherwise and believe that you know about both then there is little point discussing it with you since you would proove that understand neither.

You are also suggesting that our emotions don't come from brain chemistry?!? Are dinosaurs 6000 years old, as well? In spite of mountains of evidence, it seems you say this because if so, in your opinion, we would be slaves to our emotions. I think you don't want it to be true therefore it isn't. Research can be thrown out in the face of human will, I suppose. At least it frequently is. Your arguments against why we are obviously not wired to be slaves to our brains, even though the very concept is silly since we essentially ARE our brains, are simple and show lack of understanding. We control sexual urges and feelings of anger largely because it is more beneficial to have self-control then to have no impulse management. Our brains aren't wired this way. Even a dog can show restraint. Is he a transcendant being too, because of this?

I have already conceded that I admit the possibility of dualism, (and actually think that parts of it are more likely than not,) but it would still react based upon established scientific principle. Even belief in God should be made with the acceptance of such a being as one that does not deny science and logic. You say things outside of scientific things affect the univere?There is only one alternative and it has been brought up by myself and Mario and DuB. Magic. There is your alternative.

Everything happens for a reason. This is not the begining of this situation at all but it is where I will start for my idea. A surge of electrons goes through a wire heating it up. The heating of the wire causes the gases inside a container to give off light. Light is made of particles that are rapidly moving through space the particles bounce around filling the room. Some photons bounce off a tube of blue paint in just the right way to send blue light directly into my eyes. A lens in my eye focuses the light into light sensors which then send an electrical signal to a location in my brain. From that point in my brain many different electrical pulses are sent out to different parts of my brain. One path of electrical impulses causes my subconscious to remember something pleasurable somehow associated with the color blue. Now we know that something (or several somethings) that happened in the past causes me to like the color blue.

Now because I saw and realized that I liked the color blue I asked myself how I could apply it to this conversation. Because I thought of that my brain reacted and sent electrical impulses into my muscles causing them to contract. I want to hit a certain button but the signals sent to my arms and fingers arent exact and I hit the wrong button and must go back and re-type it. AS Im typing I realize that it has nothing to do with anything that is being discussed in this thread. Except for the fact that it was all caused by multiple variables all coming together to this one post.

So basically everything in the last 10 minutes has caused what I am doing at this exact moment.

So can anybody guess which side of this debate im on yet?

Oh and one more question. If everything is happening seperate in our brains why do we interpret it as all one thought?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Everything happens for a reason. This is not the begining of this situation at all but it is where I will start for my idea. A surge of electrons goes through a wire heating it up. The heating of the wire causes the gases inside a container to give off light. Light is made of particles that are rapidly moving through space the particles bounce around filling the room. Some photons bounce off a tube of blue paint in just the right way to send blue light directly into my eyes. A lens in my eye focuses the light into light sensors which then send an electrical signal to a location in my brain. From that point in my brain many different electrical pulses are sent out to different parts of my brain. One path of electrical impulses causes my subconscious to remember something pleasurable somehow associated with the color blue. Now we know that something (or several somethings) that happened in the past causes me to like the color blue.

Now because I saw and realized that I liked the color blue I asked myself how I could apply it to this conversation. Because I thought of that my brain reacted and sent electrical impulses into my muscles causing them to contract. I want to hit a certain button but the signals sent to my arms and fingers arent exact and I hit the wrong button and must go back and re-type it. AS Im typing I realize that it has nothing to do with anything that is being discussed in this thread. Except for the fact that it was all caused by multiple variables all coming together to this one post.

So basically everything in the last 10 minutes has caused what I am doing at this exact moment.

So can anybody guess which side of this debate im on yet?

Oh and one more question. If everything is happening seperate in our brains why do we interpret it as all one thought?

---

If you're implying that because we have a metaphorical description of the different on-going processes that occur in our brain, and because of so, there is no X, then you're just committing a genetic fallacy. As for your highly vague and possibly erroneous description on how the brain works, I suggest you improve your understanding of it before making it the highlight of your post.

Well yeah I really dont know much at all about how the brain works but that is my understanding of it.

Everything happens because of something before it but everything isnt set before it happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Everything happens because of something before it but everything isnt set before it happens.

---

Because of the obvious ambiguities in this statement, I'll oblige to the principle of charity and do my best to interpret this:

Every effect has a cause, but isn't determined before it is caused.

1.Every effect has a cause
2.Every effect isn't determined before it is caused.

No conclusion can follow from these two premises alone, so I'll just comment on them.

1.) We believe so.
2.) Explain. This claim is moot, and as you can see, there are multiple people in this thread arguing otherwise.
(Now we know what side of the debate you're likely on; indeterminism.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Well yeah I really dont know much at all about how the brain works but that is my understanding of it.

Everything happens because of something before it but everything isnt set before it happens.

---

But even by that logic, it follows that everything is at least set into motion before it happens, which is just as well. There really isn't much of a difference.

Yes things are set into motion before they happen but it seems hard to believe that because A relative of my friend invented the olive pitting machine a long time ago that on a specific day at a specific hour my throat will contract in the wrong way around an olive pit causing me to choke. (this is ignoring the fact that I dont like olives)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Yes things are set into motion before they happen but it seems hard to believe that because A relative of my friend invented the olive pitting machine a long time ago that on a specific day at a specific hour my throat will contract in the wrong way around an olive pit causing me to choke. (this is ignoring the fact that I dont like olives)

---

I don't understand. If you acknowledge that events are determined, then why are you asking why some things would lead to other things? Why would it be hard to believe, relative to what alternate scenario... that everything happens completely at random? Although a possible explanation, but completely useless for a logical discussion.

Well what im trying to say is that I am in some kind of middle ground. It just seems extreme to say that everything happens because of something before it including the most random thoughts that randomly pop into your head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Well what im trying to say is that I am in some kind of middle ground. It just seems extreme to say that everything happens because of something before it including the most random thoughts that randomly pop into your head.

---

You get a high-paying job because you got a degree. You develop the Bean Catapult 9000 because a "random" thought told you it was a good idea. In some instances, we may not be able to always predict the future (i.e. quantum mechanics (I think) states there are infinitely many outcomes during an interaction between particles with varying probabilities of each outcome (I think, don't blast me, I'm just stating an interesting hypothesis)), but regardless, the events ultimately achieved are still the result of past interactions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Xei, you say my statements are just thrown out there, but there is a logic behind it. It is the principle that once a chain of events is set into motion, (and everything that occurs in the universe is an eventof some sort,) each event no matter how large or small is affected by a previous event. It is this assertion that all of my claims are based on. Things don't just happen because they want to and nothing exists that is independant from the universe, nothing happens that is independant of every other force. (The word universe here means the totality of all things.) You either believe in determinism or you think that things can just sort of happen without being the result of something previous, (which is total nonsense to me,) or else you are deluding yourself. No one in this entire argument has brought up an alternative to those first two choices. Should someone provide a fourth option and it is valid and not just a sub-set of one of those two, I am more than willing to retract that statement. If you can provide a real alternative, I am ready to listen. Until then, I will go with choice A.

---

You're going round in circles I think, I have covered all of this.

Firstly, you're still using terms like "principle" and even used the word "assertion". I suppose I'm going to have to ask questions, as just explaining isn't doing enough at the moment; on what basis are these assertions made? That is to say, why do you think this principle is true?

Secondly, as I also explained before, you are mischaracterising quantum physics. It is not true that the only two options are 'determinism' and 'zero causation'; quantum physics says no such thing. What it does say is that previous events cause future events to change their probabilities of occurring (hence there is still causation), and this happens in a mathematically precise manner. Quantum physics agrees perfectly well with reality (in the sense that if you predict the future of reality based on quantum mechanics you will get the correct answer), so what is the problem?

Thirdly, your own view is logically inconsistent. You say all events have to be caused by previous events, and things cannot happen "because they want to". How, then, did the first event ever occur?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

You're going round in circles I think, I have covered all of this.

Firstly, you're still using terms like "principle" and even used the word "assertion". I suppose I'm going to have to ask questions, as just explaining isn't doing enough at the moment; on what basis are these assertions made? That is to say, why do you think this principle is true?

Secondly, as I also explained before, you are mischaracterising quantum physics. It is not true that the only two options are 'determinism' and 'zero causation'; quantum physics says no such thing. What it does say is that previous events cause future events to change their probabilities of occurring (hence there is still causation), and this happens in a mathematically precise manner. Quantum physics agrees perfectly well with reality (in the sense that if you predict the future of reality based on quantum mechanics you will get the correct answer), so what is the problem?

Thirdly, your own view is logically inconsistent. You say all events have to be caused by previous events, and things cannot happen "because they want to". How, then, did the first event ever occur?

---

I like this. You dont go to either extreme

Understand, by the way, that I think determinism could be true; it's just that I accept that there's no solid logical grounds for it.

It is of course possible to ascertain as to whether the macroscopic world is deterministic for all useful intents and purposes, the answer being yes. It also seems that the scale of the brain is still too large for it to be reasonably classed as non-deterministic.

Consciousness is the soul that our Lord and savior has blessed us with. In this world, many people are confused about the simplest of stuff. Search for yourself in the bible and let the Lord grace you with His presence. And then we all died from aids. what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malac

Consciousness is the soul that our Lord and savior has blessed us with. In this world, many people are confused about the simplest of stuff. Search for yourself in the bible and let the Lord grace you with His presence. And then we all died from aids. what?

---

:cackle: :laughhard: :mrgreen::laugh: :bravo: :laughtillhurts: :movingmrgreen: :rolllaugh: :lmao:

I dont get it but in a discussion like this you are supposed to stay away from religious explanations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

Obviously I don't, as you know I don't, and if you're really interested in having a proper argument then you'll refrain from responding with smart-assed questions and instead point out what exactly you think are the logical flaws in my argument and lay out counter-arguments.

---

Well you don't have an argument. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who is unsure as to where they lie on an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

A "want" doesn't have any greater ontological status than does "democracy" or "good manners." Wanting is an instrumental and purely abstract notion that we use to describe and predict action--including our own action. That's all. Action, in turn, is produced by the firings of nerve cells (working through muscles and the like), which operate according to a certain biological and chemical principles, and so on. In this way, physical laws ultimately drive the action tendencies that we would look upon and refer to as "wanting;" however, a neuron does not properly have "wants" any more than an H2O molecule has "wetness" or a wrench has "usefulness."

---

Ok so your cells can't want chocolate..but a mass of cells can want it? I fail to see how it follows that one cell doesn't make up wants but a mass of cells does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

Natural laws describe the workings of the natural universe. That is the definition of a natural law. So that means...
(Pay attention: this is what a proper argument looks like.)

If something is part of the natural universe, it is described by natural laws. (From the definition above.)
If something is not described by natural laws, it is not part of the natural universe. (Modus tollens)
If something is not part of the natural universe, it is--by definition--supernatural.
"Supernatural" is a synonym for "magical" (From the dictionary definition of "magic.")
Therefore, if human action "opposes natural law," human action is magic.

---

Is logic and rationality a 'natural law?' Is it apart of the 'natural sciences' like physics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

That's not even close to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that explaining why someone chooses chocolate ice cream by saying that "they have a preference for chocolate ice cream" is not an explanation at all. The allusion that I made was to illustrate that this is just as ridiculous an attempt to explain something as saying that opium makes one sleepy because it has sleepiness-inducing properties. Just like the doctor's explanation, your "explanation" merely restates the explanandum in different words.

---

So saying that someone has a preference for chocolate ice cream after they bought chocolate ice cream isn't an explanation as to why they bought chocolate ice cream? Granted, they can have numerous reasons for buying chocolate ice cream by more often then not it is because they like it. Preference is shown through action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

And I don't view or understand my PC in terms of electrical currents. But that doesn't change the fact that nearly everything it does is due to electrical currents. In just the same way, the fact that human action is not viewed or understood in terms of physical laws does not change the fact that human action is ultimately due to physical laws.

---

Then please by all means show/explain how you can derive that human action is a result of physical laws but cannot be understood or view through the lens of physical laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

The laws of science are built upon logic which is built upon the same principles as math. Don't pretend like these are separate. To deny one is to deny the other. And chemistry is directly related to physics. If you think otherwise and believe that you know about both then there is little point discussing it with you since you would proove that understand neither.

---

Everything is built upon logic. Nothing conceivable is illogical for one cannot define/abstract illogical things. It is an impossibility. And the natural sciences are not based upon the same principles of math. Math is apriori. The natural sciences are a posteriori. That itself is a huge gulf of how principles are arrived that through human thought. You must study the basics of philosophy if you are going to discuss how human thought is carried out. Also realize that physics is the science of energy plus mass and its interactions. Chemistry is the science of base elements and properties of a composition. The only direct link these two have are that they are apart of the natural sciences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

You are also suggesting that our emotions don't come from brain chemistry?!? Are dinosaurs 6000 years old, as well? In spite of mountains of evidence, it seems you say this because if so, in your opinion, we would be slaves to our emotions. I think you don't want it to be true therefore it isn't. Research can be thrown out in the face of human will, I suppose. At least it frequently is. Your arguments against why we are obviously not wired to be slaves to our brains, even though the very concept is silly since we essentially ARE our brains, are simple and show lack of understanding. We control sexual urges and feelings of anger largely because it is more beneficial to have self-control then to have no impulse management. Our brains aren't wired this way. Even a dog can show restraint. Is he a transcendant being too, because of this?

---

I figured you would be smart enough to follow the inference. If we control our emotions then that posits that there is something above our emotions which orchestrates our actions. It is therefore not just basic chemistry that motivates our action for if it were you would have to show what chemical 'reason' is or say that we are slaves to our emotions. Obviously you have denied the latter by saying we can control them. Now comes the part of specifying which brain chemical 'reason' is with some definity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

I have already conceded that I admit the possibility of dualism, (and actually think that parts of it are more likely than not,) but it would still react based upon established scientific principle. Even belief in God should be made with the acceptance of such a being as one that does not deny science and logic. You say things outside of scientific things affect the univere?There is only one alternative and it has been brought up by myself and Mario and DuB. Magic. There is your alternative.

---

And again I notice that all of you have continued to shrink away from showing how even one scientific truth motivates human action or how human action can be view/explained through such a truth. Now you are saying science AND logic also in your argument. Before you were just saying 'natural laws' which was established as laws of physics. If you think I am infering the wrong thing then go back to our start and see that 'laws of physics' was always the point of contention in explaining human action. Now you have taken up the discipline of logic, which is the base of everything in this world, in order to shrink from your argument even further. Why continue to press this discussion? You haven't explained even the base viewpoint of how your theories operates, you don't have a grasp on the acquistion of knowledge concerning the difference between apriori and a posteriori, and your argument is becoming more and more muddled. It is now just a screaming match and I tire of such things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Then please by all means show/explain how you can derive that human action is a result of physical laws but cannot be understood or view through the lens of physical laws.

---

I believe he was saying that we DON'T understand human action, not that we CAN'T understand human action. This is true. We know very little of the human body, the human mind, and how they work. What we don't know is infinitely more vast to what we do know.

Quote:

---

Ok so your cells can't want chocolate..but a mass of cells can want it? I fail to see how it follows that one cell doesn't make up wants but a mass of cells does.

---

So, a small sample of brain tissue can't form coherent thoughts...but a mass of organized brain tissue can? I fail to see how it follows that one sample doesn't make up cognition but a complete brain does.

Jesus Christ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

I believe he was saying that we DON'T understand human action, not that we CAN'T understand human action. This is true. We know very little of the human body, the human mind, and how they work. What we don't know is infinitely more vast to what we do know.

---

Well if he doesn't understand human action then he shouldn't be propounding that the laws of physics govern it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

So, a small sample of brain tissue can't form coherent thoughts...but a mass of organized brain tissue can? I fail to see how it follows that one sample doesn't make up cognition but a complete brain does.

Jesus Christ.

---

That is the same argument I am actually making. He seems to be saying that a mass of cells can make us want chocolate but a single one can't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well you don't have an argument. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who is unsure as to where they lie on an issue.
[...]
Ok so your cells can't want chocolate..but a mass of cells can want it? I fail to see how it follows that one cell doesn't make up wants but a mass of cells does.

---

I just advanced my argument. And once again you avoided giving a substantive response to it, opting instead to feign misunderstanding by giving knee-jerk caricatures.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Is logic and rationality a 'natural law?' Is it apart of the 'natural sciences' like physics?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So saying that someone has a preference for chocolate ice cream after they bought chocolate ice cream isn't an explanation as to why they bought chocolate ice cream? Granted, they can have numerous reasons for buying chocolate ice cream by more often then not it is because they like it. Preference is shown through action.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well if he doesn't understand human action then he shouldn't be propounding that the laws of physics govern it.

---

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

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.
:okbyenow:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Prove me wrong!

---

I don't know how.

Quote:

---

Prove me right?

---

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterknight

. 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.

---

Perhaps the word you are looking for is compatibilism, the belief that free will and determinism are not dichotomies and are compatible ideas. I think for the time being it is pragmatically useful to believe in free will because for instance how could we prosecute a murderer if he was destined by the laws of physics to commit the crime? How could he be held responsible for something he had no control over?

I dont think "being human" is the cause of our inclination to substance dualism, the separation of the mind and body has more of a religious/spiritual agenda than anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

how could we prosecute a murderer if he was destined by the laws of physics to commit the crime?

---

Because maintaining and enforcing a law against murder will--by the laws of physics--cause there to be less murders in the long run. Free will, as far as I'm concerned, is irrelevant.

Consciousness is the result of brain activity. It actually arises from the executive functions of the brain.

To me conciousness is something more than just I biological prosses. If our bodys could go surrvive on outomattic prosses like eating and looking for food shelter and water why be conciouse? What would make it happen. Machines work out problems and can sometimes support themselvs but they dont have a conciouseness they have responses to things. So why we have a conciousness will never be known and it probobly wont ever be explained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osmodin

To me conciousness is something more than just I biological prosses. If our bodys could go surrvive on outomattic prosses like eating and looking for food shelter and water why be conciouse? What would make it happen. Machines work out problems and can sometimes support themselvs but they dont have a conciouseness they have responses to things. So why we have a conciousness will never be known and it probobly wont ever be explained.

---

Having a consciousness allows us to actively work out problems rather then respond instinctually. It increases our intelligence which increases our survivability. Besides, consciousness is on some level an automatic process. It is just a complex one, but one neuron interacts with another which interacts with another etc. etc. until we find food and shelter and sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osmodin

To me conciousness is something more than just I biological prosses. If our bodys could go surrvive on outomattic prosses like eating and looking for food shelter and water why be conciouse? What would make it happen. Machines work out problems and can sometimes support themselvs but they dont have a conciouseness they have responses to things. So why we have a conciousness will never be known and it probobly wont ever be explained.

---

Actually the reason why we're so capable of adapting and surviving is because of our complex mental processes. That's where our consciousness comes from. Although we could probably survive using automatic processes, it wouldn't give us as much of an advantage as consciousness does.

I don't see why consciousness is necessary for complex thought. Can this be explained? And how complex, exactly? Why is it necessary there be a subjective percept associated with, say, a red object, in order for a system to know that it is red? There is digital technology that can tell us if something is red or not, but we don't associate any subjective experience with it. Functionally, it seems that consciousness is a superfluous layer.

I think you could make an argument that consciousness is just really complex thought.

Yet being conscious of red is extremely simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't see why consciousness is necessary for complex thought. Can this be explained? And how complex, exactly? Why is it necessary there be a subjective percept associated with, say, a red object, in order for a system to know that it is red? There is digital technology that can tell us if something is red or not, but we don't associate any subjective experience with it. Functionally, it seems that consciousness is a superfluous layer.

---

It's not just complex thought that constitutes consciousness. You could argue that CPUs are subjected to having very complex "thoughts". It's probably having executive control over one's thoughts and actions and having self-reflective capabilities that consciousness arises from. I haven't pondered the likely sources of consciousness too in-depth yet, but complex thought is a very good (and possibly the only) candidate, given that the entity is able to be 'aware' of certain things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Yet being conscious of red is extremely simple.

---

You could argue that simply by seeing red you are conscious of it. As long as you are receiving some form of input of something, you are aware of it. Our brains dull the focus of specific facets of our perception in order to provide sufficient awareness of the things we need to be aware of.

Why settle for one? Here is a cool selection task with multiple views how consciousness is viewed. You can pick three or less:
What is Consciousness?

And for the record I've got pan psychic quantum conscious buddhist, so I keep on posting to Beyond dreaming ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGames

It's not just complex thought that constitutes consciousness. You could argue that CPUs are subjected to having very complex "thoughts". It's probably having executive control over one's thoughts and actions and having self-reflective capabilities that consciousness arises from. I haven't pondered the likely sources of consciousness too in-depth yet, but complex thought is a very good (and possibly the only) candidate, given that the entity is able to be 'aware' of certain things.

---

Are you sure that you even have executive control?

Most people are not conscious. Here is a cool video that I think we all can learn something from: http://=http://video.google.com/vide...Consciousness"

Please watch it. It will answer your questions in a more eloquent way than I could.

Consciousness is self-awareness. Generally considered the ability to think, as opposed to just getting things done. In Jungian psychology, consciousness is an orientation (Introversion/Extraversion) and four functions (Sensing, iNtuition, Thinking, Feeling) differentiated and adapted by the (association with the) ego, as opposed to the Self which included conscious and unconscious material.

I found this pretty interesting: What is Consciousness?

It lists 12 different theories of what consciousness is, and classifies them by name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malac Reborn

Because of the obvious ambiguities in this statement, I'll oblige to the principle of charity and do my best to interpret this:

Every effect has a cause, but isn't determined before it is caused.

1.Every effect has a cause
2.Every effect isn't determined before it is caused.

No conclusion can follow from these two premises alone, so I'll just comment on them.

---

Therefore, anything determined before it's caused, isn't an effect.

Oh how ignorant I was in the past...

I supposed I should add, too, that because the conclusion inferred is false, considering most movies are the effects of preplanned productions, the premise which it depends upon must be false.

I think consciousness is equal to existence. Existence of any sort demands awareness of such, and awareness demands a consciousness that is aware of being existent, therefore I am conscious.

And I do believe we a have the power of "free will" as the one and only species on this planet, which is why we are the most superior living species on this planet. Our brain does not merely react to nerve-clusters that get impulses on simplistic needs, like animal brains do, for example: dog gets hungry because nerve-clusters in it's brain get stimulated, so it feeds. Humans however, notice that they are hungry but have yet to decide to eat or not to eat. A human being can decide to starve and let somebody else take his food, or through fasting. Let me ask you: Have you ever seen a dog fasting or letting another dog have his food? And if yes do you have a link of any sort so i can read/watch that? (Question goes to OP who claimed that there is no such thing like free-will, but feel free to submit if you got something ;))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WiseEggHead

I think consciousness is equal to existence. Existence of any sort demands awareness of such..

---

Wait - so then my ballpoint pen is conscious ~ ??!!?! :cheeky: This sounds like animism.

Well I am no animist, and no your ballpoint is not conscious, or did you happen to see it interact with it's surroundings on it's own? If so your ballpoint must be possessed by dark spirits and I suggest you to burn it with the help of an exorcist. lol.

I thought we were clear that we are talking about humans only here. I did not intend to bring animism into this. :)

Edit:

"Existence of any sort demands awareness of such, and awareness demands a consciousness that is aware of being existent."

If you can make sure your ballpoint is aware of it's existence, we may allow it to join our discussion too. ;)

Oops - I haven't read the whole thread, just your post. Taken at face value, your statements that I quoted would indicate than anything that exists is by definition aware and conscious.

.. And why can't they be bright, fun spirits??!! :cheeky:

Ok, still haven't read all of the thread, but skimmed it, and re-read your statement, and to be honest, you said that (and I quote) "consciousness is equal to existence". Am I missing something, or does this not mean that everything that exists is conscious? According to you, my poor possessed Papermate® either does not exist or it must be conscious!

I think there's some kind of implied condition or conditions that you really should make explicit. Maybe what you mean to say is that "awareness equals consciousness - everything that is aware is conscious". That way I don't have to google for a witch doctor..

Hmm. Awareness = Cosciousness = Existence? You see what I meant was, that when you exist and you are aware of it, then you are conscious. if you are conscious that means you are aware. and if you are conscious and aware, so you must exist. for me these three words would prove each other, which would prove that a subject either is conscious or is not conscious. obviously "awareness = consciousness" is right too in that matter, hence as I said to me all three of them are linked, like some kind of triforce (you know the triforce from zelda?), I may draw it real fast and show you in a graph what I mean. :)

Not familiar with the triforce, but I get what you mean.

Ok, all three legs of the milking stool are vitally important (like Sheldon said to the traffic court judge just before he went to jail on Big Bang Theory) - but you left the awareness leg out, so your stool dumps you on the ground. Existence = consciousness actually means anything that exists is conscious - including a milking stool. But if you say awareness = consciousness, existence is already implied by the fact of awareness. To be aware, something already has to exist, so your tripod is secure. In fact I think I'd go farther and say the stool will actually still stand without the existence leg - obviously we're not discussing whether something that doesn't exist is conscious. That's just silly! I think we can safely rule out non-existent entities (sort of an oxymoron, isn't it?) and simply say Awareness = Consciousness.

Consciousness is the power to be aware of yourself and your surroundings as they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valmancer

So, I've come to the conclusion that there is no consciousness and we are just machines, formed by random chance and evolution, which react to the random surroundings in the way that left most of our ancestor's alive

---

We are the opposites of machines. That is the beauty about humans. You don't make choices by random quantum mechanics, because if you get a choice to shoot somebody you don't know, you won't do it on a scale of 1/4 that it could happen. You make your choices based on your experiences, your feelings and of course your values​​.

I think conscious is what the human really is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenjaminBrown

We are the opposites of machines. That is the beauty about humans. You don't make choices by random quantum mechanics, because if you get a choice to shoot somebody you don't know, you won't do it on a scale of 1/4 that it could happen. You make your choices based on your experiences, your feelings and of course your values​​.

I think conscious is what the human really is.

---

I couldn't agree more with you! Machines or such things will never have consciousness. I think consciousness makes us behave the way we do. And actually you could say our consciousness consists of our experiences knowledge feelings....etc... consciousness is just a very complicated thing you can't explain it just like that.... only a living thing is capable of having one ...not any machine or thing is ....also one thing that machines will never have or any thing are feelings....they are well too complicated....well you can programme some machine or something to smile or idk behave like a happy person when someone idk gives it present....but that isn't happiness that is just a respond from an soroundings based on some command.....but only we humans are able to experience through feelings as we have consciousness only we have some higher self.... that no thing orr machine could ever have anywhere

[QUOTE=JackALope2323;1506040. Consciousness is the universe's way of observing itself.[/QUOTE]

Beautifully written.