archibald wrote:He's citing uncaused events in my brain. That's for sure.
I'm not citing anything in your brain, archi, only original ideas in my brain.
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
archibald wrote:He's citing uncaused events in my brain. That's for sure.
DavidMcC wrote:
Random neural spiking (which may or may not lead to false memory).
EDIT: I suspect that these can be important \when you're asleep and dreaming, as there is much less normal brain activity then.
GrahamH wrote:
...
Take any decision point and suppose that what tips you one way of the other is a random event. Is that your free will in control or not?
DavidMcC wrote:, but that such random spiking can give you otherwise uncaused ideas that feed the conscious mind (dreaming being a state of consciousness in which the mind is disonnected from the outside world, and hence has the opportiunity to get input from internal sources.
GrahamH wrote:...
That is basically the free will debate. Are we free to choose for ourselves? Are we in control?
...
DavidMcC wrote:, but that such random spiking can give you otherwise uncaused ideas that feed the conscious mind (dreaming being a state of consciousness in which the mind is disonnected from the outside world, and hence has the opportiunity to get input from internal sources.
Yes, that fine, a bit of noise can shake things up a bit. No problem with that, but it doesn't look like conscious will in control.
DavidMcC wrote:..... but as I said before, if we get an idea "out of the blue" while we are awake, then we can take control of actions that may arise from that.
GrahamH wrote:Yes, that fine, a bit of noise can shake things up a bit. No problem with that, but it doesn't look like conscious will in control.
GrahamH wrote: Considering consciousness as a predictive model / simulation or of the organism itself opens up system behaviour vastly more complex than what we usually think of as "automatic".
You can't be serious.GrahamH wrote:Ughaibu offers no defence of a conscious agent in control.
The above was addressed to you and answered by you. It is a reductio against the claim that there is no conscious control. So of course it's a defence, it's a proof for fucks sake.ughaibu wrote:All healthy human adults unavoidably assume the reality of free will. In other words, at the unconscious level, all healthy human adults are free will affirmers, not deniers. Let's suppose the denialist scenario that all decisions are algorithmically completed unconsciously and then viewed, without input, consciously, before being enacted. In such a case, for all decidable questions, the answer held unconsciously would be the answer held consciously. But in that case, as all healthy human beings unconsciously hold free will to be real, all healthy human beings would also consciously hold free will to be real.GrahamH wrote:I don't know what you think 'mental activity' is if not a series of experiences of thoughts fed from the 'unconscious source'.
By observation we know that there are free will deniers. So, there are healthy human adults who hold two incompatible positions, one unconsciously and the other consciously. Accordingly, it is not possible that all conscious thought is algorithmically decided unconsciously.
But physics doesn't talk about the brain, physics can't even get consciousness from the underlying processes, never mind decision making, and realism about all mainstream physics is incompatible with determinism by virtue of continuity in the ontologies. In any case, it has also been explained, at tedious length, how the conduct of any empirical science, and there's nothing special about physics, in this respect, requires the assumption that its researchers have free will.GrahamH wrote:Deterministic physics casts huge doubt on the idea that consciousness literally has ultimate control, since it seems to be entirely dependent on the functioning of the brain and the underlying physical processes.
ughaibu wrote:You can't be serious.GrahamH wrote:Ughaibu offers no defence of a conscious agent in control.The above was addressed to you and answered by you. It is a reductio against the claim that there is no conscious control. So of course it's a defence, it's a proof for fucks sake.ughaibu wrote:All healthy human adults unavoidably assume the reality of free will. In other words, at the unconscious level, all healthy human adults are free will affirmers, not deniers. Let's suppose the denialist scenario that all decisions are algorithmically completed unconsciously and then viewed, without input, consciously, before being enacted. In such a case, for all decidable questions, the answer held unconsciously would be the answer held consciously. But in that case, as all healthy human beings unconsciously hold free will to be real, all healthy human beings would also consciously hold free will to be real.GrahamH wrote:I don't know what you think 'mental activity' is if not a series of experiences of thoughts fed from the 'unconscious source'.
By observation we know that there are free will deniers. So, there are hea fromlthy human adults who hold two incompatible positions, one unconsciously and the other consciously. Accordingly, it is not possible that all conscious thought is algorithmically decided unconsciously.But physics doesn't talk about the brain, physics can't even get consciousness from the underlying processes, never mind decision making, and realism about all mainstream physics is incompatible with determinism by virtue of continuity in the ontologies. In any case, it has also been explained, at tedious length, how the conduct of any empirical science, and there's nothing special about physics, in this respect, requires the assumption that its researchers have free will.GrahamH wrote:Deterministic physics casts huge doubt on the idea that consciousness literally has ultimate control, since it seems to be entirely dependent on the functioning of the brain and the underlying physical processes.
But this view is irrational. If our brains are following laws of physics, then laws of physics, which are things generated by brains, are just consequences entailed by laws of physics. But if that's the case, we have no reason to think that those laws are in any sense correct. Besides, if it were the case that our brains were following laws of physics, then in principle we could exactly predict our future behaviour entailed by those laws. But as pointed out earlier, this conflicts with the requirements of empirical science. So no empirical science, and again, there is nothing special about physics here, can ever both be consistent and have laws that correctly entail all human behaviour.zoon wrote:the workings of our brains, which are likely to follow the laws of physics.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 5 guests