My Theory of Free Will

[LOGICZOMBIE]

P1. If humans’ perception is based on the truth, then they have free will.
P2. Humans’ perception is sometimes based on the truth.
Therefore,
C. Humans sometimes have free will.

So if Humans can sometimes know what is true, then they are sometimes free.

In a theistic framework (the only framework that I think actually works) I would state it like this:

P1. God chose to create all information.
P2. Persons are a subset of information God created.
P3. The information a person perceives is a subset of the information God chose to create.
P4. Persons make choices based on the information they perceive.
P5. A person’s choices are a subset of information.
Therefore,
C. A person’s choices are a subset of God’s choices.

nobody knows "the truth" all the time

this is a ridiculous qualifier, essentially a fleet of torpedos demolishing any hope

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

 

[fractalwalrus]

Here I would like to outline my thoughts on Free Will and the capacity that we have it. There will be several steps to this, but I hope it is clear at the end of this that you [all] know where I stand on this issue.

First, I should break up the human psychology so that we know what is going on when we have Free Will. This is necessary because, without this, there is nothing to ground Free Will in. People who hold to Libertarian Free Will believe it is a power we possess that gives us the ability to choose. They assume we are rational so we have Free Will. But my overarching point is that it is only when we are rational (by operating in the Truth) that we are Free.

First, In my view, there are essentially three levels of consciousness.
1) Experiences are made up of our senses which are the most conscious
2) Questions are made up of our reasoning and our short-term memory which are semi-conscious
3) Schema made up of our worldview and our long-term memory which are unconscious

So what happens is that we will filter what we experiences and question those experiences which then get integrated into our schema. There are different levels of this. It moves from shallow to deep.
1) Who and what questions get answered first.
2) Where and when questions get answered second.
3) How and why questions get answered last.
4) As the depth increases, so does context.
5) As context increases, so does the relation to the fundamental axioms of reality.
6) Given 5, since context is king in understanding Truth, that is why there are so many different opinions.

Given the above, this syllogism may be helpful, but does not pain the whole picture.

P1. If humans’ perception is based on the truth, then they have free will.
P2. Humans’ perception is sometimes based on the truth.
Therefore,
C. Humans sometimes have free will.

So if Humans can sometimes know what is true, then they are sometimes free.

In a theistic framework (the only framework that I think actually works) I would state it like this:

P1. God chose to create all information.
P2. Persons are a subset of information God created.
P3. The information a person perceives is a subset of the information God chose to create.
P4. Persons make choices based on the information they perceive.
P5. A person’s choices are a subset of information.
Therefore,
C. A person’s choices are a subset of God’s choices.

The mechanism for discovering what is true is based on an openness of mind that takes the factors of what is in your schema and measures that against your experiences. It is then a matter of noticing the differences without holding prejudice against what you are experiencing. In a sense, it is trust in your experiences, but only so far as you can identify how they differ from your schema.

And this picture more or less depicts how I see Free Will in a nutshell.

Some people I would like to mention who I have talked about some of this stuff with...
@Cognisant
@Animekitty
@ZenRaiden
@LOGICZOMBIE

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talks.

Ok, so my understanding of Libertarian Free Will, is that it is the capacity to act against one's own nature. Now, the problem here comes in defining what constitutes a "nature." If one restricts their definition of nature to "The material world and its phenomena," but applied here to the human being, why do we differentiate reason from "the material" components of the human? In other words, is not reason just another part of human "nature" as it would be? Also, is reason incapable of being a restricting force upon one's actions? Why would reason be "undetermined," and are the factors that we bring into our reasoning process lack deterministic causes? In other words, if you have determined through reason, that you need to get a lot of Vitamin C in order to avoid contracting scurvy, were you free of the material conditions in the world that ultimately led you to have this internal reasoning monologue in the first place?

So, for premise 1: "if humans' perception is based on truth then they have free will,"
I would pose the following: One would be hard pressed to argue that human perception is not based on the "truth," considering that something true is triggering those perceptions (even if we are brains in a vat, the stimulation of our neurons is based on a true state of affairs [the existence of the lab doing the stimulating]), though it does not appear to reflect the truth in its entirety. The reservation that I have about this premise is in the assumption that free will necessarily results from the presence of accurate perceptual experience. Why is this so? This was not made clear to me, unless I missed something or misunderstand.

The rest of the argument: premise 2, and the conclusion, are sound assuming that premise one is valid. Is it?

As for your claims about a theistic framework being the only one that works, I am curious to know why you believe this to be true.

If you can clear up the question I had about premise 1 from above, and justify the existence of the theistic framework as being the only workable one, then I would like to address the rest of the points with you, but will refrain from doing so yet because it is a lot to discuss.

 

[Old Things]

Here I would like to outline my thoughts on Free Will and the capacity that we have it. There will be several steps to this, but I hope it is clear at the end of this that you [all] know where I stand on this issue.

First, I should break up the human psychology so that we know what is going on when we have Free Will. This is necessary because, without this, there is nothing to ground Free Will in. People who hold to Libertarian Free Will believe it is a power we possess that gives us the ability to choose. They assume we are rational so we have Free Will. But my overarching point is that it is only when we are rational (by operating in the Truth) that we are Free.

First, In my view, there are essentially three levels of consciousness.
1) Experiences are made up of our senses which are the most conscious
2) Questions are made up of our reasoning and our short-term memory which are semi-conscious
3) Schema made up of our worldview and our long-term memory which are unconscious

So what happens is that we will filter what we experiences and question those experiences which then get integrated into our schema. There are different levels of this. It moves from shallow to deep.
1) Who and what questions get answered first.
2) Where and when questions get answered second.
3) How and why questions get answered last.
4) As the depth increases, so does context.
5) As context increases, so does the relation to the fundamental axioms of reality.
6) Given 5, since context is king in understanding Truth, that is why there are so many different opinions.

Given the above, this syllogism may be helpful, but does not pain the whole picture.

P1. If humans’ perception is based on the truth, then they have free will.
P2. Humans’ perception is sometimes based on the truth.
Therefore,
C. Humans sometimes have free will.

So if Humans can sometimes know what is true, then they are sometimes free.

In a theistic framework (the only framework that I think actually works) I would state it like this:

P1. God chose to create all information.
P2. Persons are a subset of information God created.
P3. The information a person perceives is a subset of the information God chose to create.
P4. Persons make choices based on the information they perceive.
P5. A person’s choices are a subset of information.
Therefore,
C. A person’s choices are a subset of God’s choices.

The mechanism for discovering what is true is based on an openness of mind that takes the factors of what is in your schema and measures that against your experiences. It is then a matter of noticing the differences without holding prejudice against what you are experiencing. In a sense, it is trust in your experiences, but only so far as you can identify how they differ from your schema.

And this picture more or less depicts how I see Free Will in a nutshell.

Some people I would like to mention who I have talked about some of this stuff with...
@Cognisant
@Animekitty
@ZenRaiden
@LOGICZOMBIE

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talks.

Ok, so my understanding of Libertarian Free Will, is that it is the capacity to act against one's own nature. Now, the problem here comes in defining what constitutes a "nature." If one restricts their definition of nature to "The material world and its phenomena," but applied here to the human being, why do we differentiate reason from "the material" components of the human? In other words, is not reason just another part of human "nature" as it would be? Also, is reason incapable of being a restricting force upon one's actions? Why would reason be "undetermined," and are the factors that we bring into our reasoning process lack deterministic causes? In other words, if you have determined through reason, that you need to get a lot of Vitamin C in order to avoid contracting scurvy, were you free of the material conditions in the world that ultimately led you to have this internal reasoning monologue in the first place?

So, for premise 1: "if humans' perception is based on truth then they have free will,"
I would pose the following: One would be hard pressed to argue that human perception is not based on the "truth," considering that something true is triggering those perceptions (even if we are brains in a vat, the stimulation of our neurons is based on a true state of affairs [the existence of the lab doing the stimulating]), though it does not appear to reflect the truth in its entirety. The reservation that I have about this premise is in the assumption that free will necessarily results from the presence of accurate perceptual experience. Why is this so? This was not made clear to me, unless I missed something or misunderstand.

The rest of the argument: premise 2, and the conclusion, are sound assuming that premise one is valid. Is it?

As for your claims about a theistic framework being the only one that works, I am curious to know why you believe this to be true.

If you can clear up the question I had about premise 1 from above, and justify the existence of the theistic framework as being the only workable one, then I would like to address the rest of the points with you, but will refrain from doing so yet because it is a lot to discuss.

P.1 assumes we are thinking rationally. There is no reason (that I can see) why reason would somehow be a natural phenomena. You could say that reasoning is part of the process of the brain, but then you run into the problem of evolution and assuming that our minds are oriented towards obtaining truth at all (as opposed to being merely about survival. See Alvin Plantinga's argument EAAN).

IDK what exactly you are asking with your second inquiry. Are you asking why I believe in God or are you asking why I believe God's existence is really the only thing that makes sense given my understanding of free will? As far as why I believe in God, I have both experiential knowledge and argumentative knowledge. As far as if God's existence is the only thing that makes sense in light of free will, I'd simply quote Richard Dawkins here: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." If that follows, then we can't actually know what is true. So then atheism is a belief system that shoots itself in the head without ever getting off the ground since we could never actually know if atheism is true or not. If you are asking why it is necessary that God exists for my view to make sense, I suppose there could be some weird spiritual belief that could make sense of it. But it would lack purpose as to why we have free will. In a pantheistic universe, god is the universe. The idea that all is one with each other and such. But such a view does not make sense of the idea of why there is something rather than nothing. If you are looking to eliminate brute facts (which some people clearly are not) then there are not many options to take to the bank. Theism is a belief system that has been around for quite a while and still exists to this day. Even some thinking people among us believe in a theistic God. That is not to say there are no competing theories; it just means a lot of these theories die out at some point.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Theism is a belief system that has been around for quite a while and still exists to this day.

this is an argument from survival bias

 

[fractalwalrus]

There is no reason (that I can see) why reason would somehow be a natural phenomena.

Does reason occur in nature? Are the things which reason separate from nature? If so, why?

but then you run into the problem of evolution and assuming that our minds are oriented towards obtaining truth at all (as opposed to being merely about survival

Would you say that one's mind does not need a minimum approximation of truth in order to successfully survive? Are you certain that truth orientation and survival would be mutually exclusive, or is it possible that they may, on occasion correspond?

So then atheism is a belief system that shoots itself in the head without ever getting off the ground since we could never actually know if atheism is true or not.

So, with all of the other things we lack a belief in without evidence, our heads are colanders. The lack of belief does not need to be justified. Belief does.

it just means a lot of these theories die out at some point.

Can the dying out of theories only be explained through their lack of validity?

 

[Old Things]

Does reason occur in nature? Are the things which reason separate from nature? If so, why?

No, reasoning does not occur naturally. Instinct does, but that is not reason.

Would you say that one's mind does not need a minimum approximation of truth in order to successfully survive? Are you certain that truth orientation and survival would be mutually exclusive, or is it possible that they may, on occasion correspond?

The concept of truth is erroneous if we are adapted to survive at root. You cannot even make truth claims if the fundamental axion is survival of the fittest. Might makes right and all that, which ends in pragmatism being the predominant form of truth. That is why Jordan Peterson holds a pragmatic view of truth. He has thought it through. In his view, truth is not a transcendent concept but something that is true is true because it has "worked" for the longest amount of time.

So, with all of the other things we lack a belief in without evidence, our heads are colanders. The lack of belief does not need to be justified. Belief does.

Atheists love to talk about belief as if it is in a vacuum. Well, it's not. You know about God. I could see your perspective if someone never heard of God before, but then we would not be having this conversation.

Can the dying out of theories only be explained through their lack of validity?

No, because ideas a cyclical.

 

[fractalwalrus]

No, reasoning does not occur naturally. Instinct does, but that is not reason.

So are we supernatural? Our current understanding of how the mind works strongly suggests that reason occurs in the brain. There are specific brain regions that show activity which correlates with self-reported bouts of reasoning. There are also regions of the brain which light up on a screen when measured during emotional (instinctive) responses. Why does one item (reason) get labeled as beyond natural, while the other is natural when they both originate from the brain?

Might makes right and all that, which ends in pragmatism being the predominant form of truth.

So would you say that aspects of truth which do not have anything to do with survival are irrelevant?

Well, it's not. You know about God. I could see your perspective if someone never heard of God before, but then we would not be having this conversation.

I have heard about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus as well, yet I do not default into believing in them. If exposure to a concept were the only necessary criteria for holding a belief, I would believe in a lot of things.

No, because ideas a cyclical.

Are we talking fashion levels of cyclical, here? So cargo shorts go out in the 90s and then come back in vogue again in the 2010s? Same with ideas? I don't know about that exactly. To disprove this idea, one would simply have to find an example where an idea that the masses held collectively transitioned over to another idea than that which was expected to be next in the cycle.

 

[Old Things]

So are we supernatural? Our current understanding of how the mind works strongly suggests that reason occurs in the brain. There are specific brain regions that show activity which correlates with self-reported bouts of reasoning. There are also regions of the brain which light up on a screen when measured during emotional (instinctive) responses. Why does one item (reason) get labeled as beyond natural, while the other is natural when they both originate from the brain?

Correlation ≠ causation. Everyone agrees the brain correlates with certain mind states. That is not where the debate is, however.

So would you say that aspects of truth which do not have anything to do with survival are irrelevant?

They are if materialism is true.

I have heard about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus as well, yet I do not default into believing in them. If exposure to a concept were the only necessary criteria for holding a belief, I would believe in a lot of things.

Don't you actively disbelieve in those things? So the same is true about God, which is a concept you are already familiar with.

Are we talking fashion levels of cyclical, here? So cargo shorts go out in the 90s and then come back in vogue again in the 2010s? Same with ideas? I don't know about that exactly. To disprove this idea, one would simply have to find an example where an idea that the masses held collectively transitioned over to another idea than that which was expected to be next in the cycle.

Innovations do occur. But it depends on how you view things. Liberal ideas come and go. Conservative ideas come and go. These two things seem to account for an awful lot of ideas. That's more the type of thing I am thinking of.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Correlation ≠ causation. Everyone agrees the brain correlates with certain mind states. That is not where the debate is, however.

No, correlation does not = causation. However, why should we give reason some special status of being beyond natural and then not do this for instinct? What the correlation does do is tell us that something is happening in the brain at the time the instinct or reason occurs.

They are if materialism is true.

But truth would still be truth regardless of its utility, would it not?

Don't you actively disbelieve in those things? So the same is true about God, which is a concept you are already familiar with.

This would depend on whether one believes belief to be an active process.

So are we supernatural? Our current understanding of how the mind works strongly suggests that reason occurs in the brain. There are specific brain regions that show activity which correlates with self-reported bouts of reasoning. There are also regions of the brain which light up on a screen when measured during emotional (instinctive) responses. Why does one item (reason) get labeled as beyond natural, while the other is natural when they both originate from the brain?

Correlation ≠ causation. Everyone agrees the brain correlates with certain mind states. That is not where the debate is, however.

So would you say that aspects of truth which do not have anything to do with survival are irrelevant?

They are if materialism is true.

I have heard about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus as well, yet I do not default into believing in them. If exposure to a concept were the only necessary criteria for holding a belief, I would believe in a lot of things.

Don't you actively disbelieve in those things? So the same is true about God, which is a concept you are already familiar with.

Are we talking fashion levels of cyclical, here? So cargo shorts go out in the 90s and then come back in vogue again in the 2010s? Same with ideas? I don't know about that exactly. To disprove this idea, one would simply have to find an example where an idea that the masses held collectively transitioned over to another idea than that which was expected to be next in the cycle.

Innovations do occur. But it depends on how you view things. Liberal ideas come and go. Conservative ideas come and go. These two things seem to account for an awful lot of ideas. That's more the type of thing I am thinking of.

If they were cyclical, wouldn't it imply a degree of predictability?

 

[Old Things]

No, correlation does not = causation. However, why should we give reason some special status of being beyond natural and then not do this for instinct? What the correlation does do is tell us that something is happening in the brain at the time the instinct or reason occurs.

I want you to watch this and then give your thoughts on it.

 

[fractalwalrus]

No, correlation does not = causation. However, why should we give reason some special status of being beyond natural and then not do this for instinct? What the correlation does do is tell us that something is happening in the brain at the time the instinct or reason occurs.

I want you to watch this and then give your thoughts on it.

I will attempt to condense the material in the video down to its main points and address them. I will list points with "P"'s and I will list disputes that I have with a "D:" notation:

P1 : The soul (mind) is an object separate from the body and can experience sensations and respond to stimuli.

D : This premise would need supporting evidence. An attempt was made to do this later in the vid.

P2: The soul is either synonymous with consciousness (Descartes), or it is this and also the animating force of the body (Aristotle).

D: Why define the soul as a thing separate from consciousness in the first place if they are indistinguishable? If consciousness is the "driver", then it would also be an animating force. Cars that are not self-driving do not move without someone to turn the key and press the gas pedal.

P3: Consciousness consists of sensations, desires, thoughts, and free choice.

D: This is definitional, so I will proceed here with this definition in mind.

P4: Without consciousness, a material object cannot know of its own existence (an electron, for example).

D: Assuming that there exists something separate from the material to account for sensations, choice, thought, etc, which they refer to as a "soul" or consciousness, how could it be proved that an electron has no soul? In other words, if consciousness does not arise from the material, why is it not possible for it to inhabit the inanimate (like an electron), and therefore be aware of its own existence? If one were to answer that the electron has no nervous system, then it would imply that consciousness is indeed dependent upon the material.

P5: Consciousness' arrival into the material universe does not seem to be necessary, the universe could have existed without it.

D: I cannot disprove this suggestion. However, the same can be said for most things that exist in the universe. The universe could have done without them and still been a universe, though not the exact same one we know.

P6: Consciousness according to the naturalist, involves getting something out of nothing (ex nihilo argument)

D: For this statement to be true, the naturalist would have to be arguing what the people in the video are arguing, that consciousness is separate from material reality (thereby arising from no material causal factors). Emergence is still a state that is predicated upon the existence of SOMETHING.

P7: Conscious states are separate from brain states and cannot be measured (take pain, for example).

D: Prove it. So you cannot measure pain INTENSITY from self-report, yet you can definitively say that the experiencer has claimed to experience what we recognize as pain, and corresponding areas of the brain light up when pain is experienced. Prove that there is a such thing as a "conscious state" which is independent of brain architecture. The burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim.

P8: Consciousness is characterized by things not present in matter (intentionality), being about something. Thoughts can be true or false, but brain states cannot.

D: Are you sure brain states cannot be true or false? Last time I checked, a truth statement can indeed be made about whether someone is "happy" or "sad", "awake" or "asleep."

P9: A material object cannot be reduced to one particular property (color is more than just wavelength of light, for example)

D: While a material object may have more properties than we are able to perceive with our senses, the conjunction of the object which sends the information (the photon) and that which receives the information (the eye) gives rise to the perception which is interpreted by an interpretor (the brain). These are both material things. What immaterial things could account for this, and how could we measure them? Could a soul see a color without an eye or brain?


P10: Mental experience cannot be reduced to physical things because they do not share the same properties.

D: Prove the mental experiences are not contigent upon certain physical structures being present, and that the mental experience, while not reducible to each component alone, is not a property of emergence.

P11: We are born natural dualists, and most of us have believed in a soul cross-culturally, therefore physicalism cannot be true.

D: Ok, so this study, for example:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm. So, if a common belief is a near universal experience, does that make it true? If people, for example, universally tended to believe that the earth was flat since it appeared so, would this make it true? Are we certain that this "universal" belief does not arise from something inherent in the subjective experience of consciousness? Are belief and truth synonymous?

P12: The possibility of an afterlife implies that something must exist to experience the afterlife, and since the body dies, it cannot be the body that does this.

D: Possibility arises out of a state of having access to limited information for predicting the future. An argument from ignorance does not prove the existence of a soul, at best it could only prove the POSSIBILITY and not the CERTAINTY of the existence of a soul. Prove that the afterlife exists, and then we can talk about the existence of a vessel for experiencing said afterlife, but there would not be much talking to do here, since an afterlife (a perception) would need a perceiver in order to be proven to exist.


P13: Near death experiences are evidence that the soul exists

D: This is not so. If near death experiences can be explained using physical means, then it does not necessitate the existence of a soul. See here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-near-death-experiences-reveal-about-the-brain/. The key phrase is NEAR death. My understanding of the phenomenon is that there is still brain activity ocurring during these experiences, which means that there is still a PHYSICAL thing present that can account for the phenomenon. For this to be evidence of the soul, an immaterial thing, the individual would have had to experience death, not near death, and so far we have not been able to reanimate actually dead people to ask them about their experiences in the next life. Even then, one would still have to say that some random damage to the neurons that occurred from death was not responsible for that person's experiences.

P14: The Ship of Theseus thought experiment presents an argument that the soul must exist because something whole must remain despite the fact that our bodies are changing constantly. I am a whole person even though my cells are being swapped out constantly.

D: What if the concept of a "whole" thing is in our minds? A slice of pizza is still called pizza. Or, what if the "whole" is an emergent property arising from material things? Must pizza have a soul to justify its existence as pizza when I slowly remove and replace slices? This does not prove the existence of a soul. Another example: If I clone a hard drive, and it has a game on it, the exact matter involved in the display of information (the game) has changed, but the information conveyed has not. Does the game have a soul, and is it not the same game?

P15: Free will is the decision made at the moment of a choice one has made, and nothing else determined it.

D: To prove the existence of such a thing, an "agent" would have to exist as an entity without prior causation. Your "choice" was contigent upon the existence of the material factors that went into it. In order to choose chocolate ice cream over vanilla, those things needed to have existed, and you a, "chooser", needed to exist as well. Decision does not demonstrate a gap in the causal chain, it reaffirms it.

P16: If determinism is true, then deliberation is impossible. Reason is free will.

D: Quite the contrary, deliberation is: "the act of thinking about or discussing something and deciding carefully." This thought process is DEPENDENT upon and DETERMINED by the things it is thinking about. Deliberation about sandwiches cannot exist without all of the causal factors that led to the creation of sandwiches, nor without the determining factors that led to the development of deliberating organs (or even the soul if it is what is responsible for deliberation). The soul (assuming its existence) could still be said to be the determinant of reason and deliberation.

P17: The application of punishment or praise is contingent upon free will's existence.

D: This is not true. Isn't the goal of punishment and praise (assuming one is not instinctively punishing and praising) to change behavior? Wouldn't this imply that one would believe behavior is determined by factors which include reward and punishment? If reward and punishment had no bearing on affecting future behavior, why administer it? The converse is of their claim is true here. The assumption of punishment and praise being useful as behavior controls are CONTINGENT upon the premise that behavior is determined. Free will would suggest that there is nothing you could to change someone's behavior, as it is undetermined and therefore not open to outside influence.

P18: Emergence is not a solution, it is the thing to be solved. Appealing to emergence still does not answer why since it is a brute fact (fact without further explanation), and "it just is" is not a sufficient answer.

D: Wouldn't there have to be a handful of brute facts in order for the universe to exist? Things that "just are?" This is going to get into causal chain arguments.

P19: Something arises from nothing with emergence (impossible), matter has no capacity for consciousness.

D: False. Emergence is contingent upon the existence of its components. Wikipedia: "In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when a complex entity has properties or behaviors that its parts do not have on their own, and emerge only when they interact in a wider whole." Those new "properties" and "behaviors" do not exist independent of their parts. Water has emergent properties which are the results of the interactions between hydrogen and oxygen, but those properties rely upon not nothing but something (hydrogen and oxygen getting a little cozy with each other). If matter has no capacity for consciousness, then why do our brains seem to contain it?

P20: How could consciousness arise out of more complex arrangements of matter?

D: How does any emergent property arise from more complex arrangements of matter? I'm not sure we know the answer to this, but one cannot claim to be honestly seeking the truth and simply fill in the blanks here with placeholders like the existence of a "soul." Argument from ignorance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

P21: Sorites problem: how many grains of sand must be removed for a heap of sand to no longer be a heap. What is the minimum complexity threshold for consciousness to arise?

D: This does not exclude emergence as an explanation for consciousness. Cool, we have a word describing the concept of a heap. We get to decide the required number of grains of sand that constitute a heap. Some law we either are or are not aware of determines the minimum level of complexity necessary for consciousness to arise. Remove a brain cell, people are generally still said to be conscious. Remove the whole brain except for one cell, we would probably say that they are not conscious. Somewhere in process of removing neurons, the firings of the neurons probably occur in a manner that would resemble what we would call consciousness a lot less. I don't know this number. We would need way more precise descriptions of what makes one "conscious" to determine this. When they stop exhibiting behaviors that are considered NECESSARY components of consciousness, then they are no longer conscious.

P22: God is first cause as a necessary brute fact. Avoids infnite regress problem. God is solution to infinite regress.

D: Is God the ONLY possible solution for infinite regress? If not, then this proves nothing.

 

[fractalwalrus]

To summarize my long response: The points made in the video have proved nothing. There was insufficient evidence presented to suggest that the soul exists, and there was insufficient evidence presented to suggest that consciousness can exist separate from the body (material). Emergence is not an Ex Nihilo proposition since it depends upon the existence of something. Also, they engaged in arguments from ignorance.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

If one were to answer that the electron has no nervous system, then it would imply that consciousness is indeed dependent upon the material.

if we can't detect it, it can be everywhere and nowhere simultaneously

Wouldn't this imply that one would believe behavior is determined by factors which include reward and punishment? If reward and punishment had no bearing on affecting future behavior, why administer it?

reward theory is implicitly deterministic

Free will would suggest that there is nothing you could to change someone's behavior, as it is undetermined and therefore not open to outside influence.

true freedom from influence is functionally indistinguishable from random

D: Is God the ONLY possible solution for infinite regress? If not, then this proves nothing.

GOD = BIG BANG = NOUMENON = MAGNUM MYSTERIUM

 

[Old Things]

Emergence is not an Ex Nihilo proposition since it depends upon the existence of something.

What does it depend on? I am pretty sure you have misunderstood. If the soul exists after death, then it does not depend on a brain (which is what neurologists try to say is the cause of consciousness with no evidence to back this up). That's kinda a key detail you are leaving out. Consciousness is NOT synonymous with the brain which is what this video shows in many ways.

 

[fractalwalrus]

What does it depend on?

The existence of things to emerge from. Emergence DOES NOT arise from nothing. The emergent properties of water, for example, must come from hydrogen and oxygen palling around.

If the soul exists after death, then it does not depend on a brain

And if we cannot use the brain as an indicator to determine if a thing has a soul, then how do we know that say, an electron or a plant do not have one as well?

That's kinda a key detail you are leaving out. Consciousness is NOT synonymous with the brain which is what this video shows in many ways.

I would not claim these things to be synonymous. The word "synonymous" is not synonymous with the word dependent. The evidence would suggest that consciousness is indeed DEPENDENT upon the brain, as we have no evidence to suggest that consciousness can occur without a brain. Where is the evidence that consciousness can occur without a brain?

 

[Old Things]

My understanding of the phenomenon is that there is still brain activity ocurring during these experiences, which means that there is still a PHYSICAL thing present that can account for the phenomenon.

What does it depend on?

The existence of things to emerge from. Emergence DOES NOT arise from nothing. The emergent properties of water, for example, must come from hydrogen and oxygen palling around.

If the soul exists after death, then it does not depend on a brain

And if we cannot use the brain as an indicator to determine if a thing has a soul, then how do we know that say, an electron or a plant do not have one as well?

That's kinda a key detail you are leaving out. Consciousness is NOT synonymous with the brain which is what this video shows in many ways.

I would not claim these things to be synonymous. The word "synonymous" is not synonymous with the word dependent. The evidence would suggest that consciousness is indeed DEPENDENT upon the brain, as we have no evidence to suggest that consciousness can occur without a brain. Where is the evidence that consciousness can occur without a brain?

Seems to be that your position is anything except dualism because you don't want God or the afterlife to exist.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Seems to be that your position is anything except dualism because you don't want God or the afterlife to exist.

adding ghosts gods and goblins merely extends the causal chain

it doesn't change anything

god must either act with an intentional goal seeking will (expectation of future outcomes based on past experiences) or without intentional goal seeking will (free from previous events and functionally indistinguishable from random)

 

[fractalwalrus]

My understanding of the phenomenon is that there is still brain activity ocurring during these experiences, which means that there is still a PHYSICAL thing present that can account for the phenomenon.

What does it depend on?

The existence of things to emerge from. Emergence DOES NOT arise from nothing. The emergent properties of water, for example, must come from hydrogen and oxygen palling around.

If the soul exists after death, then it does not depend on a brain

And if we cannot use the brain as an indicator to determine if a thing has a soul, then how do we know that say, an electron or a plant do not have one as well?

That's kinda a key detail you are leaving out. Consciousness is NOT synonymous with the brain which is what this video shows in many ways.

I would not claim these things to be synonymous. The word "synonymous" is not synonymous with the word dependent. The evidence would suggest that consciousness is indeed DEPENDENT upon the brain, as we have no evidence to suggest that consciousness can occur without a brain. Where is the evidence that consciousness can occur without a brain?

Seems to be that your position is anything except dualism because you don't want God or the afterlife to exist.

It isn't about me "wanting" God or the afterlife to exist, wanting a thing to be so does not make it so.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Seems to be that your position is anything except dualism because you don't want God or the afterlife to exist.

adding ghosts gods and goblins merely extends the causal chain

it doesn't change anything

god must either act with an intentional goal seeking will (expectation of future outcomes based on past experiences) or without intentional goal seeking will (free from previous events and functionally indistinguishable from random)

100 percent my putrified purveyor of primal postulates.

 

[Old Things]

It isn't about me "wanting" God or the afterlife to exist, wanting a thing to be so does not make it so

You are willing to say that Panentheism could be true (which is a supernatural worldview) but not substance dualism. Looks pretty clear to me that you want anything to be true except Dualism.

 

[fractalwalrus]

It isn't about me "wanting" God or the afterlife to exist, wanting a thing to be so does not make it so

You are willing to say that Panentheism could be true (which is a supernatural worldview) but not substance dualism. Looks pretty clear to me that you want anything to be true except Dualism.

Explain to me where I make the claim that Panentheism could be true. I want what is true to be true. Tell me the truth.

 

[Old Things]

It isn't about me "wanting" God or the afterlife to exist, wanting a thing to be so does not make it so

You are willing to say that Panentheism could be true (which is a supernatural worldview) but not substance dualism. Looks pretty clear to me that you want anything to be true except Dualism.

Explain to me where I make the claim that Panentheism could be true. I want what is true to be true. Tell me the truth.

You said, basically, "If dualism is true, how do we know that Panentheism is not true?"

For the simple reason that we have no evidence that an electron has a mind. We do have that evidence for humans. Less so for animals, who are mostly run on auto-pilot. But you basically adhere to the excluded middle when you say, "If dualism is true, then other views could be true" which is an appeal to say that dualism is not as likely as either Panentheism or Naturalism.

 

[fractalwalrus]

You said, basically, "If dualism is true, how do we know that Panentheism is not true?"

Where did I claim this, specifically?

who are mostly run on auto-pilot

What does autopilot look like to you?

 

[Old Things]

Where did I claim this, specifically?

then how do we know that say, an electron or a plant do not have one as well?

What does autopilot look like to you?

It is acting without considering the consequences of our actions or not using reasoning to make decisions. Reasoning is fundamental to consciousness. In Naturalism, there is no reasoning for the simple fact that a chemical compound cannot be true or false. It is just is. There is no way to say an idea can be true or false because ideas are immaterial.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Where did I claim this, specifically?

then how do we know that say, an electron or a plant do not have one as well?

What does autopilot look like to you?

It is acting without considering the consequences of our actions or not using reasoning to make decisions. Reasoning is fundamental to consciousness. In Naturalism, there is no reasoning for the simple fact that a chemical compound cannot be true or false. It is just is. There is no way to say an idea can be true or false because ideas are immaterial.

View attachment 8333

So you would say that my simple asking of a question that essentially challenges a dualist to prove that panentheism is not an alternative explanation is an overt advocation of panentheism on my part? If you're a dualist, you have the burden of disproving alternative explanations, just as I would if I advocated a specific position.

As for the autopilot remark, do you really believe it to be the case that most people

We do have that evidence for humans

Where?

Less so for animals, who are mostly run on auto-pilot.

Why are humans not a subset of animals?

 

[Old Things]

Where?

The video, which your objections take out of context to argue against.

Why are humans not a subset of animals?

They may be animals, but they can still be an evolved animal that has a consciousness unlike that of animals. No other animals make skyscrapers, for example.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Where?

The video, which your objections take out of context to argue against.

Why are humans not a subset of animals?

They may be animals, but they can still be an evolved animal that has a consciousness unlike that of animals. No other animals make skyscrapers, for example.

1) Explain to me what I took out of context using solid evidence. I stated my points by summarizing a video and refuting its points. This wasn't me simply regurgitating gut emotional responses because I "did not like something." So prove to me that you are conscious. Respond logically and methodically and while not acting on autopilot.

2) Cool, we don't tend to lay eggs. Is that an indicator of consciousness?

 

[Old Things]

Cool, we don't tend to lay eggs. Is that an indicator of consciousness?

This is an example of the ridiculousness of atheism.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Cool, we don't tend to lay eggs. Is that an indicator of consciousness?

This is an example of the ridiculousness of atheism.

Yes, the ability to lay eggs or be conscious directly relates to whether or not God exists.

 

[Old Things]

Cool, we don't tend to lay eggs. Is that an indicator of consciousness?

This is an example of the ridiculousness of atheism.

Yes, the ability to lay eggs or be conscious directly relates to whether or not God exists.

Another ridiculous statement.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Cool, we don't tend to lay eggs. Is that an indicator of consciousness?

This is an example of the ridiculousness of atheism.

Yes, the ability to lay eggs or be conscious directly relates to whether or not God exists.

Another ridiculous statement.

You're right.

 

[fluffy]

Reasoning is done by the brain in the same way all learning is done, trial and error, yet there is more to it than that. We must have a loop. This loop resides in the frontal lobes. With it we can think ahead.

Memory is made of many little loops we access in new situations and compare what we know with what is in front of us. Once we find a solution we try it. The brain then changes itself to remember if what we did worked. And we build up representations of these so we can be wise in many things. We do not reason unless we make something new.

I would say reasoning then can be explained as a mechanical process of smaller steps of learning into larger representations. The brain holds a 3D model of reality as casual processes we recombine inside us to test in the real world. Some animal can reason but humans reason with language which can also be explained with loops.

 

[Old Things]

Reasoning is done by the brain in the same way all learning is done, trial and error, yet there is more to it than that. We must have a loop. This loop resides in the frontal lobes. With it we can think ahead.

Memory is made of many little loops we access in new situations and compare what we know with what is in front of us. Once we find a solution we try it. The brain then changes itself to remember if what we did worked. And we build up representations of these so we can be wise in many things. We do not reason unless we make something new.

I would say reasoning then can be explained as a mechanical process of smaller steps of learning into larger representations. The brain holds a 3D model of reality as casual processes we recombine inside us to test in the real world. Some animal can reason but humans reason with language which can also be explained with loops.

Consciousness is not a mechanical process. It is a fluid process.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Reasoning is done by the brain in the same way all learning is done, trial and error, yet there is more to it than that. We must have a loop. This loop resides in the frontal lobes. With it we can think ahead.

Memory is made of many little loops we access in new situations and compare what we know with what is in front of us. Once we find a solution we try it. The brain then changes itself to remember if what we did worked. And we build up representations of these so we can be wise in many things. We do not reason unless we make something new.

I would say reasoning then can be explained as a mechanical process of smaller steps of learning into larger representations. The brain holds a 3D model of reality as casual processes we recombine inside us to test in the real world. Some animal can reason but humans reason with language which can also be explained with loops.

Consciousness is not a mechanical process. It is a fluid process.

Fluid mechanics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[fractalwalrus]

Cool, we don't tend to lay eggs. Is that an indicator of consciousness?

This is an example of the ridiculousness of atheism.

Yes, the ability to lay eggs or be conscious directly relates to whether or not God exists.

Another ridiculous statement.

After all this discussion, it can still be said that you have not sufficiently proven that consciousness exists separately from the brain. Without empirical proof, or irrefutable logical arguments, the claim that consciousness (the soul, as you might call it) is pure speculation and hypothetical. If the soul is something said to exist that is fundamentally different than the brain (in other words, the soul is not matter, and has zero properties in common with matter), how would it interface with the brain?

 

[fluffy]

Reasoning is done by the brain in the same way all learning is done, trial and error, yet there is more to it than that. We must have a loop. This loop resides in the frontal lobes. With it we can think ahead.

Memory is made of many little loops we access in new situations and compare what we know with what is in front of us. Once we find a solution we try it. The brain then changes itself to remember if what we did worked. And we build up representations of these so we can be wise in many things. We do not reason unless we make something new.

I would say reasoning then can be explained as a mechanical process of smaller steps of learning into larger representations. The brain holds a 3D model of reality as casual processes we recombine inside us to test in the real world. Some animal can reason but humans reason with language which can also be explained with loops.

Consciousness is not a mechanical process. It is a fluid process.

Fluid mechanics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are so many loops in the brain, and they change such that reasoning is a fluid mechanical process. It is just a memory system learning and reflecting on itself.

 

[Old Things]

Cool, we don't tend to lay eggs. Is that an indicator of consciousness?

This is an example of the ridiculousness of atheism.

Yes, the ability to lay eggs or be conscious directly relates to whether or not God exists.

Another ridiculous statement.

After all this discussion, it can still be said that you have not sufficiently proven that consciousness exists separately from the brain. Without empirical proof, or irrefutable logical arguments, the claim that consciousness (the soul, as you might call it) is pure speculation and hypothetical. If the soul is something said to exist that is fundamentally different than the brain (in other words, the soul is not matter, and has zero properties in common with matter), how would it interface with the brain?

You atheists always want proof. Very few things actually have proof for them. For example, there is no such thing as a scientific fact because science can always be updated to provide a new discovery. So when you say I haven't provided proof I see, "I will not believe it unless it is 100% undeniable" but you neglect that one of the hardest problems to be solved in the current day is the hard problem of consciousness. You hand wave this away as if the matter is settled, but the matter is far from settled since scientists do not have an answer to this problem. What is more likely? That your ability to have a "what it's like to be you" to the effect that you can say "I think therefore I am" came from chemical processes (which there is no proof of) or to say that consciousness is separate from the brain?

 

[fluffy]

Who said I was an atheist?

I studied neurology and I came to the conclusion that intelligence works with some basic brain features. Consciousness may or may not be involved with reasoning but intelligence works and we are no longer ingnorant of how.

For my part God allowed the brain to work this way, consciousness is connected to it but not in the way normally thought of. It is neither materialistic nor dualistic. Think of an embryo as it grows, then think of what happens as the body fades away. This is what I think of when looking as myself as I exist. Like computer software. There still is a way to link brains with intelligence and consciousness but only if we see the temporary movement to moment transitioning between what we are. The body is more like a ghost than a physical thing if you think about it. Atoms are not solid. Neither are we, but intelligence does operate in loops.

 

[Old Things]

Who said I was an atheist?

I was not talking about you there, but this seems to be a Freudian slip.

 

[fractalwalrus]

You atheists always want proof.

Do you have an alternative method of attaining truth that does not involve logical argumentation and material evidence? Should I assign random beliefs to a 20 sided dice and choose the one that comes up on a die roll?

there is no such thing as a scientific fact because science can always be updated to provide a new discovery. So when you say I haven't provided proof I see, "I will not believe it unless it is 100% undeniable"

To claim that there is no such thing as scientific fact is saying that there are no such things as facts at all, thereby negating the theistic viewpoint as well (since God is an observer who would be employing the scientific method with the mere act of observing). Science measures nothing, then? The sky does not, at times appear to us in a hue that we have called blue? If repeated observation and experimentation cannot provide any accurate information whatsoever (your claim about there being no such thing as scientific fact), then please tell me why your method is superior when it comes to attaining truth. Learning about Hawking radiation does not negate the sky appearing as the color we have called blue to most human observers.

one of the hardest problems to be solved in the current day is the hard problem of consciousness.

What's so hard about it? Input goes in, information is processed, we are aware of the information that is processed and respond.

What is more likely? That your ability to have a "what it's like to be you" to the effect that you can say "I think therefore I am" came from chemical processes (which there is no proof of) or to say that consciousness is separate from the brain?

So, if "what it's like to be me," is NOT AT ALL (which is what you claim here when saying there is zero proof) derived from chemical processes, then psychological drugs should have ZERO effects on this experience of being me.

 

[fractalwalrus]

It is neither materialistic nor dualistic.

Then what is it if not materialistic nor not not materialistic, and how do you know?

 

[fluffy]

It is neither materialistic nor dualistic.

Then what is it if not materialistic nor not not materialistic, and how do you know?

Not certain but I disbelieve we can know what is a material separate from consciousness. How would we know that rocks are not consciousness but in slow motion. Even our bodies and perception, what can we separate that can be not part of them. If you try to separate them from yourself they stop existing? What would that mean as for God the biggest observer of everything. It would all need to be connected to observers or not exist.