What do you believe?

Author: Discipulus_Didicit 5 years ago

Posts

Total: 495

#331

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,979

2

2

3

03.20.2019 12:44PM

2

2

3

03.20.2019 12:44PM

-->

@keithprosser

I hope tha's not too 'ebucy'!

Ebucki ....{ * i * }.....bilateral consciousness with an ego { i }...I am somebody....and the fetus shorts out.......

So the illusion of free will stems from bilateral consciousness becoming entangled with --interfering with self-- as a finite, quantum integrity of judgement//resolution.

See this LINK to see how one spiral torus falls through the other with seemingly little interference { entanglement } with each other.

We know that unlike fermions { spin fractional } cannot occupy the same state or space, whereas whole number spin photons, are happy share the same state//space and the link above kinda of approaches that phenomena at classical { medio } scales of existence.

What goes around must come around to complete a circuit, or as quantum integrity resolution//judgement.

What makes the consciousness circuit integral is that it is a spirally contiguous//continuous i.e. the integrity of the slinky is that it is a spiral helix.

.."6.Spiral Waves in Mammalian Cortex

....Spiral waves are self-sustained, regenerative activity.

Similarly, spirals are also observed in the awake turtle visual cortex during the visual process.36 In the cortex in vivo, long-range and nonlocal connections, such as thalamocortical and corticocortical connections, may disrupt the spiral rotors and make spiral waves unsustainable.35

Therefore, spiral waves in intact cortex may occur during certain brain states when local excitatory interactions are predominant, while they are unsustainable in other brain states when long-range connections are strong......

https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/neurophotonics/volume-4/issue-03/031207/Blue-voltage-sensitive-dyes-for-studying-spatiotemporal-dynamics-in-the/10.1117/1.NPh.4.3.031207.full?SSO=1

#332

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

03.20.2019 01:12PM

3

3

3

03.20.2019 01:12PM

-->

@Fallaneze

Explain how human behavior is rational if the forces that control human behavior are not rational.

Do we disagree that humans are (sometimes) rational? Do either of us know how this happened? If I don't know how does that change that freewill is undemonstrable unnecessary?

#333

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

03.20.2019 01:15PM

3

3

3

03.20.2019 01:15PM

-->

@keithprosser

In your equation the figure F (whatever it is) must either be subject to cause and effect (whether the cause is material or immaterial) or its actiins/choices are indistinguishable from random. Please explain how calling this hypothetical unexplained unobserved non physical component (F=freewill) gets around this problem

#334

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

3

3

03.20.2019 01:48PM

3

3

3

03.20.2019 01:48PM

-->

@secularmerlin

In your equation the figure F (whatever it is) must either be subject to cause and effect (whether the cause is material or immaterial) or its actiins/choices are indistinguishable from random. Please explain how calling this hypothetical unexplained unobserved non physical component (F=freewill) gets around this problem

The idea is that your next mind-state is the result of your freewill operating on your present mind state in away that cannot be reduced to physical cause and effect. That is to say your brain is subject to physical cause and effect but you mind is subject to am additional mental cause of its own making affecting itself.

My view is that does work 'in theory' but it requires giving credence to a dualistic world view where mind is a different order of stuff. It's a bit like the way people argue for god by ascribing to it whatever properties are required. 'Mindstuff' is stuff that is not subject to he limit of being etither subject to (physical) cause and effect or being random. Free being an illusion can explain 'apparent choice making' but so can real free will!

Bear in mind that I do not argue for freewill. My argument is that if freewill exists it has to be dualistic. That is enough to discount it if one is a doctrinaire physicalist, but physicalism has a heck of a problem explaining consciousness so perhaps being too doctrinaire is premature!

#335

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

2

5

03.20.2019 02:12PM

2

2

5

03.20.2019 02:12PM

-->

@secularmerlin

I repeat: explain how human behavior is rational if the forces that control human behavior are not rational.

#336

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

03.20.2019 02:13PM

3

3

3

03.20.2019 02:13PM

-->

@keithprosser

The idea is that your next mind-state is the result of your freewill operating on your present mind state in away that cannot be reduced to physical cause and effect.

Keith even if we, for the purposes of this conversation, grant that the human mind is subject to some immaterial thing/force called F=freewill that is not subject to physical cause and effect it is still either subject to some (presumably immaterial) cause and effect or its actions/decisions (having no reason behind them) are indistinguishable from random.

The problem is not that I do not understand Fallaneze's argument it is that I find it logically flawed until this issue is somehow resolved.

#337

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

03.20.2019 02:19PM

3

3

3

03.20.2019 02:19PM

-->

@Fallaneze

I repeat: explain how human behavior is rational if the forces that control human behavior are not rational.

And I repeat I do not know how/why humans are (sometimes) rational.

It doesn't matter however. Rational thought is either subject to cause and effect (and seems to be since its whole efficacy is in recognizing the link between cause and effect) or the actions/decisions it leads us to are indistinguishable from random.

#338

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

2

5

03.20.2019 02:20PM

2

2

5

03.20.2019 02:20PM

-->

@secularmerlin

Why are you assuming that an immaterial cause must be linked to a prior immaterial cause? There is no basis for asserting that mental causation must have a prior immaterial cause unless you want to explain how you've observed immaterial causes acting upon immaterial causes.

Again, "random" does not mean uncaused. Radioactive decay happens randomly. Radioactive decay is not causeless. Random does not mean what you think it means.

#339

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

2

5

03.20.2019 02:24PM

2

2

5

03.20.2019 02:24PM

-->

@secularmerlin

If thought processes are the product of material cause and effect, a deterministic process, then these thought processes are not rational.

You are not able to reconcile the existence of rational human beings with your beliefs on free will.

#340

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

03.20.2019 02:36PM

3

3

3

03.20.2019 02:36PM

-->

@Fallaneze

If thought processes are the product of material cause and effect

When did we agree that all causes were necessarily physical? I don't know how we would detect an immaterial thing but if one exists it is either part of some causal chain or it is not. If immaterial objects?/forces?(both these words seem wrong but I cannot think of another) do exist why would they not act causally on each other? In that case you have immaterial determinism (not compatible with freewill) or immaterial indeterminism (indistinguishable from random or even being determined in a way we cannot determine).

We as humans must observe our epistemology and our epistemology only supports two possible conclusions if we are honest. Either we can determine the cause of an event or we do not know why the event is taking place.

#341

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

2

5

03.20.2019 03:06PM

2

2

5

03.20.2019 03:06PM

-->

@secularmerlin

We did not. It was an IF/THEN statement. If human thoughts are purely the result of deterministic processes like physics and chemistry, then human beings are not rational because the forces that control human behavior are not rational.

#342

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

03.20.2019 03:23PM

3

3

3

03.20.2019 03:23PM

-->

@Fallaneze

I do not agree that this conclusion necessarily follows. Humans clearly behave rationally (sometimes). This observation remains unchanged whether they are the result of deterministic processes or not. This observation remains true whether the deterministic processes are material or immaterial.

#343

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

2

5

03.20.2019 03:37PM

2

2

5

03.20.2019 03:37PM

-->

@secularmerlin

It is incompatible. If you agree that human beings are rational, they cannot be controlled by deterministic processes. If human beings are controlled by deterministic processes, they cannot be rational because deterministic processes are not rational.

#344

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

03.20.2019 04:09PM

3

3

3

03.20.2019 04:09PM

-->

@Fallaneze

If human beings are rational then this rationality was either subject to cause and effect or it is indistinguishable from a random event and also indistinguishable from a deterministic event the cause of which is not apparent to us. You are appealing to something vaguely defined and poorly understood which nevertheless does not address the issue of human epistemology regarding causation.

#345

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

2

5

03.20.2019 04:17PM

2

2

5

03.20.2019 04:17PM

-->

@secularmerlin

Wrong, because rationality is incompatible with deterministic processes. If human beings are rational then their behaviors must not be controlled by deterministic processes.

#346

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

03.20.2019 04:26PM

3

3

3

03.20.2019 04:26PM

-->

@Fallaneze

You have not shown that a rational evaluation of the evidence is not a deterministic process by definition. Is being presented with some evidence not the cause of the evaluation? Are the conclusions not determined by the evidence?

But even if you could/did come to some rational conclusion for no discernable reason that would still be indistinguishable to me from completely random. Also coming to a rational determination for no discernable reason seems like a contradiction.

#347

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

2

5

03.20.2019 04:34PM

2

2

5

03.20.2019 04:34PM

-->

@secularmerlin

Let me put it this way. Here are a series of statements that will make the problem more clear. Try not to skip anything.

[1] Physics, chemistry, and other forces that control human thoughts and behaviors are probably deterministic. Agree or disagree?

[2] Physics, chemistry, and other forces that control human thoughts and behaviors are probably not rational. Agree or disagree?

If you accept [1] and [2], then the conclusion that human thoughts and behaviors are not rational automatically follows.

#348

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

03.20.2019 04:50PM

3

3

3

03.20.2019 04:50PM

Physics, chemistry, and other forces that control human thoughts and behaviors are probably deterministic.

It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree. If the forces that control human behavior (whatever they turn out to be) are not observably deterministic then I cannot tell if they are in fact causeless but somehow not random, causeless and random or caused in a way that is not readily detectable to me.

Physics, chemistry, and other forces that control human thoughts and behaviors are probably not rational.

I'm sorry but when you say rational do you actually mean able to evaluate evidence, behaves in a predictable manner or possessing self awareness? If noneof these is what you mean then what in fact are you asking?

#349

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

2

5

03.20.2019 04:54PM

2

2

5

03.20.2019 04:54PM

-->

@secularmerlin

I'm showing a logical implication of determinism.

I am not trying to show whether determinism or indeterminism is true.

#350

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

03.20.2019 05:03PM

3

3

3

03.20.2019 05:03PM

-->

@Fallaneze

Then it is time for an exhaustive definition of rational. If by rational you mean self aware you are asking a different question entirely than if you mean behaves predictably.

#351

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

2

5

03.20.2019 05:06PM

2

2

5

03.20.2019 05:06PM

-->

@secularmerlin

Here is the Merriam definition of "rational":

"having reason or understanding."

#352

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

03.20.2019 05:09PM

3

3

3

03.20.2019 05:09PM

-->

@Fallaneze

So the essence of what you are really asking is if I believe that something with reason and understanding can be caused by something which lacks these qualities?

#353

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

2

5

03.20.2019 05:11PM

2

2

5

03.20.2019 05:11PM

-->

@secularmerlin

I'm asking how we can have reason and understanding if our thoughts and behaviors are produced by forces that do not possess reason or understanding.

#354

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

03.20.2019 05:19PM

3

3

3

03.20.2019 05:19PM

-->

@Fallaneze

I don't know how we possess those qualities at all and neither do you. The question is immaterial however to the question of whether or not we possess freewill. If freewill could be demonstrated to exist how would it be diminished by having arisen from physics or chemistry?

#355

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

2

5

03.20.2019 05:34PM

2

2

5

03.20.2019 05:34PM

-->

@secularmerlin

P1) deterministic forces, such as chemistry and physics, do not possess reason or understanding.

"Rational" is defined as "having reason or understanding." Deterministic forces, such as chemistry and physics, therefore, are not rational.

P2) deterministic forces, such as chemistry and physics, produce human thoughts and behaviors.

P3) Human thoughts and behaviors are rational.

You need to either accept P2 or P3 but not both since that would result in a contradiction. If you accept P3, determinism must be false. If P2 is true, P3 must be false.

#356

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

03.20.2019 05:40PM

3

3

3

03.20.2019 05:40PM

-->

@Fallaneze

How have you determined that premise 2 and premise 3 are mutually exclusive?

#357

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

2

5

03.20.2019 05:42PM

2

2

5

03.20.2019 05:42PM

-->

@secularmerlin

Because P2) is preceded by P1).

"P1) deterministic forces, such as chemistry and physics, do not possess reason or understanding.

"Rational" is defined as "having reason or understanding." Deterministic forces, such as chemistry and physics, therefore, are not rational.

Plug that into P2).

#358

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

03.20.2019 05:43PM

3

3

3

03.20.2019 05:43PM

-->

@Fallaneze

In any case premise 2 should read

P2) deterministic forces, such as chemistry and physics would seem at least partially responsible for human thoughts and behaviors and we have no observable evidence of any non deterministic force.

#359

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

03.20.2019 05:46PM

3

3

3

03.20.2019 05:46PM

-->

@Fallaneze

So the essence of what you are really asking is if I believe that something with reason and understanding can be caused by something which lacks these qualities?

#360

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

2

5

03.20.2019 05:46PM

2

2

5

03.20.2019 05:46PM

-->

@secularmerlin

You can phrase it that way if you'd like, but it doesn't change the mutual exclusivity of P2 and P3.