What do you believe?

Author: Discipulus_Didicit

Posts

Total: 495
#331
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@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......






#332
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@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
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I repeat: explain how human behavior is rational if the forces that control human behavior are not rational.
#336
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@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
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@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
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@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
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@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
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@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
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@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
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
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
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm showing a logical implication of determinism.

I am not trying to show whether determinism or indeterminism is true.
#350
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Here is the Merriam definition of "rational":

"having reason or understanding."
#352
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@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
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@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
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
How have you determined that premise 2 and premise 3 are mutually exclusive? 
#357
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@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
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
You can phrase it that way if you'd like, but it doesn't change the mutual exclusivity of P2 and P3.