Are you in control of your own thoughts, actions and decisions?

[sublunar]

In all this searching, what we have not found is any sign whatsoever that there is anything about the consciousness that is somehow removed or apart from the biological meat that is our brains.

And this is where you put too much faith on our current limited understanding. You are not an expert, but you make statements like this as if you have been personally searching for these things. But easily available across the internet are countless articles in which scientists admit their lack of understanding. Perhaps you know more than they.

You say I can't? Well, come up with that 1%, come up with something real, and maybe you telling me I "can't" will actually have some weight.

Find a scientific definition of Consciousness. Explain in detail the role of the claustrum, especially as it pertains to its interactivity with the cerebral cortex. Problems like this are exactly why you can't. I mean you can claim this ability if you want but it's not honest and it's not demonstrably true. And if you're ok with your statements not holding up against sticky little issues like truth and demonstrable evidence, then more power to you.

[sublunar]

What if our thoughts, choices and actions are all pre-determined by electro-chemical reactions in the brain and nothing more?

What if we have no free will to make decisions which the laws governing our observable physical bodies cannot account for?

Let us consider the scientific and philosophic merits of this idea!

First, in order to determine the scientific merits, we must ask: Is this demonstrable through evidence based experimentation? In regards to Determinism as it relates to human action, the answer is currently no. In 2017, there exists no mechanism for predicting human behavior on such a level. Well that was easy.

Let's investigate the philosophical merits of Determinism.

Can we use this theory to guide our lives? No, not really. According to Determinism: Everything in our life goes the way it was going to go. We can rebel but the rebellion was going to happen anyway. Does this philosophical idea help us to improve our lives by providing anything of practical use? No, not really. This philosophy doesn't seem to have any practical value whatsoever. So what use is this concept?

If we try to judge Determinism on Pros vs Cons, what are the Pros? Honest question, I can't think of one.

Ok, let's imagine that Determinism gains widespread acceptance among laypeople, intellectuals, lawmakers and lawbreakers alike.

It's clear that the first victim would be morality. Moral laws become unnecessary because choice is no longer our responsibility. Justice and fairness become obsolete because we are no longer held accountable for our actions. As everyone rapidly devolves into an antisocial and gluttonous monster while justifying their actions by blaming it on their genetics, the resounding chorus is thus: They were already going to do it anyways. This is a worst case scenario, but on the other hand, the best case scenario is zero net effect.. And yet studies have already shown that the idea of determinism does exhibit negative influence on the actions of people so best case scenario is ruled out, meaning new best case scenario is there will be some negative effect. So this is a philosophy whose acceptance results in some tangible negative effect.

The philosophical fantasy of Determinism (at least as far as the othodox sect is concerned wherein "all or nothing" is the rule) is not only completely not practical in the daily lives of humans in any sense whatsoever but it is a dangerous idea that the average person simply could not handle as it would in all likelihood lead to the ruination of civilized society. Again, worst case scenario but the indications are that things would head in that direction.

As far as free will, an orthodox interpretation of free will suffers similar but inverse issues (If we assume that free will is similarly described in the "all or nothing" interpretation that Determinism clings to. The real problem is its lack of solid definition). Either way, it's clear that our physical constitution as well as the environment (nature and nurture) into which we were raised is such that we are significantly influenced by their existence in our lives. There must be some cause and effect or else complete randomness. Complete and utter free will is therefore also a flawed concept. I don't choose to define my life through either of these failed notions.

[platzangst]

And this is where you put too much faith on our current limited understanding. You are not an expert, but you make statements like this as if you have been personally searching for these things. But easily available across the internet are countless articles in which scientists admit their lack of understanding. Perhaps you know more than they.

Well, do they try to infer some sort of non-organic attribute to consciousness? If so, what, and what evidence do we have? If not, then we're right back where we started.

I mean, I've heard plenty of hypotheses about what consciousness might be. There's well-known scientists postulating some sort of extra-dimensional energy field that interacts with the brain, somehow. But as far as I've seen, nobody has gotten past the hypothesis stage to finding the slightest bit of concrete evidence, so while it's good that they're thinking about the issue, there's nothing worth hanging any sort of belief on, unless you're one of those that just actively dislikes the idea of determinism on a visceral level. That's the actual faith, there.

Find a scientific definition of Consciousness.

I don't have to. That's your faulty thinking in all this, that somehow I need to understand a thing perfectly in order to make a judgement on its probable nature. All I have to know is that we are organic beings and there is no evidence for anything non-organic about our consciousness. And besides, your whole reasoning is a logic fault in and of itself, since by your logic we can't ever know anything, since we don't fully understand the entire universe. Imagine the NASA scientists, plotting a course to the moon, when someone steps in: "Hey, we don't know exactly how the universe came into being and we're not entirely sure what gravity actually is, so we can't possibly plot a rocket's trajectory!"

[sublunar]

I mean, I've heard plenty of hypotheses about what consciousness might be.

And this is the problem. Science doesn't know. Therefore you don't know. Therefore your absolute statements which I've quoted over and over again are not observable facts, therefore it is merely faith based conjecture which has neither affect on our lives nor practicality within it.

Find a scientific definition of Consciousness.

I don't have to.

You absolutely do have to, if you want to convince anyone that your faith is fact. You have certainly touted the philosophical idea of Determinism throughout this thread as if it were fact. In the absence of this evidence, it is up to individual to choose whether they will put faith in your Determinism or not and non-believers are none the worse off.

Problems like the lack of scientific definition of consciousness are exactly where the demons of the 1% lie in your rhetoric. These are very real problems that haunt the truth of your claims. Neither you nor anyone else knows how the claustrum interacts with the cerebral cortex. These are your real problems, as the resident evangelist of Determinism. We cannot be simultaneously unsure of these issues and sure of Determinsm without taking a leap of faith. Thus Determinism is merely a philosophical idea and will remain as such until these shadows are flushed out.

[avasopht]

The brain has many known and unknown expressions of which consciousness is just one. This is not necessarily a limitation of science. The problem of consciousness is that we just don't know what we're trying to define in the first place.

We have the word consciousness, but we've not identified what this word is referring to. Maybe it doesn't exist at all. What exactly is consciousness?

Classical physics is causal; complete knowledge of the past allows computation of the future. Likewise, complete knowledge of the future allows precise computation of the past.

...

In classical physics, two bombs with identical fuses would explode at the same time. In quantum physics, two absolutely identical radioactive atoms can and generally will explode at very different times.

...

There is a rule that physicist often use to separate classical physics from quantum. If Planck's constant appears in the equations, it is quantum physics.

Here the UC Berkeley physics professor explains that classical physics (i.e. the behaviour of atoms and chemicals) is deterministic and that when pushed such that Planck's constant is involved it obeys quantum laws and may not be deterministic.

There is no evidence of the brain utilizing behaviour beyond classical physics, nor is there any reason for it to.

Determinism doesn't mean that you are not making decisions by the way.

First, in order to determine the scientific merits, we must ask: Is this demonstrable through evidence based experimentation? In regards to Determinism as it relates to human action, the answer is currently no. In 2017, there exists no mechanism for predicting human behavior on such a level. Well that was easy.

I don't think that question is the right one to determine scientific merits of determinism. Simulating all atomic behaviour in the human body is an astronomically intense computing task - even just what happens in a single cell.

There are reasonable arguments for the brain utilizing quantum physics:

But he says that it is hard to see how a description of consciousness based purely on pre-quantum physics can account for all the features it seems to have.

One particularly puzzling question is how our conscious minds can experience unique sensations, such as the colour red or the smell of frying bacon. With the exception of people with visual impairments, we all know what red is like, but we have no way to communicate the sensation and there is nothing in physics that tells us what it should be like.

Sensations like this are called "qualia". We perceive them as unified properties of the outside world, but in fact they are products of our consciousness – and that is hard to explain. Indeed, in 1995 philosopher David Chalmers dubbed it "the hard problem" of consciousness.

My thinking is that we may be overlooking what we already have. If we are not happy with material reasons for qalia then we must be looking for mystical answers when you really think about it. I've no problem with that in itself, I just think it might be a little bit of chasing after the wind.

[siln]

sry i have no such time to read to all the comments,
thinking means make use of words ,
when your not able to use words , most of the time is because your unconscious (in coma or sleeping)
in these state your just not counscious , because you cant think , hence make use of any words,
meditating is trying to be counscious without words
but something maybe be living when your in coma or asleep, that is not counsciousness,
some may call it soul or whatever, but it doesnt know words , does it have memory like a body has? (nervous system mostly has memory such as bones and skin) maybe not
2 cents

[avasopht]

sry i have no such time to read to all the comments,
thinking means make use of words ,
when your not able to use words , most of the time is because your unconscious (in coma or sleeping)
in these state your just not counscious , because you cant think , hence make use of any words,
meditating is trying to be counscious without words
but something maybe be living when your in coma or asleep, that is not counsciousness,
some may call it soul or whatever, but it doesnt know words , does it have memory like a body has? (nervous system mostly has memory such as bones and skin) maybe not
2 cents

Interesting perspective. There are some people on the autism spectrum who can't think in terms of words, which got me thinking about how much our experiences of life can differ and how to some people words said by others mean the world to them and can alter their moods.

[siln]

Interesting perspective. There are some people on the autism spectrum who can't think in terms of words, which got me thinking about how much our experiences of life can differ and how to some people words said by others mean the world to them and can alter their moods.

i just relate about my highshools courses, Hegel said we cant think without words, or it is in the words that we are thinking , I guess when autism arnt using words means they are not thinking , maybe they are feeling , but how can you prove autis think without words? i dont believe it

[siln]

reading again your comment , " autism spectrum cant think in terms of words " , well in Hegel terms it means they just cant think , maybe they can feel very much things but .. just to correct myself

[siln]

you cant think without words , whithout the use of words , then try to contradict this statement and I will easyly tap into any old philosophers

[avasopht]

reading again your comment , " autism spectrum cant think in terms of words " , well in Hegel terms it means they just cant think , maybe they can feel very much things but .. just to correct myself

I tried looking for the post where an autistic explained this but thinking need not be limited to just the ways of thinking we are aware of.

Just to be clear, what do you mean by thinking, that it must require words?

http://mentalfloss.com/article/50684/it ... t-language
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pr ... hout-words

[siln]

reading again your comment , " autism spectrum cant think in terms of words " , well in Hegel terms it means they just cant think , maybe they can feel very much things but .. just to correct myself

I tried looking for the post where an autistic explained this but thinking need not be limited to just the ways of thinking we are aware of.

Just to be clear, what do you mean by thinking, that it must require words?

http://mentalfloss.com/article/50684/it ... t-language
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pr ... hout-words

okay then these ppl could think without langage , but they has to translate it by using langage , meaning they couldnt even know it is thinking witout langage

[siln]

the word "thinking" is already langage , so how would you know it is thinking if not using and knowing the word ?

[siln]

maybe it os some intercation similar to thinking , but it s not thinking
as Descartes , i think therefore i am , but my brain could have similar interaction as long as i cant relate to it as the word thinking , then i am not , then i am not thinking as long as i cant externalize the word , thinking , i dont doubt a lot of brain interac tion looks like to it but they are far from really thinking

[avasopht]

the word "thinking" is already langage , so how would you know it is thinking if not using and knowing the word ?

All depends on what exactly you mean by thinking.

There isn't a consensus on what exactly how thinking should be defined but in general thinking pertains to reasoning, considering, rehearsing, visualizing, solving, resolving and other such cognitive tasks.

Language is one of many platforms that this process can happen.

It can be hard for some people to imagine or even recognize perceptions they've never experienced or recognize that there are other ways of thinking and perceiving than they are used to.

People often forget that someone has to coin a term to an existing idea that is yet to be labelled. The idea had to be understood before being given the word.

Think about it.

maybe it os some intercation similar to thinking , but it s not thinking
as Descartes , i think therefore i am , but my brain could have similar interaction as long as i cant relate to it as the word thinking , then i am not , then i am not thinking as long as i cant externalize the word , thinking , i dont doubt a lot of brain interac tion looks like to it but they are far from really thinking

The process of thinking should not require knowing the label of 'thinking' in any language.

[siln]

how i can feel your flexibility , and that is fine , but you cant mean anything by thinking than the word thinking , meaning the words > their meanings , because you smart asses could always find other meanings and shits and turn all shits arounds , at least we have a word that is called thinking , that mean thinking and nothing else , please try again about making us believe thinking is not thinking any time , peace

[siln]

your just encoutering 50 centuries of philosophy mr avasopht , i dont know hiw to say that and it even bother me
The process of thinking should not require knowing the label of 'thinking' in any language.
you r exhausting and boring me to death

[siln]

that is just so violating any sense of any human philosophy i would finally report you to the reson community for smoking too much weed

[siln]

that was the fuking basis of any philosophy we all hate until the 16 century fgs

[selig]

As to the coin toss being random or deterministic - I would think that once the coin has left your hand, the result is 100% determined. However, BEFORE it leaves your hand, there is a 50/50 chance either way. So in this way, it is BOTH. FWIW.

BTW, I see no arrogance in making assumptions about the way the universe works.



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[siln]

selig , i see yu as a lovely actor/contributor of the rt forum , but as i said , you cant think if you dont know that what you are processing is called "thinking" , mybe you are swouging or some other concept we arent aware oif , but if you dont apply to the word thinking then you are not thinking , may you ar ethijin ot wanghin or idk but nothing close as thinking which is a Word

[moneykube]

no... all is preordained... everything happens for a reason... no coincidences ....sometimes you don't see the reason for years... but it is there... imo... we are here to learn... we learn from experience... all situations planned... outcomes due to choices made that may or may not be pre decided... the universe is very complex,,, welcome to the matrix

[CaliforniaBurrito]

welcome to the matrix

[platzangst]

I don't have to.

You absolutely do have to, if you want to convince anyone that your faith is fact.

Hey, funny thing: I'm not really trying all that hard to convince anyone. I've made a case, and I'll defend it if anyone wants to discuss it. What's happening is, some people, mostly you, are giving me crap about how I can't supposedly know something, and then you in particular are ignoring the logic I use to arrive at a conclusion and thereby know this very thing while repeating a lot of irrelevant talking points that don't actually affect the logic in any way. If anyone's trying to convince, it's you trying to convince me that I can't know what I know. Along the way you are making a lot of half-baked assumptions about what you think I'm doing without paying attention to what I actually say.

Here's an example:

You have certainly touted the philosophical idea of Determinism throughout this thread as if it were fact. In the absence of this evidence, it is up to individual to choose whether they will put faith in your Determinism or not and non-believers are none the worse off.

I wondered what the hell you were going on about here, and in previous posts, and all I can think of is that you looked up "determinism" on Wikipedia or something and decided it was just a philosophy and somehow I am its adherent, like someone might be a Calvinist or some such, I dunno.

But here's a fun game everyone at home can play: go back though this thread and see if there's any time in which I speak of Determinism in actual philosophical terms, as opposed to terms based in logic or facts. And, if you find any, what exactly do I say about Determinism, in a philosophical sense?

I'll wait.

[4filegate]

“The study of perception techniques in order to study astronomy data is not relevant to astronomy because there are no blind astronomer’s in the field”
Wanda Diaz Merced Sonic astrophysicist