Main Page | Report Page

 

  Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Does Free Will originate in the Parietal Cortex?...

Author Message
Immortalist...
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 1:20 pm
 
On Nov 9, 2:00 am, Giga2 <justho... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 9, 6:31 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:



The presumption that science will explain everything about
consciousness.

It probably will and also researchers will probably eventually learn
how to duplicate the steps that nature proceeds along to assemble the
hardware that performs consciousness. The presumption then in my
opinion is a good one. Unless science stops completely it is bound to
figure everything out over the next few thousand years. But can you
point to any part of the text where Pinker abuses the notion as a
sense of scientific arrogance that he replaces good evidence with that
makes his conclusion fallacious, or are you complaining about how the
supposed arrogance was not needed in the argument?

It is one thing to claim that *probably* science will find a way to
explain consciousness from a materialist pov. Quite another to assume
that it will. I would say even the claim of probability is very
debatable.
[/quote]
Not really because we pretty much understand how humans come about
from one cell. This cell more or less divides and they divide till
there are 450 types of cells and 70 trillion of them altogether. The
process is plain as can be. If there are parts we cannot see we can
still construct the parts we see and these hidden parts will come
along. Sounds more like your biased towards limiting how far science
goes and would like to censor what can be discovered. Besides I didn't
claim in any way that consciousness was materialist. My beliefs based
upon the best theories going is that consciousness is not the brain
but is the activities of the brain.
 
Immortalist...
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 1:25 pm
 
On Nov 9, 4:15 am, robert brent <robert.j.br... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 9, 9:00 pm, Giga2 <justho... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

It is one thing to claim that *probably* science will find a way to
explain consciousness from a materialist pov. Quite another to assume
that it will. I would say even the claim of probability is very
debatable.

What does it mean "to explain consciousness"? Who would recognize what
as an explanation?
[/quote]
Ah... that would be the specifications for building one out of bio-
goop.
 
mrdilligent...
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 6:28 am
 
You have $100 (say) to spend as you choose. Well, your old TV is
failing fast; do you spend the money getting it repaired, or do you
buy a new one? And then there is that sweater (or jacket or coat or
pair of shoes . . .) that you have always wanted. That thing
(whatever you decide) would come in real handy on some
occasions.. . . . The money you have to spend is too limited to do it
all.

Oh yes, and the rent is coming due. . . .

Now here is the essence of "free will." Is it CAUSATION that decides
your choice? I think not; you have your own choice of what to spend
your $100 on, and that choice is entirely yours; it is free.

There will be consequences to whatever you decide. You can forget the
TV and it will someday finally ceased to turn on. You can forget the
sweater, or whatever, and you will simply not have it to wear next
time you want to. . . . And, if you do not pay the rent, you may find
yourself out on the street. But it is still YOUR free choice as to
what you spend your $100 on, and your free choice as to what
consequences you will accept.

That is the problem with philosophy; at least the academic Western
sort. It fails to deal with fundamentals, and instead wafts ethereal
on silly man-made concepts, such as "morality." Morality didn't exist
until the RCC came along, and it still doesn't. We just fill our own
empty heads with these silly man-made concepts.

Now, self-conduct has ALWAYS existed, which bring us back to choice.
EVERY living organism that has ever lived on this planet has engaged
in self-conduct, or "free will," if you prefer. The first choice to
be made, and always to be made, is whether to live or die. Oh, there
are powerful inner forces that cause one to stuggle for life, but, on
the other hand, there are powerful external sources to resist these.
It takes so much ENERGY to live. One must choose, and this choice is
entriely free. There will be consequences whichever the choice.

To do philosophy correctly, one must dig down to these fundamentals,
sort them out, and then---yes--make choices.
 
Patricia Aldoraz...
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:39 pm
 
On Nov 16, 3:36 am, mrdilligent <osop... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
[snip almost completely confused and disorganised rambling ....]

If you say that a necessary condition for a free human action is that
it be uncaused, you will be unable to distinguish it from a bit of
human movement that happens by pure chance or by magic.
 
M Purcell...
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:49 pm
 
On Nov 15, 5:23 pm, dorayme <dora... at (no spam) optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[quote]In article
 mrdilligent <osop... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
You have $100 (say) to spend as you choose.  Well, your old TV is
failing fast; do you spend the money getting it repaired, or do you
buy a new one?  And then there is that sweater (or jacket or coat or
pair of shoes . . .) that you have always wanted.  That thing
(whatever you decide) would come in real handy on some
occasions.. . . .  The money you have to spend is too limited to do it
all.

Oh yes, and the rent is coming due. . . .

Now here is the essence of "free will."  Is it CAUSATION that decides
your choice?   I think not; you have your own choice of what to spend
your $100 on, and that choice is entirely yours; it is free.

You are assuming for some reason - is it an intuitive feeling -
that being free to choose cannot be compatible with your final
decision being caused.
[/quote]
We are not omniscient and so can not know all causations and have the
freedom to chose among unknowns.

[quote]There will be consequences to whatever you decide.  You can forget the
TV and it will someday finally ceased to turn on.  You can forget the
sweater, or whatever, and you will simply not have it to wear next
time you want to. . . .  And, if you do not pay the rent, you may find
yourself out on the street.   But it is still YOUR free choice as to
what you spend your $100 on, and your free choice as to what
consequences you will accept.

That is the problem with philosophy; at least the academic Western
sort.  It fails to deal with fundamentals, and instead wafts ethereal
on silly man-made concepts, such as "morality."  Morality didn't exist
until the RCC came along, and it still doesn't.  We just fill our own
empty heads with these silly man-made concepts.

You have not shown what the problem is with academic Western
philosophy. You say it fails to deal with fundamentals. What are
the fundamentals here? One fundamental is that without it being a
causal process, the freedom we like to ascribe to our actions
could not be distinguished from mere chance happenings or magical
happenings. That is fundamental and that is a point that I am
happy to make from within the category of Western philosophy.
[/quote]
Lots of chance is involved.

[quote]Now, self-conduct has ALWAYS existed, which bring us back to choice.
EVERY living organism that has ever lived on this planet has engaged
in self-conduct, or "free will," if you prefer.  The first choice to
be made, and always to be made, is whether to live or die.  Oh, there
are powerful inner forces that cause one to stuggle for life, but, on
the other hand, there are powerful external sources to resist these.
It takes so much ENERGY to live.  One must choose, and this choice is
entriely free.  There will be consequences whichever the choice.

To do philosophy correctly, one must dig down to these fundamentals,
sort them out, and then---yes--make choices.

--
dorayme- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -[/quote]
 
Patricia Aldoraz...
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:15 pm
 
On Nov 16, 12:49 pm, M Purcell <sacsca... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 15, 5:23 pm, dorayme <dora... at (no spam) optusnet.com.au> wrote:

In article
 mrdilligent <osop... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
Now here is the essence of "free will."  Is it CAUSATION that decides
your choice?   I think not; you have your own choice of what to spend
your $100 on, and that choice is entirely yours; it is free.

You are assuming for some reason - is it an intuitive feeling -
that being free to choose cannot be compatible with your final
decision being caused.

We are not omniscient and so can not know all causations and have the
freedom to chose among unknowns.

What has omniscience got to do with the specific issue of whether[/quote]
responsible free acts are caused or not?

[quote]

....
You have not shown what the problem is with academic Western
philosophy. You say it fails to deal with fundamentals. What are
the fundamentals here? One fundamental is that without it being a
causal process, the freedom we like to ascribe to our actions
could not be distinguished from mere chance happenings or magical
happenings. That is fundamental and that is a point that I am
happy to make from within the category of Western philosophy.

Lots of chance is involved.

[/quote]
So what? There is a lot of chance involved in a penny coming down
heads, that does not *mean* it is random. Philosophy is not your game
Purcell. Try basketweaving with the other incompetents here. Or why
not just stick to your own area of expertise if you have one instead
of coming here to make short cryptic ignorant remarks? For Christ's
sake man!

....
[quote]To do philosophy correctly, one must dig down to these fundamentals,
sort them out, and then---yes--make choices.

Boy o boy how you misunderstand what is being said! Phil is not your[/quote]
cup of tea!
 
M Purcell...
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:26 pm
 
On Nov 15, 6:15 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo... at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Nov 16, 12:49 pm, M Purcell <sacsca... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:> On Nov 15, 5:23 pm, dorayme <dora... at (no spam) optusnet.com.au> wrote:

In article
 mrdilligent <osop... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
Now here is the essence of "free will."  Is it CAUSATION that decides
your choice?   I think not; you have your own choice of what to spend
your $100 on, and that choice is entirely yours; it is free.

You are assuming for some reason - is it an intuitive feeling -
that being free to choose cannot be compatible with your final
decision being caused.

We are not omniscient and so can not know all causations and have the
freedom to chose among unknowns.

What has omniscience got to do with the specific issue of whether
responsible free acts are caused or not?
[/quote]
How could you know if you aren't omniscient?

[quote]You have not shown what the problem is with academic Western
philosophy. You say it fails to deal with fundamentals. What are
the fundamentals here? One fundamental is that without it being a
causal process, the freedom we like to ascribe to our actions
could not be distinguished from mere chance happenings or magical
happenings. That is fundamental and that is a point that I am
happy to make from within the category of Western philosophy.

Lots of chance is involved.

So what? There is a lot of chance involved in a penny coming down
heads, that does not *mean* it is random. Philosophy is not your game
Purcell. Try basketweaving with the other incompetents here. Or why
not just stick to your own area of expertise if you have one instead
of coming here to make short cryptic ignorant remarks? For Christ's
sake man!
[/quote]
Probability is certainly not your game.

[quote]...> > > To do philosophy correctly, one must dig down to these fundamentals,
sort them out, and then---yes--make choices.

Boy o boy how you misunderstand what is being said! Phil is not your
cup of tea!
[/quote]
Who are you talking to?
 
dorayme...
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:23 pm
 
In article
<63745bbd-d0dd-48f3-b5f6-4c812c051dfc at (no spam) g2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com
[quote],
mrdilligent <osophos at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:[/quote]

[quote]You have $100 (say) to spend as you choose. Well, your old TV is
failing fast; do you spend the money getting it repaired, or do you
buy a new one? And then there is that sweater (or jacket or coat or
pair of shoes . . .) that you have always wanted. That thing
(whatever you decide) would come in real handy on some
occasions.. . . . The money you have to spend is too limited to do it
all.

Oh yes, and the rent is coming due. . . .

Now here is the essence of "free will." Is it CAUSATION that decides
your choice? I think not; you have your own choice of what to spend
your $100 on, and that choice is entirely yours; it is free.

[/quote]
You are assuming for some reason - is it an intuitive feeling -
that being free to choose cannot be compatible with your final
decision being caused.


[quote]There will be consequences to whatever you decide. You can forget the
TV and it will someday finally ceased to turn on. You can forget the
sweater, or whatever, and you will simply not have it to wear next
time you want to. . . . And, if you do not pay the rent, you may find
yourself out on the street. But it is still YOUR free choice as to
what you spend your $100 on, and your free choice as to what
consequences you will accept.


That is the problem with philosophy; at least the academic Western
sort. It fails to deal with fundamentals, and instead wafts ethereal
on silly man-made concepts, such as "morality." Morality didn't exist
until the RCC came along, and it still doesn't. We just fill our own
empty heads with these silly man-made concepts.

[/quote]
You have not shown what the problem is with academic Western
philosophy. You say it fails to deal with fundamentals. What are
the fundamentals here? One fundamental is that without it being a
causal process, the freedom we like to ascribe to our actions
could not be distinguished from mere chance happenings or magical
happenings. That is fundamental and that is a point that I am
happy to make from within the category of Western philosophy.


[quote]Now, self-conduct has ALWAYS existed, which bring us back to choice.
EVERY living organism that has ever lived on this planet has engaged
in self-conduct, or "free will," if you prefer. The first choice to
be made, and always to be made, is whether to live or die. Oh, there
are powerful inner forces that cause one to stuggle for life, but, on
the other hand, there are powerful external sources to resist these.
It takes so much ENERGY to live. One must choose, and this choice is
entriely free. There will be consequences whichever the choice.

To do philosophy correctly, one must dig down to these fundamentals,
sort them out, and then---yes--make choices.
[/quote]
--
dorayme
 
 
Page 3 of 3    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:56 am