Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, I consider evolution to be a scientific theory. It's a bit different from a belief in the soul, which is not remotely (in my opinion) scientific. So I use very different rules for those. Sorry if I misled, I've forgotten the context already.To base evidence on a premise that is not shown to be conclusive does little to insure probability. As you say, it says little about the mind and how it actually functions.
You are missing my point. I wasn't claiming that evolution was wrong per se, I was responding to your statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TricksterWolf
I think it's fine to believe in the soul, but a mistake to try to back up belief with facts...this commonly leads to unscientific thinking.
I was claiming that Darwin was trying to back up his belief that evolution was behind nature's diversity. How else does one back up a hypothesis if not with facts?
Decisions still matter in that we have control over them and they determine outcome. There's nothing sillier than moping about hopelessly because you've realized you're a deterministic machine, while other people remain happy and fulfilled and prodictive. State of mind is largely a choice, and "meaning" is still something that you can define for yourself regardless as to whether or not you believe in determinism.Matter to whom? It doesn't matter that we are simply living life the only way we can and have no choice in who we spend that life with and what we do with it?
[homer]There are people who believe in God that wouldn't skip a beat if we found sapient life on Europa or created a true AI.
Whatever physical components constitute consciousness, they must include a selective limiting of neuronal activity. In other words, if your whole brain is firing at once, you can't possibly be conscious (this is empirically true). This is one reason I say it's not simply an "emergent property" from neurons firing. It requires that most neurons in the brain not fire.Where is conciousness in the brain. What part of the brain contains conciousness? How did conciousness emerge?
The moon, actually[homer]
Why you little...
[/homer]
Oh, you meant the planet, not the continent...
True, but it does mean that the subjective evidence you claim to have is gainsaid by others who have actually experienced things like electroshock therapy.
Some can, some cannot. The evidence that can be evaluated are things like speech problems, memory problems and problems that show personality change. These can be verified by others, have been, and can be shown to be related to disfunctions or damages to the brain.
The subjective evidence of the "Self" being constant can be challenged by people who gainsay this.
As I have said before, all the things that are used to descrive the 'self', all the things you mentioned, be it personality, memory, continuity etc etc, can be shown to change or disappear if the brain is damaged.
You have yet to bring anything against this. Since the whole is made up of the parts, if all the individual parts are shown to be affected by damage to the brain, the whole is probably the brain itself. It is the most logical conclusion given the evidence.
Of course. But if someone states that he does not have any reason to believe them because I have no physical evidence for it, I also don't deny that.
We do have a choice, we make choices every day. That is his point. Sure, maybe those choices are deterministic, but if this is so, the process behind it is hidden from us.
You can accept that the process is hidden in this case but not in the case of the soul? Is it not true that if there is such a component of the body which is hidden from us that it then becomes a choice whether to accept or deny its existence?
On the other hand, I do not think that this determinism is such a big deal, because we do not choose ad random in the first place. We choose because of preferences and what we know and do not know. I don't think choice is indeterministic in the first place. Or are your choices just random?
In the Christian worldview free choice is accepted. Choice is really choice and not pre-determined by the brain.
Well, I consider evolution to be a scientific theory. It's a bit different from a belief in the soul, which is not remotely (in my opinion) scientific. So I use very different rules for those. Sorry if I misled, I've forgotten the context already.
Trickster
But it has been hypothesized that we don't have control over our choices. It has been said that we can not choose but that what we have chosen. I don't agree but that is what many believe must be the case if we are just the brain.Decisions still matter in that we have control over them and they determine outcome.
There's nothing sillier than moping about hopelessly because you've realized you're a deterministic machine, while other people remain happy and fulfilled and prodictive.
State of mind is largely a choice, and "meaning" is still something that you can define for yourself regardless as to whether or not you believe in determinism.
In other words, knowing you're the product of determinism doesn't turn your life into a pre-scripted movie if you can't see the movie. The fact that we don't know the outcome is sufficient to make our actions important to the outcome. Our destiny may be preset, but it isn't preset in a way that we can ever know what it is--so it's just as if it weren't preset.
Whatever physical components constitute consciousness, they must include a selective limiting of neuronal activity. In other words, if your whole brain is firing at once, you can't possibly be conscious (this is empirically true). This is one reason I say it's not simply an "emergent property" from neurons firing. It requires that most neurons in the brain not fire.
Scientifically, I would expect that the midbrain plays a large role in consciousness, and specifically the left half of the midbrain (in the 95% of people for whom the left half of the brain contains the speech and language centers). This guess is based on the fact that people reporting two concurrent conscious states are virtually nonexistent; even schizophenics report voices rather than multiple personalities at the same time. I don't think anything typically manifests that way--there's always either 0 conscious self-reporters, or 1 conscious self-reporter. I know about the split-brain studies, but those "minds" can't communicate with one another, and only one of them has metamemory.
Trickster
But as you have noted it is a guess because we do not have evidence in the brain of consciousness. We know it exists only because we are conscious or what we understand consciousness to be.
Unless you just THINK you are conscious, and all you really are is a series of predetermined responses to certain stimuli based on prior experience, your genetics and developmental environment.
But it might be an illusion...
consider the levels inherent in self awareness...
does a slug react to external stimuli? Certainly. Is it AWARE that its reacting to certain stimuli? probably not.
Does a cat react to external stimuli? Yes. Is it AWARE that it reacts to external stimuli? Probably. But is it AWARE that it is AWARE? Thats trickier... That is to say, it probably has a concept of self, but does it have a concept of having a concept of self?
So if you follow me so far, humans at least have the same awareness as the cat... but how can we be sure that we don't need another level, or even more, of awareness of awareness, to become truly conscious?
What makes it really difficult is that you will never know for sure, because to understand how conscious you are, you have to have the next level up squared away.
Am I the only one to catch the irony here?Unless you just THINK you are conscious,
Assumption: I think the problem is that your definition of "choice" in not flexible enough to accommodate determinism, because you've long since assumed that "choice" means "magical occurrence that must come from an immutable source outside of a cause-effect web".But it has been hypothesized that we don't have control over our choices. It has been said that we can not choose but that what we have chosen. I don't agree but that is what many believe must be the case if we are just the brain.
It could be said that we are happy only if we either accept our deterministic foundation or delude ourselves that our choices are our own. I on the other hand feel that it is choice as well. But then I feel choice is real.
Your self is still making that determination. I understand what you are saying but in that view you can't really determine to choose. If the brain is deterministic you are not really choosing to be happy and productive are you; you are only viewing it as a choice.
I understand what you are saying. But debate then on this is really just a product of pre-determined wiring of our brains. Can you make any other choice than what you do about being a product of determinism anymore than I can make any other choice of believing in a soul? There is evidence to support both of our opinions, much of which is subjective which you feel is deterministic and in which I feel is free thinking/free choice.
Assumption: I think the problem is that your definition of "choice" in not flexible enough to accommodate determinism, because you've long since assumed that "choice" means "magical occurrence that must come from an immutable source outside of a cause-effect web".
I don't disagree with that, what I disagree with is that we have no control over those choices. I have some issues that I need to change and I have control over those. I can change them or remain stuck with them but if it were totally determined from the past experiences I would not be able to change them.But in reality, we know that our choices are influenced and manipulated by many factors. The "me" element is in large part the sum of these factors over time.
I think many strict determinists would not so readily accept your definition.I'm a hard determinist, and I believe in free will. I don't see any problems with determinism, either for freedom of choice, or for the existence of the soul. Determinism just means "things cause things".
It preserves the reality of choice although we actually do not have it?We're a part of that, but our lack of knowledge about our own minds and our futures preserves the reality of choice for us (not just an "illusion" of choice--I won't dumb it down).
I agree with this except for the last statement. Suggesting that human will is outside of causation is the opposite of determinism! Of course the human will is involved! It's a part of the deterministic process.de·ter·min·ism
n. The philosophical doctrine that every event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedents, such as genetic and environmental influences, that are independent of the human will.
I agree with these.1 : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws <explained behavior by the combination of an environmental and a genetic determinism>
2 : the quality or state of being determined
You're getting warmer. Choice is not merely an "illusion" just because it is predetermined; people simply have a hard time wrapping their brains around the idea of choice in a way that allows their actions to be the product of other phenomena. Choice is the same inscrutable construct that guides us and that we feel and experience, and we have just as much ability to "choose", whether or not determinism is true.It preserves the reality of choice although we actually do not have it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?