Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Free Will does not exist.

Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 9:57:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have a question. If I were to make a pot exactly the same (down to the electron) as another pot in my house, is it equal in everything to the pot (except spacial coordinates)? So basically, do you believe that A=A?

If so, if I created a second universe, exactly the same in every way as this one. With a god if you believe in one, without it if you don't, possibly with a god if you don't know. Every quark in the same position, would I, if I lived, eat the same meal on the same date five years from now?

If yes, then how can free will exist, if the same thing always happens based on where things are? How could free will exist, if I will always choose the same meal just based on where the atoms line up?

Free will is randomness, yet if there is truly randomness, then how can the law of identity be true in this situation? So either the law of identity is not always true, or we do not have free will, and act solely on the basis of chemical reactions and other forces.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 10:13:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 9:57:56 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a question. If I were to make a pot exactly the same (down to the electron) as another pot in my house, is it equal in everything to the pot (except spacial coordinates)? So basically, do you believe that A=A?

If so, if I created a second universe, exactly the same in every way as this one. With a god if you believe in one, without it if you don't, possibly with a god if you don't know. Every quark in the same position, would I, if I lived, eat the same meal on the same date five years from now?

If you have libertarian free will, then your copy in the other universe could choose other than you choose in this universe even if every single detail about that universe was identical to this universe, down to the quark. But that doesn't mean your copy will choose otherwise, only that they could.

If yes, then how can free will exist, if the same thing always happens based on where things are? How could free will exist, if I will always choose the same meal just based on where the atoms line up?

If the atoms determine your choice, then you don't have libertarian free will.

Free will is randomness, yet if there is truly randomness, then how can the law of identity be true in this situation? So either the law of identity is not always true, or we do not have free will, and act solely on the basis of chemical reactions and other forces.

I'm not really sure how the law of identity fits into this. By stipulating that there are two universes, you're including in the stipulation that the universes are not identical.

That is unless you're equivocating on the word "identical." In the context of the law of identity, "identical" means entity X and entity Y are the same entity. But when you say this universe is identical with the other universe, you just mean they have the same properties, except location. YOu don't mean they're actually the same universe.

So if two universes are identical in the sense of being exact copies of each other, but something later happens in one that doesn't happen in the other, that is not a violation of the law of identity.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 3:47:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 9:57:56 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a question. If I were to make a pot exactly the same (down to the electron) as another pot in my house, is it equal in everything to the pot (except spacial coordinates)? So basically, do you believe that A=A?

If so, if I created a second universe, exactly the same in every way as this one. With a god if you believe in one, without it if you don't, possibly with a god if you don't know. Every quark in the same position, would I, if I lived, eat the same meal on the same date five years from now?

If yes, then how can free will exist, if the same thing always happens based on where things are? How could free will exist, if I will always choose the same meal just based on where the atoms line up?

Free will is randomness, yet if there is truly randomness, then how can the law of identity be true in this situation? So either the law of identity is not always true, or we do not have free will, and act solely on the basis of chemical reactions and other forces.

I will just cut to the chase and say that it is self-defating to deny free-will. I'm a compatibilist and I see determinists and free-willists as funny people. Imagine if we had 'Northists' or 'Southists' who denied a south or north existed respectively. Or people who asserted only good exists and evil doesn't. Just as morality is a function of our will (or consciousness), we also have a choice but within constraints of natural laws, societal norms etc Free-will and determinism coexist.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 3:56:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 3:47:12 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/22/2014 9:57:56 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a question. If I were to make a pot exactly the same (down to the electron) as another pot in my house, is it equal in everything to the pot (except spacial coordinates)? So basically, do you believe that A=A?

If so, if I created a second universe, exactly the same in every way as this one. With a god if you believe in one, without it if you don't, possibly with a god if you don't know. Every quark in the same position, would I, if I lived, eat the same meal on the same date five years from now?

If yes, then how can free will exist, if the same thing always happens based on where things are? How could free will exist, if I will always choose the same meal just based on where the atoms line up?

Free will is randomness, yet if there is truly randomness, then how can the law of identity be true in this situation? So either the law of identity is not always true, or we do not have free will, and act solely on the basis of chemical reactions and other forces.

I will just cut to the chase and say that it is self-defating to deny free-will. I'm a compatibilist and I see determinists and free-willists as funny people. Imagine if we had 'Northists' or 'Southists' who denied a south or north existed respectively. Or people who asserted only good exists and evil doesn't. Just as morality is a function of our will (or consciousness), we also have a choice but within constraints of natural laws, societal norms etc Free-will and determinism coexist.

How is it self-defeating?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 4:08:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 3:56:26 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 3:47:12 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/22/2014 9:57:56 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a question. If I were to make a pot exactly the same (down to the electron) as another pot in my house, is it equal in everything to the pot (except spacial coordinates)? So basically, do you believe that A=A?

If so, if I created a second universe, exactly the same in every way as this one. With a god if you believe in one, without it if you don't, possibly with a god if you don't know. Every quark in the same position, would I, if I lived, eat the same meal on the same date five years from now?

If yes, then how can free will exist, if the same thing always happens based on where things are? How could free will exist, if I will always choose the same meal just based on where the atoms line up?

Free will is randomness, yet if there is truly randomness, then how can the law of identity be true in this situation? So either the law of identity is not always true, or we do not have free will, and act solely on the basis of chemical reactions and other forces.

I will just cut to the chase and say that it is self-defating to deny free-will. I'm a compatibilist and I see determinists and free-willists as funny people. Imagine if we had 'Northists' or 'Southists' who denied a south or north existed respectively. Or people who asserted only good exists and evil doesn't. Just as morality is a function of our will (or consciousness), we also have a choice but within constraints of natural laws, societal norms etc Free-will and determinism coexist.

How is it self-defeating?

I only see conscious people with a will of their own denying free-will. I never see unconscious or dead people doing so even though they are can't explore nature on their own terms, or if they do are oblivious to the fact eg bacteria, plants and even babies.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 4:11:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 4:08:04 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 3:56:26 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 3:47:12 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/22/2014 9:57:56 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a question. If I were to make a pot exactly the same (down to the electron) as another pot in my house, is it equal in everything to the pot (except spacial coordinates)? So basically, do you believe that A=A?

If so, if I created a second universe, exactly the same in every way as this one. With a god if you believe in one, without it if you don't, possibly with a god if you don't know. Every quark in the same position, would I, if I lived, eat the same meal on the same date five years from now?

If yes, then how can free will exist, if the same thing always happens based on where things are? How could free will exist, if I will always choose the same meal just based on where the atoms line up?

Free will is randomness, yet if there is truly randomness, then how can the law of identity be true in this situation? So either the law of identity is not always true, or we do not have free will, and act solely on the basis of chemical reactions and other forces.

I will just cut to the chase and say that it is self-defating to deny free-will. I'm a compatibilist and I see determinists and free-willists as funny people. Imagine if we had 'Northists' or 'Southists' who denied a south or north existed respectively. Or people who asserted only good exists and evil doesn't. Just as morality is a function of our will (or consciousness), we also have a choice but within constraints of natural laws, societal norms etc Free-will and determinism coexist.

How is it self-defeating?

I only see conscious people with a will of their own denying free-will. I never see unconscious or dead people doing so even though they are can't explore nature on their own terms, or if they do are oblivious to the fact eg bacteria, plants and even babies.

That..... Doesn't answer my question.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 4:16:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 4:08:04 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 3:56:26 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 3:47:12 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/22/2014 9:57:56 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a question. If I were to make a pot exactly the same (down to the electron) as another pot in my house, is it equal in everything to the pot (except spacial coordinates)? So basically, do you believe that A=A?

If so, if I created a second universe, exactly the same in every way as this one. With a god if you believe in one, without it if you don't, possibly with a god if you don't know. Every quark in the same position, would I, if I lived, eat the same meal on the same date five years from now?

If yes, then how can free will exist, if the same thing always happens based on where things are? How could free will exist, if I will always choose the same meal just based on where the atoms line up?

Free will is randomness, yet if there is truly randomness, then how can the law of identity be true in this situation? So either the law of identity is not always true, or we do not have free will, and act solely on the basis of chemical reactions and other forces.

I will just cut to the chase and say that it is self-defating to deny free-will. I'm a compatibilist and I see determinists and free-willists as funny people. Imagine if we had 'Northists' or 'Southists' who denied a south or north existed respectively. Or people who asserted only good exists and evil doesn't. Just as morality is a function of our will (or consciousness), we also have a choice but within constraints of natural laws, societal norms etc Free-will and determinism coexist.

How is it self-defeating?

I only see conscious people with a will of their own denying free-will. I never see unconscious or dead people doing so even though they are can't explore nature on their own terms, or if they do are oblivious to the fact eg bacteria, plants and even babies.

What I mean is.. Even you will accept that one's will is affected by physical factors, including emotions etc. So even in a dualist/idealistic universe your will isn't entirely 'free'.

In a materialist one it's just a step farther. The idea of free will is illusory. Must like many things we perceive.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 4:31:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 4:16:50 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 4:08:04 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 3:56:26 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 3:47:12 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/22/2014 9:57:56 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a question. If I were to make a pot exactly the same (down to the electron) as another pot in my house, is it equal in everything to the pot (except spacial coordinates)? So basically, do you believe that A=A?

If so, if I created a second universe, exactly the same in every way as this one. With a god if you believe in one, without it if you don't, possibly with a god if you don't know. Every quark in the same position, would I, if I lived, eat the same meal on the same date five years from now?

If yes, then how can free will exist, if the same thing always happens based on where things are? How could free will exist, if I will always choose the same meal just based on where the atoms line up?

Free will is randomness, yet if there is truly randomness, then how can the law of identity be true in this situation? So either the law of identity is not always true, or we do not have free will, and act solely on the basis of chemical reactions and other forces.

I will just cut to the chase and say that it is self-defating to deny free-will. I'm a compatibilist and I see determinists and free-willists as funny people. Imagine if we had 'Northists' or 'Southists' who denied a south or north existed respectively. Or people who asserted only good exists and evil doesn't. Just as morality is a function of our will (or consciousness), we also have a choice but within constraints of natural laws, societal norms etc Free-will and determinism coexist.

How is it self-defeating?

I only see conscious people with a will of their own denying free-will. I never see unconscious or dead people doing so even though they are can't explore nature on their own terms, or if they do are oblivious to the fact eg bacteria, plants and even babies.

What I mean is.. Even you will accept that one's will is affected by physical factors, including emotions etc. So even in a dualist/idealistic universe your will isn't entirely 'free'.

In a materialist one it's just a step farther. The idea of free will is illusory. Must like many things we perceive.

It isn't ENTIRELY free but still one is allowed freedom of choice to an extent. And I don't think free-will is illusory. I have a choice to insult you, mock or threaten you atm. But I won't. There are rules and norms to be followed and more importantly, I see no reason to. To that extent there is free-will. But what I can choose to do is limited. For instance I can't expect to fly like Superman, I'm constrained by physical laws in that respect. To that extent, I allow for determinism, and free-will there will be foolish.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 4:37:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 4:31:46 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 4:16:50 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 4:08:04 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 3:56:26 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 3:47:12 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/22/2014 9:57:56 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a question. If I were to make a pot exactly the same (down to the electron) as another pot in my house, is it equal in everything to the pot (except spacial coordinates)? So basically, do you believe that A=A?

If so, if I created a second universe, exactly the same in every way as this one. With a god if you believe in one, without it if you don't, possibly with a god if you don't know. Every quark in the same position, would I, if I lived, eat the same meal on the same date five years from now?

If yes, then how can free will exist, if the same thing always happens based on where things are? How could free will exist, if I will always choose the same meal just based on where the atoms line up?

Free will is randomness, yet if there is truly randomness, then how can the law of identity be true in this situation? So either the law of identity is not always true, or we do not have free will, and act solely on the basis of chemical reactions and other forces.

I will just cut to the chase and say that it is self-defating to deny free-will. I'm a compatibilist and I see determinists and free-willists as funny people. Imagine if we had 'Northists' or 'Southists' who denied a south or north existed respectively. Or people who asserted only good exists and evil doesn't. Just as morality is a function of our will (or consciousness), we also have a choice but within constraints of natural laws, societal norms etc Free-will and determinism coexist.

How is it self-defeating?

I only see conscious people with a will of their own denying free-will. I never see unconscious or dead people doing so even though they are can't explore nature on their own terms, or if they do are oblivious to the fact eg bacteria, plants and even babies.

What I mean is.. Even you will accept that one's will is affected by physical factors, including emotions etc. So even in a dualist/idealistic universe your will isn't entirely 'free'.

In a materialist one it's just a step farther. The idea of free will is illusory. Must like many things we perceive.

It isn't ENTIRELY free but still one is allowed freedom of choice to an extent. And I don't think free-will is illusory. I have a choice to insult you, mock or threaten you atm. But I won't. There are rules and norms to be followed and more importantly, I see no reason to. To that extent there is free-will. But what I can choose to do is limited. For instance I can't expect to fly like Superman, I'm constrained by physical laws in that respect. To that extent, I allow for determinism, and free-will there will be foolish.

I meant more on your actual choices are affected by physical factors. Such as the state of your brain, what drugs you take, anti depressants, etc.

You would choose to do things you would not otherwise do if influenced by those factors.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 4:38:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 4:31:46 AM, Iredia wrote:
It isn't ENTIRELY free but still one is allowed freedom of choice to an extent.
The Story book biblical god permits NO freewill whatsoever -

The power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies (WordWeb)

Threats, coercion & intimidation instead!

MCB is a classic user of those threats as he ends most of his Posts with some form of Story book divine threat against those that won't heed his ideological penis motivated excrement!
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 8:34:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 4:38:16 AM, Composer wrote:
At 4/23/2014 4:31:46 AM, Iredia wrote:
It isn't ENTIRELY free but still one is allowed freedom of choice to an extent.
The Story book biblical god permits NO freewill whatsoever -

The power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies (WordWeb)

Threats, coercion & intimidation instead!

MCB is a classic user of those threats as he ends most of his Posts with some form of Story book divine threat against those that won't heed his ideological penis motivated excrement!


And yet, there were many people who openly rebelled or mocked the Biblical God eg Korah and his followers, Job's wife, the prophet Jonah, the Canaanaites etc Some to their death. In any case, you are quite correct. God is an external agency that limits free choices. I would say this applies to any and all deities credit with making reality or an aspect of it.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 8:46:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 4:37:03 AM, Sswdwm wrote:


I meant more on your actual choices are affected by physical factors. Such as the state of your brain, what drugs you take, anti depressants, etc.

You would choose to do things you would not otherwise do if influenced by those factors.

Agreed, but I don't think this is absolutely true. Recall my belief that consciousness is a two-way street. So I believe consciousness affects brain states and vice-versa. You believe it's a one-way street. Brain states is what consciousness is, so affecting brain states affects consciousness, but there is no consciousness affecting brain states. That said, I think placebos are evidence more supportive of my stance than yours.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 8:54:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 8:46:57 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 4:37:03 AM, Sswdwm wrote:


I meant more on your actual choices are affected by physical factors. Such as the state of your brain, what drugs you take, anti depressants, etc.

You would choose to do things you would not otherwise do if influenced by those factors.

Agreed, but I don't think this is absolutely true. Recall my belief that consciousness is a two-way street. So I believe consciousness affects brain states and vice-versa. You believe it's a one-way street. Brain states is what consciousness is, so affecting brain states affects consciousness, but there is no consciousness affecting brain states. That said, I think placebos are evidence more supportive of my stance than yours.

Well first off your stance is disfavored by occum's razor

And second off the placebo affect is pretty well supported naturalistically in science.. I really don't see how you are connecting the dots on your side.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:07:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 8:54:57 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 8:46:57 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 4:37:03 AM, Sswdwm wrote:


I meant more on your actual choices are affected by physical factors. Such as the state of your brain, what drugs you take, anti depressants, etc.

You would choose to do things you would not otherwise do if influenced by those factors.

Agreed, but I don't think this is absolutely true. Recall my belief that consciousness is a two-way street. So I believe consciousness affects brain states and vice-versa. You believe it's a one-way street. Brain states is what consciousness is, so affecting brain states affects consciousness, but there is no consciousness affecting brain states. That said, I think placebos are evidence more supportive of my stance than yours.

Well first off your stance is disfavored by occum's razor

And second off the placebo affect is pretty well supported naturalistically in science.. I really don't see how you are connecting the dots on your side.

Is your consciousness (or awareness of things) as experiences physical ? If so, tell me what it is. Could you please post a link which explains the placebo effect as you describe.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:14:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:07:11 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 8:54:57 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 8:46:57 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 4:37:03 AM, Sswdwm wrote:


I meant more on your actual choices are affected by physical factors. Such as the state of your brain, what drugs you take, anti depressants, etc.

You would choose to do things you would not otherwise do if influenced by those factors.

Agreed, but I don't think this is absolutely true. Recall my belief that consciousness is a two-way street. So I believe consciousness affects brain states and vice-versa. You believe it's a one-way street. Brain states is what consciousness is, so affecting brain states affects consciousness, but there is no consciousness affecting brain states. That said, I think placebos are evidence more supportive of my stance than yours.

Well first off your stance is disfavored by occum's razor

And second off the placebo affect is pretty well supported naturalistically in science.. I really don't see how you are connecting the dots on your side.

Is your consciousness (or awareness of things) as experiences physical ? If so, tell me what it is. Could you please post a link which explains the placebo effect as you describe.

Hm, it appears I have overestimated the mechanistic understandings of the placebo effect, although there are (very) recent attempts to tie it in evolution:

http://www.sciencedirect.com...
http://www.ehbonline.org...(12)00070-0/abstract

Although I would take them with a grain of salt for the time being. Anyway, you haven't demonstrated how this ties into your conclusion. Connect the dots Iredea.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:28:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:14:40 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:07:11 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 8:54:57 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 8:46:57 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 4:37:03 AM, Sswdwm wrote:


I meant more on your actual choices are affected by physical factors. Such as the state of your brain, what drugs you take, anti depressants, etc.

You would choose to do things you would not otherwise do if influenced by those factors.

Agreed, but I don't think this is absolutely true. Recall my belief that consciousness is a two-way street. So I believe consciousness affects brain states and vice-versa. You believe it's a one-way street. Brain states is what consciousness is, so affecting brain states affects consciousness, but there is no consciousness affecting brain states. That said, I think placebos are evidence more supportive of my stance than yours.

Well first off your stance is disfavored by occum's razor

And second off the placebo affect is pretty well supported naturalistically in science.. I really don't see how you are connecting the dots on your side.

Is your consciousness (or awareness of things) as experiences physical ? If so, tell me what it is. Could you please post a link which explains the placebo effect as you describe.

Hm, it appears I have overestimated the mechanistic understandings of the placebo effect, although there are (very) recent attempts to tie it in evolution:

http://www.sciencedirect.com...
http://www.ehbonline.org...(12)00070-0/abstract

Although I would take them with a grain of salt for the time being. Anyway, you haven't demonstrated how this ties into your conclusion. Connect the dots Iredea.

Okay. If you give a straight answer to the question I asked (on whether consciousness as experienced is physical and what it is if so) I will reply your request to connect the dots. I don't want to you to avoid that question this time, especially given its importance to my stance.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:33:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:28:21 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:14:40 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:07:11 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 8:54:57 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 8:46:57 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 4:37:03 AM, Sswdwm wrote:


I meant more on your actual choices are affected by physical factors. Such as the state of your brain, what drugs you take, anti depressants, etc.

You would choose to do things you would not otherwise do if influenced by those factors.

Agreed, but I don't think this is absolutely true. Recall my belief that consciousness is a two-way street. So I believe consciousness affects brain states and vice-versa. You believe it's a one-way street. Brain states is what consciousness is, so affecting brain states affects consciousness, but there is no consciousness affecting brain states. That said, I think placebos are evidence more supportive of my stance than yours.

Well first off your stance is disfavored by occum's razor

And second off the placebo affect is pretty well supported naturalistically in science.. I really don't see how you are connecting the dots on your side.

Is your consciousness (or awareness of things) as experiences physical ? If so, tell me what it is. Could you please post a link which explains the placebo effect as you describe.

Hm, it appears I have overestimated the mechanistic understandings of the placebo effect, although there are (very) recent attempts to tie it in evolution:

http://www.sciencedirect.com...
http://www.ehbonline.org...(12)00070-0/abstract

Although I would take them with a grain of salt for the time being. Anyway, you haven't demonstrated how this ties into your conclusion. Connect the dots Iredea.

Okay. If you give a straight answer to the question I asked (on whether consciousness as experienced is physical and what it is if so) I will reply your request to connect the dots. I don't want to you to avoid that question this time, especially given its importance to my stance.

Well.. Most likely the active physical processes that occur in the cells and the connections between cells in the brain. Much like how a computer would experience something. I can't map 'a concept of an apple is this array of impulses', similarly to how you cannot map a picture of an apple easily to the number of charged transistors in a computer.

I have no doubt that's the answer, however. Was that the answer you were expecting/waiting for?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:38:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:28:21 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:14:40 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:07:11 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 8:54:57 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 8:46:57 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 4:37:03 AM, Sswdwm wrote:


I meant more on your actual choices are affected by physical factors. Such as the state of your brain, what drugs you take, anti depressants, etc.

You would choose to do things you would not otherwise do if influenced by those factors.

Agreed, but I don't think this is absolutely true. Recall my belief that consciousness is a two-way street. So I believe consciousness affects brain states and vice-versa. You believe it's a one-way street. Brain states is what consciousness is, so affecting brain states affects consciousness, but there is no consciousness affecting brain states. That said, I think placebos are evidence more supportive of my stance than yours.

Well first off your stance is disfavored by occum's razor

And second off the placebo affect is pretty well supported naturalistically in science.. I really don't see how you are connecting the dots on your side.

Is your consciousness (or awareness of things) as experiences physical ? If so, tell me what it is. Could you please post a link which explains the placebo effect as you describe.

Hm, it appears I have overestimated the mechanistic understandings of the placebo effect, although there are (very) recent attempts to tie it in evolution:

http://www.sciencedirect.com...
http://www.ehbonline.org...(12)00070-0/abstract

Although I would take them with a grain of salt for the time being. Anyway, you haven't demonstrated how this ties into your conclusion. Connect the dots Iredea.

Okay. If you give a straight answer to the question I asked (on whether consciousness as experienced is physical and what it is if so) I will reply your request to connect the dots. I don't want to you to avoid that question this time, especially given its importance to my stance.

Moreover, I think optical illusions, and other mental tricks go some way into demonstrating that we fit our perceptions of reality to our guess of reality, and the reality we experience is a pragmatic one.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:53:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:33:53 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:28:21 AM, Iredia wrote:


Okay. If you give a straight answer to the question I asked (on whether consciousness as experienced is physical and what it is if so) I will reply your request to connect the dots. I don't want to you to avoid that question this time, especially given its importance to my stance.

Well.. Most likely the active physical processes that occur in the cells and the connections between cells in the brain. Much like how a computer would experience something. I can't map 'a concept of an apple is this array of impulses', similarly to how you cannot map a picture of an apple easily to the number of charged transistors in a computer.

I have no doubt that's the answer, however. Was that the answer you were expecting/waiting for?

Yes. But I disagree with your take. What you are doing would be akin to saying the word 'apple' (as said or written) is actually the object its referring to, or saying reflections from a mirror is the same as the person being reflected. The difference in this case is that the thing in contention (ie consciousness) is non-physical. My take is that the active physical processes you mention result in an immaterial consciousness as a person experiences it. I don't equate the two, except in a metaphorical sense. As to the explanation yo requested could you specify what you wanted to be explained. Was it my point on placebos being more supportive of my stance ?
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 10:00:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:53:45 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:33:53 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:28:21 AM, Iredia wrote:


Okay. If you give a straight answer to the question I asked (on whether consciousness as experienced is physical and what it is if so) I will reply your request to connect the dots. I don't want to you to avoid that question this time, especially given its importance to my stance.

Well.. Most likely the active physical processes that occur in the cells and the connections between cells in the brain. Much like how a computer would experience something. I can't map 'a concept of an apple is this array of impulses', similarly to how you cannot map a picture of an apple easily to the number of charged transistors in a computer.

I have no doubt that's the answer, however. Was that the answer you were expecting/waiting for?

Yes. But I disagree with your take. What you are doing would be akin to saying the word 'apple' (as said or written) is actually the object its referring to, or saying reflections from a mirror is the same as the person being reflected.

I don't see how you went on that tangent. I never implied this...

.The difference in this case is that the thing in contention (ie consciousness) is non-physical. My take is that the active physical processes you mention result in an immaterial consciousness as a person experiences it. I don't equate the two, except in a metaphorical sense.

Sure, but then you are implying two entities for consciousness, a physical brain and an immaterial mind. Which is not favoured by Occums razor, so you now carry the BoP. We both agree the brain is involved in our perceptions on some critical level, now you postulate something additional to that.

As to the explanation yo requested could you specify what you wanted to be explained. Was it my point on placebos being more supportive of my stance ?

Yes. I don't see how placebo supports your stance.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 11:13:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 10:00:25 AM, Sswdwm wrote:

I don't see how you went on that tangent. I never implied this...

You don't have to. That what is implied whether you meant to or not.



Sure, but then you are implying two entities for consciousness, a physical brain and an immaterial mind. Which is not favoured by Occums razor, so you now carry the BoP. We both agree the brain is involved in our perceptions on some critical level, now you postulate something additional to that.

But consciousness is directly experienced by everyone. To say I have to prove what you and other humans experience is unwarranted. You equate consciousness (as experienced) to brain states. I don't. The two are different IMO and in truth. I could use and fMRI to see the brain cells you equate to consciousness, that doesn't mean I will experience that person's consciousness.


Yes. I don't see how placebo supports your stance.

Well placebos are typically statements and actions which tend to placate a person no matter how bad their physical condition is. There have been reports of people not getting drunk on alcohols after a placebo, feeling fine in midst of pain or getting healed of an illness etcetera. A reinforcement of beliefs whether false or not (which placebos use) effecting a cure that is very physiological is runs against your stance of physical factors affecting the brain because one would expect placebos not to work if your stance were true. For example, why would belief in a false method eg homeopathy have a placebo effect that heals a sick person ? Or consider a tragedy that occurred the day before yesterday. A friend of my sister died from an accident withou sustaining any outward injuries of any sort. Suppossing she didn't bleed internally, hers is another case of mere shock (without bodily harm) leading to death. That doesn't make sense in your stance even though physical factors must be involved.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 12:26:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 11:13:26 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 10:00:25 AM, Sswdwm wrote:

I don't see how you went on that tangent. I never implied this...

You don't have to. That what is implied whether you meant to or not.

Since consciousness is physical, and what it perceives is physical, it is not unsurprising that emotional stimuli etc can yield physical effects? Your argument is a non sequitur.



Sure, but then you are implying two entities for consciousness, a physical brain and an immaterial mind. Which is not favoured by Occums razor, so you now carry the BoP. We both agree the brain is involved in our perceptions on some critical level, now you postulate something additional to that.

But consciousness is directly experienced by everyone. To say I have to prove what you and other humans experience is unwarranted. You equate consciousness (as experienced) to brain states. I don't. The two are different IMO and in truth. I could use and fMRI to see the brain cells you equate to consciousness, that doesn't mean I will experience that person's consciousness.

I am thinking on this one. It's interesting.


Yes. I don't see how placebo supports your stance.

Well placebos are typically statements and actions which tend to placate a person no matter how bad their physical condition is. There have been reports of people not getting drunk on alcohols after a placebo, feeling fine in midst of pain or getting healed of an illness etcetera. A reinforcement of beliefs whether false or not (which placebos use) effecting a cure that is very physiological is runs against your stance of physical factors affecting the brain because one would expect placebos not to work if your stance were true. For example, why would belief in a false method eg homeopathy have a placebo effect that heals a sick person ? Or consider a tragedy that occurred the day before yesterday. A friend of my sister died from an accident withou sustaining any outward injuries of any sort. Suppossing she didn't bleed internally, hers is another case of mere shock (without bodily harm) leading to death. That doesn't make sense in your stance even though physical factors must be involved.

I haven't seem explanations for all of those, although I suspect they all exist. I have no doubt that emotions and decisions and of course placebo affect the manifestly 'physical' effects of the person. Effects like these sometimes make me think the antinatalists have a point, because many of the explanations I see are exaggerated defensive responses which are lowered psychologically once a perceived 'safe haven' is reached (such a hug from mum). Inflammation, diahorrea, fever, and of course pain are your bodies' own defense mechanisms

In any case however I could put the exact same question towards you. Why does your perception of conciousness give any better an explanation than naturalistic ones could provide? All you have done so far is offered a negative proof (If Y then not A, then B), which won't do if your own theory (B) offers no more explanatory power.

And prima facie there doesn't seem to be any there.

Moreover, you entail a physical brain and an immaterial consciousness. I would like to ask you, just how do they interact? zmikecuber pointed this out to me, all things we know of that interact do so via shared properties. You interact with the toilet when you share the same region of space, or with your atmosphere via the shared electromagnetic force property. Just how does your already extraneous consciousness entity interact? What is this property?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 1:28:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 12:26:28 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

I haven't seem explanations for all of those, although I suspect they all exist. I have no doubt that emotions and decisions and of course placebo affect the manifestly 'physical' effects of the person. Effects like these sometimes make me think the antinatalists have a point, because many of the explanations I see are exaggerated defensive responses which are lowered psychologically once a perceived 'safe haven' is reached (such a hug from mum). Inflammation, diahorrea, fever, and of course pain are your bodies' own defense mechanisms

What do antinatalists say ?


In any case however I could put the exact same question towards you. Why does your perception of conciousness give any better an explanation than naturalistic ones could provide? All you have done so far is offered a negative proof (If Y then not A, then B), which won't do if your own theory (B) offers no more explanatory power.

In the first place, I think naturalisim denies the nature of consciousness, which is that it is immaterial. I wonder why this should be an issue because to me it's obvious that humans could easily be zombies like computers are. Having eyes without sight, skin without touch, nose without smell, lots of data about facts yet having no knowledge, creativity that isn't inspired etc. So the best thing about dualism is that it admits what consciousness is, it isn't a brain state, it is an awareness of the state of things (including brain states). The second offer is that if (as I've said) causality as it relates between consciousnes and brain states is a two-way street it would only make sense that safe havens will have an effect. And given the fact of psychosomatic effects of mental states on physiological functions (as readily known in the case of the presence of adrenaline when scared) it only makes sense that states accessible when conscious (eg beliefs, emotions) affect the body.


And prima facie there doesn't seem to be any there.

Moreover, you entail a physical brain and an immaterial consciousness. I would like to ask you, just how do they interact? zmikecuber pointed this out to me, all things we know of that interact do so via shared properties. You interact with the toilet when you share the same region of space, or with your atmosphere via the shared electromagnetic force property. Just how does your already extraneous consciousness entity interact? What is this property?

Anytime you percieve an object, anytime you attach concepts like location, time, sharpness etc to an object. Anytime you write what you think about your environment or concepts. Anytime you love or hate. Anytime you invent a thing nature on its own doesn't make: you and roughly 4 billion others give evidence of how consciousness interacts with the physical world. The first point of interaction is that consciousness makes you aware of the physical world. In fact, consciousness is also synonymous with awareness. It's just unfortunate that I can't tell you how brain states produce consciousness. In fact, in principle that's impossible. I like to compare it to counting till infinity. No matter how much one counts you can't tell a number that leads to infinity. Likewise, I don't think it's possible to explain how electrochemical reactions result in conscious experience, all I know is that it does and that both affect each other. If I am sad neurons in my brain act in a certain manner, if I'm sad and take dope I get high whether I want to or not.

So how is consciousness a shared property ? Let's use the case of a toilet. Without consciousness, you (ie your body) could go to a toilet, stay there for hours and leave and nothing happened because there's no YOU (ie your consciousness) that is aware of this. This is applicable to motions you make when deeply asleep. You don't know unless someone who is awake tells you. So consciousness as a property us critical to knowing you used the toilet and you and that toilet shared that region of space. This is clear since people in coma undergo this. That said, I have said that I can't give you physical properties of of consciousness. It is immaterial and so lacks physical properties. But it is not nothing (like space is) because we know (from experiencing consciousness) without consciousness we can't know anything at all.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 1:45:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 1:28:39 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 12:26:28 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

I haven't seem explanations for all of those, although I suspect they all exist. I have no doubt that emotions and decisions and of course placebo affect the manifestly 'physical' effects of the person. Effects like these sometimes make me think the antinatalists have a point, because many of the explanations I see are exaggerated defensive responses which are lowered psychologically once a perceived 'safe haven' is reached (such a hug from mum). Inflammation, diahorrea, fever, and of course pain are your bodies' own defense mechanisms

What do antinatalists say ?

Life ids. Negative sum game. And all the 'positives' are actually just us recovering from various states of discomfort. I don't buy into it, I hold a midway position, but it has been influenced by their arguments.

In any case however I could put the exact same question towards you. Why does your perception of conciousness give any better an explanation than naturalistic ones could provide? All you have done so far is offered a negative proof (If Y then not A, then B), which won't do if your own theory (B) offers no more explanatory power.

In the first place, I think naturalisim denies the nature of consciousness, which is that it is immaterial.

Naturally I don't agree with you there.

I wonder why this should be an issue because to me it's obvious that humans could easily be zombies like computers are. Having eyes without sight, skin without touch, nose without smell, lots of data about facts yet having no knowledge, creativity that isn't inspired etc.

1. Appeal to intuition
2. Conceivability I argue =/= metaphysical possibility. Of course the way to test that is to make a human clone atom by atom instantaneously and see if it's conscious. Star Trek maybe?

In either case Chalmers advocates for this but others recently have argued against it, I don't know the philosophy field too well but there are objections you might not have come across yet

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
http://www.academia.edu...

(I'm actually tacking this conceivability - metaphysical possibility connection in my debate with mike)

So the best thing about dualism is that it admits what consciousness is, it isn't a brain state, it is an awareness of the state of things (including brain states). The second offer is that if (as I've said) causality as it relates between consciousnes and brain states is a two-way street it would only make sense that safe havens will have an effect. And given the fact of psychosomatic effects of mental states on physiological functions (as readily known in the case of the presence of adrenaline when scared) it only makes sense that states accessible when conscious (eg beliefs, emotions) affect the body.

Who said the brain conscious states in materialism models are not two-way streets?


And prima facie there doesn't seem to be any there.

Moreover, you entail a physical brain and an immaterial consciousness. I would like to ask you, just how do they interact? zmikecuber pointed this out to me, all things we know of that interact do so via shared properties. You interact with the toilet when you share the same region of space, or with your atmosphere via the shared electromagnetic force property. Just how does your already extraneous consciousness entity interact? What is this property?

Anytime you percieve an object, anytime you attach concepts like location, time, sharpness etc to an object. Anytime you write what you think about your environment or concepts. Anytime you love or hate. Anytime you invent a thing nature on its own doesn't make: you and roughly 4 billion others give evidence of how consciousness interacts with the physical world. The first point of interaction is that consciousness makes you aware of the physical world. In fact, consciousness is also synonymous with awareness. It's just unfortunate that I can't tell you how brain states produce consciousness. In fact, in principle that's impossible. I like to compare it to counting till infinity. No matter how much one counts you can't tell a number that leads to infinity. Likewise, I don't think it's possible to explain how electrochemical reactions result in conscious experience, all I know is that it does and that both affect each other. If I am sad neurons in my brain act in a certain manner, if I'm sad and take dope I get high whether I want to or not.

Then there seems to be no way to distinguish between the two except by Occums razor. Because we are left with an. Explanatory gap in dualism as to where the immaterial consciousness comes from (which you argued was God). So you need to make two (rather large) additional assumptions to make everything tick. Whereas materialism makes one, and that one assumption is in principle an empirically testable one.

So how is consciousness a shared property ? Let's use the case of a toilet. Without consciousness, you (ie your body) could go to a toilet, stay there for hours and leave and nothing happened because there's no YOU (ie your consciousness) that is aware of this. This is applicable to motions you make when deeply asleep. You don't know unless someone who is awake tells you. So consciousness as a property us critical to knowing you used the toilet and you and that toilet shared that region of space. This is clear since people in coma undergo this. That said, I have said that I can't give you physical properties of of consciousness. It is immaterial and so lacks physical properties. But it is not nothing (like space is) because we know (from experiencing consciousness) without consciousness we can't know anything at all.

That is the problem... How does an immaterial entity interact with a material entity? And what is this 'medium' via which it interacts? This is yet another unsupported assumption you are making in order to tie everything together.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 2:41:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 9:57:56 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
If yes, then how can free will exist, if the same thing always happens based on where things are? How could free will exist, if I will always choose the same meal just based on where the atoms line up?

If you choose freely, without someone else making your decision, then I think there is no reason to say that you have not free will. Do you think someone else makes your decisions?

Free will is randomness, yet if there is truly randomness, then how can the law of identity be true in this situation? So either the law of identity is not always true, or we do not have free will, and act solely on the basis of chemical reactions and other forces.

On what basis free will is randomness? I think it is not randomness. Free will choices are made by reasons and that is why they are not random. Or are you telling that you are not reasonable?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 2:56:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 2:54:37 AM, Composer wrote:
IF freewill exists, then why do so called believers freely choose to keep sinning?

Concupiscence.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 4:00:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 1:45:11 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

Life ids. Negative sum game. And all the 'positives' are actually just us recovering from various states of discomfort. I don't buy into it, I hold a midway position, but it has been influenced by their arguments.

Well, if life is a negative sum game the anti-natalists hould be happy. They don't like human life, at least that's what it seems.


Naturally I don't agree with you there.

You reeeaaally should consider otherwise. Because the truth is your awareness as it applies to you is different from the brain states responsible for it. The brain states can be undirectly observed, I can't observe your awareness, it's immaterial.


1. Appeal to intuition
2. Conceivability I argue =/= metaphysical possibility. Of course the way to test that is to make a human clone atom by atom instantaneously and see if it's conscious. Star Trek maybe?

In either case Chalmers advocates for this but others recently have argued against it, I don't know the philosophy field too well but there are objections you might not have come across yet

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
http://www.academia.edu...

(I'm actually tacking this conceivability - metaphysical possibility connection in my debate with mike)

I don't just argue concievability, I nited precedents to the fact such as mivements when asleep. In fact, people can be oblivious to stuff they do under the influence of alcohol much less drugs. One can also argue using robots who may behave similar to humans and be humanoid in appearance but still lack awareness of it. So you see, the zombie argument has precedents in well-known facts eg sleep-walking.


Who said the brain conscious states in materialism models are not two-way streets?

Two-way streets to where ? You equate consciousness to brain states so how can there be a two way street ? It's like saying there's a two-way street from Cameron's official residence to No 10, Downing street.


Then there seems to be no way to distinguish between the two except by Occums razor. Because we are left with an. Explanatory gap in dualism as to where the immaterial consciousness comes from (which you argued was God). So you need to make two (rather large) additional assumptions to make everything tick. Whereas materialism makes one, and that one assumption is in principle an empirically testable one.

It will only be empirically testable in a way biased to give evidence for materialism. I have argued that you are being indiscriminate with Ockham's razor. What if I dis ounted the Big Bang with that same razor since it multiplies entities too. Besides, materialism is flawed given the fact of consciousness, it simply ignores it or tries to nullify it by equating it to material events in the brain which really is an equivocation.


That is the problem... How does an immaterial entity interact with a material entity? And what is this 'medium' via which it interacts? This is yet another unsupported assumption you are making in order to tie everything together.

It just does. Why not approach it from space. We know all objects exist in space and that space is immaterial. I don't think you'll deny space or ask how objects interact with space. They only 'interact' with space by existing in it, other than that there's no physical interaction. You can't verifyor detect space with the senses, we infer it from what we see of physical objects. Likewise, I can give no physical medium by which consciousness interacts with the brain, it just does and we interact with consciousness in that we directly experience it as it relates to us. I experience consciousness for myself, the same for you.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 4:01:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 9:57:56 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a question. If I were to make a pot exactly the same (down to the electron) as another pot in my house, is it equal in everything to the pot (except spacial coordinates)? So basically, do you believe that A=A?

If so, if I created a second universe, exactly the same in every way as this one. With a god if you believe in one, without it if you don't, possibly with a god if you don't know. Every quark in the same position, would I, if I lived, eat the same meal on the same date five years from now?

If yes, then how can free will exist, if the same thing always happens based on where things are? How could free will exist, if I will always choose the same meal just based on where the atoms line up?

Free will is randomness, yet if there is truly randomness, then how can the law of identity be true in this situation? So either the law of identity is not always true, or we do not have free will, and act solely on the basis of chemical reactions and other forces.

No offense brother, but free will is pretty easy to test.

Go get up and walk out the door and wave to the first person you see.

Each of those requires you to decide to do each of them. And at any point, you could refuse to do anyone one of them.

Free will is easy to demonstrate.

The idea that inanimate atoms cause one or the other? That is called personification, and is a bit like first transforming a mouse into mickey mouse, and then thinking mickey mouse is real.

Barin activity is quite measurable.

How atoms line up causing things? Like decisions? That is a link tat has never been demonstrated and never will. Inanimate things do not cause human decisions.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 4:26:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 4:00:15 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/23/2014 1:45:11 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

Life ids. Negative sum game. And all the 'positives' are actually just us recovering from various states of discomfort. I don't buy into it, I hold a midway position, but it has been influenced by their arguments.

Well, if life is a negative sum game the anti-natalists hould be happy. They don't like human life, at least that's what it seems.

=p


Naturally I don't agree with you there.

You reeeaaally should consider otherwise. Because the truth is your awareness as it applies to you is different from the brain states responsible for it. The brain states can be undirectly observed, I can't observe your awareness, it's immaterial.

You assert that, but you haven't really provided anything that causes me to doubt this. Let's assume materialism is true and conciousness is a result of brain states and physical processes, just what would we expect to be different than to how things are now?

This is just a scaled up version of perceiving the pictures your computer processes as various transistor states on the cpu board. There is no doubt the CPU board and components hold all the syntax, data etc for the picture, but it's going to be nigh impossible for someone with no experience building one to determine what is what. I know you are arguing for consciousness as perceived, but I really don#t see the need to appeal to an additional explanation. Especially when what we would predict from consciousness being completely tied to the physical brain, has come true.

This of course does not rule out idealism, but it does mean it's a better explanation for it.



1. Appeal to intuition
2. Conceivability I argue =/= metaphysical possibility. Of course the way to test that is to make a human clone atom by atom instantaneously and see if it's conscious. Star Trek maybe?

In either case Chalmers advocates for this but others recently have argued against it, I don't know the philosophy field too well but there are objections you might not have come across yet

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
http://www.academia.edu...

(I'm actually tacking this conceivability - metaphysical possibility connection in my debate with mike)

I don't just argue concievability, I nited precedents to the fact such as mivements when asleep. In fact, people can be oblivious to stuff they do under the influence of alcohol much less drugs. One can also argue using robots who may behave similar to humans and be humanoid in appearance but still lack awareness of it. So you see, the zombie argument has precedents in well-known facts eg sleep-walking.

Oh, I thought you were arguing for the strong formulation of p-zombie argument. But my argument against metaphysical possibility still holds weight against your original statement.


Who said the brain conscious states in materialism models are not two-way streets?

Two-way streets to where ? You equate consciousness to brain states so how can there be a two way street ? It's like saying there's a two-way street from Cameron's official residence to No 10, Downing street.

Yes, I was confused as to the point you was trying to make. You making the point it's a two way street implies that there's some significance to it. I don't see how.


Then there seems to be no way to distinguish between the two except by Occums razor. Because we are left with an. Explanatory gap in dualism as to where the immaterial consciousness comes from (which you argued was God). So you need to make two (rather large) additional assumptions to make everything tick. Whereas materialism makes one, and that one assumption is in principle an empirically testable one.

It will only be empirically testable in a way biased to give evidence for materialism. I have argued that you are being indiscriminate with Ockham's razor. What if I dis ounted the Big Bang with that same razor since it multiplies entities too.

Red Herring.

.Besides, materialism is flawed given the fact of consciousness, it simply ignores it or tries to nullify it by equating it to material events in the brain which really is an equivocation.

One that fits whatever predictions we seem to make as a result of it. It's a simple and elegant assumption, I don't see a need to tack on further entities.


That is the problem... How does an immaterial entity interact with a material entity? And what is this 'medium' via which it interacts? This is yet another unsupported assumption you are making in order to tie everything together.

It just does.

Ipse dixit?

Why not approach it from space. We know all objects exist in space and that space is immaterial.

I don't accept it's immaterial, and neither do most physicists IIRC.

I don't think you'll deny space or ask how objects interact with space. They only 'interact' with space by existing in it, other than that there's no physical interaction. You can't verifyor detect space with the senses, we infer it from what we see of physical objects. Likewise, I can give no physical medium by which consciousness interacts with the brain, it just does and we interact with consciousness in that we directly experience it as it relates to us. I experience consciousness for myself, the same for you.

Yes, but this line of reasoning is moot if space is material. And the evidence suggests it's a very real entity, although I already know you deny this.

Another thing might change your ,mind. Virtual particles only require the presence of space. You assert space is nothing. Therefore something can come from ex nihilo, if we were to accept your definition of nothing.

Just a thought.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...