Free Will, Where Does It Come From?

[Solly]

So consciousness is a potentiality of everything around us as well?

[Drogue]

What do you mean? Conciousness is the bit that makes us alive, as opposed to being inanimate and not living. It is who we are (mentally) and how we interpret the world.

[Solly]

"Conciousness is nothing special. It is just us"

How do you know..?

[Drogue]

Well, we know that conciousness is us, in the sense that we are concious. The just part comes from the scientific idea that unless I have some evidence, or even just an inkling, that there is something else, I presume their isn't. What is there to suspect their is?

[Whaleboy]

Actually no. Steven Harking has been quoted that he believes in determinism. Not because the future has already been decided, but because humans, when you put them in exactly the same position, will do exactly the same thing. Sure, it's chaotic, so a tiny difference in position could mean any size of difference in consequence, but in exactly the same position there would be no difference.

Absolutely correct.

Quantum effects only play a role when we are dealing with very big numbers. In other words, given the same situation, it is highly probably that we would do the same thing. Given that same universe (same history), there is a slight chance, as good as infinitesimal chance that it will be different.

Of course that chance will result in that universe diverging as per sum over histories.

Let me put the issue of determinism this way. My past has conspired to create me. The events, no matter how improbably, have created me, and will continue to define my future. That is my view of the past and a god's eye view of my life (just the view, I don't believe in god). As far as I know, my own subjective view, the future is something that I determine by my own choices and those of others, and other confounding variables. That does not change the "objective" fact that my life is deterministic. That's just the relativist view on this matter.

In other words, the notion of free will comes from our own subjectivity. That does not change the fact that our current choices are influenced by our past and the present.

Put it this way, for all intents and purposes, we can ignore quantum physics in relation to human determinism. That only comes in when we deal with issues of time travel and superlumial velocities.

[Solly]

With that reasoning, I would conclude that I am the only conscious individual since I can't possibly know if anyone else is.

I think we're coming from wildly different backgrounds - I've read a lot about the newer views on this, and you seem to be coming from the more traditional approach.

[Solly]

Another point I couldn't find the right words for earlier. You are still using objective, third-person accounts to describe (subjective) brain activity, ie talking of neurons etc.

What is it in your materialist view of consciousness that provides "qualia" such as colours, feelings, etc.

[Drogue]

Traditional approach? Complexity was written in 2002. Most of the essays I've read, on free will, bounded rationality, complexity, and the idea of conciousness, are 2003 papers (many from the Santa Fe institute, but a few written by Princeton and Oxford post-grads/lecturers). I can't remember when Universality (another book based on fractals, and how their patterns mirror things in life, such as brainwaves) was written, but I haven't finished that yet anyway.

So no, this is not traditional stuff. Sure, it agrees with Sartre, but it also agrees with much of common thought on it. As I said, the determinism happens to be Steven Hawking's opinion too, that it the future cannot change.

[Solly]

How are qualia ("experiences") possible in a material brain?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Another point I couldn't find the right words for earlier. You are still using objective, third-person accounts to describe (subjective) brain activity, ie talking of neurons etc.

What is it in your materialist view of consciousness that provides "qualia" such as colours, feelings, etc.

It isnt objective, as I've said. Sure, I'm explaining it in terms of objective physical measures, but as I said, since everyone's brain interprets the world differently, we are all subjective. That is where colours come from. They exist, as an objective, in the physical world, but everyone interprets them themselves, hence the subjective.

Brain activity is electrical impulses, chemicals, neurons, the physical brain itself. That is physical, but due to the way it works, the fact that it is all interpreting the world, it is subjective. What possibly evidence, even an inclination or a theory, have you got that there is a seperate 'soul'. A non-coporeal part of us that makes us concious? WHere do your arguments come from?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
How are qualia ("experiences") possible in a material brain?

Because the brain recognises things, and interprets them as it has before. Given the same impulses, it would give the same image to the person.

I don't understand wat you mean by experiences in that context? Things that have happened before, our brain knows how to react too. That is experience, to me.

[Cruddy]

No such thing as free will. The lawyers always charge for the service.

[Whaleboy]

With that reasoning, I would conclude that I am the only conscious individual since I can't possibly know if anyone else is.

No, that would be a literal interpretation of Platonic idealism (which is a bad idea). Brain in vats etc.

I think we're coming from wildly different backgrounds - I've read a lot about the newer views on this, and you seem to be coming from the more traditional approach.

I'll stick with plain old postmodernism thankyou very much. Quite simple consciousness is such a flawed term, since it is merely an amalgamation of certain senses, which causes qualia. Our perception of that is the field, and I dare say, the holy grail of neuroscience rather than philosophy, and I am not qualified to go into that further. However, since it is reduced to a notion of biological computer science (to which we are subject which is why we think we are), we can safely eliminate any absolute "soul" that would seem a precurser to free will in any but the limit situations I have described it.

However, since it is I, the subject of biological computer science, we are faced with a dillemma. THe biology talking or "me". I say the sum of my parts. Therefore, the old axiom holds: "There are only thoughts", is the furthest we can reduce philosophy.

You would be well off to read this article on Ektopos (a philosophy site I am a member of (BenElijah)). http://www.ektopos.com/modules.php?o...ticle&sid=1011

Note that there are many areas where I disagree with Colin McGinn.

[Whaleboy]

Drogue on this thread:

[Drogue]

Skim read that article, and Impressive. Like the guy, seems clever, can relate to a lot of what he says, especially the difference between his philosophy and his actions. And any article that starts:

Professor Colin McGinn has spent his career pondering the mystery of consciousness and other philosophical problems, but believes that the real meaning of life is to be found on the beach.

has got to be good