excreationist

So what makes sure this axiom is true? God?

Baloo

Nope. Not just humans. NOTHING in the entire universe, even in theory, can predict human actions.

I fail to understand the issue then. Our actions are exemplifications of the laws of physics. Your issue is like asking whther the redness of an apple forces the apple to be red.

As far as I can tell, we are using the exact same definition of laws. Please note your use of the phrase "laws of physics" above. As for the word "governed".... If I drop a pencil, lthe laws of physics state that it will fall to the ground. Thus, I say, the pencil's behavior is "goverened" by the laws of physics.

madmax2976

<strong> Interesting. I know there are those who would disagree with you, but its irrelevant in any case.

The question is whether humans really have the ability to choose in a "law governed", deterministic universe.

<strong> If your actions are determined by the laws of physics, then where does choice fit it? Are we just like the apple; red because the laws of the universe caused us to be red? Not many people think that apples make choices.

<strong> You didn't answer the question really. I want to know what a law is in the sense that this is a "law governed" universe. What exactly is a law? - an energy beam? a phantom? a supernatural influence on the physical elements?

Is there some entity called a "law" that "forces" gravity to have an affect on a pencil such that it will make the pencil fall with an acceleration of 9.8m/s squared? Or are laws descriptions of what happens when gravity affects a pencil on earth?

In the sense that laws are human descriptions of phenomena, I can understand what a law is. In the sense of laws "forcing" phenomena to act a certain way, I don't understand what a law is. It seems to be some kind of entity unto itself which is strange.

Synaesthesia

Laurentius,

The brain provides man’s ability to perceive and interact with his environment. When we take away everything that the brain can do, what is left? A dead human being.

The theory that choice is a physical event solves the problem of how our minds interact with the world, why strokes can selectively destroy any perceptual ability and why music can affect the way we think and feel. It also avoids the problem of how we are imbued with souls, how the soul affects us and the epistemic problems such as dualism’s lack of falsifiability.

Nerve impulses, electromagnetic potentials that sweep above and below the neuron’s surface, can be observed in our brains. (Although the imaging technology has become available only recently.) At the current time, it is quite apparent that the neurons do not violate any laws of physics.

Imagine you come into sight of a good friend. Photons are bounced (or emitted, if your friend is a swamp monster) off of him, striking your retina. Whether you make the decision to wave to him, throw a snowball or snow shovel at him, each individual neuron fires based upon the physical state of the system. So there is an uninterrupted physical relationship between the sight of you friend (and what you ate that morning, what dreams you had last night, past experiences with the friend etc....), and your reaction to it. How peculiar, you made the conscious choice but the physical event of the neurons actually effected your reaction to it. Where does the mind fit in?

Many biological laws apply to inert systems. All that is required for much of it is reproduction with heredity and a differential reproductive success. Evolution develops incredible organized complexity but everything within any biological system follows the same physical laws as any other matter in the universe.

They are in different situations and so change differently but always they change according to the same fundamental laws. The fact that we have a powerful tool for describing evolutionary systems does not mean that evolutionary systems are fundamentally different from any other physical system. The “laws” of biology simply describe what will happen, given our laws of physics, under certain circumstances. (ie. Reproduction with heredity and a differential reproductive success.) The same laws govern the evolution of computer systems that implement heredity reproduction with hereditary and aquired factors influencing reproductive success.

Similarly, though the “laws” of geology can provide an account of what organizational principles apply to the earth’s crust over time, the fundamental laws remain the same as in trees and bees.


There are hundreds of specilaized agencies that we are only beginning to have an inkling of. There are thousands of cogntive skills that computers have not yet aquired. Why is it that people vastly underestimate the gulf between present day computers and our minds by attributing the difference to only a single, vital essence?

Regards,
Synaesthesia

incommendatus

No excreationist, not god. I chose to respond to your reply. That is what makes it an axiom, it's self evident in the actions I take.

excreationist

So are you saying that people's decisions aren't completely determined by their physical environment and the particles that make up their brains? That their decisions aren't ultimately at the mercy of mechanical physical laws - that their mind is *truly* free to choose?

incommendatus

Yes, ultimatly, the decision is theirs. They may take input from their environment in order to make a decision, but the final yes, or no lies in their hands.

excreationist

What exactly makes this final decision though? Neurons? A soul?

Laurentius

A HAPPY NEW YEAR to everyone!
AVE to Excreationist, Synaethesia
and to anyone in search for philosophical delight

I have chosen a discursive answer to all problems raised here, rather than the customary quoting and giving the reply, in order to demonstrate that:
1. material universe lacks choice because physical causality;
2. living things represent a different layer of the material universe, where systems endowed with purposes and perceptions of their own (I repeat, of their own) are also unable of making choices because of instinctive behavior;
3. consciousness makes a totally different level, the only one where choices can be made.
Beside the laws and properties that are present on level 1, levels 2 & 3 include properties and laws that do not apply to level 1, and which make it possible that on level 3 choice can be found.
PHYSICAL LAWS ARE PERVASIVE, BUT ON LEVELS 2 & 3 THEY FAIL TO GIVE A VALID EXPLANATION OF THE ORGANIZATION THERE, WHICH IS THE REASON WHY THERE ARE NEW SETS OF LAWS APPLIABLE ONLY ON A SPECIFIC LEVEL.

*what is choice?*
CHOICE = Aware picking up of some element(s) from a couple of them.
&gt;
For a CHOICE to be made, the picking system must be AWARE:
&gt; of itself
&gt; of the act of picking
&gt; of the circumstances under which the picking is performed (place, time, reason, goal, etc.)
&gt; of the existence of the elements to pick from
&gt; of the relationship between the elements to pick from and the picking system
&gt; of the relationship between the picked one and the picking system
&gt; etc.


*why does CHOICE presuppose MIND?*
Mind is the only system known that makes choices. Mind’s capacity of being conscious allows it to make choices.
CONSCIOUSNESS is – as a matter of fact – the aware act of making selections/choices. Consciousness has so far served for biological adaptation. It has appeared in order to offer better adaptation than instinctive reaction or automatic routine.

*what is awareness (and consciousness, respectively)?*
AWARENESS is the inner condition of a system presupposing:
(a) the overall/oversensorial feeling of the self as opposed to the environment (i.e. the feeling of *I*) and
(b) the voluntary activity of best perseverance of the self within the environment (i.e. the will of the *I*).
CONSCIOUSNESS includes AWARENESS and is superior to it in that it presupposes:
(a) not only the feeling, but also the rational abstraction of the self,
(b) the rational abstraction of the other existing selves in the environment, and
(c) the aware act of making choices.

*how come matter is determined by the physical laws of the universe and mind is not?*
Matter and mind represent different levels of organization of reality.
Both matter and mind contain several levels of organization, from simple to complex.
Each superior level preserves the basic attributes and laws of the previous one(s) and adds some more.
The new attributes/laws that add with every new level do not apply to the prior ones.
There is a quantitative difference between the systems belonging to the same level of reality (such as different types of crystals), whereas there is a qualitative difference between the systems belonging to different levels of reality (such as a piece of paper and a bug).
Going up the ladder, from the simplest material forms to the most complex ones, physical laws tend to lose their restrictive determination, and give way to free acts – that is, free from physical determinants, even though not from psychological ones.

*what level of reality includes choices?*
The mind does.

REALITY = matter & mind
1. MATTER: (a) ATOMIC &gt; (b) ORGANIC &gt; (c) PSYCHE
2. MIND: (a) UNCONSCIOUS &gt; (b) EGO &gt; (c) SUPRAEGO

Situation:
A man is dumped by a woman because of her father.
The man gets a clock bomb and blows the woman’s father up.
A jury finds the man guilty, and the judge sentences him to death.

1(a)
The physical existence & activity of the man, the bomb, etc. is supported by the ATOMIC level.
The ATOMIC level represents the matter/energy level of phenomena where sub/supra-atomic structures & systems form.
The ATOMIC level physically supports the existence and activity of those above (ORGANIC & PSYCHE), but does not essentially determine their activity (in rather the same way photons follow physical laws to exhibit the texts I post here, but they fail to meddle with the significance of these texts).
The subjects of the laws at the ATOMIC level are indifferent entities, which indifferently “obey” physical laws (gravity, conservation of energy, thermodynamic laws, etc.).

1(b)
The living existence of the people involved in this situation is supported by the ORGANIC level.
The ORGANIC level represents the level where the living beings are considered in their unity.
The subjects of the laws at the ORGANIC level are entities possessing awareness & will in various degrees (that is, rather sensorial and instinctive). They form more complex entities than those of the previous level in that they adapt, assimilate, reproduce and repair themselves in order to achieve their own goals. For instance, the non-living system represented by the clock bomb differs from any living being in that it has an external goal to fulfill, while the man’s intimate projects are immanent to his structure. However, considered at this level, living things carry on their activity instinctively, which deprive their acts from the “choice” quality. The man’s urge to mate or the woman’s father’s attempt to save his life cannot be accounted for as conscious acts, although they characterize these people as living beings.

1(c)
The PSYCHE level is the one where choices become possible.
Since the example above deals with conscious entities, there are many choices one can identify:
&gt; The man’s option for this particular woman.
&gt; The woman’s father requesting her not to go out with the man.
&gt; The woman’s acceptance.
&gt; The man’s murdering the woman’s father.
&gt; The jury’s verdict.
&gt; The judge’s sentence.
The PSYCHE level represents the level of consciousness. Consciousness can only be defined as the realm of aware choices. The subjects of the laws operating at this level show all the qualities required to make choices (as detailed above).

2(a)
The UNCONSCIOUS level represents the cargo of feelings and information that partly and secretly influence conscious decisions. A psychoanalyst will be able to find unconscious reasons for all the chain of choices presented above.

2(b)
The EGO level represents the world of the individual consciousness, where choices are made with the purpose of preserving the individual’s interests. The man, woman and woman’s father’s decisions can be regarded as choices of the individual consciousness.

2(c)
The SUPRAEGO level represents the place where choices are made within the community, by a group of its members, or taking the community into consideration. The jury’s verdict and the judge’s sentence can be included here.

CHOICE can only exist in the area of mind where the system making decisions is aware (feels or/and rationalizes) of what it is doing (that is, the EGO & SUPRAEGO). This is the reason why I will reiterate that it is awareness that adds a simple selection the quality that can turn it into CHOICE.
However, the nihilist will not forget that there is a great deal of determination both in the way mind perceives things and in the way the universe works. For that reason, CHOICE melts into constrained selection, in the same manner reality melts into nothingness.

*can an atheist be a dualist?*
Yes.
My being a dualist does not refer to what reality consists of, but to how reality is accessible to humans.
Therefore, I do not believe there are two substances, matter and mind, on which reality is built.
Instead, I believe there are two principles on which reality (as we know it) grounds, because matter and mind (as we perceive them) are properties of each other.
In fact, I am a nihilist that denies the “real” existence of both matter and mind (which nullifies the concept of choice as well.
Moreover, in the extreme, mind reduces to matter (being a complex manifestation of it) and matter reduces to nothingness (being a complex manifestation of it).

P.S. In the end I wonder if anyone could escape the purely material dogma and reduce matter to nothingness, the same way they reduce mind to simple matter.
Because matter really reduces down to nothingness if one plunges deeper and deeper to where there are only vectors and rapports. In fact, a rippling nothingness.

Laurentius

AVE

Synaesthesia

You say:
The brain provides man’s ability to perceive and interact with his environment. When we take away everything that the brain can do, what is left? A dead human being.

I say:
This sounds kind of morbid. You’d better take the guy’s heart out, and you’ll get a dead body too. My point? The brain is just an organ; the key to the question is the living thing’s unity.

Then, you say:
The theory that choice is a physical event solves the problem of how our minds interact with the world, why strokes can selectively destroy any perceptual ability and why music can affect the way we think and feel.

I say:
No, this theory allows you to indulge in your dogma that living things are subjects to the same laws as non-living ones.
It is not I, but scientists who treat the strictly physical world as consisting of PHENOMENA, while the living world is treated as consisting of autonomous individuals, BEINGS.

Further you say:
Imagine you come into sight of a good friend. Photons are bounced (or emitted, if your friend is a swamp monster) off of him, striking your retina. Whether you make the decision to wave to him, throw a snowball or snow shovel at him, each individual neuron fires based upon the physical state of the system. So there is an uninterrupted physical relationship between the sight of you friend (and what you ate that morning, what dreams you had last night, past experiences with the friend etc....), and your reaction to it. How peculiar, you made the conscious choice but the physical event of the neurons actually effected your reaction to it.

Then you ask:
Where does the mind fit in?

I say:
Okay, let’s take this friend. What is this friendship of ours anyway? A bunch of biochemical reactions launched whenever he is brought to my view or my mind (or shall I say brain)? There is this biochemistry and neuronal activity you are mentioning, of course, but there’s more than that. And that’s where mind comes in. In fact, the mind has always been there, you’re only avoiding it, as you say. Moreover, let’s say this friend of mine is a kind of “soul mate” (metaphorically speaking, of course), and she surprised me on my last birthday by asking this jet pilot to fly over my backyard and leave a white smoke message in the shape of a heart. Now, tell me: was there a message there, or was there just smoke?

Then you say:
Many biological laws apply to inert systems. All that is required for much of it is reproduction with heredity and a differential reproductive success.

I say:
The biological fact is more than a physical phenomenon in that it deals with living things. The basic unit of living things is the cell. The cell does not passively tolerate the environment, it actively reacts to it. This is not what non-living things do. (Previously I gave the example with the paper that burns, while the bug runs away). The living thing will react to the environment, and will allow itself to adapt. It will engage an active and selective exchange with the environment. Well, non-living things do not behave this way. Moreover, the cell assimilates. Through metabolism, living things take over matter of some form, destroy it, and synthesize the stuff it needs. Well, non-living things do not do that, do they? I suggest that we give up placing atoms, clouds, supernovas, and robots in the same hat, because the robot is not just matter either. It is a human artifact, with some function(s) and the ability to perform them (unconsciously, of course).
Moreover, living things breathe, which can be observed physically, of course, but which is a law that never applies to non-living things. If everything reduces to particles and waves, may I know what is the physical LAW saying that breathing must take place? Or the physical law saying that division, self-repairing, and reproduction should occur in certain things (living ones, that is).

However, you say:
The same laws govern the evolution of computer systems that implement heredity reproduction with hereditary and acquired factors influencing reproductive success.

And I say:
Now we are again in the magic hat from where we can pull quarks and robots at will. The fallacy resides in considering that a computerized robot is driven by the same laws as, let’s say, a solar system. There is no software telling the solar system what to do; the solar system has no function – it is a mere phenomenon. The robot is a human artifact; it has a function and is endowed with the program to perform it. It is abusive to compare AI with human consciousness exactly because it poorly imitates the way human reason, living things behave, etc. It is like building a helicopter and affirming that it is a dragonfly.

More arguments lie in my previous post.
Otherwise, regards.