Freethought & Rationalism Archive

luvluv · 06-22-2002, 06:31 AM

That still doesn't answer the question. I've got millions of different words up there connected by millions of different patterns. What caused me to choose the first word that set off the chain reation? How can any tie between these words be said to exist if I pull the words specifically for their incontinuity, for their UNrelatedness to each other?

DRFseven · 06-22-2002, 09:28 AM

Quote:

luvluv: What caused me to choose the first word that set off the chain reation?

Associations from your thoughts of stringing together nonsense, peripheral awareness of your environment, bodily sensations triggering memories. Specific neurons fired that resulted in your thinking about those words; now what do YOU suppose caused those specific neurons to fire?

Quote:

How can any tie between these words be said to exist if I pull the words specifically for their incontinuity, for their UNrelatedness to each other?

It isn't just "said" to exist; it physically exists. We can watch fMRIs while people are doing mental tasks and watch the associations. It's really not as simple as there being a neuron that equals a word; there are different "layers" of neurons that fire in conjunction with each other to form semantical concepts. There are areas in the brain where the neurons fire for memories of facial features; other areas for names, etc. Any feature of a concept can set off associations that trigger a feature of another concept, which goes on and on. For instance, you might think of the word "blue", which might trigger associations with "ocean" or "swimming pool" as well as with "eyes" or "sad", and countless other associations with the word blue. In turn, swimming pools and eyes might trigger concepts such as danger and glasses. Most of these are unconscious associations; you don't know they're there, but the already-established neural pathways connect them (that's the point of the free association drills). All these associations have been established by your countless unique experiences.

It sounds to me like you don't believe me that there are connections you don't know about between neurons. Is this correct?

Jobar · 06-22-2002, 01:29 PM

DRFseven:
"All these associations have been established by your countless unique experiences."

That one sentence, I think, explains why I consider myself a nondeterminist.

We are simply unable to exactly determine the inputs which generate a thought pattern. Oh, I am sure that, given broad enough and deep enough information about a person, we can make excellent predictons of their thoughts and behaviour- but we can never give exact predictions. At present, neuroscientists are not aware of any quantum phenomena which go on in the process of thought, so that the uncertainty at the quantum level is not a stumbling block for the notion of psychological determinism. But the sheer number and variety of any individual's experience makes it impossible to precisely predict their behaviour under a given set of circumstances. Thought is not a random process- but it is, to a certain degree, a chaotic process, and therefore incapable of being precisely modelled.

advocate_11 · 06-22-2002, 01:54 PM

If determinism is correct, it makes no practical difference unless there is a being that knows what is determined and is capable of acting upon that knowledge.

I have generally understood the suggestion that we possess free-will to mean simply that there is or was at some time something about the future that God does not know. It seems that this is all that is required for it to fulfill its theological purpose.

If The Bible says that God knows all of which possible future states of reality will be realized and knows this completely and perfectly, then there is no debate for the Christian.

If The Bible does not say this, then I do not understand why Christians are hesitant to put more effort into investigating the sacrifices and gains of adopting such a theory.

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: advocate_11 ]</p>

DRFseven · 06-23-2002, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Jobar: We are simply unable to exactly determine the inputs which generate a thought pattern. Oh, I am sure that, given broad enough and deep enough information about a person, we can make excellent predictons of their thoughts and behaviour- but we can never give exact predictions. At present, neuroscientists are not aware of any quantum phenomena which go on in the process of thought, so that the uncertainty at the quantum level is not a stumbling block for the notion of psychological determinism. But the sheer number and variety of any individual's experience makes it impossible to precisely predict their behaviour under a given set of circumstances.

Right; we can't predict much yet, but so what? Do you think that because you don't know what a behavior will be that the causes of the behavior go away?

Koyaanisqatsi · 06-24-2002, 10:09 AM

Fascinating stuff, DRF (as always), but I think I see the stumbling block luvluv is trying to navigate, as well as a larger problem that both of you can't seem to address.

In essence, you have been describing a perpetual processing machine (the neural "net") that merely responds to stimulus, with the inherent understanding that this "machine" is self-contained and luvluv, I think, has been trying to get at the external stimuli that effects the change. It's just that luvluv is only hinting at the exploded extreme of that external cause--"God"--and as such, is doomed to failure.

The disconnect between both sides of that coin is of course, the operator of that machine; the driver of the car (aka, consciousness that I'm sure luvluv considers "soul").

For example, DRF is describing how the spark plugs and pistons fire when the gas is injected into a chamber and luvluv is asking, "But who created the car so it could perform in this manner?"

But the real question of both is, of course, "Why did the driver turn left?"

No amount of examining the spark plugs is going to be able to answer that question and unless you can explain how "driver" is a necessarily emergent quality of "carness," DRF, then it just doesn't "fit."

If we are simply a car as your argument implies, then how do you account for the question of, "Why the driver turned left?" Or, for that matter, the driver?

I just can't see how "driver" is a necessarily emergent quality of "car," which your analysis of cognitive science seems to imply. Certainly a car needs a driver, but the opposite is not necessarily the case, since a driver can also walk or ride a bike, etc.,etc.

I think it's this aspect that luvluv (and, shockingly, myself) are getting at; the difference is, of course, I would posit a more natural explanation (based on a speculative merging of string theory, quantum physics, cognitive science/psychology and cult mentality that I won't go into here) and luvluv seems to be trying to force deity again.

Without the "driver" (consciousness) there can be no "free will."

(edited to remove my theory to get back on topic - KOY)

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

luvluv · 06-24-2002, 04:11 PM

Koy, I think you are misrepresenting my argument. I am not arguing that what lies behind the mental processes is God. That would actually be a direct violation of the Christian concept of free-will. I am arguing that what lies behind the mental processes is free-will, or perhaps, the self. So far, I am arguing this from grounds as purely naturalistic as you are.

(This is not the first time we agreed, by the way. I was in total agreement with everything you said on the genetically engineered humans thread, but I didn't mention it because I didn't want to ruin your day

)

DRFseven · 06-24-2002, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Koy: In essence, you have been describing a perpetual processing machine (the neural "net") that merely responds to stimulus, with the inherent understanding that this "machine" is self-contained and luvluv, I think, has been trying to get at the external stimuli that effects the change. It's just that luvluv is only hinting at the exploded extreme of that external cause--"God"--and as such, is doomed to failure.

The disconnect between both sides of that coin is of course, the operator of that machine; the driver of the car (aka, consciousness that I'm sure luvluv considers "soul").

But, Koy, I'm saying the system is literally self-regulating through a feedback system that incorporates learned (changed by experience) linkages of cells, some of which become stablized enough to certain stimuli that the individual is maintained in a relative state of homeostasis. This feedback is accomplished through molecular and cellular signaling and receiving mechanisms that work in a way that is similar to the way memories occur automatically; which is that the cell membrane changes as a result of firing patterns which are a direct result of perceptual stimuli, so that an action potential is created. The self-regulatory function enables the cell populations to get themselves back to a state of homeostasis. Part of this process involves the linkages between the limbic system and the cogntive "knowledge structures" we have built up over time to enable the achievements of our homeostatic rewards. The cells in the limbic system fire first, then we "find out" that we are emotional about something in the cortex, later. In the same way, specialized neural cells detect what will later be realized in the language cortex as "something wrong" or "problem to solve" as a result of some preset equilibrium being off. Then our neurons in the motor cortex fire and a moment later we "find out" that we have decided to fix the problem.

I don't know if I am addressing what you are saying. It could be that the self-regulating function of our cognitive processes comprises our consciousness, but I don't know that. I don't know about the *I*, except that it has to have evolved as a souped-up problem-solving, decision-making device. I certainly feel an *I* to myself, but I don't know what it is; an phenomenal artifact of my neurobiology, I guess. But, back to intent: bottom line, I see the physical trail from knee-jerk to complex decision-making, from flat-worm to human. I don't see a need for any other driver than the driving forces inherent in the system; wouldn't that be redundant?

I'd like to hear your theory, though.

DRFseven · 06-24-2002, 06:28 PM

Quote:

luv: Koy, I think you are misrepresenting my argument. I am not arguing that what lies behind the mental processes is God. That would actually be a direct violation of the Christian concept of free-will. I am arguing that what lies behind the mental processes is free-will, or perhaps, the self. So far, I am arguing this from grounds as purely naturalistic as you are.

Luvluv, if you have a disconnected intent, without even getting into how THAT could happen, why would the neurons necessary for thought and action become active? What would cause the electro-chemical action to occur in the first place?

Koyaanisqatsi · 06-25-2002, 05:32 AM

DRF--

Sorry, I thought I was helping to clarify what you were posting as opposed to what luvluv was posting.

What I was getting at is that you have certainly described the hardware and the software of a computer and how it all funtions, but said nothing of the user who is necessarily separate from the computer (to complete the analogy).

In other words, you've described humanity as a computer with emergent qualities of consciousness/sentience, which is identical to saying, IMO, "Goddidit," which is where the disconnect between you and luvluv comes, I think.

A pile of rocks will never write "To be or not to be," no matter how many you keep piling on, unless there is a fundamental shift in thinking regarding what is and is not "conscious," which is why I argue that all matter is conscious.

I originally posted my ramblings, but it's far too speculative...oh what the hell, here is what I had originally posted and redacted since it took things way off topic. One caveat, though; as you will see, I'm by no means an expert in any of the fields I borrow from to form this (but it does address "where is freewill," just not "whence consciousness," so we're even on that

):

Quote:

So, here's my own hypothesis. Won't this be fun?

I start with an extension of Freud and Jung; Freud, who, of course, introduced a delineation of consciousness and their various purposes and Jung with his collective unconscious, the genetic memory of "things past," which DRF indirectly alluded to and I would like to expand upon here, even to the point of going beyond Jung, if I may be so bold.

And I may...

I would contend one of two possibilities that would address the whole--both the materialist take and the theist lie--and make sense of it all:
<ol type="1">[*] "Memory" is not a function of sentience per se, merely a process of encoding just as it is for a computer, therefore all matter serves as "informational transference vehicles" (ITV for short; i.e., a molecule is equivalent to a CD-ROM or digital tape cassette) and the brain simply acts as a final sensory input processor "making sense of" the enormous bombardment of all that encoded memory passing through our own guided fog of atoms and interacting with it (which also explains dreams and deja vu and prophecy, etc., since only the brain organizes events in a chronological order; the actual occurrence of events, I contend, is simultaneous, but this I won't get too into now as it's exceedingly complicated and this will prove convoluted enough as it is

)[*] All matter is "conscious" and actively communicates rather than merely passively transfers information, as is in the "memory" proposition above.[/list=a]

In both the passive and active hypotheses, the brain is acting as either a filtering out processor or a puzzle building processor (both of which we already know are functions of the brain, if I'm not mistaken) and the "I" consciousness that the theists call our "soul" is really just a final review board that I would contend is necessarily "prematerial" (to coin a phrase) and necessarily a temporal (or, better, meta temporal, which I will also get into in a moment), since we know that linear time is merely an illusion created by the brain.

In other words, the "true" nature of our existence is one that is co-opted by a cult dogma and exploded into an extreme to be used in a con game (hence our propensity to use the "snake oil salesmen" analogy), but one that is nonetheless more akin to a driver of a car than positing the notion of "carness" as an emergent quality of the sum of the car's parts (as I think DRF is doing to some extant, though if I'm incorrect, my apologies); or, more aptly, but I was avoiding it due to the Tron ramifications (if you'll pardon the pun), that the consciousness is the user of the hardware.

So, I certainly agree that the body (like any and all matter or configurations thereof) is a perpetual processing machine, there still appears to the self that there is a "self"; a single consciousness that takes all of the information and then guides the "fog" to the next "action" accordingly.

Where I diverge from everyone that I have ever discussed my Mr. Koy's Wild Ride speculation with is that there is a necessary either/or quality to it; a mind over matter-ness to it and even though I grant that what I have so far described is a seeming separation between consciousness and matter, it is not, which is why I contend that we need to factor in one more great mind into the equation to make it all "click;" Einstein.

Just as he posited spacetime, I posit, as I have before, mindbody; that what we all think is material vs. "spiritual" (for lack of a better term) is actually one construct. Thus, it isn't "mind over matter" or that mind is an emergent quality of brain/body; it is simply that mindmatter is one construct in the same way that spacetime is one construct.

Further, the only reason we don't perceive it that way, IMO, is due to the linear time delusion we condition ourselves to believe in (especially in this society). A temporal consciousness (or, perhaps, better, meta temporal consciousness) is not too difficult to conceive once you take into account Einstein's shift to spacetime, since we understand that it is dependent upon dimensional constructs, i.e., the "true" nature of nature.

Space and time, he argued, are "one" because "time" has been shown to be relative within the four dimensional universe we currently inhabit ("time" being the fourth dimension that unified the more directly, empirically experienced three dimensions).

String theory presents us with the necessary possibility that our universe came from an original ten (or twenty six) dimensional universe; that the universe we find our bodies in came as a result of a catastrophic collapse that some theorists think resulted in the big bang.

So, assuming this is true for the sake of argument (something we know both "sides" are certainly capable of doing), a few interesting questions spring to mind, as it were, primary of which, I contend is what would be spacetime's ten dimensional equivalent? To our bodies in our four dimensional parameters, spacetime is seemingly temporal, if only in an illusory sense. Would the ten dimensional equivalent of spacetime be meta temporal spacetime, perhaps?

And just as our spacetime provides our physical sense with the illusion of linear time where none actually exists, what would this hypothetical meta temporal spacetime provide? An explanation of "where consciousness" perhaps? Not "whence," unfortunately, but "where?"

It would certainly explain the seeming "disconnect" between thought and action.

Again, I know these concepts all sound very similar to cult dogma and that's understandable, because that is how cults sell their snake oil; with just enough "innate" truth that it seems to ring true enough, but I also think this accounts for "where is free will?"

In my theory of consciousness, free will would simply be a function of a ten dimensional consciousness that is constrained to operate in the relatively simplistic three dimensional spacetime limitations as best as it could (which also explains evolution, BTW); by adapting and manipulating the parameters from an innate "higher" consciousness long ago caught within the collapse of the original universe.

Yes, I know, exchanging one mystery for a bigger mystery, but at least this theory seeks to reconcile all of the disciplines as well as the pervasive cult nonsense, and does explain to a more logical extent "where is free will" or even "will" for that matter, in accordance with current scientific theory regarding the true nature and origin of the universe and as such, it is necessarily mutable as well as speculative.

So, with that gaping caveat out of the way, the body--the formation of atoms into our spatially oriented environment as a necessary reflection of our individual consciousness--within the new parameters acts as a perpetual information processor (aka, sensory input device) that is "up linked" to the tenth dimensional consciousness, which, being "meta temporal" as compared to the third dimensional temporal constructs can process the information in a seemingly disconnected manner that our primary third dimensional Ego consciousness (the one "down on the playing field," if you will; one from the subconscious Freud touched upon and I here expand) falsely registers as the either/or represented by DRF's explanation and luvluv's beliefs.

Everyone follow? My hypothesis is that consciousness (or "mind" or spirit or non-material being, whatever the f*ck you want) is simply our way of referring to the original, collective unconscious memory of our "natural" state of being in the ten dimensional equivalent of spacetime, just as matter (or "body") is a "natural" state of being in the four dimensional spacetime that parts of our minds found themselves trapped within, when the ten dimensional universe collapsed and created this one, capisca?

Again, it's not an either or, it's intercommunication and the clues we give ourselves all the time regarding it are literally everywhere, but more on this in a moment.

So, in essence, the consciousness exists in that ten dimensional equivalent of meta temporal spacetime and the body is emergent in the four dimensional temporal equivalent of spacetime out of necessity; out of survival and the ability to adapt to the parameters.

So, an obvious question would be, why does the "Ego" sub conscious/sub commander seemingly "in charge" of four-dimensional navigation consider itself to be primary? Because, simply, it is.

Just like with Multiple Personality Disorder, the personality most capable of dealing with the parameters of the physical environment takes on a primary importance; in a "fused" personality such as most of us are, what happens is a filtering process is still intact that filters all of the disparate informational input from these other personalities into a central "I."

So, I contend, is the case with the whole shooting match.

According to string theory, the original ten dimensional (I'm discarding the other theory that involves a twenty six dimensional universe as redundant to what I'm musing upon) is incredibly small and as we all know from dealing with any Anthropic Principle zealots, by "incredibly small" they mean on such a level as to be almost unimaginable.

But, that's only relevant to a four-dimensional construct of spacetime, which is why I asked initially what the equivalent might be in a ten dimensional universe, along with the necessarily altered construct of temporal parameters that would accompany it.

Now, granted, it still leaves open the favorite loophole of the snake oil salesmen, which is "yeah, but what caused the tenth dimensional consciousness?" And, further granted, all I have done here, again, is what the theist does by simply shifting the mysterious to a higher plane, but, as I stated before and wish to reiterate here, at least it seeks to first reconcile the disconnect between the cognitive sciences (spark plugs) of DRF, the seemingly and argued "innate" notion of creation (the whole car) of luvluv and the impossible to answer question of "why did the driver turn left?" implicit (and unanswered) in both.

So, the next question seems fairly simple, which is "why?" What clues are there to this possible sequence of events and what would those clues be telling us?

Again, I borrow a concept of Freud's; the idea of projection, wherein the subconscious (on in my theory, the meta conscious) manipulates literally everything within the four-dimensional parameters to inform the Ego/navigator of the "true" nature of its existence. Thus, even the most simplistic reflection on our culture, religion, fiction, social issues, etc., points to one ultimate theme over and over and over again. Prison. Trapped. Being "punished for our sins" and all that nonsense.

There are, of course, many other things, such as the very questions we keep asking, where did the concept of string theory "come from," etc., but I contend this one is crucial and pervasive and therefore ultimately the best clue to investigate. After all, wouldn't that be logical for ultimately ten dimensional "beings" that somehow found extensions of its consciousness "trapped" in a four dimensional construct?

Wouldn't that be the primary theme evident in just about every single aspect of existence? We imprison ourselves--voluntarily, mind you--on a constant basis in so many different ways that it's almost impossible to list them all, but if anyone is interested, let me know and I will.

Suffice it to say that imprisonment (either self inflicted or inflicted upon others), IMO, is the single most pervasive human trait; endemic, yet learned and passed on.

So where is it learned from? Not "nature," i.e., the four dimensional plane all around us. Not even spiders "imprison" their victims, it just looks that way. All they're doing it storing their food for later.

Only "sentient" beings imprison for the sake of what? Self reflection and punishment for acts of the self. Think about that, if you will. When one of us commits "crimes against society," we throw that person into a barren cell. Their punishment is removal from society, but even more so, removal from four dimensional stimuli so that, hopefully, all they do all day long is self-reflect upon their actions. Why? So that when they get out, they will have corrected their thoughts and become beneficial, rather than detrimental. They are left to the conditioning of their own minds and thus, can be said to ultimately be freed by their minds once their time is served (or, conversely, condemned to repeat their crimes, if they didn't allow their minds to free them by careful consideration and self-guided augmentation).

The same is true of anyone on lesser levels; such as imprisoned in a job or a "rut" or a relationship or by an unsolvable problem. There are literally thousands of different aspects to our cognitive processing that can be described in this manner and correctly so; the self-inflicted "trap" of perpetual processing; a prison of feedback loops that can literally lock the brain into catatonia.

And what is the overriding reply to this sense of being trapped or imprisoned or being punished for our sins? Free the mind.

We even have it slogan form. "Free the mind."

Free the mind of psychological baggage; of childhood trauma; of outdated thinking; of superstitions; of anger; of hatred; etc., etc., etc.

Cults, especially and ironically chant this over and over again. Even the slogan betrays the projection of imprisonment, because the ten dimensional consciousness is omniscient compared to the three dimensional subconsciousness, so, like with the cults that stole the concept and corrupted it, trust in yourself (your meta consciousness) to get you through the three-dimensional construct we've all found ourselves within.

It's not just the basis for all cults, it's the basis for free thinking and all aspects of philosophy, science, art, etc., etc.

Free the mind, f*cking relax and enjoy the ride, because as soon as your meta consciousness (what the cult members corrupted into both "God"--ultimately--and your "soul") figures out how to guide your fog of atoms through the maze you'll be out and on to the next level of the game.

Ring any bells, BTW, with every single childhood experience/training with games and game theory?

The big bang, the first cause, the universe is six thousand years old, the universe is hundreds of billions of years old, fact vs. fiction, solipsism vs. empiricism, annihilation vs. eternal life; all of that can at least be explained (in part) by an application of my philosophical minings from string theory, quantum physics, cognitive science/psychology and cult mentality as applied to the question of "where consciousness" in a necessarily limited way, but at least it serves to raise the bar beyond this current either/or stalemate, yes?

Anyway, it certainly addresses "where is free will," it just does so according to current and therefore necessarily mutable inference from all disciplines and theories, not just one as opposed to another; a common and I think grave mistake of such ingrained compartmentalization.

"Emergent qualities" is just another way of saying "magic," IMO, so instead of simplistic semantics shuffles and redefinition of terms on both sides (which is primarily all that happens around here), perhaps a better approach is to apply our abilities to both believe and prove and at least expand that two dimensional, linear "either/or" thinking up to our fourth dimensional parameters, yes?

I know I'm guilty of it too, so it's just a thought for us all; stop with the mind vs. body/soul vs. emergent qualities and seek to reconcile the two extremes through our ability to contemplate the abstract and accept as true for the sake of that contemplation.

Thus, space and time become simply (and elegantly) spacetime.

Why not, after all? It's a slow work day...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-22-2002, 06:31 AM	#71
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	That still doesn't answer the question. I've got millions of different words up there connected by millions of different patterns. What caused me to choose the first word that set off the chain reation? How can any tie between these words be said to exist if I pull the words specifically for their incontinuity, for their UNrelatedness to each other?

06-22-2002, 01:29 PM	#73
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	DRFseven: "All these associations have been established by your countless unique experiences." That one sentence, I think, explains why I consider myself a nondeterminist. We are simply unable to exactly determine the inputs which generate a thought pattern. Oh, I am sure that, given broad enough and deep enough information about a person, we can make excellent predictons of their thoughts and behaviour- but we can never give exact predictions. At present, neuroscientists are not aware of any quantum phenomena which go on in the process of thought, so that the uncertainty at the quantum level is not a stumbling block for the notion of psychological determinism. But the sheer number and variety of any individual's experience makes it impossible to precisely predict their behaviour under a given set of circumstances. Thought is not a random process- but it is, to a certain degree, a chaotic process, and therefore incapable of being precisely modelled.

06-22-2002, 01:54 PM	#74
advocate_11 Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: unknown Posts: 22	If determinism is correct, it makes no practical difference unless there is a being that knows what is determined and is capable of acting upon that knowledge. I have generally understood the suggestion that we possess free-will to mean simply that there is or was at some time something about the future that God does not know. It seems that this is all that is required for it to fulfill its theological purpose. If The Bible says that God knows all of which possible future states of reality will be realized and knows this completely and perfectly, then there is no debate for the Christian. If The Bible does not say this, then I do not understand why Christians are hesitant to put more effort into investigating the sacrifices and gains of adopting such a theory. [ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: advocate_11 ]</p>

06-24-2002, 10:09 AM	#76
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Fascinating stuff, DRF (as always), but I think I see the stumbling block luvluv is trying to navigate, as well as a larger problem that both of you can't seem to address. In essence, you have been describing a perpetual processing machine (the neural "net") that merely responds to stimulus, with the inherent understanding that this "machine" is self-contained and luvluv, I think, has been trying to get at the external stimuli that effects the change. It's just that luvluv is only hinting at the exploded extreme of that external cause--"God"--and as such, is doomed to failure. The disconnect between both sides of that coin is of course, the operator of that machine; the driver of the car (aka, consciousness that I'm sure luvluv considers "soul"). For example, DRF is describing how the spark plugs and pistons fire when the gas is injected into a chamber and luvluv is asking, "But who created the car so it could perform in this manner?" But the real question of both is, of course, "Why did the driver turn left?" No amount of examining the spark plugs is going to be able to answer that question and unless you can explain how "driver" is a necessarily emergent quality of "carness," DRF, then it just doesn't "fit." If we are simply a car as your argument implies, then how do you account for the question of, "Why the driver turned left?" Or, for that matter, the driver? I just can't see how "driver" is a necessarily emergent quality of "car," which your analysis of cognitive science seems to imply. Certainly a car needs a driver, but the opposite is not necessarily the case, since a driver can also walk or ride a bike, etc.,etc. I think it's this aspect that luvluv (and, shockingly, myself) are getting at; the difference is, of course, I would posit a more natural explanation (based on a speculative merging of string theory, quantum physics, cognitive science/psychology and cult mentality that I won't go into here) and luvluv seems to be trying to force deity again. Without the "driver" (consciousness) there can be no "free will." (edited to remove my theory to get back on topic - KOY) [ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

06-24-2002, 04:11 PM	#77
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Koy, I think you are misrepresenting my argument. I am not arguing that what lies behind the mental processes is God. That would actually be a direct violation of the Christian concept of free-will. I am arguing that what lies behind the mental processes is free-will, or perhaps, the self. So far, I am arguing this from grounds as purely naturalistic as you are. (This is not the first time we agreed, by the way. I was in total agreement with everything you said on the genetically engineered humans thread, but I didn't mention it because I didn't want to ruin your day )

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.