ManM

DRFseven,
How many times am I going to have to write that we are not free from mechanism? I know we are not free from mechanism! I am the one saying we are mechanism, while you are the one saying we are really this magical ghost that is subject to the mechanism. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

At the risk of shooting off on another tangent, I'd like you to address my comments about the placebo effect and talking cure. Here we have clear cut cases where the "conscious *I*" does have an effect on the body. This ghost of yours does have an impact on that which it is supposed to be completely subject to. How do you explain that?

excreationist

ManM:
I am going to put this as clearly and concisely as I can in hopes of resolving this debate.

1) We are determined by experience.
2) We generate some of that experience ourselves.
3) It follows that we play a part in our determination.

We all agree on #1. Biology and neural network theory supports #2. That leaves us with #3.
....
Excreationist, I don't think you have written anything which contradicts #1 or #2, and so you might have to acknowledge #3. Now we may disagree about God and other things, but I think we have the common ground to resolve this debate. I do not believe that we have a supernatural component.
No supernatural component? So we're "just" physical processes...? I didn't think you thought that...
Anyway, large groups of particles would act in a fairly consistent way, following the rules of chemistry and physics we've observed. If we are just made up of those particles (which is what I think), then we would also be subject to those fairly deterministic rules of physics and chemistry - therefore our resultant thoughts and behaviours would be deterministic except for some random quantum fluctuations that are a naturalistic phenomena over which we have no control.
"1) We are determined by experience."

I'm not sure what you mean... perhaps you mean that our personality, memories, goals, etc, are determined by experience... well I think many things are inborn and many processes are automatic (the general low-level mechanisms for decision-making, etc), rather than us learning it from our external environment.

"2) We generate some of that experience ourselves."

Yeah, our brain can cause our muscles to move and change our experiences - e.g. by moving our eye muscles we can affect the visual experience, and by moving our leg muscles we can affect our visual, balance and tactile experiences. And we can use our muscles to change our experiences of temperature by moving into a cold shower or a warm sun, etc. Our thoughts are a kind of experience too... but I think we use a rigid method for thinking that involves a hard-wired way of processing memories and new experiences... so our thoughts are deterministic, except for quantum fluctuations - though we would have no control over them.
As far as us initiating things goes, I guess it depends on how you look at it... technically our brain is just working according to the rules of physics, like computer software does exactly what it is programmed to do (it doesn't do any extra "thinking"). On the other hand, "generation" doesn't necessarily mean making something out of nothing... an electricity generator generates electricity... even though it uses fuel to do it.

"3) It follows that we play a part in our determination."

Well if "we" means "our brain" and "our determination" means "our brain's decisions" then I agree.

If we conclude that #3 is the case, the elves lose their punch.

What do you mean? That it becomes possible to arbitrary yet genuinely believe in elves... or not?

excreationist

ManM: (from your post to DRV7)
At the risk of shooting off on another tangent, I'd like you to address my comments about the placebo effect and talking cure. Here we have clear cut cases where the "conscious *I*" does have an effect on the body.
Well we can also affect our body by moving our arms or holding our breath.
Anyway, I think the placebo effect and talking cure works because some sicknesses are affected a lot by how anxious or relaxed we are. If we are worried, a lot more resources like oxygen would go to our brain, starving other areas, such as the immune system. In the case of placebos, the brain would think that the sickness problem is more or less solved so it wouldn't bother worrying about it. So the energy consumption of the brain would be much less.
When we are worried about things on the other hand, we go into "fight or flight" mode and our muscles tense up, ready for action. Lots of resources are given to our brain in order to make quick decisions. And because of this, less important things to our immediate survival, like the functioning of digestive organs and our immune system get less resources.
So placebos make the worrying person get out of the "fight or flight" mode which makes them recover better.
I think that's all there is to it...

DRFseven:
I'm glad you like my explanation about semi-determinism... I forgot to mention that the chaos in our reasoning, etc, involves more than just quantum fluctuations - the main problem would be malfunctioning neurons... (e.g. sleep-deprived ones, etc)

ManM

excreationist,
Yes, we are natural, not supernatural. DRFseven is the one claiming we are some sort of ghost, subject to the machine. I have been saying that we are the machine. Now when I claim that we are determined by experience, I am not trying to oppose innate structure. Our structure and limits are set at birth, but the structure itself is indeterminate and flexible. What it becomes is a matter of experience in life. But you are right, it would be more correct to say that we are determined by our structure and our experience, not just our experience. Yet there is an interplay between those two as well. Our experience can change our structure, and our structure shapes our experience. So I'm not sure a hard line can be drawn between the two. But anyway, I think we all agree on this front.

That's exactly what I mean. Now do you see why I said we agreed on this matter? I am not separating soul and body. When I use the language of the soul (we think, we feel) I am not referring to a 'we' separate from the machine. When I say that we think, I am saying that some process is taking place in the brain. When I say the brain can change itself, I am saying we can change our minds about things.

Back to the elves, I do not recall ever saying we can arbitrarily believe in them. We are not above the laws the causality. However, this very conversation is a potential cause of change. The thing opposing that change is the brain. If we establish point #3, then on what grounds do you say you can't change your beliefs (your brain can't change itself)? It is more correct to say that you don't change your beliefs (your brain doesn't change itself).

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: ManM ]</p>

DRFseven

ManM, you are talking two different lines. Just to make sure I was not delusional, I went back and reread your posts. You keep changing your position; why???

My original premise was that we cannot arbitrarily choose what to believe in. You disagreed, saying that we freely choose our original worldviews, and AFTER THAT, apply reasons to discover choices. Here are some examples where you say that:

What do all these quotes mean? Later, you say you have never meant anything BUT that all our choices are determined by experience, which is the same thing ex-creationist and I are saying (and you seem to strongly agree with him, while strongly disagreeing with me, when ex’s and my positions are essentially the same.)

Then, there’s the problem where you keep attributing a belief in a magical dualism to me, even though I’ve explained many times that I don’t hold that belief (see below):

After I’ve said all of the above, reiterating my LACK of belief in a ghost, you still say, "This ghost of yours does have an impact on that which it is supposed to be completely subject to."

Now, which is it? Do I, as an unbeliever in gods, have the freedom to choose whether or when to believe in a god? Could I believe in one right now, if you offered me a lot of money?

ManM

DRFseven,
As this discussion has progressed I have tried to present my views in your language. If I didn't do that, we would simply wind up talking past each other as is oft the case on this forum. I began by saying that we can order our experience. You were obviously associating that with a ghost I didn't believe in, so I tried a different way of saying it. We can determine ourselves. Also as this topic progressed I began to see that we were using different conceptions of experience. When I say we are determined by experience, I mean both internal and external experience. I wholly reject the idea that internal experience plays no part. At the beginning of this discussion we did not make that distinction, and so when you talked about experience I was assuming you meant external experience only. I have also made mention of my skepticism of naturalism in this thread. I simply find it hard to swallow that a conscious structure could emerge from an unconscious one. That was a side topic, so I let it drop.

So let's recap. We can order our experience. This means that our internal experience affects the way we order our external experience. A foundational belief is matter of internal experience that impacts the way everything else is ordered. We have the ability through thought (adding internal experience) to change this foundational belief, and this will cause a change in the way everything else is ordered.

Now I don't want to accuse you falsely of believing in ghosts, so let's resolve this right here. You previously wrote, "I think the mechanism informs that conscious *I*". Are you proposing a real difference here or is this just a trick of language? If you say that there really is a difference between 'me the mechanism' and the 'conscious me', I just might have to call the Ghostbusters. Furthermore, I might have to keep browbeating you with the placebo effect.

Your brain is quite able to turn the trick, so yes, you have the ability to change your beliefs. The fact that you don't change your mind doesn't mean that you can't. The physical structure accommodates it, and you are the physical structure. But I know you have generated a ton of internal experiences (reasons) which block the potential for that 'god' internal experience to be given a chance. It is going to take a really strong jolt of new internal experience to do the trick.

DRFseven

I'll address your third paragraph first, since you accuse me in the first paragraph of believing in ghosts again, yet ask in the third if this is so.

As always, no. Again, as I've stated several times, I referred to the "conscious *I*" because we perceive ourselves this way; we don't perceive ourselves as neuromodulations and processes, as at-times-unavailable constellations of neurons. We think of ourselves in terms of conscious memories and feelings and of our physical bodies.

OK, so we both think of experience as comprising internal and external events. Now, how do the internal experiences occur? What provides these memories? In what do they consist? You already know I'm going to say they are provided by external experience; I want to know if you agree.

And how does that internal experience "get there?" A message comes hurtling up the circuitry, ricocheting off this and that neuron like an electrochemical pinball machine, lights flashing, bells ringing, sounds of free balls pouring into the holding tank.

Brains in general are susceptible to changing tides, but an individual brain is not able to turn the trick at any given moment unless it is IN THE STATE to turn the trick. Do you agree with this?

But the fact that your mind does not change at any moment in time (on a particular issue) DOES mean that it can't, right? If it could, that means the conditions would have to have occured to result in a certain brain state; voila, the mind would be changed.

And how have I generated a ton of internal experiences (reasons)? Have I squenched my eyes shut and tried real hard to force them into existence, or have they just come down the pike through sensory pathways, some with the proper I.D for admittance., and others being turned away at the gate?

But placebo effect is neuromodulation like everything else. Our knowing something contributes to the setting-up of our body/brain-state in the midst of it being constantly set up every moment by other avenues of life. Everything changes the internal state of affairs, which is constantly absorbing new information and making cellular adjustments.

lcb

how do you analyze the fact that billions "choose" to beleive in a deity juxtaposed with darwinism and the human survival drive? does belief in God help humans to survive? to resist creating a world in which existence is 'nasty, brutish, and short' or worse than it already is? also juxtaposing this with the survival instinct of human and animal groups...does the more religious group have abetter chance of surviving? (just thoughts, not arguing)

excreationist

lcb:
how do you analyze the fact that billions "choose" to believe in a deity juxtaposed with darwinism and the human survival drive?

Well as I've said in this thread before, I think we have a strong craving for "connectedness"... this makes things like coherence, familiarity, altruism and resonance attractive to us. That drive would be beneficial to our survival because it would promote looking after the group - a kind of empathy... and it moderates the desire for newness so that there is some stability and routine in people's lives. It makes people want to have things organized and have things put in their own place.
Religions are a good way of doing this. They tell you the answers that we can be absolutely sure of. So it gives people a sense of security. The idea that people don't cease to exist at death can be comforting, and our desire for justice (motivated by the "connectedness" desire) would be satisfied, with the bad people suffering in the afterlife, and the good people experiencing pleasure. (Through heaven/hell, reincarnation, etc)
Also, as toddlers we would believe what our parents told us, in an automatic effort to align information and make things consistent. Our beliefs would align with theirs. Then later in life, it would be hard for people to give up those beliefs since the desire for familiarity (also about connectedness) is strong.

does belief in God help humans to survive?
Well people who conquered the hunter-gatherer parts of the world (which was most of the world) partly did so because God commanded them to. ("spread the gospel to all nations") The cultures they conquered just believed in spirits and things but they were converted - or killed... also, in the OT, Moses wiped out those who believed in the wrong gods, making sure that his monotheistic religion ruled. (<a href="http://www.geocities.com/osred/persecution.htm" target="_blank">Here</a> is a webpage about the monotheistic invasion of Europe) In ancient times, people wondered about what caused the weather and what happened during dreaming and after death... they didn't have advanced science and since they emotionally required explanations, they guessed them - but they often were wrong. I think some of the ancient Greek philosophers didn't really believe in any gods - that life just happened on its own.
Also, remember how the Moslems converted many countries through invasions.
The belief in a god or gods means that there is the possibility that some people, like priests, have a closer relationship to the god than others. Because of this, the priest can have a lot of political power over other people... e.g. like in the case of the Pope and how he ruled Europe during the Dark Ages. Anyway, religion is a unifying thing and if a leader has the approval of the priests, lots of people would want to follow that leader. That leader would be able to invade places and run huge nations. Religion seems to be connected with monarchies... they also would rule massive kingdoms... these massive kingdoms would be able to conquer little bands of hunter-gatherers...
So anyway, I'm saying that religion has militaristic advantages. BTW, I think communism usually is a kind of religion.

to resist creating a world in which existence is 'nasty, brutish, and short' or worse than it already is?
I think people can be peaceful without religion. In fact, religion causes a lot of deaths. But I think that there are emotional reasons why people are attracted to theism, both as a toddler and later in life - that can make them feel better about their eternal existence. (Though it might make them think the earth is more evil than they originally did)

also juxtaposing this with the survival instinct of human and animal groups...does the more religious group have a better chance of surviving? (just thoughts, not arguing)
Well if they are in a branch of a religion that promotes suicide bombing then they wouldn't have a better chance of survival. If they opposed religion and they lived during the inquisition then they'd have a worse chance of survival... it depends really. If they were an atheist who kept on searching for answers they might die earlier due to chronic stress. Having a strong faith is perhaps more comforting... as I said earlier, if you're more relaxed, you wouldn't be in the "fight or flight" mode and more resources would given to your immune system, etc.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

ManM

DRFseven,
Ah, but we do perceive ourselves as neuromodulations and processes. We just use words like 'feeling' and 'memory' to describe those neuromodulations and processes.

I do not agree. Internal experience is generated through internal feedback. External experience bounds internal experience but does not provide it. Self-consciousness is what provides internal experience. Sensory perception provides external experience. We have this strange ability to be conscious of our own consciousness. Our mechanism can monitor itself. That is the root of internal experience.

That message isn't necessarily external. I thought we agreed on that point. How does it get there? We are born. Really, if I knew the initial moment of self-consciousness I would have settled the abortion debate by now.

Maybe... It depends on what you consider to be 'in the state'. See below.

Nope. I've tried to say it a number of different ways, but let me try the universal language. At a given time, T, you are in a certain state, S(T). At time T, you could not have been in any other state besides S(T). There is your determinism. But we are not talking about time T when we ask about ability to change. We are talking about the relationship between S(T) and S(T+1). I am claiming that S(T+1) is a function of S(T), I(T) (internal experience), and E(T) (external experience). S(T+1)=S(T)*[I(T)+E(T)+1] or something like that. S(T) plays a big part in S(T+1), but does not determine it. To say your mind can't change unless it was previously in a given state is like saying S(T+1) is directly determined by S(T). This is not true. But if you say that S(T+1) is impossible without the conditions of S(T)*[I(T)+E(T)+1], I will agree. You won't spontaneously believe in God without I(T) or E(T).

Moving on, the fact that your mind doesn't change does not mean it can't change. When you say that it doesn't change you are simply asserting that S(T+1) is similar to S(T). When you say it can't change itself you are asserting that I(T) plays no part in S(T+1). So no, saying that your mind didn't change is not the same as saying your mind can't change.

I don't know. Have you come to self-knowledge through meditation or through looking at trees?

Then how can you say our "soul" is subject to the body when in this case it directly influences the body?

Anyway, my apologies for the delay in posting.