In what way?
Could that be because I’m an idealist?
You answered your own question I think.
It’s too simplistic because I’m an idealist?
That doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe we’re talking past each other–‘idealism’ is often a misunderstood term–what I mean by ‘idealism’ is the view that the mind, or perception and experience, is more basic than the outer, physical, objective world–usually implying that the former is the basis for the latter. ← That’s my view.
I’m also a panpsychic, which means I believe consciousness and subjective experience are not unique to human beings and other sentient animals, but belongs to every physical phenomenon and activity in the universe.
Given all that, I believe that, as deterministic as the physical universe is, it always comes with a first-person subjective point of view, and from that point of view, its operations and behaviors will always feel willed.
I don’t think this is an illusion though. I think it’s just what deterministic causes feel like when you are those deterministic causes. The feeling of willing is simply the understanding of why you intend to carry out such-and-such action, your justifications, and the recognition that those reasons and justifications lead to the behavior. The idea that the will stems from a causal void is a philosophical confusion. The difference between this confusion and the reality is very subtle: the feeling of free will is not the feeling of acting out of a causal void but simply being blind to the causes which determine your behavior (through your decisions and intentions); blind because you’re never focused, in the moment, on the causes, but on your goals.
We don’t see any causal connection between our reasons/justifications for acting and the acting itself because reasons/justifications don’t cause–they simply justify. This kind of relation–a reason that justifies an action–is a different kind of relation than that between a physical cause and a physical effect. Seeing this process from the inside–from the first-person subjective point of view–gives us a different look at the same process. As an idealist–who sees the subjective first-person point of view as more basic–I believe this process, from this point of view, is closer to the reality of things than the objective third-person point of view of physical cause and effect.
The only difference between these two points of view is that with the objective third-person point of view, we don’t see what links a physical cause with a physical effect–it just happens–but with the subjective first-person point of view, we not only get a first-hand look at this link but we embody it.
One can’t break away from the determinism of the objective third-person point of view, of course, but that’s not the point–the point is that we discover that, from the subjective first-person point of view, it’s intended.
In a deterministic universe there are only limited variables that are determined in terms of choices or acting behaviorally with no objective imperative in place.
Being that all individual actors are different and determined differently within those set of variables or perimeters it is obvious that nobody will choose the same destination.
Being that everything is determined there is no independent conscious decision making at hand but is indeed an illusion of the mind at work.
Not sure what that means. Are you saying we are only ever given so many choices, and that it doesn’t ever matter which choice we make?
While I think it does matter (or can matter), even if it doesn’t, I fail to see how this means we have no free choice.
Agreed.
Who said anything about independent conscious decision making? Again, this reeks of the acting-out-of-a-causal-void theory. Our conscious decision making is tied directly in with all the deterministic processes of the universe. Conscious decision making is not freedom to break with the laws of nature, it is the experience of witnessing certain outcomes coming from you. As a player in the deterministic game the universe is playing, you get to cause things to happen–you get to be one of the causes–and you are not in a position to (always) witness the causes acting upon you.
The only things that are illusions are the interpretations and theories we come up with to try and explain free will, consciousness, and mind. If we say that free will is the ability to act out of a causal void, or that consciousness, or the mind, is really an immortal soul capable of being disembodied, that may be wrong–but what we feel in the moment is never an illusion.
The mind is like an onion, which has many levels and layers. The layers in the middle have increasing control while having decreasing responsibility. The outer layers have increasing responsibility while having decreasing control. The inner layers are more primal and are what might be called ‘unconscious’. The outer layers are more advanced and might be what we call ‘consciousness’. To say that the consciousness is responsible for the unconsciousness is like blaming the local government for a federal government issue.
He’s not saying the consciousness it responsible, he is saying Joe is still responsible even if Joe did not know that he has an unconscious trigger around older male authority figures and that’s why he flipped out in the meeting. Joe is still responsible for his choice to go on the attack. Even if he thinks, in his consciousness that he did it on principle only.
Joe is responsible even if the drives were unconscious. But even this is confusing. Consciousness and the unconscious are not different regions or governments. One is awareness. What is unconscious is where this awareness cannot (easily) go.
So you have motivations, say, and some of these Joe can be aware of. Some he cannot. But the motivations, even the ones Joe can be conscious of, are not consciousness.
Do you know anything about how the brain is structured? The brain is constructed from the centre out. This is how the brain evolved. The cockroach brain is in the centre, which is surrounded by the lizard brain, which is surrounded by the mouse brain, which is surrounded by the monkey brain, which is surrounded by the human brain. The cockroach has the final say in all matters of survival. The outer layers are only secondary command centres which have diminishing responsibility and control. If you were trapped on a desert island with your best friend, it would only be a matter of time and hunger before one killed the other for food and survival. Thus, the cockroach always has the final say.
Even if that not really orthodox description is correct it has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Joe is responsible.
Using your model.
Joe is responsible when he decides to kill his friend on the desert island.
Why? Because Joe is ALL OF HIS BRAIN, not just the human parts, because human brains have those other parts. He decided to kill his friend, for example, before his friend decided to kill him. He decided to kill his friend rather than kill himself. He is still responsible.
You are confusing the person with just one small portion of his brain.
If I think you are holding a knife and threatening me - but actually you are holding a coffee cup - and I run up and stab you,
I guarantee that you, Platopuppy1, will hold me responsible for that act.
You will, for example, avoid me in the future, likely support what the prosecutor wants to do to me. You will think I did it.
You will think that I am unlike other people who do not stab you when you have a coffee cup.
You may think that it was the cockroach part of my brain, in your model, was the cause, but you will hold me responsible.
Human brains are made up of all those parts.
Joe’s brain includes those portions of the homo sapian brain you are calling cockroach.
Even if it was those portions of the brain that choose, it is a part of Joe choosing.
And further, one can be conscious of what the cockroach chooses to do.
If I am on the desert island it is very likely that I will notice how I am deciding to kill the other person to save my own life.
So you are confusing consciousness with motivations. Yes, some motivations come from levels what I am not aware of, but that does not mean I am not responsible. I am those also those levels of myself.
They are not parts of my neighbor’s brain. They are not other peoples motivations. They are mind. I may not be aware of them, I may tell myself they are actually something else,
but they are mine.
The problem here is, who is the ‘you’, that you are talking about?
Ultimately, the cockroach is the last and final decision maker. Other parts of the brain may make suggestions to the cockroach, but these choices are only decisions on about how, when and where you are going to kill your friend, not if you will or wont kill your friend.
Note - Conciousness is just a flow of electrical activity from one area of the brain to another. Without segregation or sectioning of the brain, there would be no consciousness. Therefore, one cannot say that consciousness lies in any one particular section. But, if you have a sphere and all the connections meet in the centre, then, the centre is going to be the most important part.Thus, the cockroach, is the mastermind who is behind the plot to kill his best friend. The other sections of the brain are just accomplices or collaborators in the plot.
I am talking about the organism named Joe or Platospuppy or Moreno. The organism is responsible for what it does, regardless of what part OF THAT ORGANISM takes the helm in a given instance.
What you are calling a cockroach is part of your brain. Consciousness is not a part of the brain. You keep making a category mistake and then you also seem to think if you label some part of the homo sapien brain cockroach it isn’t the homosapien brain doing something.
I am talking about the organism named Joe or Platospuppy or Moreno. The organism is responsible for what it does, regardless of what part OF THAT ORGANISM takes the helm in a given instance.
What you are calling a cockroach is part of your brain. Consciousness is not a part of the brain. You keep making a category mistake and then you also seem to think if you label some part of the homo sapien brain cockroach it isn’t the homosapien brain doing something.
[/quote]
You left out the second half of my post - Note - Conciousness is just a flow of electrical activity from one area of the brain to another. Without segregation or sectioning of the brain, there would be no consciousness. Therefore, one cannot say that consciousness lies in any one particular section. But, if you have a sphere and all the connections meet in the centre, then, the centre is going to be the most important part.Thus, the cockroach, is the mastermind who is behind the plot to kill his best friend. The other sections of the brain are just accomplices or collaborators in the plot.
Humans are animals which are constructed of billions of cells. Each cell has an independent as well as a group function. When you get sick, the cells produce viruses, which are primitive cells which are like cell Lego. Thus, animals are made of viruses. Thus, homo-sapiens are just a diversion or mutation of viral animal life. All cells have consciousness. I think you need to study pleomorphic cell theory to understand animal life and what it really is.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI0v_h-Y0UY[/youtube]
Oh, I rather think that many will choose the same destination depending on how their brains have become hardwired within and by the first few years of their lives (about 7 years of age I believe) and depending on their individual personal history and dna genes of course. Alcoholism comes to mind but even genes and behavior can be transcended through our wills and determination and self-awareness.
But maybe you need to define destination. I thought you meant choices, decisions by that.
In what way are you saying that everything is determined? Do you mean to say that there is some kind of a god out there who already knows our choices, our minds? Everything has been determined in such a way that no matter what we think, what we do, it has already beeen a done deal?
I would hate to think of myself as some kind of a robot, some kind of an automoton. That’s basically what you’re saying and thinking that way - well, that’s a very pessimistic and nihilistic outlook on life. I’m surprised you don’t call yourself “Crying Man” as opposed to Laughing Man. Sure there are degrees to which we are pre-determined but there is no great daddy in the sky who has done that to us. Cause and effect have but we can also turn that around and determine ourselves too. I am no puppet on the string as long as i realize that I am capable of making myself one or some others might be capable of making me one - if I am not self-aware and reflective.
I don’t think this is anatomically correct. Do you have a source to show that all signal processing in the brain converges to a specific center, a cockroach brain?
Even if this is the case, I don’t think you can call the cockroach brain the “mastermind”–that implies having the intelligence to plan all this stuff out. The cockroach is not intelligent (no offense to cockroach lovers), not in comparison to human beings at least–it has never been observed to display intelligent behavior on a scale comparable to human beings–and so to suggest that the cockroach brain is really the “mastermind” planning out how we’re going to kill our companion on the deserted island, which requires extreme intelligence to pull off successfully, is misleading. The intelligent planning of how to kill our companion requires the whole brain–the most the cockroach brain can do is to signal to us that we are extremely hungry or in a desperate situation, and this signal may overpower all other considerations, but it doesn’t also cogitate and plan out how to satisfy that hunger or how to get out of that desperate situation.
The video was quite fascinating, but I don’t see it’s relevance to the unconscious and responsibility.
Responsibility requires moral agency or some sort of cosmic imperative. Sorry, no such thing exists beyond the make believe absurd beliefs of human beings.
You don’t have to be intelligent to give an order or instruction. The cockroach is hungry so it orders the other sections of the advanced brain to find a solution to its hunger. Therefore, the cockroach is in command and the outer sections are only following orders. Its a matter of evolutionary order. Primal reactions and instincts always precedes advanced thinking.
Just giving you some background information about the fundamental nature of animal life. If one doesn’t understand the fundamentals, then how can one hope to understand the more advanced aspects of life. When you break down life to its essential elements (viruses) responsibility becomes less conscious and more instinctive. What we call a ‘consciousness’ may just be a complex arrangement of instincts which give the impression of a ‘consciousness’. When you say “responsibility”. To whom or what are you responsible? If we had a court and jury system of the human body. Would the cockroach brain always get the blame for any crime that the individual commits? Would the outer brain get a partial sentence for being an accomplice to the dirty deed? Are humans in control of their emotions and instincts? If they are not, can they be blamed for their crimes which were directed by their instincts?
Would a court convict a person for murder in regards the the desert island situation? Can a person be charged for murder if they are staving to death and have no other choice than to kill their best friend?
I think the primary philosophical silliness is he is labeling a part of the brain by the name of a non-homosapian species and then from there it is as if it is no longer the homosapian deciding. It is a part of the homo-sapiens brain. It is a part of Joes brain. If Joe does it, he did it, he is the type of guy (homo sap) who does this. He is responsible.
Then there is the infinite regress. I mean cockroaches evolved from other simpler organisms, they are not really deciding. In the end RNA and DNA decide or some such foolishness. But, again, even if that is the case, its Joe’s inner flatworm or Joes DNA. So we can hold him responsible.
Further Cockroaches are not the little machines he thinks they are…
Adn they are individuals.
Not necessarily “moral” agency unless that is the way in which one chooses to see one’s behavior. What should I do? Well, I’m told to do this so I must, I should. That’s belief for you.
True responsibility does require a sense of self though, a personal code in which one lives, self-awareness and cognitive thinking, discriminating and discerning what IS my responsibility - which might be a whole lot different than than of which the christian lives.
What do you mean by cosmic imperative - God Spake It so we Do It?
Not necessarily based in absurd beliefs - but yes some are according to the individual’s belief systems. The Ten Commandments say: Thou Shalt Not Kill – but there are circumstances under which killing has to be acceptable.
Not all is based in make believe. Some are grounded in empirical knowledge, intuition and personal history. We reflect in order to see what are simply absurd beliefs and what is in actuality “real” and of “value”. The “real” ability to respond comes from this - not from - god said it so I must do it.
The word responsibility in etymology of the English language revolves around that other word known as ought.
You are responsible for this. You ought to be accountable for that, ect.
This whole ought thing revolves around moral agency and my comment on cosmic imperatives is just a fancy word for describing a pressing or intervening presence of objectivism. Needless to say, none of this really exists beyond ridiculous and often enough contradictory human beliefs postulating their existence.
The only way to even mix responsibility into the mix of determinismn is to show how all human beings are determined to be moral.
Good luck with that with things like hypocrisy, contradictory behaviors, corruption, social hierarchy, slavery, and prevailing ongoing tyranny worldwide.
Any more questions?
If this were true, no one could ever diet. Dieting requires restraining one’s self despite pangs of hunger. That’s the cerebral brain refusing to take orders from the cockroach brain.
It’s not that kind of responsibility. Responsibility, in this context, simply means owning up to the fact that you did it and you could have chosen otherwise.
I think the whole person would.
I don’t know if they’re in control of having emotions, but they can certainly control how they react to their emotions.
Well, he does have a choice–he can choose to starve–but in this case, the conviction would be based more on whether the choice was justified, not on whether he had a choice.
My sentiments exactly.
Well, even the cockroach brain is made up of little cells–maybe there’s a dominant cell that happens to win out over the others more than 50% of the time–maybe it’s in control of everything we do.
You’re right that ought revolves around moral agency, but not so much that responsibility means ought. Responsibility is a precursor to moral considerations, but it doesn’t always determine it. You choose to eat a ham and cheese sandwich. Are you responsible for that choice? Of course. But are you morally blameworthy? Morally praiseworthy? Of course not, it’s just a frickin’ ham and cheese sandwich. It has nothing to do with morality.
All the same, you can be responsible for your unconscious choices, but being unconscious, the question of blame or praise is not necessarily decided just on this.