Effect of consciousness on evolution

[Stoic Guardian]

Volchoks closedmindedness...

[Joe Schmoe]

Volchoks closedmindedness...

Thanks for your contribution. You know how to set an example...

EDIT:

I was being sarcastic. You contributed nothing. You displayed your closed mindedness.

[Stoic Guardian]

I''m glad I could help .

This is a philosophy website goddammit! You can believe whateve the hell you want, reject any idea you want.

But just saying anything that doesnt follow along the exact confines of my preconceived process im not gonna hear out or at the very least humour?

What the hell are you doing here then!?

[Only_Humean]

Let's keep things civil please, one and all.

vol - I understand you weren't trying to offend, but I'd warn others for the same.

I'll get back to the discussion when I have the time!

[lizbethrose]

You think determinism is true and that it negates the idea of 'freedom of the will,'

No, I don't think determinism negates free will. Free will negates itself.
You cannot have free will in a random universe. Can you wrap your mind around that for once? I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: The whole determinism vs ramdomness debate is irrelevant in the discussion of free will.

The question of 'free will' has been debated for centuries and it always seems to boil down to belief. Belief is belief and it's going to vary from person to person--it cannot be proven.

That's a semantics game.
It's a stupid philosophical little trick that forces you to be a relativist.
I got news for you, everything boils down to belief. Everything. It's just that some beliefs are based on evidence and reason and logic while others are based on faith.

I am, quite frankly, "freedom of the will" neutral--just as I'm neutral about "free will." Because I see a difference between the two phrases, I've always used "freedom of the will." I'm really simply trying to understand your logic when it comes to criminality. I've tried to say this many times, haven't I? If determinism, causationism, consequentialism, naturalism--however you wish to label your philosophy (you never answered my question about that)--you feel that anyone's actions are inevitable. Does that or does that not make her/him guilty of criminal actions? You seem to dance around that question, imm. Yet is seems to be a pretty simple yes-no question to me. Is s/he guilty because of her/his actions, or is s/he innocent because the action was inevitable?

I'm sure you'll say you've already answered my questions in previous posts, but have you really explained the logic behind your answers?--Have you proposed axioms leading to your conclusions? You've said you can neither prove nor disprove determinism and that determinism vs. randomness has nothing to do with either 'free will' or 'freedom of the will.' I've said, I'm not interested in a discussion of either 'free will' or 'freedom of the will.' You were the one to turn this thread into that discussion. It's your hobbyhorse.

If you answer "Yes, people are guilty of criminal acts," and answer, "Yes, people's actions are inevitable," then it should be easy for you to put your answers into a logical, rhetorical, format. That's all I ask of you. Give us the opportunity to evaluate your ideas fairly and without emotion boiling under the surface.

Yes, btw, when everything can be reduced down to belief, that can result in relativism--unless your moral, ethical code is impugned by another's beliefs. Or if another's belief is opposed to yours.

I can say Islamists believe in Sharia, because it's a part of Islam--but I can also condemn practitioners of Sharia. Are we saying the same thing, in the long run?

[volchok]

If determinism, causationism, consequentialism, naturalism--however you wish to label your philosophy (you never answered my question about that)--you feel that anyone's actions are inevitable. Does that or does that not make her/him guilty of criminal actions? You seem to dance around that question, imm. Yet is seems to be a pretty simple yes-no question to me. Is s/he guilty because of her/his actions, or is s/he innocent because the action was inevitable?

Liz, I'm a naturalist. That's my philosophy. And as a naturalist I happen to think determinism is true but I recognize that determinism being true or not is irrelevant. All the illusions that I have talked about in this forum like free will, authorship, personal responsibility, altruism, these are all things that cannot exist in a random universe either.

Regarding the second part of your question, I cannot answer yes or no without defining first what being guilty means.
According to wikipedia, Guilt is the state of being responsible for the commission of an offense. In this sense no one is guilty because no one can or should be held responsible. In criminal law, being “guilty” of a criminal offense means that one has committed a violation of criminal law. In this sense, yes, they are guilty. We don't need to pretend that people have free will in order to be able to say that someone infringed the law in some way.

[iambiguous]

But at the exact moment when she had a "change of heart" the random event wasn't really random -- out of the blue -- at all, just an inherent manifestation of all the other events coinciding in a universe unfolding as, what, the cosmological rendition of clockwork?

If what you're saying is that causality still exists in a random world, then I think you're correct.

What is not fully understood though is how a mind as matter interacts with other matter as mind to intergrate human consciousness into a world that is instead almost entirely mindless matter.

Sure, it would be as though we opened the back of a watch and suddenly saw the parts themselves choosing to reconfigure each other into a different way to record time.

That would seem impossible. And so it is with the matter inside our brain. It chooses nothing autonomously. It only interacts "as it must" in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry and biology.

Even "randon mutations" in the evolution of life are not really random at all. Nothing can ever really be entirely random. But somehow the material parts in the human brain really do seem qualitatively different from the material parts of a watch. For example, it can reconfigure entirely mindless material into smart phones.

And the experience we have listening to sublime music or creating great art or enjoying a superb meal or exchanging agonies and ecstacies with others is just, what, more atoms and molecultes going about the business [obliviously] of being matter?

As far as we can tell, absolutely. We've known that for quite some time now.

Yes, but as far as we can tell there are still enormous gaps between what we think we know about these things and all that can possibly be known about them. In other words: what do we really know about them at all?

Think of the staggering gap between what we knew about the universe during the time of Aristotle and what we know about it now. And that includes the very big and the very small.

When matter somehow acquires the capacity to know itself as matter it becomes a kind of matter that presumably was not around for billions and billions of years.

A different kind? Isn't it just insanely more complex?

But it is complexity of a different kind. It is one thing to imagine matter exploding out of stars coalescing into heavier and heavier elements coalescing into moons and planets coalescing into life coalescing into tigers coalescing into us. But when that matter is actually able to loop back into an understanding of how this happens it is matter on an order that even folks like Albert Einstein were startled by:

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

To wit:

But then to the best of my recollection you have already acknowledged something you don't know: Why does something exist instead of nothing? Why this something and not another? And how does everything there is come into existence out of nothing at all?

You're right. I don't know. No one does. But we're getting closer to the answer although some would argue that we will never be able to comprehend it.

In my view, we do not really know yet if we are getting closer and closer to asking the right questions. Thus the certainty displayed by folks like you is more psychological than anything else. You want the feeling of integration that comes from it.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

[Amorphos]

Joe Schmoe

Rebirth is the punch line of our condemnation. We will come to existence again, completely ignorant of our last journey, and have the go through this experience over, and over and over again.

I think that in every perception something of it is recorded in the memory and another part forms an imprint upon the soul. If so then what we learn in each life forms both a nature of the ‘soul’ and its imprint on eternity [history must exist right].
We [and Hindus/Buddhists/Jainists] may have it back to front to some degree, when we think life is a repetition, if anything it is memory that creates repetition, death then creates a blank sheet and freedom from said repetition.

Volchok

Are you aware of all "the billions of inputs" ? No.

Indeed not ~ NOTHING is! I get a few holistic options formed from the holistic and collocative function of the brain.
The zombie/brain aside from the expereincer, takes decisions for us when there is an imperative to do so. The newborn calf must get on its feet and learn to run quickly in just a few hours, its brain has been designed to perform tasks that the consciousness either doesn’t know how to do, or cannot do as quickly. I think consciousness generally slows things down, but I feel it would always be compliant to nature protecting it. Otherwise consciousness would make all the decisions and the brain would be completely compliant to its master!

[volchok]

Yes, but as far as we can tell there are still enormous gaps between what we think we know about these things and all that can possibly be known about them. In other words: what do we really know about them at all?

Think of the staggering gap between what we knew about the universe during the time of Aristotle and what we know about it now. And that includes the very big and the very small.

So basically, you're going for a god of the gaps kind of argument ?
We don't know everything yet, therefor everything is still possible.
Right...

But it is complexity of a different kind.

What could this possible mean? It's not fundamentally different then what was here before. It's made of the same thing.

In my view, we do not really know yet if we are getting closer and closer to asking the right questions. Thus the certainty displayed by folks like you is more psychological than anything else. You want the feeling of integration that comes from it.

The certainty that you talk about doesn't exist and that fact DOES NOT MEAN that you have to be a relativist, which is what you are.
Furthermore what integration ? Are you serious? I'm saying that we are nothing special, that we don't even exist, that the self is a complete illusion, that there is no after life and I am certain of these things because they provide integration!?!?!?
You're the one who believes that we exist, that we control our lives, that perhaps life goes on after death...all the supposedly good shit.
Give me a fucking break.

[Stoic Guardian]

EDIT:

I was being sarcastic. You contributed nothing. You displayed your closed mindedness.

I was being critical, i don't see how that autmoatically translates to closedmindedness

[Joe Schmoe]

I was being critical, i don't see how that autmoatically translates to closedmindedness

Perhaps consider others with this in mind.

[Stoic Guardian]

I was being critical, i don't see how that autmoatically translates to closedmindedness

Perhaps consider others with this in mind.

Theres a differance beween saying, "Thats not what I believe." and "This is from a differant school of thought so i don't even want to hear it."

[Joe Schmoe]

Theres a differance beween saying, "Thats not what I believe." and "This is from a differant school of thought so i don't even want to hear it."

Vok was in a discussion. All you did was insult someone and leave. If either of you were being closed minded, my money is on you. That is all.

Twist all you like.

[iambiguous]

Yes, but as far as we can tell there are still enormous gaps between what we think we know about these things and all that can possibly be known about them. In other words: what do we really know about them at all?

Think of the staggering gap between what we knew about the universe during the time of Aristotle and what we know about it now. And that includes the very big and the very small.

So basically, you're going for a god of the gaps kind of argument?
We don't know everything yet, therefor everything is still possible.
Right...

God? Not me. I'm just noting the potential for gaps in the knowledge we have about the matter in a smartphone and the matter in the minds that invent and manufacture it.

But it is complexity of a different kind.

What could this possible mean? It's not fundamentally different then what was here before. It's made of the same thing.

I don't know what it means. I just know it is not like any matter that ever came before it. And I suspect the gap between what you think you know about these things now and what the human species will know about them in, say, another thousand years is probably a lot wider than, say, you think?

In my view, we do not really know yet if we are getting closer and closer to asking the right questions. Thus the certainty displayed by folks like you is more psychological than anything else. You want the feeling of integration that comes from it.

The certainty that you talk about doesn't exist and that fact DOES NOT MEAN that you have to be a relativist, which is what you are.

I am only a relativist pertaining to human identity and value judgments. And, in particular, the relationship between them.

What I am doing here is analogous to pointing out the difference between the knowledge science has garnered regarding the four fundamental forces and their understanding of what these forces actually are. Why them in particular and not something else?

Sure, we know how gravity works with considerable sophistication. But how much do we know regarding what gravity actually is.

Furthermore what integration ? Are you serious? I'm saying that we are nothing special, that we don't even exist, that the self is a complete illusion, that there is no after life and I am certain of these things because they provide integration!?!?!?

Why are you getting flustered here? I am suggesting only that for some it is not what they believe that matters nearly as much as others concurring that what they believe is in fact what is true. They need to believe that what they know [about any number of things] is grounded wholistically in how things really are. Asking, "do we have free will?", however, is not necessarily the same thing as asking, "do we breathe oxygen?" Or it is not to some of us.

You're the one who believes that we exist, that we control our lives, that perhaps life goes on after death...all the supposedly good shit.

Give me a fucking break.

On the contrary, I believe we exist as prefabricated and endlessly refabricated daseins. And that our "control" and "understanding" of both ourselves and the world we live in is embedded precariously in contingency, chance and change. I do not believe life goes on after death. I simply cannot rule it out completely having thus far not actually died myself.

[Stoic Guardian]

Theres a differance beween saying, "Thats not what I believe." and "This is from a differant school of thought so i don't even want to hear it."

Vok was in a discussion. All you did was insult someone and leave. If either of you were being closed minded, my money is on you. That is all.

Twist all you like.

Think whatever you want...

[lizbethrose]

If determinism, causationism, consequentialism, naturalism--however you wish to label your philosophy (you never answered my question about that)--you feel that anyone's actions are inevitable. Does that or does that not make her/him guilty of criminal actions? You seem to dance around that question, imm. Yet is seems to be a pretty simple yes-no question to me. Is s/he guilty because of her/his actions, or is s/he innocent because the action was inevitable?

Liz, I'm a naturalist. That's my philosophy. And as a naturalist I happen to think determinism is true but I recognize that determinism being true or not is irrelevant. All the illusions that I have talked about in this forum like free will, authorship, personal responsibility, altruism, these are all things that cannot exist in a random universe either.

Regarding the second part of your question, I cannot answer yes or no without defining first what being guilty means.
According to wikipedia, Guilt is the state of being responsible for the commission of an offense. In this sense no one is guilty because no one can or should be held responsible. In criminal law, being “guilty” of a criminal offense means that one has committed a violation of criminal law. In this sense, yes, they are guilty. We don't need to pretend that people have free will in order to be able to say that someone infringed the law in some way.

Thank you. I wish we'd been able to come to this early on, instead of dancing the dance of misunderstanding (although I do enjoy dancing with you as long as you keep 'free will' or 'freedom of the will' out of it.) You agree, then, that the universe isn't random, but that it follows the 'laws of nature,' which, in order to be thought of as 'laws,' must needs be verifiable under all known circumstances--iow, they are considered to be 'laws' until proven otherwise. Since 'proving' natural laws is still a 'work in progress', we can only accept as 'true' that which makes the most logical 'sense' to us. Agreed?

[volchok]

God? Not me. I'm just noting the potential for gaps in the knowledge we have about the matter in a smartphone and the matter in the minds that invent and manufacture it.

Yes, I know you're not arguing for god, but you're using the same style of argument as the "god of the gaps" which is an obvious logical fallacy.

I don't know what it means. I just know it is not like any matter that ever came before it. And I suspect the gap between what you think you know about these things now and what the human species will know about them in, say, another thousand years is probably a lot wider than, say, you think?

Yes. Clearly you don't know what you mean. But for the sake of argument, let's say that it is different. Free will is still an impossibility and the self is still an illusion. You're not even debating me here. You're debating yourself because you know that what I've been saying is in fact what the evidence shows and you're just trying to grab on to something even if it means that you have to jump trough a thousand hoops, contradict yourself a bunch of times and do mental gymnastics all day long.

Why are you getting flustered here?

Because you were accusing me of being biased based on the implications of what I'm saying when if anything, what I've been saying causes confusion and distress.

You, on the other hand, want to keep believing in things that are extremely unlikely, some of them demonstrably false, because you need the emotional comfort and cannot even imagine that things may not be what they seem.

Pretty ironic.

[iambiguous]

God? Not me. I'm just noting the potential for gaps in the knowledge we have about the matter in a smartphone and the matter in the minds that invent and manufacture it.

Yes, I know you're not arguing for god, but you're using the same style of argument as the "god of the gaps" which is an obvious logical fallacy.

What is logic when matter is able to configure itself into conflicting points of view about the precise nature of its applicability?

I'm just noting that until the gaps are closed you and I cannot really be absolutely certain about lots of things.

And yet somehow matter has, in turn, configured itself into emotional and psychological states that truly crave certainty about things like this.

I don't know what it means. I just know it is not like any matter that ever came before it. And I suspect the gap between what you think you know about these things now and what the human species will know about them in, say, another thousand years is probably a lot wider than, say, you think?

Yes. Clearly you don't know what you mean. But for the sake of argument, let's say that it is different. Free will is still an impossibility and the self is still an illusion. You're not even debating me here. You're debating yourself because you know that what I've been saying is in fact what the evidence shows and you're just trying to grab on to something even if it means that you have to jump trough a thousand hoops, contradict yourself a bunch of times and do mental gymnastics all day long.

Just assuming that it might be different is no where near the same as understanding what that difference might be---or of understanding how the difference might impact on your own understanding of it now.

To me, understanding what it means for mindless matter to somehow become conscious of itself as evolving out of completely mindless matter is on par with the other great antinomies in science and philosophy. And they don't call them that for nothing. We just argue endlessly here over what exactly does constitute "correct reasoning". And that is fine because these things are truly fascinating.

Why are you getting flustered here?

Because you were accusing me of being biased based on the implications of what I'm saying when if anything, what I've been saying causes confusion and distress.

Yes, this is reasonable regarding some. The thought that we are not actually the autonomous authors of our own thoughts and deeds can be truly unnerving.

But, again, it can also be truly comforting [regarding others] to know that none of this is really "our fault". That, in other words, we have as much personal responsibility in all of this as do the individual dominoes falling near the end of V For Vendetta. As far as they are concerned [not at all] the design could have been a hammer and sickle, a swastika or a dollar sign.

You, on the other hand, want to keep believing in things that are extremely unlikely, some of them demonstrably false, because you need the emotional comfort and cannot even imagine that things may not be what they seem.

You may well be right here. Well put. In fact, how I react to this is how many react to dasein. Or to Freud and Reich. Or to Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. Or to Marx and his "political economy".

Or to ironists.

But I would never posit my own premises with anywhere near the degree of certainty that you seem attached to.

[volchok]

What is logic when matter is able to configure itself into conflicting points of view about the precise nature of its applicability?

I'm just noting that until the gaps are closed you and I cannot really be absolutely certain about lots of things.

And yet somehow matter has, in turn, configured itself into emotional and psychological states that truly crave certainty about things like this.

I really hate this " you can't have absolute certainty" therefor everything is possible bullshit. Absolute certainty obviously doesn't exist, never did and never will. I'm only certain of things for practical purposes. We all are. Dismissing something that is highly unlikely (so unlikely that for it to be true, we would have to be wrong about everything else we know) is not dogmatic. It's rational. A dogmatic position would be to reject something which was once thought unlikely but which is now supported by evidence.

You cannot be absolutely certain that your head won´t fall off of your body while you're taking a walk but, you don't worry about it. You probably never thought about it. Now that you think about it, you probably see it as a highly unlikely event, so unlikely that by the time you stop reading this sentence you won't ever think about it again.

But, again, it can also be truly comforting [regarding others] to know that none of this is really "our fault". That, in other words, we have as much personal responsibility in all of this as do the individual dominoes falling near the end of V For Vendetta. As far as they are concerned [not at all] the design could have been a hammer and sickle, a swastika or a dollar sign.

Well, let me clarify something then. Even thought I truly believe that all these things that I've been discussing so far are in fact true, I find the whole thing depressing. Extremely depressing really. I would even go so far as to say that it is unbearable. I would be much easier for me to believe in the things you seem to believe. I'm not getting anything out of believing what I believe. I simply cannot lie to myself. Intellectual honesty is too important for me.

[Joe Schmoe]

Even though I truly believe that all these things that I've been discussing so far are in fact true, I find the whole thing depressing. Extremely depressing really. I would even go so far as to say that it is unbearable. I would be much easier for me to believe in the things you seem to believe. I'm not getting anything out of believing what I believe. I simply cannot lie to myself. Intellectual honesty is too important for me.

Intellectual honesty seems like a fight to me. To seek it is to fight ignorance. To fight something seems like the opposite of to accept something.

When it comes to Life and Death, one can't fight both. To fight one, is to affirm the other. To accept one, is start war with the other. They can't coexist in peace.

I believe to accept Life, is to accept our bias. Is bias honest? It is founded on illusion. If we accept something, that has such foundation, are we honest? From this foundation of acceptance, are we going to build an honest structure? I say no.

This is life. To fight it, is to partner with death. The process of seeking honesty, continually gives us information that undermines life. It is depressing. Death is honest. Death is neutral. To seek honesty, is to seek death. Do you want to seek death? If so, why does information that brings you closer to it, depress you?

We don't want death. We want life. Therefore, fuck honesty. Go for happiness. (Also, our bias might be honest... so perhaps the pursuit is fine, just the got to alter the application of said pursuit...)

------

This might be more for my benefit and understanding than yours. Sorry!

[Amorphos]

Strange when so many different positions believe in intellectual honesty.

I sincerely believe my reasoning is sound too, I just cannot find mind in the material ~ literally.

…and free will seems like the most obvious thing we know about ourselves, anything else appears pretentious.

[BUFFALO]

Well, let me clarify something then. Even thought I truly believe that all these things that I've been discussing so far are in fact true, I find the whole thing depressing. Extremely depressing really. I would even go so far as to say that it is unbearable. I would be much easier for me to believe in the things you seem to believe. I'm not getting anything out of believing what I believe. I simply cannot lie to myself. Intellectual honesty is too important for me.

I don't think not having free will need be depressing. I think we are still the masters of our own destiny; or at least as close to it as can be true for a deterministic world. After all, it stil FEELS like I am in control of what I do. And in reality, I AM in control of what I do, to the extent that my corporeal body is the vehicle through which I act. I just cannot claim that my consciousness is the "First Cause" of those actions.

But I realize what you are saying: accepting this can be a hard pilll to swallow in that it takes away the aura of being "specially" or exclusively in control of ourselves - but there in lies the illusion: there really is no "SELF". And you already believed that much, so you lost nothing.

Still, there is a psychological price to be paid in accepting cold hard reality.

[Amorphos]

I just cannot claim that my consciousness is the "First Cause" of those actions.

This is where we trip ourselves up; it does not matter if consciousness is the first cause in all or some cases. It may be the processor or the image on the monitor of the computer, but that image is what organises all its inputs! It is a conscious image and that in and of itself is the OVERALL determiner!

[volchok]

[ Therefore, fuck honesty. Go for happiness.

Too late. You can't "un-know " things.

[volchok]

Still, there is a psychological price to be paid in accepting cold hard reality.

Indeed.