Consciousness and free will.

[Hobbes' Choice]

From the moment we are conceived the human machine grows, and the programme changes each day. The unit gets larger and with each new challenge the machine adapts, providing more brain power, muscle, hair, skin to meet new challenges. It defends itself against disease and other forms of attack, modifying its substance with the immune system and externally, technology. It gains autonomy from its makers and follows self determining paths that are not predicted by its initial genetic make-up. It can change.

1. i disagree with the highlighted part, and i challenge you to prove it conclusively. you simply can't, so don't even bother..

Oh dear looks like you have contradicted yourself again.

Culture is not genetic, thus by your own words, (or lack of cognitive care) you have contradicted yourself.

[Obvious Leo]

the problem is that you're implying that "executive function" itself is causeless,

No I'm not. I'm saying that the concept of executive function defines the self as both actor and acted upon. In the Santiago model of embodied cognition this notion is formulated through the notion of causal feedback mechanisms. The biochemical processes which determine your cellular biology can pass information up the causal chain that they need water and your executive function will register this as a sensation of thirst. In other words you can't decide whether you feel thirsty or not but you can decide whether you'll do something about it or not, unlike a plant whose roots will always take up water if the cellular processes of the plant require it and if water is available. You are freer than the plant because you can either walk to the tap and fetch a glass of water or deliberately cause yourself to perish through dehydration, if this is your preferred option. You're defining yourself as a vegetable, alpha.

us aristotelian dinosaurs accept the idea of a first cause that is infinitely old,

This statement is an oxymoron. Infinitely old means without a beginning.

in closing, i just wanna point out that a "self-determining" entity is still either deterministic or random. you can't keep evading that fact.

When have I ever tried to evade it? Surely I've ridiculed the notion of randomness often enough? The fact that you don't understand determinism is your problem, not mine.

[alpha]

From the moment we are conceived the human machine grows, and the programme changes each day. The unit gets larger and with each new challenge the machine adapts, providing more brain power, muscle, hair, skin to meet new challenges. It defends itself against disease and other forms of attack, modifying its substance with the immune system and externally, technology. It gains autonomy from its makers and follows self determining paths that are not predicted by its initial genetic make-up. It can change.

1. i disagree with the highlighted part, and i challenge you to prove it conclusively. you simply can't, so don't even bother..

Oh dear looks like you have contradicted yourself again.

Culture is not genetic, thus by your own words, (or lack of cognitive care) you have contradicted yourself.

hobbes, if i prove you wrong, yet again, would you be a man, and concede?

lets's examine your self-contradicting statements, shall we?

Can you imagine that there might be other causal agents in the world other than genes?

Culture is not genetically determined.

It gains autonomy from its makers and follows self determining paths that are not predicted by its initial genetic make-up. It can change.

1. how can a living entity not be determined by its initial genetic make-up?
2. how can something "self-determining" be affected by external factors such as culture (if it's affected by external factors then it's not self-determining)? note that its being "self-determining" is your position, not mine.

[Obvious Leo]

1. how can a living entity not be determined by its initial genetic make-up?

Try reading a biology book. There are trillions of different causal agents which determine the way in which genes are expressed in living organisms. In fact only the tiniest fraction of the DNA in your body is "human" DNA but every single DNA nucleotide in your body is determining its function. You aren't an individual at all, mate, you're an entire fucking self-determining ecosystem. Get it.

[alpha]

the problem is that you're implying that "executive function" itself is causeless,

No I'm not. I'm saying that the concept of executive function defines the self as both actor and acted upon. In the Santiago model of embodied cognition this notion is formulated through the notion of causal feedback mechanisms. The biochemical processes which determine your cellular biology can pass information up the causal chain that they need water and your executive function will register this as a sensation of thirst. In other words you can't decide whether you feel thirsty or not but you can decide whether you'll do something about it or not, unlike a plant whose roots will always take up water if the cellular processes of the plant require it and if water is available. You are freer than the plant because you can either walk to the tap and fetch a glass of water or deliberately cause yourself to perish through dehydration, if this is your preferred option. You're defining yourself as a vegetable, alpha.

if i can truly decide, and have actual choice, then what i "choose" is either caused, making it determined, or uncaused, making it random. try slithering your way out of this one.

us aristotelian dinosaurs accept the idea of a first cause that is infinitely old,

This statement is an oxymoron. Infinitely old means without a beginning.

yes, without a beginning. and i'll repeat my request by asking for an alternative to that, that is not nonsensical.

in closing, i just wanna point out that a "self-determining" entity is still either deterministic or random. you can't keep evading that fact.

When have I ever tried to evade it? Surely I've ridiculed the notion of randomness often enough? The fact that you don't understand determinism is your problem, not mine.

it's you who has misunderstood that what is not random, can only be strictly, purely, and absolutely deterministic.

[The Inglorious One]

I posted this in another thread and is just as relevant here, if not more so:

"Freewill" implies limitation and coordination. Randomness (freedom) and necessity do not exist independently nor is their coexistence temporal. The former implies limitation, mutability, extension and diversity; the latter implies Law, immutability, and Oneness. The tension between them is mediated by Mind: not, perhaps, by mind as we in our lowly estate understand mind--at its level of existence, Mind doesn't "think" or "choose" between alternatives, but is "aware" (via non-locality) and coordinates and eventuates reality in a way that perfectly resolves the tension between freedom and necessity.

Werner Heisenberg came upon his famous uncertainty principle by changing his question, changing his worldview. He says, "Instead of asking: How can one in the known mathematical scheme express a given experimental situation? the other question was put: Is it true, perhaps, that only such experimental situations can arise in nature as can be expressed in the mathematical formalism?” The space-time universe, which in our considerations is naturally paramount, might be little more than a shadow of existential realities that experiment cannot reveal or be expressed in mathematical formalism.

Please explain how Heisenberg relates to the question.

Heisenberg came upon the uncertainty principle by thinking there might be a reality that is not discoverable by experiment or explained by mathematical formalities.

This might hurt your 19th century head, but more and more, the universe in which we live appears to be a “holomovement"-- a term coined by physicist David Bohm but an idea that goes back centuries.

The random movements of the infinitesimal are linked by the oneness of infinity. Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance." There is no “substantive” will, no will that stands apart from dynamic whole. Ideally, what we call “freewill” is the act of a concentrated region of dominant characteristics progressively making adjustments to the constant movement of the Whole through conscious and unconscious awareness coexisting on multifarious levels of connectedness.

I say "ideally" because yours, being stuck in the 19th century, might be a hopeless case.

[Obvious Leo]

yes, without a beginning. and i'll repeat my request by asking for an alternative to that, that is not nonsensical.

Are you for real? Are you seriously suggesting that a universe with a beginning makes sense and one without a beginning doesn't?

How the fuck does the beginning begin?

[alpha]

Are you for real? Are you seriously suggesting that a universe with a beginning makes sense and one without a beginning doesn't?

How the fuck does the beginning begin?

i'd use the word 'existence' instead of 'universe', and i'd say that i'm as yet undecided as to whether either (an existence with or without a beginning) is impossible or not. so my current position on this matter (which could change) is that it seems that either is logically possible.

[Obvious Leo]

i'd use the word 'existence' instead of 'universe',

Please explain the distinction between these two terms. If you claim that there is valid notion of "existence" which applies external to the universe then you are not doing philosophy and should be taking your thoughts off to a theology forum.

[Obvious Leo]

Incidentally in a theology forum your argument is as sound as a bell. The notion of "will" is a logical fallacy in a created reality.

[The Inglorious One]

i'd use the word 'existence' instead of 'universe',

Please explain the distinction between these two terms. If you claim that there is valid notion of "existence" which applies external to the universe then you are not doing philosophy and should be taking your thoughts off to a theology forum.

Kidding, right? Scientists misappropriate the word "nothing" in order to explain a universe from nothing all the time. For clarity's sake, wouldn't it be better if they made a similar distinction between existence and universe?

Leo is a proponent of "Leo-ism," which is neither a philosophy nor a science, but rather a kind of self-worship.

If "What is is the movement," was widely accepted, then not making a distinction between “universe” and “existence” might make sense. But since that is not the case, at least not yet, insisting on not making that distinction only adds to the confusion.

In the meantime, I would suggest terms like the “manifest” and the “unmanifest” or borrow from David Bohm and use “explicit” and “implicit” orders of existence.

[alpha]

i'd use the word 'existence' instead of 'universe',

Please explain the distinction between these two terms. If you claim that there is valid notion of "existence" which applies external to the universe then you are not doing philosophy and should be taking your thoughts off to a theology forum.

you are not doing philosophy either. i would've suggested that you take your "thoughts" to a science forum, but unfortunately you're not doing science either.

the distinction is that existence is what existed before the big bang 13.8 billion years ago (and after), while the universe is what came after. in any case, "existence" is broader than "universe" and less technical, so i prefer using it where appropriate, to avoid confusion.

Incidentally in a theology forum your argument is as sound as a bell. The notion of "will" is a logical fallacy in a created reality.

i have no idea what the hell you're talking about! no one disputes the existence of "will", just what controls it. as schopenhauer said: "i can do what i will, but i can't will what i will".

my questions remain unanswered; is a "self-determining" system determined or random? if i choose to drink/not drink water when i'm thirsty, was my "choice" caused (determined), or uncaused (random)? stop beating around the bush, and give me a straight answer for once (or just join a dummy forum).

[alpha]

Leo is a proponent of "Leo-ism," which is neither a philosophy nor a science, but rather a kind of self-worship.

finally, an ally.

[The Inglorious One]

i have no idea what the hell you're talking about!

No one has any idea what the hell Leo is talking about--ever. Not even Leo.

[alpha]

i have no idea what the hell you're talking about!

No one has any idea what the hell Leo is talking about--ever. Not even Leo.

roflmao.