bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 3:53 pm
Noax wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:46 pm
All that big brain with the huge price tag, and the benefit of it going to waste.
No. Brain is a source of thought which this is the result of collective memory.
I don't disagree with that, but you are claiming that all that thought is disregarded, with conscious decisions not being influenced by that thought. Hence it going to waste. There is no point in thought if it doesn't lead to productive action. The brain is just a huge expense of metabolism that is needless if it lets new causal chains choose the actions.
Noax wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:46 pm
We then claim that this requires that laws of nature to break when we change form of matter.
Nonsense. A morning rain can change the form of matter. No natural law is broken.
That is true. Therefore materialism fails to explain conscious decision.
You are now claiming that rain needs to make an immaterial conscious decision (break a law of nature) in order to make the grass wet? I don't think you mean that, but you are not being clear here. I can only guess.
No, I am exactly assuming X="conscious decision is true withing materialist framework" then show a inconsistency.
This just shows that materialism does not define 'conscious decision' that way. I agree, it leads to inconsistency. So
premise 2 is demonstrably false in the materialist framework. So what? Point 2 has not been shown to be the case (and has in fact been demonstrated to be absurd even in dualistic framework), so materialism itself is still consistent. You seem not to recognize this blatant use of argument begging.
I agree with what you stated but I am not showing the opposite. I am showing that one can show that there is a contradiction by assuming that there is wave function collapse due to intervention of mind which emerged from process in matter.
I never claimed there is mind-related collapse, be it immaterial or not. There is zero evidence for this. The position is one of idealism, and idealism is not QM related. Materialism is incompatible with idealism. For the record, I am neither. I'm just ragging on your inability to construct a valid argument. There are some fairly good arguments against materialism, and this thread is not an example of one of them. I'm not sure if it is attempting to be.
Well, this discussion started from the point that you declare that wave function is not deterministic when it collapses. Determinism rules within materialism when there is no collapse of wave function.
Materialism doesn't assert lack of collapse of the wave function. It doesn't assert collapse either. I think the pilot-wave (or hidden variable) interpretation attempts to combine collapse and determinism, but materialism doesn't assert that interpretation either. Materialism just says that everything is matter or a function/property of it, fairly close to your point 1.
Yes, I agree that thought is part of causal chain.
But you say that conscious decision is not, so it is not based on the thought. What purpose is served by the calorie burning thought then? It forces us to find considerably more food than we would otherwise require, an evolutionary disadvantage if it has no benefit.
We need to show that conscious decision is real. We can accept it as a premises or argue about it.
I'm arguing about it because it (as you have defined it) is absurd. Accepting it as a premise just shows that the premise is false when it leads to contradiction, as you have shown in your OP.
I see what do you mean. Let me write in more clear way
1) Consciousness decision (the ability to create a chain of causality) is real and it is the result of matter formation (assumption)
2) This means that one can break causality by arranging matter in specific form
3) This is impossible within materialism framework
4) Therefore (1) is wrong
I agree, (1) is wrong, but not because of (3). It is just a self-inconsistent assumption.
Point 2 as worded is allowed, but only because it doesn't say that arranging matter in specific form doesn't
require a break in causality.
Point 3 still stands, since point 1 (but not point 2) is impossible within materialism framework. It indeed doesn't describe materialism.
You have succeeded (in step 3 actually) in proving that point 1 does not describe materialism. So what? Point 4 says that point 1 is just wrong, but doesn't follow since there is no premise that materialism is true.
This means that we have go give up either (a) conscious decision is real or (b) conscious decision is the result of matter formation. One can argue in favor of (a) therefore we have to give up (b).
OK, let's give up (b). Now it reads thus:
1) Consciousness decision (the ability to create a chain of causality) is real (assumption)
2) This means that one can break causality by arranging matter in specific form <-- Irrelevant to (3) below, but I kept it.
3) This is impossible within materialism framework
4) Therefore (1) is not consistent with the materialism framework
I changed the wording of (4) since "(1) is wrong" just doesn't follow from the prior 3 points. I think it is wrong anyway, but my argument is by reductio ad absurdum, not by the steps you put forth here.