Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by bahman » Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:21 am

Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:50 pm
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.
The brain still has causal power in all metabolism such as digestion and even unconscious decision.
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:50 pm
We then claim that this requires that laws of nature to break when we change form of matter.
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:46 pm
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.
There is no decision involved when rain makes the grass wet. This is comprehensible in materialism framework. The problem is conscious decision.
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:50 pm
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.
How materialism define conscious decision?
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:50 pm
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.
Mind is not the result of evolution. I can fast and die for specific purpose after the firm decision is made.
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:50 pm
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.
No. Only the another premise is false when we agree that conscious decision is real based on an argument.
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:50 pm
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.
(1) is our only premises. (2) has to be true given (1). (3) is a fact very well accept within materialist. Therefore (1) is wrong.
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:50 pm
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.
Yes, you can even shorten it more:

1) Consciousness decision (by definition, the ability to create a chain of causality) is real (assumption)
2) This is impossible within materialism framework
3) Therefore (1) is not consistent with the materialism framework

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by bahman » Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:00 pm

Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:26 pm
bahman wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:13 pm
You cannot have intelligent/rational being, the person of your example, without free will.
This is completely wrong as you have described 'free will'. Rational choice is impossible without a causal chain, as the example demonstrates. To ignore the traffic when crossing the street is irrational. You apparently disagree.
Yes, but the brain should have the ability to build a rational causal chain. I am arguing that this is not possible without learning and learning is not possible without free will.
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:26 pm
We basically primarily learn things through trial and error.
To err in crossing the street is potentially fatal. You don't get a second try. Using learned knowledge would be a causal chain, also not part of your definition.
Yes. Of course a kid is vulnerable to danger if he wants to cross the street. But how a kid learn to cross the street properly?
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:26 pm
bahman wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:20 pm
There is no causal chain when we don't let our thought to stream. The system is halted and attention is busy with options.
Assertion. Even robots do no do this given equal weight choices.
What they do? They generate a random number and act accordingly. We instead decide and have ability to delay the decision long enough. You can try it yourself.
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:26 pm
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:24 pm
The free willed person would have to make the choice without any knowledge that there is an ice cream choice to be made.
Without any knowledge?
Yes. Knowledge is part of the causal chain. I base my decisions partly on what I know (thought and memory), and on the situation at hand (such as a choice of ice cream flavors being presented), all of which are causal chains. To initiate a causal chain is to make a conscious decision without any of that input, else it would just be a continuation of a chain, violating your definition.
I think that a chain of causality initially start with a stimulus. In case of ice cream example we have two chains of causality running in parallel. We can terminate one of the chain or terminate both. In first case we are left with one option which we naturally go for it. In second case we can initiate a chain of causality and choose the ice cream we want. You can do other combo too.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by bahman » Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:04 pm

Dalek Prime wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:00 am
bahman wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:00 am
1) Let's assume the opposite: Consciousness is the result of matter formation
2) Conscious decision (free will: The ability to create a chain of causality) is real
3) This means that one can break causality by arranging matter in specific form
4) This is impossible within materialism framework
5) Therefore consciousness is not the result of matter formation
Tell me that again when your brain dies. Then I'll believe you.
Believe it or not, I have contact with dead people. Perhaps I come after you when I am dead. :twisted:

By the way what did you said is not a counter argument either.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by Noax » Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:35 pm

bahman wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:21 am
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:50 pm
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.
The brain still has causal power in all metabolism such as digestion and even unconscious decision.
That can be done with a brain a sixth the size of ours, such as in a deer. And there is no unconscious decision. I don't make decisions when I am unconscious.

What decision do I make that does not require a conscious decision, that a deer does not make, that is worth a 6x metabolic cost, and all the lives of those who could not keep that metabolism fueled when the deer lived?
We then claim that this requires that laws of nature to break when we change form of matter.
There is no decision involved when rain makes the grass wet.
I know. These two statements of yours are in conflict. You said a change of form of matter requires a break of laws of nature, so I came up with a trivial example to the contrary. The upper statement does not mention conscious decision. A different example would be your heart beating, which is an example of "when we change form of matter", but not requiring a break of natural law. So the upper point does not directly follow from the premise.

I just think you need to clarify what you mean by this whole changing form of matter point. It doesn't seem to apply to the argument as it is worded. Also, if a break of law is necessary for change, the law as we know it is not natural law at all. We have incorrectly described natural law. You are apparently proposing that natural law as we know it is wrong.

Perhaps word it as: "Conscious decision requires that laws of nature to break", which is true, but doesn't directly follow from the first point since natural law allows initiation of causal chains. The two points can be connected by relating conscious decision to deliberate acausal events, instead of the random ones that natural law currently describes.
How materialism define conscious decision?
Probably as a decision made by conscious processes of the being in question, with 'conscious' being a psychological term, which is not materialism-specific. But materialism probably takes it from psychology, and additionally asserts that it is a material process.
Mind is not the result of evolution.
Depends on your definition of 'mind'. If you mean this immaterial entity, then I agree, and it would still be the product of evolution to acquire one if it gave advantage. I have shown that it does not.
No. Only the another premise is false when we agree that conscious decision is real based on an argument.
But we don't agree on that. It is just a begging assumption of yours, which you shown is incompatible with materialism.
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

(1) is our only premises. (2) has to be true given (1). (3) is a fact very well accept within materialist. Therefore (1) is wrong.
1 is indeed wrong, but not from this argument. If (1) is impossible in the materialist framework, then you've proved that (1) does not describe materialism. To prove that (1) is wrong (and it is), you need to drive it to self-inconsistency and not drag materialism into the argument.
Natural law does allow creation of chains of causality, such as O15 (an isotope of oxygen) becoming N15(an isotope of nitrogen), which is uncaused. The only reason that is not 'conscious decision' as you define it is because I seem to have no control over it and thus no way to leverage it into action. You claim you do somewhere, which suggests a wonderful empirical falsification test which the proponents of your position always avoid. I wonder why?

Yes, you can even shorten it more:

1) Consciousness decision (by definition, the ability to create a chain of causality) is real (assumption)
2) This is impossible within materialism framework
3) Therefore (1) is not consistent with the materialism framework
I totally agree with this, but again, so what? You've shown (declared more than shown) that (1) does not describe the materialist position, and I agree with that. You are supposed to be demonstrating that consciousness is not the result of matter formation, or at least that (1) is not wrong.
I have shown that (1) must be wrong in any framework. Tell me how the free-willed guy survives crossing the street without using a causal chain.

I have not thus proven materialism, but just shown that your definition of free will would render any being unfit for survival if they had it. I think you need a better definition.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by Noax » Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:32 pm

bahman wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:00 pm
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:26 pm
Rational choice is impossible without a causal chain, as the example demonstrates. To ignore the traffic when crossing the street is irrational. You apparently disagree.
Yes, but the brain should have the ability to build a rational causal chain.
Materialism lets a being build a rational causal chain. Building is not 'initiating' without cause.
learning is not possible without free will.
Nonsense. One can teach a flatworm or a simple robot to navigate a maze.
Yes. Of course a kid is vulnerable to danger if he wants to cross the street. But how a kid learn to cross the street properly?
By opening your eyes for starters, but that lets in a causal chain, which means that learning cannot be done via free will since you said is must be acausal.
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:26 pm
Assertion. Even robots do no do this given equal weight choices.
What they do? They generate a random number and act accordingly.[/quote]Robots have no access to random numbers. If it is a weighted choice, they perform (if A > B, choose A, else B). You are proposing (if A > B, choose A, else if B > A, choose B, else halt), which natural selection would eliminate if anything actually worked that way.

I think that a chain of causality initially start with a stimulus. In case of ice cream example we have two chains of causality running in parallel. We can terminate one of the chain or terminate both. In first case we are left with one option which we naturally go for it. In second case we can initiate a chain of causality and choose the ice cream we want. You can do other combo too.
In the second case, how is the choice made if there is no awareness of an ice cream choice to be made? The first case, you forget completely that chocolate is an option, and continue the chain of awareness of vanilla, in which case no decision is made since there are no competing options. The one sole vanilla chain is propagated, and no new causal chain is created.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4923
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by Dalek Prime » Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:37 pm

bahman wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:04 pm
Dalek Prime wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:00 am
bahman wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:00 am
1) Let's assume the opposite: Consciousness is the result of matter formation
2) Conscious decision (free will: The ability to create a chain of causality) is real
3) This means that one can break causality by arranging matter in specific form
4) This is impossible within materialism framework
5) Therefore consciousness is not the result of matter formation
Tell me that again when your brain dies. Then I'll believe you.
Believe it or not, I have contact with dead people. Perhaps I come after you when I am dead. :twisted:

By the way what did you said is not a counter argument either.
I'll take that chance. And you know what I mean. If you can show me a consciousness outside it's physical configuration, I'll accept your argument.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by bahman » Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:07 pm

Noax wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:35 pm
bahman wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:21 am
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:50 pm
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.
The brain still has causal power in all metabolism such as digestion and even unconscious decision.
That can be done with a brain a sixth the size of ours, such as in a deer. And there is no unconscious decision. I don't make decisions when I am unconscious.

What decision do I make that does not require a conscious decision, that a deer does not make, that is worth a 6x metabolic cost, and all the lives of those who could not keep that metabolism fueled when the deer lived?
Yes, smaller brain can only do those limited functions. We human however speak, can have abstract thought, etc. and this require larger brain size.

Moreover, we do unconscious decision while we are conscious. All the reflexes and metabolisms dealing with condition if x>y then x or y.
Noax wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:35 pm
We then claim that this requires that laws of nature to break when we change form of matter.
There is no decision involved when rain makes the grass wet.
I know. These two statements of yours are in conflict. You said a change of form of matter requires a break of laws of nature, so I came up with a trivial example to the contrary. The upper statement does not mention conscious decision. A different example would be your heart beating, which is an example of "when we change form of matter", but not requiring a break of natural law. So the upper point does not directly follow from the premise.

I just think you need to clarify what you mean by this whole changing form of matter point. It doesn't seem to apply to the argument as it is worded. Also, if a break of law is necessary for change, the law as we know it is not natural law at all. We have incorrectly described natural law. You are apparently proposing that natural law as we know it is wrong.

Perhaps word it as: "Conscious decision requires that laws of nature to break", which is true, but doesn't directly follow from the first point since natural law allows initiation of causal chains. The two points can be connected by relating conscious decision to deliberate acausal events, instead of the random ones that natural law currently describes.
Materialism claims that any function of matter can be explained in term of matter's constitute and form. What makes a brain a brain is specific configuration of atoms since the same number of atoms in another configuration, smashed brain, does not have function of brain. One of function of brain is conscious decision. We know that a decision breaks or creates a chain of causality and that is not possible unless laws of nature breaks down. This is not allowed in materialism therefore conscious decision cannot be explain in materialism.
Noax wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:35 pm
How materialism define conscious decision?
Probably as a decision made by conscious processes of the being in question, with 'conscious' being a psychological term, which is not materialism-specific. But materialism probably takes it from psychology, and additionally asserts that it is a material process.
I think they are mixing rational decision with free decision.
Noax wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:35 pm
Mind is not the result of evolution.
Depends on your definition of 'mind'. If you mean this immaterial entity, then I agree, and it would still be the product of evolution to acquire one if it gave advantage. I have shown that it does not.
Mind cannot be explained in materialism since in one hand it has to control the process and in another hand is the result of the process. So the only option that we have is immaterial mind.
Noax wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:35 pm
No. Only the another premise is false when we agree that conscious decision is real based on an argument.
But we don't agree on that. It is just a begging assumption of yours, which you shown is incompatible with materialism.
Then we need to discuss that. But let's please first clean other issues.
Noax wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:35 pm
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

(1) is our only premises. (2) has to be true given (1). (3) is a fact very well accept within materialist. Therefore (1) is wrong.
1 is indeed wrong, but not from this argument. If (1) is impossible in the materialist framework, then you've proved that (1) does not describe materialism. To prove that (1) is wrong (and it is), you need to drive it to self-inconsistency and not drag materialism into the argument.
Natural law does allow creation of chains of causality, such as O15 (an isotope of oxygen) becoming N15(an isotope of nitrogen), which is uncaused. The only reason that is not 'conscious decision' as you define it is because I seem to have no control over it and thus no way to leverage it into action. You claim you do somewhere, which suggests a wonderful empirical falsification test which the proponents of your position always avoid. I wonder why?
No. (1) is partly the claim of materialism. The other part claim that conscious decision real which we have an argument if favor of that.
Noax wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:35 pm
Yes, you can even shorten it more:

1) Consciousness decision (by definition, the ability to create a chain of causality) is real (assumption)
2) This is impossible within materialism framework
3) Therefore (1) is not consistent with the materialism framework
I totally agree with this, but again, so what? You've shown (declared more than shown) that (1) does not describe the materialist position, and I agree with that. You are supposed to be demonstrating that consciousness is not the result of matter formation, or at least that (1) is not wrong.
I have shown that (1) must be wrong in any framework. Tell me how the free-willed guy survives crossing the street without using a causal chain.

I have not thus proven materialism, but just shown that your definition of free will would render any being unfit for survival if they had it. I think you need a better definition.
No, I have shown conscious decision is not possible in materialism considering the fact it requires that a chain of causality to be created and annihilated. This means that we are dealing with an anomaly in materialism if we accept that conscious decision is real.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by bahman » Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:43 pm

Noax wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:32 pm
bahman wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:00 pm
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:26 pm
Rational choice is impossible without a causal chain, as the example demonstrates. To ignore the traffic when crossing the street is irrational. You apparently disagree.
Yes, but the brain should have the ability to build a rational causal chain.
Materialism lets a being build a rational causal chain. Building is not 'initiating' without cause.
I would say that materialism allows a chain of causality to continue.
Noax wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:32 pm
Yes. Of course a kid is vulnerable to danger if he wants to cross the street. But how a kid learn to cross the street properly?
By opening your eyes for starters, but that lets in a causal chain, which means that learning cannot be done via free will since you said is must be acausal.
The initial learning process of a kid, moving a hand for example, is just through trial and error. He moves his hand first, he then observe a correlation between moving his hand and his want. He then learn that he can do things when he wants.
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:26 pm
What they do? They generate a random number and act accordingly.
Robots have no access to random numbers. If it is a weighted choice, they perform (if A > B, choose A, else B). You are proposing (if A > B, choose A, else if B > A, choose B, else halt), which natural selection would eliminate if anything actually worked that way.
I am saying that there is no learning in the first scenario, (if A > B, choose A, else B). You do what is the best if you know what is the best. In second case however the system faces an ambiguous situation, A==B, which this requires testing both path A and B separately and learning which one is correct/best one.
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:26 pm
I think that a chain of causality initially start with a stimulus. In case of ice cream example we have two chains of causality running in parallel. We can terminate one of the chain or terminate both. In first case we are left with one option which we naturally go for it. In second case we can initiate a chain of causality and choose the ice cream we want. You can do other combo too.
In the second case, how is the choice made if there is no awareness of an ice cream choice to be made? The first case, you forget completely that chocolate is an option, and continue the chain of awareness of vanilla, in which case no decision is made since there are no competing options. The one sole vanilla chain is propagated, and no new causal chain is created.
You are aware of options when you terminate both options. You just halt chains of thought and decide.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by bahman » Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:44 pm

Dalek Prime wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:37 pm
bahman wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:04 pm
Dalek Prime wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:00 am

Tell me that again when your brain dies. Then I'll believe you.
Believe it or not, I have contact with dead people. Perhaps I come after you when I am dead. :twisted:

By the way what did you said is not a counter argument either.
I'll take that chance. And you know what I mean. If you can show me a consciousness outside it's physical configuration, I'll accept your argument.
I don't need to ask them to come to you to show that my argument is true but I ask.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4923
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by Dalek Prime » Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:47 pm

Thanks. I wait.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by Noax » Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:03 pm

bahman wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:07 pm
Noax wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:35 pm
What decision do I make that does not require a conscious decision, that a deer does not make, that is worth a 6x metabolic cost, and all the lives of those who could not keep that metabolism fueled when the deer lived?
Yes, smaller brain can only do those limited functions. We human however speak, can have abstract thought, etc. and this require larger brain size.
Why yes, that makes sense. If the material brain does those things, we need a big one. Sounds like what a materialist would say.

So you are saying you have no conscious (non-material) control over your abstract thoughts or over what you say. Sounds like there is not much left for the free will to do.

Materialism claims that any function of matter can be explained in term of matter's constitute and form. What makes a brain a brain is specific configuration of atoms since the same number of atoms in another configuration, smashed brain, does not have function of brain.
Reasonable so far
One of function of brain is conscious decision.
Not as you define it, no. You explicitly defined conscious decision as not being a function of causal material, and the brain is material subject to causal physics. So you are contradicting yourself with this statement. If you say materialism claims this, you need to provide a definition of conscious decision that is acceptable to materialism. Materialism does not make this claim as you have defined the terms.
I think they are mixing rational decision with free decision.
Perhaps, you are making this mixup. Not necessarily so. I can consciously decide to cheat on my wife, despite the irrationality of the decision. Conscious decisions are not necessarily rational.
The term (in the English language) means more 'decision of which you are aware' than it means 'free decision'. 'Free decision' must specify that of which one is free. A materialist brain is free is not under external control such as a hypnotist.
For you, free will is freedom from causal chains apparently. I find it absurd to think that would be a good thing, as I have pointed out with examples. Good thing speaking doesn't require free will. It lets you speak more coherently than some others on this site who actually exhibit speaking without apparent causality.

Did you see the new Incredibles-2 feature that just came out? It shows loss of free will in this sort of situation, without resorting to supernatural possession as you are, and which materialism claims doesn't exist.

No. (1) is partly the claim of materialism.
If it is not completely a claim of materialism, then (1) is not a claim of materialism.

Your argument goes on like this. (1) is partly a claim of circles.
(1) A circle is round and a circle is defined as square.
(2) A circle being square is incompatible with a circle being round.
(3) Therefore 1 is wrong.
(4) Therefore a circle being round is wrong.

It baffles me to see you present such an argument and think it is valid.

No, I have shown conscious decision is not possible in materialism considering the fact it requires that a chain of causality to be created and annihilated. This means that we are dealing with an anomaly in materialism if we accept that conscious decision is real.
And I've agreed with that. But there is an 'if' in that statement, and I don't accept that conscious decision (as you define it, not as it is commonly used in the English language) is real. So unless you can prove that it is real as you define it (instead of show its absurdity), then materialism is quite consistent.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by Noax » Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:19 pm

bahman wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:43 pm
I would say that materialism allows a chain of causality to continue.
Worse than that. It says there is no way to terminate one. One of the laws of physics is the conservation of information. A causal chain that ends would be a loss of information. So yes, materialism very much allows, even demands this. It is a good thing. A rational decision cannot be made without the continuation of a causal chain. I assert that, even if materialism is false. Your definition must be wrong because it violates that, as I have demonstrated. You have given no example of a rational decision that can be made without a continued causal chain. I use the word rational here, not 'conscious'. A conscious decision (as you define it) can indeed be made, but that decision cannot be rational.
The initial learning process of a kid, moving a hand for example, is just through trial and error. He moves his hand first, he then observe a correlation between moving his hand and his want. He then learn that he can do things when he wants.
That is a causal chain, using the varying success of prior attempts to selected how to attempt the next one. Without that chain, every attempt is a first one since nothing was learned from the prior attempts.
I am saying that there is no learning in the first scenario, (if A > B, choose A, else B).
That was an example of a choice being made, not of learning. Your question of one of a choice with equal weight options, not a question about learning.
You are aware of options when you terminate both options.
Absolutely not. Apparently you don't know what a causal chain is, which is more of a mathematical concept than a scientific one. If the option is terminated, it cannot influence anything, decision or otherwise. That's what 'terminated' would mean. The decision would need to be made without knowledge about the options or even about the need for a decision to be made. All those things are prior state and part of causal chains.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by bahman » Sat Jun 23, 2018 1:58 pm

Noax wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:03 pm
bahman wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:07 pm
Noax wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:35 pm
What decision do I make that does not require a conscious decision, that a deer does not make, that is worth a 6x metabolic cost, and all the lives of those who could not keep that metabolism fueled when the deer lived?
Yes, smaller brain can only do those limited functions. We human however speak, can have abstract thought, etc. and this require larger brain size.
Why yes, that makes sense. If the material brain does those things, we need a big one. Sounds like what a materialist would say.

So you are saying you have no conscious (non-material) control over your abstract thoughts or over what you say. Sounds like there is not much left for the free will to do.
I have control over my abstract thoughts. I can give them direction, pause them, etc.
Noax wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:03 pm
Materialism claims that any function of matter can be explained in term of matter's constitute and form. What makes a brain a brain is specific configuration of atoms since the same number of atoms in another configuration, smashed brain, does not have function of brain.
Reasonable so far
Ok.
Noax wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:03 pm
One of function of brain is conscious decision.
Not as you define it, no. You explicitly defined conscious decision as not being a function of causal material, and the brain is material subject to causal physics. So you are contradicting yourself with this statement. If you say materialism claims this, you need to provide a definition of conscious decision that is acceptable to materialism. Materialism does not make this claim as you have defined the terms.
I think they are mixing rational decision with free decision.
Perhaps, you are making this mixup. Not necessarily so. I can consciously decide to cheat on my wife, despite the irrationality of the decision. Conscious decisions are not necessarily rational.
The term (in the English language) means more 'decision of which you are aware' than it means 'free decision'. 'Free decision' must specify that of which one is free. A materialist brain is free is not under external control such as a hypnotist.
For you, free will is freedom from causal chains apparently. I find it absurd to think that would be a good thing, as I have pointed out with examples. Good thing speaking doesn't require free will. It lets you speak more coherently than some others on this site who actually exhibit speaking without apparent causality.
I define rational decision as if X>Y then do x where X and Y are tendency to do x and y respectively. Free decision to me is defined as if X==Y then do either x or y.
Noax wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:03 pm
Did you see the new Incredibles-2 feature that just came out? It shows loss of free will in this sort of situation, without resorting to supernatural possession as you are, and which materialism claims doesn't exist.
No. I will watch the movie.
Noax wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:03 pm
No. (1) is partly the claim of materialism.
If it is not completely a claim of materialism, then (1) is not a claim of materialism.

Your argument goes on like this. (1) is partly a claim of circles.
(1) A circle is round and a circle is defined as square.
(2) A circle being square is incompatible with a circle being round.
(3) Therefore 1 is wrong.
(4) Therefore a circle being round is wrong.

It baffles me to see you present such an argument and think it is valid.
Sorry, you are right. (1) is completely the claim of materialism.
Noax wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:03 pm
No, I have shown conscious decision is not possible in materialism considering the fact it requires that a chain of causality to be created and annihilated. This means that we are dealing with an anomaly in materialism if we accept that conscious decision is real.
And I've agreed with that. But there is an 'if' in that statement, and I don't accept that conscious decision (as you define it, not as it is commonly used in the English language) is real. So unless you can prove that it is real as you define it (instead of show its absurdity), then materialism is quite consistent.
We are all sure about the fact that thought precedes act and the fact that they are different. There is a point in which there is neither thought nor act. Lets call this point the decision point. This point cannot be affected by thought because otherwise it is a part of chain of thought. Therefore decision is free.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by bahman » Sat Jun 23, 2018 2:13 pm

Noax wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:19 pm
bahman wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:43 pm
I would say that materialism allows a chain of causality to continue.
Worse than that. It says there is no way to terminate one. One of the laws of physics is the conservation of information. A causal chain that ends would be a loss of information. So yes, materialism very much allows, even demands this. It is a good thing. A rational decision cannot be made without the continuation of a causal chain. I assert that, even if materialism is false. Your definition must be wrong because it violates that, as I have demonstrated. You have given no example of a rational decision that can be made without a continued causal chain. I use the word rational here, not 'conscious'. A conscious decision (as you define it) can indeed be made, but that decision cannot be rational.
Well, presumably chain of causality breaks even in the case of rational decision (given the definition in the previous post). You have two states of affair, X and Y which each is related to a chain of causality. If X>Y then you choose x which means that you break y. So even chain of causality breaks even in rational decision. So I cannot accept what you said unless you claim that decision is an illusion.
Noax wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:19 pm
I am saying that there is no learning in the first scenario, (if A > B, choose A, else B).
That was an example of a choice being made, not of learning. Your question of one of a choice with equal weight options, not a question about learning.
If A is certainly more reasonable than B, read it A>B, we naturally do A. There no learning involved in this process.
Noax wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:19 pm
You are aware of options when you terminate both options.
Absolutely not. Apparently you don't know what a causal chain is, which is more of a mathematical concept than a scientific one. If the option is terminated, it cannot influence anything, decision or otherwise. That's what 'terminated' would mean. The decision would need to be made without knowledge about the options or even about the need for a decision to be made. All those things are prior state and part of causal chains.
You are aware of options. You just stop causal chains related to them and try to decide.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by Noax » Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:21 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 1:58 pm
Noax wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:03 pm
bahman wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:07 pm
Yes, smaller brain can only do those limited functions. We human however speak, can have abstract thought, etc. and this require larger brain size.
Why yes, that makes sense. If the material brain does those things, we need a big one. Sounds like what a materialist would say.

So you are saying you have no conscious (non-material) control over your abstract thoughts or over what you say. Sounds like there is not much left for the free will to do.
I have control over my abstract thoughts. I can give them direction, pause them, etc.
Agree. Evidence that the brain is what is in control, since that is the thing you say is controlling speech and thoughts.
There is no interpretation of mind (materialism for example) that asserts lack of control over thoughts or actions.
I define rational decision as if X>Y then do x where X and Y are tendency to do x and y respectively.
Free decision to me is defined as if X==Y then do either x or y.
This seems to be an attempt at modelling the function of reasoning. These are not definitions at all. These resemble computer codes, and not particularly different ones. I doubt even you believe that your mind is executing what appear to be computer instructions, which is a pretty deterministic model.

So if you say you are making a free decision, you actually mean that you are making a if X==Y then do either x or y. That makes no syntactic sense. It seems for one to be unrelated to your illogical (but at least syntactically consistent) definition of 'conscious decision', which is the initiation of a new causal chain.
Sorry, you are right. (1) is completely the claim of materialism.
Strawman argument fallacy then. No materialist would make that claim.
We are all sure about the fact that thought precedes act and the fact that they are different. There is a point in which there is neither thought nor act.
We are not sure of this. You may be. It makes no sense that an act could take place if the thought process concludes. It never concludes.
This [decision] point cannot be affected by thought because otherwise it is a part of chain of thought.
It must be affected by thought, else there would have been no point to the thought. Therefore the decision is not a conscious one, as you define conscious decision. A snowball decides to melt without thought. It has no will or control in the matter.
Therefore decision is free.
So you are saying that your above statement demonstrates that decision is if X==Y then do either x or y. I just don't see how you've shown that, or what that even means.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest