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
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 3:25 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 2:13 pm
You are aware of options. You just stop causal chains related to them and try to decide.
I cannot be aware of options for which I have stopped causal chains. A chain that has stopped can affect nothing anymore, ever, including awareness. A chain that is a new chain cannot be a function of anything. Hence the guy crossing the street with your free will cannot even know there is a street and a crossing decision to be made. You need a different definition of free will.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by bahman » Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:01 pm

Noax wrote:
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

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.
There is no interpretation of mind in materialism which can explain control over thoughts and actions. That is all this thread is about. Control over thought, a chain of causality, means that you can stop them, give direction to them, etc. That is not possible within materialism when you define that everything is matter and everything else is a property of matter which is obtained by following laws of nature. Assuming otherwise (that matter does not follow the laws of nature) means that matter has mind.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:21 pm
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.
My mind doesn't execute thing deterministically. Any process in my brain however is deterministic.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:21 pm
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.
It is quite logical. We naturally follow rationality which means that we choose Y if Y>X. The problem is that we might face a case in which Y==X. That is when free decision enters and we could resolve the situation.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:21 pm
Sorry, you are right. (1) is completely the claim of materialism.
Strawman argument fallacy then. No materialist would make that claim.
You mean that claim that free decision is an illusion.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:21 pm
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.
The point has to exist. Otherwise we are either acting or following a chain of thought. We can see that this point exists in our activities when we reflect.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:21 pm
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.
It cannot be affected by thought since we agree that we can pause our thought, give direction to them, etc. We couldn't do these things if all that exist was thought and act.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:21 pm
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.
Well, I have shown that we naturally follow rationality and choose Y when Y>X unless for example we are challenged to show that we are free in a situation like this, following Y>X or not.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by bahman » Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:08 pm

Noax wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:25 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 2:13 pm
You are aware of options. You just stop causal chains related to them and try to decide.
I cannot be aware of options for which I have stopped causal chains. A chain that has stopped can affect nothing anymore, ever, including awareness. A chain that is a new chain cannot be a function of anything. Hence the guy crossing the street with your free will cannot even know there is a street and a crossing decision to be made. You need a different definition of free will.
By stopping causal chain I mean that I stop thoughts. I can focus on options when I am about to decide one option. That is what conscious decision is all about. Otherwise we have accept that decision are made unconsciously.

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 6:33 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:01 pm
There is no interpretation of mind in materialism which can explain control over thoughts and actions.
Materialism IS an interpretation of mind, and it says that mind and everything else is material or a property/process of it. Materialism does not claim that one has no control over thoughts and actions (even you say this is a material property when you say that the brain, not the immaterial mind is what produces thoughts). If you disagree with this, show me a page describing materialism that claims lack of control over thoughts and actions. You do not get to define the beliefs of a view you are attempting to disprove, else you are simply disproving your own ideas, not those held by actual materialists.

Consider a car at a stop sign, waiting to cross to the road on the other side. Materialism says it is possible for a car to do this, and a car is a material thing. You claim that a material car cannot do this. If the car is a self-driving one, it will need to observe the cross traffic and wait for a reasonable gap. The car has free will because it makes its own decisions and is capable of acting on them, and it is thus responsible for its choice of when to go. A regular car does not have free will since it is controlled by another, the driver. In this case the car is not free, and the controlling driver bears the responsibility of choosing the moment to cross. In your definition of 'conscious decision', neither car nor physical driver is free, but only this immaterial mind is, and it has no way of knowing that a decision is even needed here, else it would not be free. The model doesn't work. A blind driver cannot make a rational choice.
That is all this thread is about. Control over thought, a chain of causality, means that you can stop them, give direction to them, etc.
It kind of has has gone off on that track, yes. The title makes no mention of causality or control, only of consciousness.
That is not possible within materialism when you define that everything is matter and everything else is a property of matter which is obtained by following laws of nature.
You have not demonstrated why that is not possible.
My mind doesn't execute thing deterministically. Any process in my brain however is deterministic.
You probably have a non-materialistic definition of 'mind'. But materialism would say that they are essentially the same thing, and thus both deterministic or not. You are just making an assertion here that they are different things. This is inconsistent with the thread title. The title is a claim of the invalidity of a contrary claim. Assertions don't help you there. You have to demonstrate why materialistic claims lead to self contradiction, not just to contradiction with a different view. I am not disputing that it conflicts with your view.
It is quite logical. We naturally follow rationality which means that we choose Y if Y>X. The problem is that we might face a case in which Y==X. That is when free decision enters and we could resolve the situation.
You are just repeating yourself, forcing me to repeat the same answer to which you've not replied. There is no X and Y if their causal chains were terminated. It means nothing can be a function of X and Y anymore, else their chains were not actually terminated. For X to be terminated, no future event can ever be a function of X. For some new causal chain to be initiated, it cannot be a function of any prior state, so no learning, memory, or experience. A new causal chain is necessarily completely blind.
Noax wrote:
Sorry, you are right. (1) is completely the claim of materialism.
Strawman argument fallacy then. No materialist would make that claim.
You mean that claim that free decision is an illusion.
You edited it off, but (1) made no mention of 'free decision'.
No, materialism does not claim that 'if X==Y then do either x or y' is an illusion, but (1) was a different claim. Your wording, not mine.

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.
The point has to exist.
Perhaps or perhaps not, but mental process cannot stop ever. I suspect that a decision is more fuzzy, with the beginnings of action taking place while there is still a fair probability of being overridden with a different action. I have on multiple occasions begun to cross the street, only to abort a fraction of a second later when the speed of a vehicle was say misjudged. I would not be able to do that (or act at all) if thought ceased after the crossing decision had been made. I'd be dead by now if it worked that way.

[decisions] cannot be affected by thought since we agree that we can pause our thought, give direction to them, etc.
I did not agree that thought can be paused, and I certainly did not agree that a decision that is made without being affected the thought preceding it could be a rational one.
Well, I have shown that we naturally follow rationality and choose Y when Y>X unless for example we are challenged to show that we are free in a situation like this, following Y>X or not.
You have merely asserted this. All your arguments are mere assertions. The simplest of mechanical gadgets can do what you claim cannot be done without this 'free decision' of yours, so it is clearly wrong.

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 6:45 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:08 pm
By stopping causal chain I mean that I stop thoughts. I can focus on options when I am about to decide one option. That is what conscious decision is all about. Otherwise we have accept that decision are made unconsciously.
I disagree that thoughts can be stopped within a functioning brain, but if they could, it would not terminate causal chains. Any state left behind is still part of the causal chain. Print in a book is a causal chain allowing an author from centuries ago to cause his concepts to be conveyed to you 200 years later, despite the fact that the author's thoughts have indeed long since stopped before you read his words in the book. It is a centuries-long causal chain. Burning all copies and memory of the book might terminate our knowledge of the contents, but then no decision could be made based on those contents.

Meanwhile you cannot focus on options if your thoughts have stopped. You said that conscious decision is about initiating a causal chain, not processing prior state and considering options (with stopped thoughts no less), which would be a continuation of a chain.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by bahman » Sun Jun 24, 2018 4:24 pm

Noax wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:33 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:01 pm
There is no interpretation of mind in materialism which can explain control over thoughts and actions.
Materialism IS an interpretation of mind, and it says that mind and everything else is material or a property/process of it. Materialism does not claim that one has no control over thoughts and actions (even you say this is a material property when you say that the brain, not the immaterial mind is what produces thoughts). If you disagree with this, show me a page describing materialism that claims lack of control over thoughts and actions. You do not get to define the beliefs of a view you are attempting to disprove, else you are simply disproving your own ideas, not those held by actual materialists.
How such an interpretation of mind which controls and stops thoughts could exist in materialism when for that you need to break a laws of nature?
Noax wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:33 pm
That is all this thread is about. Control over thought, a chain of causality, means that you can stop them, give direction to them, etc.
It kind of has has gone off on that track, yes. The title makes no mention of causality or control, only of consciousness.
I should have chosen conscious decision instead of consciousness in title.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:33 pm
That is not possible within materialism when you define that everything is matter and everything else is a property of matter which is obtained by following laws of nature.
You have not demonstrated why that is not possible.
I have demonstrated that we break or create a chain of causality anytime that we make conscious decision. Don't you agree with that? Couldn't you stop your thought whenever you want?
Noax wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:33 pm
My mind doesn't execute thing deterministically. Any process in my brain however is deterministic.
You probably have a non-materialistic definition of 'mind'.
Yes, I have a non-materialist definition of mind.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:33 pm
But materialism would say that they are essentially the same thing, and thus both deterministic or not. You are just making an assertion here that they are different things. This is inconsistent with the thread title. The title is a claim of the invalidity of a contrary claim. Assertions don't help you there. You have to demonstrate why materialistic claims lead to self contradiction, not just to contradiction with a different view. I am not disputing that it conflicts with your view.
Matter follows laws of nature. A configuration of matter cannot break laws of nature. The laws of nature is break anytime we make conscious decision. This is not possible in materialism. Therefore conscious decision is not possible in materialism. That is all I am saying.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:33 pm
It is quite logical. We naturally follow rationality which means that we choose Y if Y>X. The problem is that we might face a case in which Y==X. That is when free decision enters and we could resolve the situation.
You are just repeating yourself, forcing me to repeat the same answer to which you've not replied. There is no X and Y if their causal chains were terminated. It means nothing can be a function of X and Y anymore, else their chains were not actually terminated. For X to be terminated, no future event can ever be a function of X. For some new causal chain to be initiated, it cannot be a function of any prior state, so no learning, memory, or experience. A new causal chain is necessarily completely blind.
We are aware of options otherwise we could not make conscious decision. I agree that conscious decision is blind. Learning however does not occur at the moment of decision but afterward when we follow a decided chain of causality.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:33 pm
Noax wrote: Strawman argument fallacy then. No materialist would make that claim.
You mean that claim that free decision is an illusion.
You edited it off, but (1) made no mention of 'free decision'.
No, materialism does not claim that 'if X==Y then do either x or y' is an illusion, but (1) was a different claim. Your wording, not mine.
That is correct that (1) does not mention of free decision but is mentioned in (2). Here is a short version of argument and title:

Title: "Conscious decision is not the result of matter formation"

1) Conscious decisions is the result of matter formation
2) This means that one can break causality by arranging matter in specific form
3) This is impossible within materialism framework
4) Therefore conscious decision is not the result of matter formation
Noax wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:33 pm
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. The point has to exist.
Perhaps or perhaps not, but mental process cannot stop ever. I suspect that a decision is more fuzzy, with the beginnings of action taking place while there is still a fair probability of being overridden with a different action. I have on multiple occasions begun to cross the street, only to abort a fraction of a second later when the speed of a vehicle was say misjudged. I would not be able to do that (or act at all) if thought ceased after the crossing decision had been made. I'd be dead by now if it worked that way.
Yes. A new chain of causality can always be initiated by an stimuli.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:33 pm
[decisions] cannot be affected by thought since we agree that we can pause our thought, give direction to them, etc.
I did not agree that thought can be paused, and I certainly did not agree that a decision that is made without being affected the thought preceding it could be a rational one.
I can certainly stop my thought. I am sure that you can also do it by practice. It is called meditation.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:33 pm
Well, I have shown that we naturally follow rationality and choose Y when Y>X unless for example we are challenged to show that we are free in a situation like this, following Y>X or not.
You have merely asserted this. All your arguments are mere assertions. The simplest of mechanical gadgets can do what you claim cannot be done without this 'free decision' of yours, so it is clearly wrong.
I hope things are more clearer in this round.

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 » Sun Jun 24, 2018 9:31 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 4:24 pm
How such an interpretation of mind which controls and stops thoughts could exist in materialism when for that you need to break a laws of nature?
It is hard to parse the sentence of yours here, but you seem to be talking about breaking of natural law and thoughts stopping and starting, none of which is claimed by materialism. Materialism includes a claim that no natural laws can be broken. That alone gives it much greater likelihood of being closer to the truth than your view that requires conflict with natural law and is thus unnatural.

I have demonstrated that we break or create a chain of causality anytime that we make conscious decision. Don't you agree with that?
You defined 'conscious decision' as a break/creation of such a chain. You have in no way demonstrated that you actually do this.
Couldn't you stop your thought whenever you want?
Yes, by stepping in front of a train. Thoughts stopped, but no causal chains terminated.
Yes, I have a non-materialist definition of mind.
Fine. Materialism denies the existence of one of those then, as you define it.
Matter follows laws of nature. A configuration of matter cannot break laws of nature. The laws of nature is break anytime we make conscious decision. This is not possible in materialism. Therefore conscious decision is not possible in materialism. That is all I am saying.
This is no different than saying that immaterial mind is not possible in a material-only interpretation. There is nothing profound about this. Materialism is in no way inconsistent. Your definition is immediately falsified by empirical tests, so clearly your 'conscious decisions' do not take place in any decision that matters. You do not make such a conscious decision to cross the street. It would be fatal if you did.

We are aware of options otherwise we could not make conscious decision.
Absolutely wrong. You explicitly defined it as not using awareness of options. Change the definition if you want it to take options into consideration.
Title: "Conscious decision is not the result of matter formation"

1) Conscious decisions is the result of matter formation
2) This means that one can break causality by arranging matter in specific form
How does that follow from (1)???? It fails at this point. If you use your definition of 'conscious decision', then you need to include that as a second premises, in which case the argument fails at 1 because it is defined as being an immaterial thing. It only proves that the two premises are incompatible. No materialist (an few dualists) would agree to your definition of 'conscious decision'.
Yes. A new chain of causality can always be initiated by an stimuli.
You really seem to read nothing I say. If a stimuli caused or influenced it, then the chain is a continuation of the stimuli chain, not a new chain. That's what a causal chain means. A new chain must be completely uncaused, or it wouldn't be new.

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 672
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by Conde Lucanor » Sun Jun 24, 2018 11:20 pm

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
#3 is false, so is the conclusion. Causality is not "broken" because of #2, the chain of events may be replaced by another chain of events, but causality is still there.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by bahman » Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:19 pm

Noax wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 9:31 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 4:24 pm
How such an interpretation of mind which controls and stops thoughts could exist in materialism when for that you need to break a laws of nature?
It is hard to parse the sentence of yours here, but you seem to be talking about breaking of natural law and thoughts stopping and starting, none of which is claimed by materialism. Materialism includes a claim that no natural laws can be broken. That alone gives it much greater likelihood of being closer to the truth than your view that requires conflict with natural law and is thus unnatural.
Well, I am saying that you cannot stop a chain of causality if you cannot break laws of nature. I think we can agree on the fact that we can stop our thoughts whenever we want. Showing that this is related to stopping a chain of causality is another thing. That is to me though is obvious.
Noax wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 9:31 pm
I have demonstrated that we break or create a chain of causality anytime that we make conscious decision. Don't you agree with that?
You defined 'conscious decision' as a break/creation of such a chain. You have in no way demonstrated that you actually do this.
Well, there is this tendency that your thoughts goes in specific direction and you suddenly decide to stop the chain of thought. If that is not breaking the chain of causality then it is what?
Noax wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 9:31 pm
Couldn't you stop your thought whenever you want?
Yes, by stepping in front of a train. Thoughts stopped, but no causal chains terminated.
Let's say that you make a firm decision to cross a road. Doesn't that mean that there is a chain of causality which cause you to move? You then see a train. And stop. What caused you to stop terminated the previous chain of causality? Otherwise you continue your act and probably have an accident.
Noax wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 9:31 pm
Yes, I have a non-materialist definition of mind.
Fine. Materialism denies the existence of one of those then, as you define it.
I have a prove for that that it exists. No need to say that materialism cannot explained what I have discussed so far, the existence of conscious decision.
Noax wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 9:31 pm
Matter follows laws of nature. A configuration of matter cannot break laws of nature. The laws of nature is break anytime we make conscious decision. This is not possible in materialism. Therefore conscious decision is not possible in materialism. That is all I am saying.
This is no different than saying that immaterial mind is not possible in a material-only interpretation. There is nothing profound about this. Materialism is in no way inconsistent. Your definition is immediately falsified by empirical tests, so clearly your 'conscious decisions' do not take place in any decision that matters. You do not make such a conscious decision to cross the street. It would be fatal if you did.
I don't need to talk about immaterial mind. I just need to show that materialism is inconsistent.
Noax wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 9:31 pm
We are aware of options otherwise we could not make conscious decision.
Absolutely wrong. You explicitly defined it as not using awareness of options. Change the definition if you want it to take options into consideration.
So you are not aware of options when you make a conscious decision? I am afraid that is not a conscious decision then.
Noax wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 9:31 pm
Title: "Conscious decision is not the result of matter formation"

1) Conscious decisions is the result of matter formation
2) This means that one can break causality by arranging matter in specific form
How does that follow from (1)???? It fails at this point. If you use your definition of 'conscious decision', then you need to include that as a second premises, in which case the argument fails at 1 because it is defined as being an immaterial thing. It only proves that the two premises are incompatible. No materialist (an few dualists) would agree to your definition of 'conscious decision'.
Yes, (2) doesn't follow from (1). That is what I meant:

1) Conscious decisions is the result of matter formation
2) The existence of conscious decision means that one can break causality chain
3) This is impossible within materialism framework
4) Therefore conscious decision is not the result of matter formation
Noax wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 9:31 pm
Yes. A new chain of causality can always be initiated by an stimuli.
You really seem to read nothing I say. If a stimuli caused or influenced it, then the chain is a continuation of the stimuli chain, not a new chain. That's what a causal chain means. A new chain must be completely uncaused, or it wouldn't be new.
That (bold part) makes no sense to me.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by bahman » Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:21 pm

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 11:20 pm
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
#3 is false, so is the conclusion. Causality is not "broken" because of #2, the chain of events may be replaced by another chain of events, but causality is still there.

This is new version of argument. Could I please know your opinion about this one?

1) Conscious decisions is the result of matter formation
2) The existence of conscious decision means that one can break causality chain
3) This is impossible within materialism framework
4) Therefore conscious decision is not the result of matter formation

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 » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:35 am

bahman wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:19 pm
Well, I am saying that you cannot stop a chain of causality if you cannot break laws of nature.
I think the conservation of information principle says something to that effect. So agree.
I think we can agree on the fact that we can stop our thoughts whenever we want.[/quote]I can concede this, even if I don't agree. It doesn't matter to my point. A robot can do this, and I don't think the robot is less free than I am. But cessation of mental activity is the medical definition of death for a biological creature with a central nervous system, just so you know how I view this point.
Well, there is this tendency that your thoughts goes in specific direction and you suddenly decide to stop the chain of thought. If that is not breaking the chain of causality then it is what?
Good question. The chain of causality from X (say the existence of vanilla as an ice cream option) is broken if the state of everything (not just you) is the same as if the option was not there. If there is any difference between the two states, that difference is caused by the vanilla option, and the chain is not broken. To break it, you would have to show two separate paths leading to identical states, a violation of said physics principle mentioned above.
Let's say that you make a firm decision to cross a road. Doesn't that mean that there is a chain of causality which cause you to move?
Which will cause you to move, yes. You may not be already moving at the time the firm decision is made, but you probably are. It is hard to imagine a 'firm decision', but it can be done. You are in a motorized wheel chair with a go-button and no abort button. Once the go-button is pressed, the decision cannot be undone and you cross even if you see mortal danger as the button is pressed.
You then see a train. And stop.
Wasn't a firm decision then, was it?
What caused you to stop terminated the previous chain of causality?
New information. A different cause. All actions have multiple causes and are not simple linear chains. Each action has uncountable causes. You seeing a train is a new cause that changes the action. My idea above with the go-button was a more firm example. Once pressed, you are fated to cross despite any update to your will.
Otherwise you continue your act and probably have an accident.
Yes, which is why it is hard to imagine a true firm decision.

I don't need to talk about immaterial mind. I just need to show that materialism is inconsistent.
Still waiting for that. Your premises are not materialistic ones, so you are not really showing inconsistent a view that you are not discussing.
So you are not aware of options when you make a conscious decision?
Not as you define conscious decision, no. Awareness of options is a continuation of the causal chain of the options. You said conscious decisions are not continuation of chains, so it must be done without awareness of options or awareness of the necessity of a decision even. No awareness of anything at all.
1) Conscious decisions is the result of matter formation
2) The existence of conscious decision means that one can break causality chain
3) This is impossible within materialism framework
4) Therefore conscious decision is not the result of matter formation
This is different than the OP. You redefined conscious decision as the breaking of a chain now, not the creation of a new one. Is this a start from scratch attempt with the old definitions thrown away?
What is meant by the 'break of a causality chain'? It seems to mean that options are not involved in the cause of the decision, which is sort of how you've been both asserting and denying.
Anyway, in short, I think number 2 says that the existence of your notion of a decision means one can violate natural physics, and materialism indeed does not support that, so it denies that you do any such thing when you make a decision. Materialism has no problem with you considering material decisions to be incompatible with 'one can break causality chain', so materialism is still completely consistent.
Noax wrote:A new chain must be completely uncaused, or it wouldn't be new[/b].
That (bold part) makes no sense to me.
How can you talk about causal chains if you don't understand what they are?
I don't know how to word it in simpler terms. If a decision D is caused by C (say knowledge of the availability of vanilla as an option), then D is one effect of cause C, and D is the cause of the action V (getting vanilla cone) (the chain designated C->D->V), and thus a continuation of chain that includes C. But you say D is a new chain, which means it has no prior cause, which means it cannot be an effect of C. If C->D->V, then D is not at the front of the chain, and it is not a new chain. You describe it as just D->X meaning that the decision is not a function of option C or any other option, and V is not likely to be the decision made since D is made without knowledge of it. So I put an X there as an unknown effect of a random uncaused decision.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by bahman » Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:47 pm

Noax wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:35 am
What caused you to stop the previous chain of causality?
New information. A different cause. All actions have multiple causes and are not simple linear chains. Each action has uncountable causes. You seeing a train is a new cause that changes the action. My idea above with the go-button was a more firm example. Once pressed, you are fated to cross despite any update to your will.
Yes. New information can cause rational decision. But what happen for former chain of causality? Let's say x and y are to pass and not to pass the street. X and Y are tendency to pass and not to pass the street. You start with x after you decide and realize that the road is clean. You suddenly notice that there is a train on the road. You compare X with Y and see that Y>X. You decide and retreat, initiate y. What happened for x? Where y comes from? Are you saying that new information terminates the former chain and causes new chain?

What happen if Y==Y? Your decision in this case cannot be rational.
Noax wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:35 am
I don't need to talk about immaterial mind. I just need to show that materialism is inconsistent.
Still waiting for that. Your premises are not materialistic ones, so you are not really showing inconsistent a view that you are not discussing.
Consider when X==Y in the previous example. In this case new information cannot cause you to stop of continue the motion. Therefore the decision is free by which I mean you initiate a chain of causality. Why you initiate a chain of causality? Because system is in halt.
Noax wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:35 am
1) Conscious decisions is the result of matter formation
2) The existence of conscious decision means that one can break causality chain
3) This is impossible within materialism framework
4) Therefore conscious decision is not the result of matter formation
This is different than the OP. You redefined conscious decision as the breaking of a chain now, not the creation of a new one. Is this a start from scratch attempt with the old definitions thrown away?
What is meant by the 'break of a causality chain'? It seems to mean that options are not involved in the cause of the decision, which is sort of how you've been both asserting and denying.
Anyway, in short, I think number 2 says that the existence of your notion of a decision means one can violate natural physics, and materialism indeed does not support that, so it denies that you do any such thing when you make a decision. Materialism has no problem with you considering material decisions to be incompatible with 'one can break causality chain', so materialism is still completely consistent.
For that I just need to show that a chain of causality is created when we are in situation X==Y. This is shown in the previous comment.

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 » Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:51 pm

bahman wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:47 pm
Yes. New information can cause rational decision. But what happen for former chain of causality?
Chains are usually an interconnecting network and they continue on. That's what happens to them.
Let's say x and y are to pass and not to pass the street. X and Y are tendency to pass and not to pass the street.
You are proposing a model of a multiple choice being presented with weights X and Y, of which I don't really approve since there is no mechanism to say when X or Y must be compared. But we can sort of go with this. What is x and y? Chosen decisions or actions? Hard to tell.
You start with x after you decide and realize that the road is clean. You suddenly notice that there is a train on the road. You compare X with Y and see that Y>X. You decide and retreat, initiate y. What happened for x? Where y comes from? Are you saying that new information terminates the former chain and causes new chain?
x becomes y. The choice seems to change, but is caused by awareness of clear road, and altered when a new cause (noticing a train on the road, a disturbing event) causes the choice to be altered. x and y don't get created or destroyed since they are the same thing, which is 'what I'm planning to do', and it changes as new causes alters it.
What happen if Y==Y? Your decision in this case cannot be rational.
It is not irrational to pick either if in such a case (I assume you mean X==Y). It means it doesn't seem to matter much. People and machines can call a coin toss and not be considered irrational for it.
Consider when X==Y in the previous example. In this case new information cannot cause you to stop of continue the motion. Therefore the decision is free by which I mean you initiate a chain of causality. Why you initiate a chain of causality? Because system is in halt.
Again you assert that equal odds must cause a halt, despite trivial machines that choose without this defect, and without the free will that you seem to be trying to drag into the argument.
There is precedent. A machine in a game show (like Jeopardy) need to light up the contestant that pressed the button first. Ties must be broken, and the circuitry is not trivial, but halting is not ever the outcome. Similar to a human trying to judge a tie in a race. I've seen races so close that a human cannot determine the winner, but I've never seen halting as a response. They usually defer to a device without free will if one is available.
For that I just need to show that a chain of causality is created when we are in situation X==Y. This is shown in the previous comment.
You asserted something completely different above (and I don't agree with that either). You said the decision maker was aware that X==Y, which makes the decision a continuation of the awareness of the options and their weights. A new chain would have zero causes, essentially a random event. Materialism supports those, but it doesn't seem rational to base decisions on them unless they are building a random number generator or something.

Is this thread going anywhere? You seem to just repeat the same unbacked assertions over and over, and the assertions don't even illustrate your point about materialism being inconsistent.

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 672
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by Conde Lucanor » Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:39 pm

bahman wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:21 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 11:20 pm
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
#3 is false, so is the conclusion. Causality is not "broken" because of #2, the chain of events may be replaced by another chain of events, but causality is still there.

This is new version of argument. Could I please know your opinion about this one?

1) Conscious decisions is the result of matter formation
2) The existence of conscious decision means that one can break causality chain
3) This is impossible within materialism framework
4) Therefore conscious decision is not the result of matter formation
#2 is false. The conscious decision just gets incorporated to the causality chain. I think you're confusing causality chain with deterministic causality chain.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by bahman » Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:40 pm

Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:51 pm
bahman wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:47 pm
Yes. New information can cause rational decision. But what happen for former chain of causality?
Chains are usually an interconnecting network and they continue on. That's what happens to them.
I am afraid that I don't see how they could continue on. To me it seems that they are terminated at decision point.
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:51 pm
Let's say x and y are to pass and not to pass the street. X and Y are tendency to pass and not to pass the street.
You are proposing a model of a multiple choice being presented with weights X and Y, of which I don't really approve since there is no mechanism to say when X or Y must be compared. But we can sort of go with this. What is x and y? Chosen decisions or actions? Hard to tell.
We compare X and Y at decision point. x and y are different chains of causality related to X and Y respectively.
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:51 pm
You start with x after you decide and realize that the road is clean. You suddenly notice that there is a train on the road. You compare X with Y and see that Y>X. You decide and retreat, initiate y. What happened for x? Where y comes from? Are you saying that new information terminates the former chain and causes new chain?
x becomes y. The choice seems to change, but is caused by awareness of clear road, and altered when a new cause (noticing a train on the road, a disturbing event) causes the choice to be altered. x and y don't get created or destroyed since they are the same thing, which is 'what I'm planning to do', and it changes as new causes alters it.
I don't agree that x becomes y. They are two different chains of causality.
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:51 pm
What happen if Y==Y? Your decision in this case cannot be rational.
It is not irrational to pick either if in such a case (I assume you mean X==Y). It means it doesn't seem to matter much. People and machines can call a coin toss and not be considered irrational for it.
But we don't toss a coin. We choose.
Noax wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:51 pm
Consider when X==Y in the previous example. In this case new information cannot cause you to stop of continue the motion. Therefore the decision is free by which I mean you initiate a chain of causality. Why you initiate a chain of causality? Because system is in halt.
Again you assert that equal odds must cause a halt, despite trivial machines that choose without this defect, and without the free will that you seem to be trying to drag into the argument.
There is precedent. A machine in a game show (like Jeopardy) need to light up the contestant that pressed the button first. Ties must be broken, and the circuitry is not trivial, but halting is not ever the outcome. Similar to a human trying to judge a tie in a race. I've seen races so close that a human cannot determine the winner, but I've never seen halting as a response. They usually defer to a device without free will if one is available.
You halt whenever X==Y. It could be short or could be long.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests