compatibilism

[Belinda]

No , sorry Walker, good try but I don't agree about energy. I'm not a materialist I'm an idealist. It's another another beginning with E-------- Experience.

Energy = MC squared whereas Experience is not relative to anything but itself.

Experience is relative to motion. Mind moves as thought, the body walks and chews gum. No thought, no body movement, no experience ... no existence defined by consciousness of existence.

What causes motion? Energy, i.e., bingo.

Experience is relative to motion only within a materialist frame, which was Einstein's frame as a physicist. In an idealist frame we sometimes experience motion when there is no motion at all, as in dreams or delusions, or simple vertigo. QED Experience can't ever be denied.

[henry quirk]

But are you trying to say that man is not wholly physical, that man has something more in addition to "meat"?

Well, I wasn't trying to say it: I did say it.

*

Would you mind explaining what that thing is?

I'd be glad to, but: you first. If man is just mundane matter then how is he conscious? Describe the mechanism of consciousness.

Now, if you're honest, you'll say I can't becuz we still don't understand how matter, arranged in a certain way, with a certain kind of complexity, is even alive, much less conscious, but I can tell you what I think.

And, if you're honest, and can do no better answerin' the question of how is man conscious? than that, you'll agree it's a little silly to expect me to have all the definitive answers about free will and mind as well.

But: I can tell you what I think.

[henry quirk]

Excellent point!

People are not like dead meat or other non-living things. This is because people plan for their future which dead stuff cannot do. To plan for the future we remember what regularly happened before and assume it will happen again so we can make plans to deal with it some way that will make us happy.

Moreover, we can imagine circumstances we've not actually experienced and work to bring them about. We can anticipate dangers we've never actually experienced and lay in defenses or safeguards.

We aren't stuck in what was or what is. We can play with and attempt to make real (or, attempt to keep from becomin' real) what if and what could be.

I couldn't agree more!

So, I can count you as my plus one for the next meeting of the Libertarian Free Willies (AKA: the Screw Determinism Club)?

[BigMike]

I'd be glad to, but: you first. If man is just mundane matter then how is he conscious?

As anticipated, your line of reasoning ends there, after having concluded that man is more than just meat. That is not a particularly valuable contribution to solving the question of free will. Sincerely, it seems somewhat disrespectful.

[henry quirk]

I'd be glad to, but: you first. If man is just mundane matter then how is he conscious?

As anticipated, your line of reasoning ends there, after having concluded that man is more than just meat. That is not a particularly valuable contribution to solving the question of free will. Sincerely, it seems somewhat disrespectful.

Yeah, I didn't think you'd be honest enough just to admit you don't know how matter makes consciousness. But I did think you'd take a stab at tellin' me what you think, like this...

what properties does it have?

Its immaterial and not bound up in cause & effect. It requires matter to do what it does, but is not subservient to matter.

*

Does it, for instance, interact with matter?

Yes. Poor analogy: think of software, a program, information. It has to run on hardware but is not the hardware. One affects the other without being the other.

*

If so, how, and is that interaction one- or two-way?

Both ways, back & forth. A failure in hardware affects software, a failure in software affects hardware. More generally brsin constrains mind and mind motivates brain.

*

Is its existence independent of matter, does it go on "living" after the body is dead?

I see no reason why mind ought to go on without brain.


Your turn: how does matter, just mundane matter that possess no consciousness as separate constituents and elements, become conscious?

[BigMike]

I'd be glad to, but: you first. If man is just mundane matter then how is he conscious?

As anticipated, your line of reasoning ends there, after having concluded that man is more than just meat. That is not a particularly valuable contribution to solving the question of free will. Sincerely, it seems somewhat disrespectful.

Yeah, I didn't think you'd be honest enough just to admit you don't know how matter makes consciousness. But I did think you'd take a stab at tellin' me what you think, like this...

what properties does it have?

Its immaterial and not bound up in cause & effect. It requires matter to do what it does, but is not subservient to matter.

*

Does it, for instance, interact with matter?

Yes. Poor analogy: think of software, a program, information. It has to run on hardware but is not the hardware. One affects the other without being the other.

There are only four known fundamental interactions in the known universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. All four are interactions between two bodies of matter. If your "thing" is immaterial, as you said above, and that "thing" can interact with your physical body, I suggest you write a scientific paper on your discovery. You will certainly win the Nobel Prize in physics!

Your turn: how does matter, just mundane matter that possess no consciousness as separate constituents and elements, become conscious?

Why should I? I never said that "mundane matter" is conscious.

[henry quirk]

Why should I? I never said that "mundane matter" is conscious.

This is true. I assumed you were a materialist and a determinist cuz folks who pooh-pooh free will (agent causation) usually are.

So: you're conscious, yes? By conscious I mean aware of your surroundings. Can you explain how that works? What mechanism undergirds your awareness of your surroundings?

[BigMike]

What mechanism undergirds your awareness of your surroundings?

Most individuals refer to it as the sensory system.

[henry quirk]

What mechanism undergirds your awareness of your surroundings?

Most individuals refer to it as the sensory system.

No, you're talkin' about the means of apprehendin' information.

I would like you to explain how you, when you see a rose, for example, are conscious of it, aware of it.

A camera can feed the image to a computer, but the computer doesn't see it, isn't aware of it.

Let me try this...

You see a rose, smell it, touch it: you know it's a rose, you appreciate its scent and the slipperly smoothness of the petals.

How do you do these things? What happens in your brain?

[BigMike]

Most individuals refer to it as the sensory system.

No, you're talkin' about the means of apprehendin' information.

I would like you to explain how you, when you see a rose, for example, are conscious of it, aware of it.

A camera can feed the image to a computer, but the computer doesn't see it, isn't aware of it.

Let me try this...

You see a rose, smell it, touch it: you know it's a rose, you appreciate its scent and the slipperly smoothness of the petals.

How do you do these things? What happens in your brain?

I don't care. Nobody knows. The latest research suggests it is connected to some feed-back loops in the brain. But it is totally irrelevant to the question of free will. Nonmaterial "consciousness", "free will", or whatever you want to call it, is incapable of interacting with your physical brain. That delusion or fraud is known as psychokinetics and has been debunked for quite some time. If you wish to speculate, feel free, but do not ask me to join in on that nonsense.

[henry quirk]

Okay, let's sum up...

You don't know or care how the brain does consciousness, and I can assume you also don't know or care how the brain does mind. You feel free will is not part & parcel of consciousness or, I assume, mind, and, even though you nether know or care about how the brain does mind or consciousness, you're absolutely certain free will is not possible.

Have I got it right?

[BigMike]

Okay, let's sum up...

You don't know or care how the brain does consciousness, and I can assume you also don't know or care how the brain does mind. You feel free will is not part & parcel of consciousness or, I assume, mind, and, even though you nether know or care about how the brain does mind or consciousness, you're absolutely certain free will is not possible.

Have I got it right?

Yeah. You've pretty much got it. How could nonexistent free will have anything to do with the things you've mentioned? It's common sense.

[henry quirk]

I don't see free will as a separate issue. Quite the opposite. To me : I am a free will. All these -- mind, intention, identity, reason, self-awareness, imagination, etc. -- are part & parcel of, or are synonymous with, free will.

You with me so far?

Even though you don't agree, you do understand, yes?

[BigMike]

I don't see free will as a separate issue. Quite the opposite. To me : I am a free will. All these -- mind, intention, identity, reason, self-awareness, imagination, etc. -- are part & parcel of, or are synonymous with, free will.

You with me so far?

Even though you don't agree, you do understand, yes?

Not really. I do have a will, and so does every normal person I suppose. But that will is not free. It is forced. However, you are not compelled "against your will". You are not being compelled to do something while screaming, kicking, and dragging your feet. It has absolutely nothing to do with that. Your actions are "willed" but your will did not cause or control your actions. Experiments conducted by Ben Libet suggest that it is the actions, or at least their onset, that cause your will.

[henry quirk]

I do have a will

Okay, let's talk about that.

You have a will (which I suppose is not part & parcel of consciousness or mind).

How does your will work? Where in your brain is it? How does your brain create it (or the sense of intent you feel when you exercise it)?