Is Human Nature Determined by Our Material Conditions?

[ryan]

If there is nobody to explain why the ship can't travel faster than light, then it's possible for those that don't know.

Could you say that again but without not making any sense?

Is it possible that I have 3 coins in my pocket? I actually have 2, so it was not true even though it was rationally possible. You were not given enough information, but would you ever say that it wasn't possible for me to have 3 coins in my pocket?

 

[PyramidHead]

If there is nobody to explain why the ship can't travel faster than light, then it's possible for those that don't know.

Could you say that again but without not making any sense?

Is it possible that I have 3 coins in my pocket? I actually have 2, so it was not true even though it was rationally possible. You were not given enough information, but would you ever say that it wasn't possible for me to have 3 coins in my pocket?

Forget I asked

 

[ideologyhunter]

I think he means: if a tree falls on Donald Trump but nobody hears it (except Melania, and she pretends she didn't hear it), then it's possible that Trump really paid Stormy Daniels $130G just out of compassion and not for a raw-doggin' session. Because there's no one left to explain it. Well, except Stormy. But who would believe any woman who actually gave sexual favors to Donald Trump?

 

[bilby]

If there is nobody to explain why the ship can't travel faster than light, then it's possible for those that don't know.

Could you say that again but without not making any sense?

He's arguing for the value of ignorance.

If you want to be able to fly like Superman, then knowing it is impossible is a bad thing, because it destroys your hope that it could be possible.

That total ignorance of the impossibility of such flight provides ONLY hope, but not the actual flight part of the deal, is unimportant; Ryan is seeking a way to believe in something he desires, not a way to achieve that desire.

 

[DBT]

There is an awful lot of atoms that make up a single neuron yet alone neurons themselves being entangled....even granting that, you are still left with a lack of regulative control: the ability to have chosen otherwise.

As it is, you are still left with, brain information condition equals decisions made, options taken.

I am not sure what you are getting at. If my consciousness is a bunch of neurons and the firing of these neurons are not fully determined by the environmental causes, then how is this not a human having the ability to have chosen otherwise, in at least some instances?

How do you choose the state of your neurons either way? If you cannot effect QM or the state of your neurons through an act of will, how can you claim freedom of will?

 

[PyramidHead]

The question I would ask is: how is neurons being influenced by random quantum fluctuations NOT "environmental causes"? Aren't quantum particles part of the environment just like chemicals and social institutions?

 

[ryan]

There is an awful lot of atoms that make up a single neuron yet alone neurons themselves being entangled....even granting that, you are still left with a lack of regulative control: the ability to have chosen otherwise.

As it is, you are still left with, brain information condition equals decisions made, options taken.

I am not sure what you are getting at. If my consciousness is a bunch of neurons and the firing of these neurons are not fully determined by the environmental causes, then how is this not a human having the ability to have chosen otherwise, in at least some instances?

How do you choose the state of your neurons either way? If you cannot effect QM or the state of your neurons through an act of will, how can you claim freedom of will?

Define "you" and that should answer your question.

 

[PyramidHead]

How do you choose the state of your neurons either way? If you cannot effect QM or the state of your neurons through an act of will, how can you claim freedom of will?

Define "you" and that should answer your question.

That's actually the crux of the issue, but you seem to favor the answer that you are the quantum particles that make up your neurons. That's no different from arguing for free will by saying "you" are the environmental factors that determine your behavior. It's just a word game.

 

[ryan]

The question I would ask is: how is neurons being influenced by random quantum fluctuations NOT "environmental causes"? Aren't quantum particles part of the environment just like chemicals and social institutions?

If I am anything, I am at least my neurons and its electrochemical activity. That is not my environment.

 

[PyramidHead]

The question I would ask is: how is neurons being influenced by random quantum fluctuations NOT "environmental causes"? Aren't quantum particles part of the environment just like chemicals and social institutions?

If I am anything, I am at least my neurons and its electrochemical activity. That is not my environment.

Why not? I mean, why not, apart from you just stating it. Maybe you're the higher-order functions of your mind that only emerge when complex interactions take place across multiple brain centers. In that case, the lower-level interactions that give rise to those phenomena (and thus give rise to you) are indeed your environment, no less than the food you eat or the air you breathe.

 

[ryan]

The question I would ask is: how is neurons being influenced by random quantum fluctuations NOT "environmental causes"? Aren't quantum particles part of the environment just like chemicals and social institutions?

If I am anything, I am at least my neurons and its electrochemical activity. That is not my environment.

Why not? I mean, why not, apart from you just stating it. Maybe you're the higher-order functions of your mind that only emerge when complex interactions take place across multiple brain centers. In that case, the lower-level interactions that give rise to those phenomena (and thus give rise to you) are indeed your environment, no less than the food you eat or the air you breathe.

Entire neurons may be being coupled (does not mean only two) according to https://www.news.ucsb.edu/2018/018840/are-we-quantum-computers . That's a pretty high level where consciousness is concerned. It's not just the lower levels that are entangled.

 

[PyramidHead]

Why not? I mean, why not, apart from you just stating it. Maybe you're the higher-order functions of your mind that only emerge when complex interactions take place across multiple brain centers. In that case, the lower-level interactions that give rise to those phenomena (and thus give rise to you) are indeed your environment, no less than the food you eat or the air you breathe.

Entire neurons may be being coupled (does not mean only two) according to https://www.news.ucsb.edu/2018/018840/are-we-quantum-computers . That's a pretty high level where consciousness is concerned. It's not just the lower levels that are entangled.

Even so, the mechanism that gives rise to the behavior--the fluctuation of a single quanta one way or another--originates at a level far below conscious control. Why should that count as "you" freely deciding to do something, but the spicy food you ate causing you to take a sip of water is not an example of the same thing? Both stem from internal processes you played no part in initiating, and both have effects on networks of neurons.

 

[fromderinside]

The degree of separation between macro and quantum behavior probably explains failure of continuous function being featured in individual incidents of decay at the quantum level. So why should one expect quantum behavior to be featured in any macro behavior? Macro behavior pretty reliably follows deterministic description.

 

[ryan]

Why not? I mean, why not, apart from you just stating it. Maybe you're the higher-order functions of your mind that only emerge when complex interactions take place across multiple brain centers. In that case, the lower-level interactions that give rise to those phenomena (and thus give rise to you) are indeed your environment, no less than the food you eat or the air you breathe.

Entire neurons may be being coupled (does not mean only two) according to https://www.news.ucsb.edu/2018/018840/are-we-quantum-computers . That's a pretty high level where consciousness is concerned. It's not just the lower levels that are entangled.

Even so, the mechanism that gives rise to the behavior--the fluctuation of a single quanta one way or another--originates at a level far below conscious control. Why should that count as "you" freely deciding to do something, but the spicy food you ate causing you to take a sip of water is not an example of the same thing? Both stem from internal processes you played no part in initiating, and both have effects on networks of neurons.

The binding of separated neurons firing that give rise to a holistic conscious control is not understood. An extremely convenient explanation is if these neurons were connected as one through quantum entaglement. It seems to solve one of the binding problems quite nicely.

 

[ryan]

The degree of separation between macro and quantum behavior probably explains failure of continuous function being featured in individual incidents of decay at the quantum level. So why should one expect quantum behavior to be featured in any macro behavior? Macro behavior pretty reliably follows deterministic description.

Mathew Fisher explains this in the link that I keep posting https://www.news.ucsb.edu/2018/018840/are-we-quantum-computers

 

[DBT]

How do you choose the state of your neurons either way? If you cannot effect QM or the state of your neurons through an act of will, how can you claim freedom of will?

Define "you" and that should answer your question.

The question was not about your constituent parts but regulative control, the ability to have chosen otherwise within the conditions you were in. But as it appears, the ability to consciously choose does not extend to the level of cellular activity yet alone molecular, atomic or subatomic scales.

 

[ryan]

How do you choose the state of your neurons either way? If you cannot effect QM or the state of your neurons through an act of will, how can you claim freedom of will?

Define "you" and that should answer your question.

The question was not about your constituent parts but regulative control, the ability to have chosen otherwise within the conditions you were in. But as it appears, the ability to consciously choose does not extend to the level of cellular activity yet alone molecular, atomic or subatomic scales.

A neuron is a cell, so are you saying that the ability to choose does not extend to neural activity. And the theory is that the neurons may be entangled, not just molecules.

 

[DBT]

The question was not about your constituent parts but regulative control, the ability to have chosen otherwise within the conditions you were in. But as it appears, the ability to consciously choose does not extend to the level of cellular activity yet alone molecular, atomic or subatomic scales.

A neuron is a cell, so are you saying that the ability to choose does not extend to neural activity. And the theory is that the neurons may be entangled, not just molecules.

This issue is related to the conscious activity of networks of cells/the brain, and conscious regulative control....whether conscious activity has the ability or autonomy to alter the course of quantum activity, or even the information condition of cells and networks in order to interupt or alter normal causality in favour of will, thereby qualifying as freewill, the ability to have done otherwise under the same conditions by exercising willful regulative control.

Which does not appear to be the way our brain functions, or how the world works.

 

[PyramidHead]

The question was not about your constituent parts but regulative control, the ability to have chosen otherwise within the conditions you were in. But as it appears, the ability to consciously choose does not extend to the level of cellular activity yet alone molecular, atomic or subatomic scales.

A neuron is a cell, so are you saying that the ability to choose does not extend to neural activity. And the theory is that the neurons may be entangled, not just molecules.

You're committing a linguistic fallacy here and you must be well aware of it at this point. A neuron is a cell, yes, and the ability to consciously choose does not extend to neurons. Whether it extends to neural activity (the coordinated behavior of billions of neurons!) is another concept entirely (and the answer is also no).

 

[ryan]

The question was not about your constituent parts but regulative control, the ability to have chosen otherwise within the conditions you were in. But as it appears, the ability to consciously choose does not extend to the level of cellular activity yet alone molecular, atomic or subatomic scales.

A neuron is a cell, so are you saying that the ability to choose does not extend to neural activity. And the theory is that the neurons may be entangled, not just molecules.

This issue is related to the conscious activity of networks of cells/the brain, and conscious regulative control....whether conscious activity has the ability or autonomy to alter the course of quantum activity, or even the information condition of cells and networks in order to interupt or alter normal causality in favour of will, thereby qualifying as freewill, the ability to have done otherwise under the same conditions by exercising willful regulative control.

Which does not appear to be the way our brain functions, or how the world works.

Just because things don't appear one way to you doesn't mean that they aren't that way.