I am completely shocked
that you deliberately ignored the implications of the articles.
Noone who disagrees with you is going to see the same implications.
Some, like you, will deliberately ignore the implications. If they actually lack the neural substructure to perceive the implications of the articles, I don't see how they could be convinced.
Neural structures, fed data, react and feed data to other structures. The consciousness generated by the neural structures might have an influence on the neural structures, since the neural structures are a bit more dynamic than atoms in a permanent magnet, but ultimately the will generated by the structures is not free of the structures which have been built by the interplay of environmental (both internal and external) forces.
Why would it need to be?
It isn't, and doesn't. The will is determined by multiple factors that cause it to be what it is. Will is no more free than a rock in the Earth's gravity is free.
So physicists consult with philosophers on anything other than philosophy of science courses?
Telling lies still isn't an argument.
So you weren'tpresenting an argument. It still seems disingenuous, as the subject of that thread revolved around the use of philosophy, and then you made that claim and never backed it up. At the very least, it was reckless to claim that physicists regularly consult with philosophers, especially since they apparently don't (although the physicist I asked said a physicist might consult a philosopher in some circumstance after first scoffing and saying "why would a physicist consult a philosopher?").
Telling lies still isn't going to get you anywhere.
You didn't make the apparently false claim that it was a common practice for physicists to consult with philosophers where you worked, and then go on to claim that mathematicians and statisticians did as well, and never (to my knowledge) back up the claim with any examples?
You didn't claim it was university policy to have philosophers consult with physicists, mathematicians, statisticians, etc., and not name the university or the policy name/number, or provide any corroborating statements whatsoever?
I mean, if I was arguing with someone who deliberately makes stuff up and presents it as the truth...
I don't think I'd ever get over it.
Telling lies still won't get you anywhere.
Seriously,
, why did you make those claims and not back them up?
On that note, why don't you back up your claim that LFW exists without using multiple appeals to ignorance in LFW of the gaps style arguments?
You're arguing that the entire history of the universe is a single unbroken chain of determined events
A 4+ dimensional web of events is not a single chain by any means.
A single interlocking branching and weaving chain, but still a single-source unbroken chain nonetheless. An event in the present is still linked to the distant past, and events in the distant past are still, by definition, better predictors of future events than events in the present.
In what chaotic system is that true:
Chaotic map List of chaotic maps
??
In any chaotic system that is determined, by definition.
Only if you equivocate the meaning of your statement in various ways- you know exactly what I meant by the question, and deliberately chose to ignore the implied context of my question. Funny...
One can extract statistical data from event
s (plural) and predict the likelihood of future events based on this data. However, individual events in a chaotic tapestry of events are
not good predictors of future events- one can't predict the effect of a butterfly flapping its wings. It's true that the further in the past the individual event is, the greater the impact of the single event on the future of the system. It's not true that a single event in the past is a better predictor of the future than a single event now, in a system which behaves chaotically- the system behaves chaotically.
LFW requiring independence from a physical brain
It requires independence from what causes it to have the characteristics that it has which cause it to pick certain paths.
Why? The only requirement is that it isn't determined.
Independence from what determines it to be what it is is what is required. You know that you can no more decide to post a rational argument for LFW (because one doesn't exist) than you can decide to stop arguing for it, because you do not have LFW, and cannot stop arguing for it because of your lack of LFW which is determined by variables which you have no control over if you have the overwhelming desire not to control them.
The qualia of strawberry sundae (in a consciousness) cannot be broken down into individual momentum, position, charge, etc. portions and maintain an adequate description of the whole. In other words, you can't look at something as simply momentum, position, charge, etc. and capture the essence of the whole. The wavefunction of a strawberry sundae definitely does not capture the qualia, or describe it in a very meaningful way.
This is a discussion of qualia and the question of whether descriptions of qualities can scale. I'm not seeing the connection between this and QM.
So you can't see how the qualia of a strawberry sundae can be reconciled with the measurements of QM, since the measurements of QM do not include all of the properties of the system?
If you can't measure the strawberryness of an electron...
But that's a problem with any reduction. When you break down an explanation of the whole into an explanation of the parts, then information is lost.
An explanation is never the whole, it is only a symbolic representation of the whole.
You're still not making a point specific to QM.
QM doesn't describe all the properties of the system. That's been the
point all along.
Yes, of course I've observed something changing without observing anything changing it.
But you know something changed it, because you're not a moron.
I
assume something changed it. Your claim was that I observed it, and that claim is false.
You've perceived that stuff does not change without something changing it, because everything that you've seen indicates this, because you're not a moron. Reality creates will, will impacts reality, reality molds will, will impacts reality, and you end up with a pearl because of the irritation of reality by the will it created.
I should point out that every example you've given that purports to be an observation of determinism turns out to be nothing of the kind.
Are you still claiming to observe determinism in the world?
Of course I perceive (observe) determinism in the world. Anyone who doesn't is remarkably misinformed.
Turn the question around. Have you ever observed an event, and every single factor that was involved in that outcome. I haven't. I don't think it's possible. Yet this is what you're telling me you're observing. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask how.
I never said we observe every single factor.
Then how can you claim to have observed determinism?
I have perceived enough causality to perceive that there is always a cause for every event in the world around me. At some point you stop thinking that apples will spontaneously start floating the next day.
Under determinism, the effect is still the ball being set into motion. It was set into motion by the stick, which was set into motion by my hand, which was set into motion by my brain, which was set into motion by my upbringing and genetics, which was set into motion by my existence, which was set into my motion by my parents, who were set into motion by a power cut, and so on back to the dawn of time. It doesn't make sense, under this system to assign the status of 'cause' to any specific step in the chain. Everything, all phenomena, and all events throughout all of history, have at best a single cause, the Big Bang, and even the status is that is dodgy (since it violates determinism). At worse, the concept of cause becomes an illusion.
So what if there is an originating cause that was uncaused? That's obvious. Equally as obvious are the characteristics of the originating cause are what determined the evolution of the causal system.
Missing the point. The problem is that you lose causation as a useful concept.
No you don't. If you understand the potential consequences of pushing the boulder (it might be fun to watch it bound around down the hill- but it might run into a person or a house, which would be detrimental) because you have previous statistical information about causality to access, you can determine whether or not you should push the boulder. Certain forms of brain damage might cause you to not have access to the information, and cause you to push the boulder despite the house at the bottom of the hill, or perhaps you don't like the owner of the house (which would explain why you argue for LFW: you hate reality).
If reality causes you to think certain things about reality (brain structure, environmental variables that impact brain structure, etc.), you don't actually have to argue for the position. It could be that certain individuals are simply unable to understand reality, because it is deterministic in the sense that you can't mix potato with a cucumber and get a toccata and fugue in d minor any more than you can get understanding from an inadequate neural substructure.
Great, so the world is divided into the believers and the unbelievers, who lack the undefinable substance to fully appreciate the majesty of G- sorry, of your theory.
Do I really need to explain the flaw with that one?
You definitely don't need to explain how your reply evolved from an inadequate neural substructure.
????
lol... good one.
It illustrates the exact same thing. A brain is not the consciousness it creates, even though the consciousness is one with the brain (while the brain might have its own agendas).
I think I understand what you're saying, but your choice of languge would commit you to dualism. You're insisting that there is something (consciousness) that is totally mental and has no physical component.
A magnet is physical. A magnetic field is physical. A brain is physical. A consciousness is physical. That's not dualism.
Also, we're not talking about consciousness, we're talking about the concept of 'you' - that is, personal identity. Consciousness might well be part of that concept, but I'd suggest that my feet are part of me as well.
They are part of the body which is linked with your consciousness, which is you. I suppose you're attempting to cloud the issue with more BS, as usual.
And my brain. Which means that I can share identity with my brain - we can talk about what my brain is doing and it's still me.
No you can't. There are plenty of parts of your brain that are not you, because you are a consciousness (unless I'm talking to a philosophical zombie, which might explain a bit of your inaccuracies in perception of reality).
I actually considered that: you may be a brain without any actual consciousness. In other words, I'm speaking to neural structures which do not include or take into account a consciousness generated by the neural structures.
There could very well be a consciousness generated by your brain, but your brain is completely unaware of it, and it is not downwardly causal because your brain lacks awareness of it.
