Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
-
Features
Downward Causation: Useful or Misguided Idea?
- Thread starter Copernicus
- Start date
DBT
Contributor
So what does it mean to be human in a deterministic universe?
Subsymbolic
Screwtape
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2017
- Messages
- 806
- Location
- Under the Gnomon
- Basic Beliefs
- Beliefs are an ancient theory of brain content which would be ripe for rejection except it's the idiom in which we came to know ourselves and thus elimination is problematic. We make it up from there
First find your deterministic universe...
DBT
Contributor
Begin with a working definition of a deterministic universe?
Subsymbolic
Screwtape
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2017
- Messages
- 806
- Location
- Under the Gnomon
- Basic Beliefs
- Beliefs are an ancient theory of brain content which would be ripe for rejection except it's the idiom in which we came to know ourselves and thus elimination is problematic. We make it up from there
Well, a necessary but not sufficient part of that definition would be one in which this:
https://www.quora.com/What-does-Bells-inequality-mean-in-laymans-terms
wasn't the case.
And in the case of physical determinism, one in which this wasn't the case too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach–Tarski_paradox
Because logical determinism is not the same as physical determinism and a brain that can do logic (or maths) can arrive at conclusions, and thus behaviour that cannot be arrived at any other way. Which, of course, would be downward causation...
untermensche
Contributor
For a mind to act it has to be in a deterministic universe.
When the mind orders the body to move if there is no determinism nothing will happen.
When the mind orders the body to move if there is no determinism nothing will happen.
Subsymbolic
Screwtape
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2017
- Messages
- 806
- Location
- Under the Gnomon
- Basic Beliefs
- Beliefs are an ancient theory of brain content which would be ripe for rejection except it's the idiom in which we came to know ourselves and thus elimination is problematic. We make it up from there
Of course. However, that doesn't preclude the now well proven fact that the universe is, in fact, stochastic. Ironically, it's now equally clear that the brain is also stochastic, and couldn't actually function as it does if it wasn't. As such, you might say that the fact that we are not determined is overdetermined.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stochastic
untermensche
Contributor
There is a randomness at a level humans cannot perceive but that randomness does not extend to the scale humans can observe.
In the intact human the mind tells the arm to move and it does every time.
In the intact human the mind tells the arm to move and it does every time.
Subsymbolic
Screwtape
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2017
- Messages
- 806
- Location
- Under the Gnomon
- Basic Beliefs
- Beliefs are an ancient theory of brain content which would be ripe for rejection except it's the idiom in which we came to know ourselves and thus elimination is problematic. We make it up from there
Meh.
untermensche
Contributor
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Berger's 'Social Construction of Reality' is a good start
First you need to delineate between the 'man on the street' and the 'philosopher'.
The former takes their own existence for granted, and so the 'meaning' is whatever life is. Having kids, surviving, social norms. For this person free will or lack thereof is irrelevant. We could sit here arguing about the nature of reality all day, even write a book about it, and this person would experience their life no differently. They conform to social and biological norms.
For the philosopher existence isn't taken for granted, and to some extent life is a process of definition and re-definition. Who am I? Why am I here? Where did I come from? Which seems to lead to a place of alienation from the 'man on the street', but the essential experience of living is unchanged. We're still human in a man-made society, just better equipped to bend our environment to our will, than vice versa.
No matter how we define consciousness or whatever buzz-word of the day, the experience of being human remains essentially unchanged, other than our conceptual understanding of what's happening. Most of the time, this conceptual understanding just doesn't matter unless it's helping us accomplish something.
My two cents.
DBT
Contributor
A brain that can do logic is a brain that has the necessary 'wiring' to do logic.
untermensche
Contributor
Subsymbolic
Screwtape
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2017
- Messages
- 806
- Location
- Under the Gnomon
- Basic Beliefs
- Beliefs are an ancient theory of brain content which would be ripe for rejection except it's the idiom in which we came to know ourselves and thus elimination is problematic. We make it up from there
Well, kinda.
It's certainly the case that mental states supervene on physical states. That's just a commitment to monism. However, rather than argue something I've demonstrated before, to no discernable effect, I'll just point you at the work of Donald Davidson and Jaegwon Kim on anomalous monism. This isn't an argument, merely pointing you in a direction that is available. However, if you want to argue the case, rather than making a statement of what seems intuitively obvious to you and assuming that stands as a refutation, as both you and UM have done, I'd suggest that you have a go at explaining how the Banach Tarski paradox is remotely possible if what you imply is true.
If understanding the mind/brain were as simple as following what is intuitively obvious, there wouldn't be a problem with understanding how we work.
As for UM, until he realises that the public relations department isn't the management...
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
From your Wiki link:
"The reason the Banach–Tarski theorem is called a paradox is that it contradicts basic geometric intuition."
Well, me, I think that's a bit off. I could explain but I'd rather see you take your DBT medicine first...
EB
untermensche
Contributor
Try to use your mind to move your arm.
You will get an inkling of what is in charge.
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Blows my mind! Could you explain that, "brains don't do logic"?
And what about computers?
And what about my logic assistant-professor, back in the days? I sure thought that what he was doing was logic, and teaching us logic! Yet, all I could see was his body, of course. His mind was probably something he was keen to keep for himself, I guess.
Brains don't do logic, that'd be a phrase very chic to utter here in Paris. Can I quote you on that?
EB
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Try to use your mind to eat your brain.
You will get an inkling of what is in charge.
EB
untermensche
Contributor
If brains did logic then humans would naturally be logical.
They are not. They are naturally illogical.
It takes a mind and the right training and experience to be logical.
A brain is not enough.
We know logic exists in minds.
It is doubtful and certainly not proven that the brain knows what exists in the mind.