quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

In short, the article seems to imply that we're tricked into perceiving ourselves to have free will/consciousness because when we believe that this is the case, we work better together with others.

What are we to make of claims against free will which, by definition, have not been freely considered and are not being freely advanced?

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

However, considering that the studies also indicate that believe in free will in and of itself influences behavior, it also begs the question whether it really matters if we're truly conscious or not, because merely believing that we are seems to put us in a position where we'll have the perception of having more desirable/more divers options available to us.

If I am not conscious..... then who, precisely, is believing that I am?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Ah... he is only world renowned theoretical physicist ...how could I use him as an example...especially when we have you to correct him...

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

I mean cows and horses have brains and they are not "just like us," are they?

Sure they are.

quote:

But I will stand by the brain thingy until you show me an alternative.

I already did, but you pretended I didn't make those posts.

quote:

Whether you then want to argue that it's molecules, or past experiences which shape our current behavior is just a matter of how far down the causal chain you want to go.

quote:

In his Mind and Cosmos (2012), Nagel argues against a materialist view of the emergence of life and consciousness, writing that the standard neo-Darwinian view flies in the face of common sense.[9] He argues that the principles that account for the emergence of life may be teleological, rather than materialist or mechanistic.[10]

Nagel is an atheist and not a proponent of intelligent design (ID), though The New York Times reported that the book was "praised by creationists."[

quote:

We cannot explain how or why an assemblage of insentient material could or would have any subjective internal experience at all, let alone a rich emotional life and a sense of self.

quote:

The idea that consciousness is an emergent quality of sufficiently complex systems begs the question. We have no idea how insentient chemicals could possibly develop a conscious awareness of their existence in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

UllrsIshtar

quote:

Whether you then want to argue that it's molecules, or past experiences which shape our current behavior is just a matter of how far down the causal chain you want to go.

No. I was referring to past experiences of the individual within her lifetime and in some cases due to environmental influences on the parents. Not at all talking about behavior as a product of the long chain of evolution. Molecules do not carry memory AFAIK. Sorry I was not more clear in writing.

quote:

Sorry. Point out a post number and I will return to it.

quote:

That very first behavior, or the first animal, who in turn influenced all the others in the causal chain, was influenced by the multi cell organism it came from, back all the way to atoms bumping into each other a certain way causing it all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

If you believe in determinism, then the inescapable conclusion is that everything we do was inevitable since the big bang. If you believe that it's not, then there is -at some point- room for spontaneous action, in which case it because silly to argue that we now don't have free will, but somebody, somewhere did, and they started a causal chain that's now making it impossible for us to choose to do anything other than what we do.

Give him one free miracle and he'll explain the rest.

K.

Your comments are becoming more lame, K.

UllrsIshtar's determinism not only fails to fit the neo-Darwinian narrative of evolution it also fails examination by common sense. If all human behavior arose from a single template we would all pretty much behave the same and make the same human choices. Obviously, we don't.

(in reply to Kirata)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

UllrsIshtar's determinism not only fails to fit the neo-Darwinian narrative of evolution it also fails examination by common sense. If all human behavior arose from a single template we would all pretty much behave the same and make the same human choices. Obviously, we don't.

The only person talking about evolution is you, and nobody ever said or even implied that determinism would result in all human behavior being rubber-stamped from the same template.



K.

Much improved sarcasm, K. I knew I merited something more creative than your previous lame attempts

quote:

UllrsIshtar: Your parents were influenced by their parents who were influenced by their parents, etc.

I never said that nor implied it. UllrsIshtar expanded and distorted what I said.

quote:

UllrsIshtar: That very first behavior, or the first animal, who in turn influenced all the others in the causal chain, was influenced by the multi cell organism it came from, back all the way to atoms bumping into each other a certain way causing it all.

That is certainly a statement of evolution albeit absurd and not one I ascribe to, so it is UllrsIshtar on the horse.

(in reply to Kirata)

quote:

The only person talking about evolution is you,

quote:

In his Mind and Cosmos (2012), Nagel argues against a materialist view of the emergence of life and consciousness, writing that the standard neo-Darwinian view flies in the face of common sense.[9] He argues that the principles that account for the emergence of life may be teleological, rather than materialist or mechanistic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The only person talking about evolution is you,

So, yeah, again you're wrong. You did bring this guy into the thread and now you claim no one was talking about evolution. That's a tad weasely I think.

quote:

In his Mind and Cosmos (2012), Nagel argues against a materialist view of the emergence of life and consciousness, writing that the standard neo-Darwinian view flies in the face of common sense.[9] He argues that the principles that account for the emergence of life may be teleological, rather than materialist or mechanistic

Try to focus on the screen instead of what your lamp-socket is telling you.

"There are no truly emergent properties of complex systems. All properties of complex systems that are not relations between it and something else derive from the properties of its constituents and their effects on each other when so combined." ~link

Nothing in that quote injects evolution into the discussion.

K.