Determinism, free will, consciousness and emergent phenomena

[davidv]

Size matters. think of a couple of molecules of water. They are not wet. But a large assembly of them is wet.

This looks like a case of unreasonable empiricism. Water, by definition, is wet. Our inability to experience the wetness of two, or even one, molecules does not mean wetness is absent.

 

[STT]

This looks like a case of unreasonable empiricism. Water, by definition, is wet. Our inability to experience the wetness of two, or even one, molecules does not mean wetness is absent.

How about other state of matter, conductor, semiconductor, superconductor, etc.?

 

[Tomdstone]

How about other state of matter, conductor, semiconductor, superconductor, etc.?

Superconductivity is a good example because an electron in a metal normally is repelled by other electrons and behaves as a free particle so you don’t have the superconductivity effect. It is only when a pair of electrons bind together - because of the the electron–phonon interaction at low temperatures resulting in the pair having a lower energy than the Fermi energy - that you will get it.

 

[tonyrey]

Size matters. think of a couple of molecules of water. They are not wet. But a large assembly of them is wet.

Exactly!

 

[tonyrey]

Size matters. think of a couple of molecules of water. They are not wet. But a large assembly of them is wet.

How many molecules of water are required for wetness to exist? Please cite a scientific authority.

 

[STT]

How many molecules of water are required for wetness to exist? Please cite a scientific authority.

I did extensive google search but I couldn’t find anything interesting. I however think that the number of molecules could be smaller than number of molecules you can find in a drop of water. What we know is that the wetness is related to surface tension of any liquid when we have enough number of molecules.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Well, that is a nice way of putting things together. The free will ability however just appears when the size of system is huge enough.

I like to think of it this way: If I write a novel with an evil character in it who does all kinds of nasty things and gets punished for them at the end, it’s true that he only did those things because I wrote his character, but it doesn’t mean that he didn’t voluntarily choose to do those evil things or that he didn’t deserve the punishment he got at the end of the book.

That’s not a perfect analogy, but I think it illustrates sufficiently how we can have free will despite cosmologically not being able to choose any choices but the ones which we have made and will make.

After all, anyone who read the Harry Potter series never got mad at J K Rowling for Professor Umbridge’s behavior, but attributes it to Unbridge’s own choices despite the fact that Unbridge was written by Rowling.

 

[Aloysium]

Let’s tweak the “novel” analogy.

• Spoiler Alert! -

You and I are Professor Umbridges.
J K Rowling has set this scenario where we are sitting in front of screens and monitors communicating with each other.

She’s actually written herself into the story. In fact it is all about the relationship we have with the author, the climax being where we awaken to or run from knowing the true reality that she is.

She does not decide what we will do; rather we do, by creating the character we wish to be.

Now, she is in the story and outside the story. The book is written from her perspective, including all the parts where she engages with us. For us in the story, who must decide what to do, there is a past that is unchangeable, and a future which we determine.

The aim of these characters is to come alive, to be with the author outside the book.
In order to wake up, what we have to do is synchronize what we do with what we are intended to do.
When the first Professor Umbridge was written into the story of creation, he was given that choice, but declined. As the “stem cell” of all humanity, this set our fate.

In order to get us back on track the author wrote herself into the story, a new Professor Umbridge, who would be subject to the same circumstances as the rest, and while not becoming a villain, would take upon himself all the evil that we do. Dying and reborn, he reconciles us with our author.

That would be the rough draft of the synopsis. I’m not entirely happy with it; needs more love.

 

[tonyrey]

I did extensive google search but I couldn’t find anything interesting. I however think that the number of molecules could be smaller than number of molecules you can find in a drop of water. What we know is that the wetness is related to surface tension of any liquid when we have enough number of molecules.

This has nothing to do with my post:

There is no obvious reason why size has anything to do with our power to choose how to behave or not to behave. From a scientific point of view we cannot violate the principle of conservation of energy because we are biological machines incapable of original activity.

Do you believe we have that power or not?

 

[STT]

This has nothing to do with my post:

Do you believe we have that power or not?

I think we have the power to choose.

 

[tonyrey]

I think we have the power to choose.

Bravo! For many years materialists have been attempting to reduce consciousness to brain activity - which amounts to endowing neural impulses with awareness of what they are doing! In my view it is preposterous because our primary data are not tangible objects but our intangible thoughts, emotions and decisions. We **infer **the existence of the physical world from our perceptions as well as controlling ourselves and things with the power of our mind - without which we would be incapable of choosing what to believe and how to act. Materialists don’t realise their theory is literally self-destructive because without the self there is no such thing as self-control or independent thought. We would be biological machines subject to the law of conservation of energy and incapable of reaching our own conclusions about anything - including the power to choose. We would have no guarantee we can ever know the truth given that there are far more ways of being wrong than right. Determinism is obviously false because it is self-contradictory. We have demonstrated time and time again that we can control our behaviour and environment for better or for worse (terms which are meaningless in a mindless world). The only **rational **explanation is that the brain is simply a physical organ used by the mind for **rational **activity! Otherwise we are getting something for nothing…

 

[Tomdstone]

Bravo! For many years materialists have been attempting to reduce consciousness to brain activity - which amounts to endowing neural impulses with awareness of what they are doing! In my view it is preposterous because our primary data are not tangible objects but our intangible thoughts, emotions and decisions. We **infer **the existence of the physical world from our perceptions as well as controlling ourselves and things with the power of our mind - without which we would be incapable of choosing what to believe and how to act. Materialists don’t realise their theory is literally self-destructive because without the self there is no such thing as self-control or independent thought. We would be biological machines subject to the law of conservation of energy and incapable of reaching our own conclusions about anything - including the power to choose. We would have no guarantee we can ever know the truth given that there are far more ways of being wrong than right. Determinism is obviously false because it is self-contradictory. We have demonstrated time and time again that we can control our behaviour and environment for better or for worse (terms which are meaningless in a mindless world). The only **rational **explanation is that the brain is simply a physical organ used by the mind for **rational **activity! Otherwise we are getting something for nothing…

Birds, dogs and cats are conscious.

 

[cfauster]

Birds, dogs and cats are conscious.

Yes, in a way …

“The emergentist pursues every bit of common ground that he can discover between
humans and other animals — from the common chemical composition and structure of
DNA through the mechanisms of cell communication and regeneration to the development
of a central nervous system and brain to behavioural similarities to physiological responses.
Nerve cell similarities, for example, allow us to learn from
electrochemical responses in electric eels; brain plasticity is similar in frogs and
humans; we learn about our own social nature from mirror cells and from the
rudimentary theory of other minds in chimpanzees. Reconciling behaviours among
the great apes, and mutual caretaking among bonobos, help us understand our own
interdependencies more fully. All these continuities are for the good from a
scientific perspective.”

But …

“Yet humans are also discontinuous with our animal cousins. The significantly
larger frontal cortex and more complex anatomy of our brains has produced a
mental life and corresponding behaviours that are qualitatively different from our
closest animal relatives. We are, as Terrence Deacon so beautifully describes it,
‘the symbolic species’. One difference gives rise to another, in a beautiful
cascading effect of exponentially increasing complexity. Our disproportionately
large brains give rise to more varied language use and linguistic play; and more
complex language use in turn produces anatomical changes, such as larger
language areas, greater brain plasticity, and more complex interrelationships
among the brain regions. This is the famous thesis of the ‘coevolution’ of human
brains and human culture. Quantitative increases in complexity eventually lead to
qualitative differences, the emergence of new types of systems with correspondingly new types of causation.”

The above comes from:

The Emergence of Spirit: From Complexity to Anthropology to Theology?
The Boyle Lecture for 2006, by Philip Clayton

 

[STT]

Bravo! For many years materialists have been attempting to reduce consciousness to brain activity - which amounts to endowing neural impulses with awareness of what they are doing!

I think consciousness and ability to decide is the result of neural impulses. In fact you can disturb your decision by applying a electromagnetic filed. I have a thread on this topic
in here. We already discuss consciousness and I provided an article for that.

In my view it is preposterous because our primary data are not tangible objects but our intangible thoughts, emotions and decisions.

This view is not preposterous. There is a strong correlation between neurobiological activities and consciousness.

We **infer **the existence of the physical world from our perceptions as well as controlling ourselves and things with the power of our mind - without which we would be incapable of choosing what to believe and how to act. Materialists don’t realise their theory is literally self-destructive because without the self there is no such thing as self-control or independent thought.

The self is the result of neuobiological activities. We know well that people with Alzheimer loses the self in late stage of disease. This is a set of people’s self portrait with Alzheimer.

We would be biological machines subject to the law of conservation of energy and incapable of reaching our own conclusions about anything - including the power to choose.

It seems that you didn’t understand OP. Everything is possible with emergent phenomena.

We would have no guarantee we can ever know the truth given that there are far more ways of being wrong than right. Determinism is obviously false because it is self-contradictory. We have demonstrated time and time again that we can control our behaviour and environment for better or for worse (terms which are meaningless in a mindless world). The only **rational **explanation is that the brain is simply a physical organ used by the mind for **rational **activity! Otherwise we are getting something for nothing…

Mind could be the result of physical activities. Again people with Alzheimer loses the rational power in late stage of disease.

 

[tonyrey]

Bravo! For many years materialists have been attempting to reduce consciousness to brain activity - which amounts to endowing neural impulses with awareness of what they are doing!

“disturb” implies that neural impulses don’t make the decision but implement it. How would** they** be one mind?

In my view it is preposterous because our primary data are not tangible objects but our intangible thoughts, emotions and decisions.

This view is not preposterous. There is a strong correlation between neurobiological activities and consciousness.

Correlation is not the same as causation. They are the result of **a person’s **decision.

We **infer **

the existence of the physical world from our perceptions as well as controlling ourselves and things with the power of our mind - without which we would be incapable of choosing what to believe and how to act. Materialists don’t realise their theory is literally self-destructive because without the self there is no such thing as The self is the result of neuobiological activities. We know well that people with Alzheimer loses the self in late stage of disease. This is a set of people’s self portrait with Alzheimer.

If the self is a result it has no power, no self-control and no consciousness of self. It isn’t even an entity!

We would be biological machines subject to the law of conservation of energy and incapable of reaching our own conclusions about anything - including the power to choose.

It seems that you didn’t understand OP.

Ad hominem.

Everything is possible with emergent phenomena.

An act of faith which requires proof…

We would have no guarantee we can ever know the truth given that there are far more ways of being wrong than right. Determinism is obviously false because it is self-contradictory. We have demonstrated time and time again that we can control our behaviour and environment for better or for worse (terms which are meaningless in a mindless world). The only **rational **

explanation is that the brain is simply a physical organ used by the mind for **rational **activity! Otherwise we are getting something for nothing… Mind could be the result of physical activities. Again people with Alzheimer loses the rational power in late stage of disease.

“could be” contradicts "The self is the result of neuobiological activities! Which is it to be?

 

[tonyrey]

Bravo! For many years materialists have been attempting to reduce consciousness to brain activity - which amounts to endowing neural impulses with awareness of what they are doing! In my view it is preposterous because our primary data are not tangible objects but our intangible thoughts, emotions and decisions. We **infer **

There is no evidence that they are conscious of themselves - and you haven’t refuted a single one of my statements…

 

[STT]

“disturb” implies that neural impulses don’t make the decision but implement it.

What do you mean?

How would** they** be one mind?

This is called emergent phenomena.

Correlation is not the same as causation. They are the result of **a person’s **decision.

How you could possibly know that something cause another thing? Through the correlation.

If the self is a result it has no power, no self-control and no consciousness of self. It isn’t even an entity!

The thing becomes a being when the self emerges. That is all which matters.

Ad hominem.

So can you explain what the OP is about?

An act of faith which requires proof…

Think of matter as something which could have form. Is there any limit for type of form? No. This means that we could have infinite type of emergent phenomena.

“could be” contradicts "The self is the result of neuobiological activities! Which is it to be?

Yes. The self is the result of neurobiological activities. That was my mistake.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is no evidence that they are conscious of themselves -

I think that there is evidence that birds,cats and dogs are conscious. Did you ever own a cat or a dog? Even His Eminence Roger Cardinal Mahony has said that cats go to cat heaven, when they die.
Recently, I tossed a piece of bread high in the air, and a bird swooped down and caught it in his beak before it fell to the ground. How would he have been able to do that without consciousness?
How would a dog be able to respond to you without consciousness?

 

[Aloysium]

I think that there is evidence that birds,cats and dogs are conscious. Did you ever own a cat or a dog? Even His Eminence Roger Cardinal Mahony has said that cats go to cat heaven, when they die.
Recently, I tossed a piece of bread high in the air, and a bird swooped down and caught it in his beak before it fell to the ground. How would he have been able to do that without consciousness?
How would a dog be able to respond to you without consciousness?

“Consciousness” has many different meanings. Consciousness of self, the capacity to be other to oneself in thought, to be aware of one’s relationship to the Ground of being is not a part of the animal soul. Likewise “heaven” appears to also mean different things. I do not believe animals can possess the Beatific Vision although they may participate in it as an expression of God’s wondrous creation.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no evidence that they are conscious of themselves.

There is still no evidence that birds,cats and dogs are conscious** of themselves** or capable of abstract reasoning.