fitchmicah

Here is the interview with Richard Carrier where he talks about how science is proving the physicality of the brain. He gives some very interesting examples, including an experiment demonstrating that consciousness is a physical process (23:00 in or so). http://www.infidelguy.com/demo/infidelguy...._Naturalism.mp3

Yes I understand that they are different claims. Perhaps I should have used the word "factor" or "mix" instead of "add," but note that I am not using these words in a strict mathematical sense. Second, you misunderstand the context in which I am using the word "predict." The implication that something is predictable does not mean that anyone can currently predict it. I use this word hypothetically; if the brain is "operating according to" physical law, it is predictable, just not necessarily in a practical sense. If I recall correctly, Richard Carrier (http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/about.html) made the claim in a podcast interview that in 30 years the resolution of brain scanning techniques will be very high and this kind of thing will be more possible. As for my description of how the brain works, I won't pretend to be a neurologist. Perhaps I chose the wrong words ("add"). Although nobody knows for sure how exactly the brain works, especially not me, my ideas only require that the mind is supported exclusively by physical processes in the brain. I will defend the system of "inputs and outputs" by asking you to ponder what "senses" and "actions" might represent in these terms. When I use the word "dynamically," I mean it in an artistic sense. Just because basic processes in the brain might be "static" (certain parts of the brain are used only for certain processes), it doesn't mean the brain can't learn things (which I would consider to be a dynamic process). Stop being pretentious. I'm not trying to assume that I know more than you and I don't think you should do this to me either. Words aren't always perfectly defined in all contexts, and both of us need to take the time to understand what we are trying to relate to one another.

Well Hal seemed to object to what I was saying, then he stopped talking to me. I wasn't asking questions, I was continuing a discussion that I interpreted to be at least somewhat about compatibilism. My question could be more concisely stated as "Where are you Hal? We were having a discussion!" but if you wanted to, you could respond to my ideas as well. I'm sorry I offended you, but I think you're being a bit sensitive. Furthermore, the context of Christian theology is completely relevant to the topic. Maybe it is not the angle from which you are approaching the topic, but it is another angle that deals with the same issues. Also, why do you say my "rambling" is "speculative"? I wish you could be a bit more clear! Thanks! Could you please go in to a bit more depth with your criticism. Obviously I am operating with the epistemological "assumption" that brains work on input and output, but would you deny this? The whole field of psychology is based around the idea that brains operate in scientifically predictable ways. Please state your grounds for denying this idea so that your above statement doesn't look so much like a straw man (not that we were ever really debating in the first place). I'm not talking about any of this as if it was a fact, but I am assuming it true because no one has given me a better explanation for any of this. Really, all I am asking is that if you are going to criticize my "rambling speculation," please be clear about what you really are objecting to.

Nobody has anything to say?

When I say abstract value, I'm talking about the level to which something is abstract. The concept of numbering things is somewhat abstract. The idea that numbers can be split up in to groups which can then be counted is even more abstract. The reason that I say the brain carries more "abstract value" is because it can be used to process ideas that are highly abstract. You are probably going to say "the brain doesn't process things, the mind does." Well what is the mind? I'm pretty sure that what you are calling "the mind" is really just your consciousness, and your consciousness is actually particles in your brain constantly interacting with each other over and over again. This is exactly how a computer works. Current flows through the circuits in a computer over and over again, doing slightly different things during different cycles (clock cycles). Why are the transferring of energy, the cycles in a computer, and the cycles in your brain different? Perhaps it would help to break the abstract complexity of each of these down quantitatively: Let's say that the number of basic concepts involved in a process directly corresponds to the level of abstract complexity a process has. With transferring of energy, there is basically one idea; particles act on one another with mass and energy. The process of a computer running takes the number of ideas supporting it a step further: not only are there particles transferring energy (electrons), but the particles only move through certain parts of space (the conductive material); what's more, the energy that the particles are transferring to one another is moving faster than the particles themselves (drift speed of electrons is slow, as with the domino effect). Without even going in to the patterns which electrons move in (circuits), the ways they are manipulated (resistors), the numbers used to describe their movement (resistance, current, power), and most importantly, binary logic and the construction of complex logical circuits and patterns and the ways computers are able to input and output patterns that have some complex significance, we already have 2 more complex concepts supporting the process of a computer operating than the process of two particles colliding. As the level of complexity involved in processes grows, so does the level of abstractness. I will give the process of a particle transferring force an arbitrary "abstract value" of say, 5, because there might really be 5 basic ideas supporting this process. If a particle force transfer has an "abstract value" of 5, then the computer operating might have an abstract value of say, 50 to 100 (this is arbitrary, and no one really does this, I'm just showing you a possible way that abstractness could be quantitatively "measured"). I would guess that if this system were to be actually used, perhaps what we call "information" would typically arise with "abstract values" of say, over 100. It seems that information can be defined as a highly complex, yet still transferable part of a process; just as different processes can share supporting concepts (the CPU and the particles both use the concept of mass and particles acting on one another), information can rest on different supporting concepts. A person might have an idea that is kept and supported by the brain. This idea can also be kept and supported by a computer, which is a totally different supporting structure. This seems to be a main part of what defines information; people and computers do not share the supporting concepts of a central nervous system or digital logic gates, but numbers (information) are can be common to both. I'm pretty sure there isn't an explicit group of particles in the brain used to add 32 and 41, but there isn't in a computer either. This doesn't mean that the physical particles in brains aren't crucial to the process of "adding" and that only "minds" are. The way circuits evaluate 32 + 41 looks nothing at all like 32 particles mixing with 41 particles, but there most certainly is a physical process going on here. Yes, brains physically do math. They also comprehend math (they "do" math). You thinking? That's your brain. The calculator doesn't consciously "do" math like you "do" in math class, but it is the physical system responsible for manipulating the particles that represent the numbers 32 and 41 to perform the abstract concept of addition. The only difference between using rocks to add and a calculator is the complexity of the situation. Just because they accomplish the same thing it doesn't mean they have the same level of complexity (think of a Rube Goldberg machine). The calculator takes some of the load of manipulating particles representing abstract ideas (numbers) off of the brain. This is very true. While they are physically "doing math," they are doing it for your conscious, which seems to be the only system capable of comprehending information (besides low level comprehension with animals). That is why I didn't assign informational concepts to processes without human interfaces (The energy transfer and the plain CPU). PS: I know that my "system" for measuring "abstractness" is oversimplified, I just made it to show that it can generally be done. I like deconstruction because breaking things down to their simplest building blocks allows for more "quantitative" analysis.

You should rethink what "information" is. What does it mean for something to be "abstract." Just because everything is physical it doesn't mean things can't carry different amounts of abstract value. I think the simplest way of thinking about abstract value is mathematics. Interaction of quantities, whether or not they exist, is abstract. Rocks and trees don't do math, brains do.

I don't know what you think I mean by "processing information." All I mean is that the brain takes multiple inputs and adds them together to give an output. The "third layer" idea is not required. I personally am against the idea of any layers, as it seems that there is a clear and intuitive way to determine what is information. Just because information itself is not physical, quantum particles and abstract ideas aren't in different "layers." On the contrary, abstract ideas are represented and kept alive by the arrangements and interactions of particles (i.e. the brain, a calculator, a piece of paper with writing on it, a phone call, etc.). But the interaction of quantum objects can be processing of information. That is what a computer is. The difference (and it is a very big difference, not just arbitrary) between a computer and a human being–or a thermometer/animal for that matter–is the level at which abstract ideas can be processed (again, there is no "layering" system for a computer to process information as you have suggested is necessary, the patterns of quantum particles interacting are the processing of information). Human beings can comprehend their own existence. A computer cannot logically comprehend its own existence from the input given to it, while a person can; "information" enters a humans brain in the form of physical observation of the interactions of particles, whether it be particles in a sound wave or particles of light bouncing off of a sheet of paper, and a some of this "information" causes the brain to act in a way that realizes its own existence. Why doesn't a dog have free will? Because it doesn't realize its own ability to make decisions.

Looks like I was tired last night at 3 in the morning!

Perhaps I am making the point by means of psychology, but I don't think anyone can argue against the idea that the brain is able to process complex and even abstract situations and determine an outcome; whether or not you believe in its ability to make "random choices" it seems undisputed that brains have the ability process information and human brains are even able to process abstract information. When I say "deconstruct" I am referring to deconstructionism, which is the movement promoting the examination of assumptions (including "binary opposites") in the context of competing metanarratives. I am not necessarily a postmodernist but I definitely find deconstruction useful as a tool to solidify ideas.

This topic is very interesting and is especially misunderstood in the context of Christian theology. I see similar misunderstanding on this board. Free will does not require that physics be non-deterministic. Free will is misunderstood as an ability to make truly random choices. I would suggest that free will be reinterpreted as the physical ability of the brain to dynamically process situations in an incredibly exhaustive context (memories, recent feelings, the weather, etc.). Why is the thought of making blind random decisions so sought after? It seems to me that "free will" as people are thinking of it is the pointless ability to make arbitrary decisions without a cause. This doesn't make any sense. The emotional issues unknowledgeable Christians or atheists have when dealing with the concept of predestination in its theological context can be solved by this rethinking of free will. I will attempt to explain free will from a deterministic perspective. Destiny be "changed" without randomness Here is an example: I have told you that you can make your own decisions, and you have in your memory a collection of ideas about "good decisions" that you'd like to make. This context is enough to cause you to change your decision making patterns. The realization of "free will" and the ideas in your memory are enough to change your behavior. Isn't choice simply the realization of your ability to evaluate complex information, where that realization (or lack thereof) is enough to change the outcome of your evaluation? I think this is enough for now, and I would appreciate feedback if you disagree so that I can deconstruct this idea in the hopes that I can take things a step further.