Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is The Mind Deterministic?

Rate this topic


DrBaltar

Recommended Posts

DrBaltar: Good, then you do see how extrospective perception is more accurate than introspective perception.

AisA: Either explain why an inability to sense our brain activity affects introspection, but does not affect extrospection -- or admit that it affects neither.

DrBaltar: It requires all areas of the brain to fully perceive an object. To sense part of itself it would have to do without that part to sense that part, and it just doesn't work.

In the first place, what does this have to do with the inability to perceive brain activity? This is not an answer; it is a switch to a different argument.

You started by claiming that introspection is not valid because the brain cannot sense itself. You gave examples of various brain activity that one cannot sense. However, you have not been able to explain why this lack of ability to sense brain activity affects introspection but not extrospection.

Now you introduce the notion that all areas of the brain are required to fully perceive an object. What is the evidence for this? If all of the brain is required to perceive an object, then what part of the brain is left to think about and evaluate that which we perceive?

DrBaltar: Because there is no evolutionary reason for us to be cognizant of all that goes on within our brains. It's not required for our survival. Extrospective perception, on the other hand, is vital to our survival.

AisA: The ability to monitor our consciousness, for purposes of insuring that we are using reason and logic, is just as vital to our survival as our perception. Why has evolution given us one but not the other?

DrBaltar: What our ancestors needed to do since the last few thousand years back to the first neuron could be done without monitoring consciousness. So it never became a factor in evolution.

That answer makes no sense to me. When did man not need the ability to insure that he was using reason governed by logic to guide his actions?

Ok ok... just trying to encourage you to do some thinking. The opposite of what you said my position leads to would be: If your perception of your volition is accurate, then your perception that you are being logical is also accurate. You would then say since we both perceive that we are being logical then we must both in reality be logical. We can't both be logical and arrive at opposite conclusions.

That does not follow. The fact that you claim to perceive that you are being logical does not mean you are not evading or lying. If two people look at the same wall and one claims to perceive that it is red and the other claims to perceive that it is green, it is not the ability to perceive that is called into question; it is, rather, the veracity of one the claimants that must be at fault.

Dave is correct when he notes: "There is no such thing as "perception of being logical." Any evaluation of logic is conceptual” But this does not change the fact that if your perception of volition is an illusion, all the other things you perceive in your consciousness might also be an illusion. You could claim, with equal validity, that you are really a brain in a vat hooked up to a computer that is running a simulation. (A claim that many have made.)

Your argument that man is determined is an invalid induction arrived at by the arbitrary dismissal of direct observations that contradict your induction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I still am having this problem:

1. Apes are not volitional.

2. Humans evolved from apes (Felipe's correction).

3. Humans are volitional.

Therefore, at some point (or over time), humans must have acquired volition. HOW???????????????

There are only 3 options.

A. Humans acquired volition through some miraculous event ("And God said to Moses...").

B. Volition presupposes evolution ("How could I know about evolution if I wasn't volitional? How could we be here debating volition if it wasn't self-evident?").

C. Volition does not exist ("Neither apes nor humans are volitional.").

I don't think we need to discuss why explanation "A." is invalid. So the only remaining options are "B." and "C."

B. The fundamental principle that allows this to be true is the belief that the subjective world (the mind) presupposes the objective world (physics). But in Objectivist philosophy, this contradicts the primacy of existence. Felix summarized this problem quite nicely:

If the statement that there is free will is actually true, that means that there is something wrong with the laws of physics as far as we understand it now. And this would throw us directly into the debate of whether our mind can influence matter somehow, because it has to influence us somehow [if we are volitional]. Somehow I manage to conciously wiggle my toe. How do I do that if my mind is not physical?

C. The fundamental principle that allows this to be true is the believe that the objective world (physics) is the only world that exists. But this contradicts self-evident volition. Because we [at least] have the perception of volition, this statement is very hard to make. It thoroughly tests ones faith in science. Also, subjective worlds do seem to exist. When I look around, I see all different kinds of colors, but there is no way that I can prove that I see the same "color" as you do. My subjective perception of the color "blue" might be like your subjective perception of the color "green." There is no way to prove that we are seeing the same subjective "colors." The only thing that can (I think) be said is that we are seeing the same frequencies reflected off of objects. But our perception is not a number, it is the visual perception of "color."

Obviously, I am not arguing for or against a certain position. I've just chosen to seek out the truth of the matter. Or my past sensory experiences have determined my need for sensory expansion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are only 3 options.

A. Humans acquired volition through some miraculous event ("And God said to Moses...").

B. Volition presupposes evolution ("How could I know about evolution if I wasn't volitional? How could we be here debating volition if it wasn't self-evident?").

C. Volition does not exist ("Neither apes nor humans are volitional.").

Humans did not acquire volition. Humans have had it as long as they have existed. That's a minor technicality though.

Throw A & C out the window. Your mistake is in B. Volition does not presuppose evolution. What volition presupposes is a conceptual consciousness, since it is an attribute of conceptual consciousness. Within the context of a conceptual consciousness, volition is axiomatic and cannot be reduced any further. Even a conceptual consciousness does not presuppose evolution.

Although, scientifically, we are abe to say that humans, a volitional animal, evolved from non-volitional animals, that is not the same as presupposing. Volitional, and conceptual consciousness, could hypothetically exist without the existence of evolution--metaphysically. It's just that, scientifically, this isn't the case.

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but a friend of mine is, and the evolution of conceptual consciousness is the specific problem she is interested in working on. If you have any specific problems, I'll be glad to ask her if she has an answer, but the how of it is a subject for highly advanced science.

B. The fundamental principle that allows this to be true is the belief that the subjective world (the mind) presupposes the objective world (physics). But in Objectivist philosophy, this contradicts the primacy of existence. Felix summarized this problem quite nicely:
Whoah, whoah, whoah! Hold up here. What do you mean by "subjective world (the mind)" and how does it differ from the objective world? Why isn't the mind part of the objective world? What gives you the idea that the objective world is entirely physical? What do you mean by mind? Do you mean consciousness? The brain? Or both?

Typically "mind" refers to the brain (a physical phenomena) and consciousness (a non-physical phenomena) integrated into a single concept. Mind, in this usage, has both deterministic and volitional aspects to it. There is an area of Philosophy dedicated to this study: Philosophy of the Mind. Harry Binswanger's lecture, The Metaphysics of Consciousness, covers Philosophy of the Mind. I haven't listened to it, though, so that's all I know about it. Also, Diana Hsieh wrote a paper on the topic, which was linked to earlier in this thread.

C. The fundamental principle that allows this to be true is the believe that the objective world (physics) is the only world that exists. But this contradicts self-evident volition.

The objective world is the only world that exists, but it consists of both physical and non-physical things. The deterministic nature of physical existents does not contradict volition, because it is an attribute of a non-physical thing: conceptual consciousness.

Although conceptual consciousness is most likely a product of the physical brain, to assume that this means consciousness is physical and follows the same physical laws as the brain is fallacious.

When I look around, I see all different kinds of colors, but there is no way that I can prove that I see the same "color" as you do. My subjective perception of the color "blue" might be like your subjective perception of the color "green." There is no way to prove that we are seeing the same subjective "colors." The only thing that can (I think) be said is that we are seeing the same frequencies reflected off of objects. But our perception is not a number, it is the visual perception of "color."
Using "subjective" in this manner is either highly confusing, or flat out wrong. I'm going to go with confusing and suggest that the term "personal" might be more accurate for what you're trying to say.

Replacing "subjective" with "personal," the answer is: you don't know. But who cares? That doesn't change the fact that you are percieving the same characteristic of the same object as the other guy.

Obviously, I am not arguing for or against a certain position. I've just chosen to seek out the truth of the matter. Or my past sensory experiences have determined my need for sensory expansion.

I hope I've helped you to uncover some assumptions you were making in your questions. It's important, when thinking about these things, to understand exactly what it is you are assuming, and even a question can smuggle in all sorts of unrecognized premises.

Edited by dondigitalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for untangling that, Dave. It was practically making me cross-eyed trying to figure out all the mixed premises and muddled terms. Frankly, however, that post is off-topic; it isn't an argument of any kind and this thread is a specific debate: "Is the mind deterministic?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for untangling that, Dave. It was practically making me cross-eyed trying to figure out all the mixed premises and muddled terms. Frankly, however, that post is off-topic; it isn't an argument of any kind and this thread is a specific debate: "Is the mind deterministic?"

Thank you Inspector. Actually page 5 is off topic until your post. We're waiting for a debate opponent to step up. And I'll allow the topic of debate to be negotiated, since we seem to be having trouble even agreeing to what "Mind" is. As long as it's not "Is free-will deterministic?". That would be putting the cart before the horse. My suggestion would be to start with lower animals. Do we agree that they are deterministic? Once we reach a consensus on that, move on to primates, then early hominids, such as homo-erectus and neanderthals. At what stage did the mind or consciousness arise? I think it would help if we can at least establish some common ground by starting off earlier in the evolutionary chain. Then, hopefully, when there's a discrepancy in our thinking, it will only be one thing being debated at a time.

Edited by DrBaltar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you initially proposed a debate, why don't you clear up the ambiguity over the term "mind" by providing a definition, in your own words, which includes a genus and differentia. Once the term is clearly defined, it will then be clear exactly what it is you were looking to debate. It'll probably increase the likelihood of finding an opponent.

I see that you provided a definition in the very first post, but it leads to two other points which needs clarifying:

What is a "collective consciousness"?

Do you mean to include such consciousness in the concept of "mind," or is it excluded?

Edited by dondigitalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the essential distinction between man and every other animal is not that he evolved a volitional concious mind then what is the distinction in your mind between humans and other animals "Dr" Baltar? And don't respond if all you have to say is the same rationalistic nonsense that you have been spouting. You pretend to use science to back up your arbitrary assertions while forgetting (or evading) the fact that if any scientific theory contradicts a philosophical axiom-- then it is false and arbitrary. Just like all the nonsense that the environmental religionists spout can simply be dismissed because they are based on falacious philosophical principals-- so can your assertions. Just like intelligent design theories can be simply dismissed because they are illogical-- so can your nonsense. Just like an actual infinite singularity's existence can be dismissed based on logic-- so can your illogical assertions. Just as some irrational interpretations of Quantum Mechanics can be dismissed as wrong because they state there is a such thing as "wave/particle duality" which is impossible because A is A. When you posit the nonsensicle statement that the mind is "determined" because physical phenomena are determined and it counteracts REALITY then you are NOT engaging in any type of science-- but complete nonsense and should be dismissed out of hand as if you wanted to debate the existence of gremlins on Venus with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans did not acquire volition. Humans have had it as long as they have existed. That's a minor technicality though.
I think the claim that (eg) feral children have volition would be quite controversial, and I've no idea how you would begin to go about proving it. Personally, I would guess that developing volition (and perhaps even conceptual consciousness) requires some degree of socialization into a culture and the associated acquisition of language, however I couldnt prove this either. But in the absence of evidence either way, I find the idea of humans having volition/conceptual consciousness from birth, regardless of their upbringing and language skills, to be unlikely. Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I I find the idea of humans having volition/conceptual consciousness from birth, regardless of their upbringing and language skills, to be unlikely.

This statement is complete nonsense. Humans don't aquire volition via "socialization" or any other means. We aquired it via evolution and since man is a rational animal, and volition is an integral part of the faculty of reason, human beings qua homosapien could not have existed until we possessed such a faculty. Any animal that doesn't possess volition is NOT a human regardless of the epoch in which it lived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This statement is complete nonsense. Humans don't aquire volition via "socialization" or any other means. We aquired it via evolution and since man is a rational animal, and volition is an integral part of the faculty of reason, human beings qua homosapien could not have existed until we possessed such a faculty.

Do you have evidence for any of these claims?

The question of whether (to use my former example again) feral children have conceptual consciousness is an interesting one, and blindly making assertions about what 'must' be the case is both unscientific and silly.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that you provided a definition [of mind] in the very first post, but it leads to two other points which needs clarifying:

What is a "collective consciousness"?

Do you mean to include such consciousness in the concept of "mind," or is it excluded?

Here's the definition you referred to:

mind - the interaction of all interconnected networks within the brain which form a collective conciousness

I am equating mind to consciousness. I don't see a difference. Is there one? Here's my definition for consciousness that (I hope) should clairify what the definition of mind means:

Consciousness - a layer of abstraction formed by the group behaviour of various regions of the brain and nervous system which gives rise to a sense of self separate from that which is sensed.

No single region of the brain can be called the consciousness. It is collectively of all of them that form our consciousness. That's what I meant by 'collective conscious'. By 'layer of abstraction', I mean that when all these separate regions of the brain are working together it creates a new single thing called consciousness which takes on an identity of its own.

If the essential distinction between man and every other animal is not that he evolved a volitional concious mind then what is the distinction in your mind between humans and other animals "Dr" Baltar?

As can be seen in early hominids, "EC", one of the main differences between humans and other animals began with larger and larger brain sizes. Humans have a higher evolved intelligence than other animals. Also, there are anatomical differences, as well as differences in the brain that give us the power of speech. Humans have a higher evolved conscious than other animals. I realize most people here believe that non-human animals do not have consciousness. When dealing with religious fanatics, I understood (but did not accept) their reasoning for saying that. I have no idea where that idea comes from in Objectivism though. Were humans the only animals to possess consciousness? What about neanderthals? They buried their dead. What about homo-erectus or earlier hominids? What about other animals that exist today? You have no idea what they're thinking about. You don't need to think in a language. Many people (i.e. some with ADD or dyslexics) think visually.

You pretend to use science to back up your arbitrary assertions while forgetting (or evading) the fact that if any scientific theory contradicts a philosophical axiom-- then it is false and arbitrary. Just like all the nonsense that the environmental religionists spout can simply be dismissed because they are based on falacious philosophical principals-- so can your assertions.
If by environmental religionists you mean the people who do not believe there is global warming, their hypothesis can be dismissed because the trends do not verify their hypothesis.

Just like intelligent design theories can be simply dismissed because they are illogical-- so can your nonsense.

ID can be dismissed because it makes no testable predictions, which any theory must be able to do. Otherwise it's just an hypothesis. The science that my arguments were based on have made many testable predictions, and have been verified.

Just like an actual infinite singularity's existence can be dismissed based on logic-- so can your illogical assertions.
I assume you mean the infinite singularities inside a black hole? There is a common misconception about black holes. What most people do not realize is that since time stops at the event horizon, it would take an infinite amount of time for a star to collapse into a black hole and for a singularity to form. So now you can base your skepticism of singularities upon something relavant to singularities.

Just as some irrational interpretations of Quantum Mechanics can be dismissed as wrong because they state there is a such thing as "wave/particle duality" which is impossible because A is A.

So much for that logic lol.

Implicitly, several folks have stepped up to debate you, DrBaltar. Can we all contribute at least until a consensus is reached on the definitions of the terms involved?

Between work, school and family, it's a bit chaotic and time consuming to address the points of 5-6 opponents at once. I'll just go with the convention on this forum which is to debate one at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the claim that (eg) feral children have volition would be quite controversial, and I've no idea how you would begin to go about proving it. Personally, I would guess that developing volition (and perhaps even conceptual consciousness) requires some degree of socialization into a culture and the associated acquisition of language, however I couldnt prove this either. But in the absence of evidence either way, I find the idea of humans having volition/conceptual consciousness from birth, regardless of their upbringing and language skills, to be unlikely.

You're right, feral children do not have volition--they are essentially animals. To the best of my knowledge, only one truly feral child has ever been studied (a girl, I think), but I might be wrong; it might also be that she was just the first. If I remember correctly, what the study showed was that, through lack of use, the neural pathways necessary for conceptual thought became comepletely useless and sort of sealed off, leading to the (very interesting) conclusion that social interaction is vital to the development of the conceptual level--I think there's probably a lot of truth to that.

I don't doubt there are other disorders which could lead to individual non-conceptual, non-volitional humans as well, but in my previous post I was more talking about humans qua species, rather than qua individuals.

Edited by dondigitalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the definition you referred to:

mind - the interaction of all interconnected networks within the brain which form a collective conciousness

I am equating mind to consciousness. I don't see a difference. Is there one? Here's my definition for consciousness that (I hope) should clairify what the definition of mind means:

In the typical philosophical usage, "mind" is a concept which refers to both the brain and consciousness, taken together. Just because you are using the same word, though, doesn't mean you are using the same concept. That's why I'm trying to get precise definitions out of you. The brain (typically) refers to the physical organ, and all of it's various hormonal and electrochemical actions. Consciouness (typically) refers to the state of awareness which, most likely, has a very complex, mutally causal releationship with the brain.

I'm not really concerned with typical usage, though. I'm concerned with pinning down what you mean.

Consciousness - a layer of abstraction formed by the group behaviour of various regions of the brain and nervous system which gives rise to a sense of self separate from that which is sensed.
I am extremely confused by your use of the term "abstraction" here. Everywhere I've ever seen that word in relation to consciousness, it refers to a specific action of conceptual concsciousness, rather than the entire thing. What I'm trying to wrench out of you is two things: to what category of things does "consciousness" belong, and how is is differentiated from everything else in that category.

I realize most people here believe that non-human animals do not have consciousness. When dealing with religious fanatics, I understood (but did not accept) their reasoning for saying that. I have no idea where that idea comes from in Objectivism though.

Hold up. I highly doubt that anyone here thinks animals are not conscious (if they did, then please quote it). That is not what Objectivism says, and not what anyone in this thread has said. To assert that no animal is conscious would be ludicrous. Anything with sensation is conscious. As far as I know, this means all animals, including insects, but I'm far from a biologist, so I'm not gonna say that's a fact.

What Objectivists (typically) say is that only humans have a conceptual consciousness. This however, is not part of philosophy, per se, so I wouldn't say that it's a part of Objectivism (although it is something that Ayn Rand wrote). I leave open the possibility that conceptualization may be discovered in other species at some point in the future.

Between work, school and family, it's a bit chaotic and time consuming to address the points of 5-6 opponents at once. I'll just go with the convention on this forum which is to debate one at a time.

That's perfectly reasonable.

P.S. I urge you to not assume that everything people say on this forum are part of Objectivism--especially the more ridiculous things. The only thing that speaks for Objectivism is Ayn Rand's writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went ahead and refreshed myself on some neuroscience and am much clearer about the details of consciousness (interesting how reading some papers on neuroscience can clear up a whole mess of things...)

In the typical philosophical usage, "mind" is a concept which refers to both the brain and consciousness, taken together. Just because you are using the same word, though, doesn't mean you are using the same concept. That's why I'm trying to get precise definitions out of you. The brain (typically) refers to the physical organ, and all of it's various hormonal and electrochemical actions. Consciouness (typically) refers to the state of awareness which, most likely, has a very complex, mutally causal releationship with the brain.

The mind refers to both the conscious and unconscious processes of the brain.

I'm not really concerned with typical usage, though. I'm concerned with pinning down what you mean.

I am extremely confused by your use of the term "abstraction" here. Everywhere I've ever seen that word in relation to consciousness, it refers to a specific action of conceptual concsciousness, rather than the entire thing. What I'm trying to wrench out of you is two things: to what category of things does "consciousness" belong, and how is is differentiated from everything else in that category.

After reading some neuroscience I can speak more intelligently on consciousness. Forget my other definition.

The cerebral cortex is mainly the unconscious part of the brain. It has many functions and is divided up between numerous separate processors. It's most important function is to process inputs from senses and to create models. These models are most easily experienced when sensory input is dampened like during sleep (we see the models as dreams), or when we concentrate (in the form of imaginary speech, or thought). During ordinary waking life, the modelling process creates a model of the world around us which is continuously updated by our senses.

The conscious experience consists of the output of the cortical modelling processes. Humans benefit from much more cortical processing than other animals because of our large cerebral cortexes, but this is not the area of conscious experience.

Our consciousness resides in (drumroll please) the thalamus. If the thalamus is damaged, patients suffer death, coma, aknetic mutism, hypersomnia, dementia, and other equally serious impairments of consciousness that depend upon the size and placement of lesions. Patients in which the thalamo-cortico-thalamic activity was interrupted were in a 'persistent vegetative state' (wakefulness without awareness). All that consiousness does is perceive. Even our voluntary actions do not originate in the consciousness. Kornhuber and Deecke performed a series of experiments using EEG. They averaged EEGs from many subject who were about to move a finger and discovered that there is an increase in potential up to 2 seconds before the movement, and even before the subjects became aware of their intent to move it. The non-conscious brain is preparing to move the finger, and then our conscious becomes aware of our intent to do so.

And now for volition. (Another drumroll please) Volition is most probably the function of the thalamic reticular nucleus (TRN), which is a thin sheet of neurons that covers the thalamus. It is also known as the "attention gate". This concept is reinforced by the way that point stimulation of the TRN causes focal activity in the overlying cortex and the way the TRN is organised topagraphically.

Hold up. I highly doubt that anyone here thinks animals are not conscious (if they did, then please quote it).

Ok I'm sorry, he didn't say conscious, but he did say:

Well, there's your problem. Animals do not have minds.

which is equally ludicrous.

That is not what Objectivism says, and not what anyone in this thread has said. To assert that no animal is conscious would be ludicrous. Anything with sensation is conscious. As far as I know, this means all animals, including insects, but I'm far from a biologist, so I'm not gonna say that's a fact.

What Objectivists (typically) say is that only humans have a conceptual consciousness. This however, is not part of philosophy, per se, so I wouldn't say that it's a part of Objectivism (although it is something that Ayn Rand wrote). I leave open the possibility that conceptualization may be discovered in other species at some point in the future.

Ok, that's fine. Any animal with a thalamus has a consciousness. It does appear that others here do not believe that animals have volition. Actually any animal with a thalamic reticular nucleus has volition. And this makes sense. Otherwise, if they did not have an "attention gate" then they would simultaneously be aware of everything their cerebral cortex was working on at once. You need the thalamic reticular nucleus to cut out the noise and focus on what is most important at the moment.

P.S. I urge you to not assume that everything people say on this forum are part of Objectivism--especially the more ridiculous things. The only thing that speaks for Objectivism is Ayn Rand's writing.

I do not assume that. But since I unfortunately do not have the time to read Ayn Rand's writings (which I admit puts me at a real disadvantage) I usually assume that if the ridiculous things people say here are backed up by others here, it is part of Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know my stance on Free-Will isn't very popular here, but I think this debate is only evidence toward my conclusion. I have argued for a long while that neither free-will or determinism are scientifically testible and are thus a purely philosophical thing. If free-will is an axiom, then it is not falsiable by definition. Also, I think Dr Baltar's inability to come up with an alternative hypothesis that would disprove determinism, shows that it is outside the realm science/falsifiabilty. In fact you have to assume it as an axiom in order to accept determinism.

So now we have two diametrically opposed stances that are both axioms in some people's opinions. Both have some evidence to verify that the axiom is true, since that's all you can do with axioms is look to reality and verify. Determinists have causality and physical laws, and free-willists have introspection and epistemology. I think both stances create some confusion if you play out the logical implications of either stance. So, I have suggested that this debate is irrelevant, and non-sense.

Axioms cannot be proven only verified and both sides seem to think reality is on their side. First, this debate means nothing no matter which side wins; you will go on living your life the same way. If you are on the free-will side, then you will still go on making your choices freely, and if determinism happens to be true, then you really can't change the way you act now can you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know my stance on Free-Will isn't very popular here, but I think this debate is only evidence toward my conclusion. I have argued for a long while that neither free-will or determinism are scientifically testible and are thus a purely philosophical thing. If free-will is an axiom, then it is not falsiable by definition. Also, I think Dr Baltar's inability to come up with an alternative hypothesis that would disprove determinism, shows that it is outside the realm science/falsifiabilty. In fact you have to assume it as an axiom in order to accept determinism.

Uh ok..... lol this isn't a free-will debate. But thanks for playing.

So, I have suggested that this debate is irrelevant, and non-sense.
Your objection to a debate that we are not even having is also non-sense. What you said in another thread is actually more relavant to our topic:

I want to be a materialist, simply because dualism has huge flaws, but I see materialism is far from comprehensive in describing even the most basic of perceptions/experiences. I understand that they usually say neurons fire and it causes experiences, but what exactly is that thing which interprets those neurons and turns them into the experiences we are familiar with?

Basically, I would like to get a firmer grip on my understanding of consciousness and its intricacies, or even its general nature. Like if someone could answer the question above and say that it is this X gland in the brain that projects a little picture in your head when you imagine things, and you see them with the inside of your eyes, and this gland is located here...

For answers to those questions, read my post from 2/11/06 on consciousness in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh ok..... lol this isn't a free-will debate. But thanks for playing.

Stop saying that! It isn't true! As I have repeatedly shown, the question "Is the mind deterministic?" is indeed a question that concerns the existence of free will. If free will exists, then the answer to that question must be "no."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still going to stand by my position that this is a free-will debate, and that it is pointless. I think that this thread ought to be placed elsewhere because this is not a debate, it seems to be a squabble over premises. And it isn't going anywhere, since no one here seems to understand anyone else. This is kind of what most linguists think of philosophy--they think it is pointless, because humans aren't really capable of understanding one-another, since everyone means something different, when using the same word. Stop giving them ammo, ha!

Thanks

Oh and Inspector, I think DrBaltar was refering to the 'if,then' statement you made and how that is a cause-effect-like statement, and how that was somehow deterministic. I think that is a bit of a stretch on DrBaltar's behalf, but I just thought I'd clarify for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and Inspector, I think DrBaltar was refering to the 'if,then' statement you made and how that is a cause-effect-like statement, and how that was somehow deterministic. I think that is a bit of a stretch on DrBaltar's behalf, but I just thought I'd clarify for him.

Thanks Nimble, but I know that's what he meant. I still submit that it makes about at much sense as I indicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Ok I'm sorry, he didn't say conscious, but he did say:

[Dave Odden's statment]

which is equally ludicrous.

You can't really say that it's ludicrous without first finding out what he means by mind. I think I'm pretty safe in speaking for him here, since after reading a million posts about his friggin dog, I'm certain I fully understand his position on animal consciousness. What he means by mind is "conceptual consciousness" or "capacity for thought."

Ok, that's fine. Any animal with a thalamus has a consciousness. It does appear that others here do not believe that animals have volition. Actually any animal with a thalamic reticular nucleus has volition.

Here, I strongly warn you against throwing around the term "volition" too loosely on an Objectivist forum. Volition, in Objectivism, refers to a very specific phenomena--it refers to the ability to regulate the conceptual level of consciousness. In Objectivism, it is not the same thing as any primitive choice or self-motivation (both of which are valid, but different concepts).

As for the rest of your post, it takes us into the realm of neuroscience, rather than philosophy, so I'm not qualified to make any comment whatsoever.

Edited by dondigitalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DrBaltar has privately said to me that :

  • people do make choices; and
  • people are responsible for their actions

Well, not in so many words, but he was annoyed at me for closing this thread, implying that I had a choice and that I was responsible for my actions.

Since the axiomatic concepts cannot be proven in a traditionally deductive way, I hope the closing and re-opening of the thread provided one more induction to add to the millions of others.

If not, and if I had no "real" choice in closing it, if my supposed choice was a mere illusion, so be it: by it's very terms, I am not responsible for doing what I did and DrBaltar is not responsible for getting annoyed. The immediate cause was the firing of brain cells, the flow of electrons and chemicals -- nothing to be guilty about! If that, in turn, was the result of some conclusions, what of it; conclusions are probably nothing but an arrangement of brain-cells; that in turn.. and so an an so forth. Point is, we aren't responsible in any sense -- neither in the immediate sense, nor in the deeper "final cause" sense. My brain does something, his brain does something ... it's really just like machines crunching away. Responsibility -- like choice -- is an illusion.

Nothing in Objectivism says the brain does not exists or that the faculty of choice cannot be a material faculty. Yet, Objectivism holds that such a faculty exists -- no matter how it comes about. So, I hope this debate is not attacking a strawman.

With that said, as long as DrBaltar has demonstrated that people

  • do make choices; and,
  • are responsible for their actions

... Now, the debate can go forward with a better focus.

I will open the thread a few hours from now, to allow DrBaltar to continue discussing the terms (100 posts later) with the forum's "lackeys" (his term).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DrBaltar has privately said to me that :

  • people do make choices; and
  • people are responsible for their actions

Well, not in so many words, but he was annoyed at me for closing this thread, implying that I had a choice and that I was responsible for my actions.

Yeah you better back out of that claim unless you'd like to show some quotes from any of my PMs to you. I never said to you anything about choice. I asked you for your reasons. Actions result from either logical thinking, in which we are conscious of the reasons, or emotional, in which we are not. You reacted to your emotions rather than act as an impartial moderator. If I am pissed it's because an incompetent person such as yourself was given the task as moderator, allowing this debate section turn into a circus rather than a way of getting both sides of an issue heard.

Since the axiomatic concepts cannot be proven in a traditionally deductive way, I hope the closing and re-opening of the thread provided one more induction to add to the millions of others.
So let me get this straight.... the MODERATOR has entered the debate? LMAO He may want to throw all decorum out the window, but I will not debate the fracking moderator.

Before this turned into a circus, this debate has identified two camps. The philosophical camp (who seeks answers through thought), and the scientific camp (who seeks answers from observation and thought). The methods used by each side to find their truth are not recognized by the other side because they are not compatible with the other side's methods. So it's a stalemate.

Both sides have aired their arguments. My main arguments were listed on the 2nd post of "Is the Mind Deterministic". The other side contends that for the forseable future, science cannot give us any answers about consciousness or free-will. This has been refuted though, and apparently no one can, or wishes to dispute its implications. The findings are hard to dispute though, and may perhaps fly in the face of some peoples pre-concieved notions. That is why we do experiments, because we do not always know what will happen. Unfortunately, rather than having an open discussion, some people take the stance of the dark ages and want it to simply go away. If you cannot refute it, then shut it up. I think that is probably the real reason for softwareNerd's sudden lapse in reason. (Take note future debaters - only choose topics that objectivists agree with you about. I know this makes no sense, but it is the only way for a debate here to run its full course.) Well... it's your philosophy. It can take you as far as you allow it to.

I leave you with this:

The brain is a physical object operating deterministically in the sense that each state determines the next state. The consciousness (which resides in the thalamus) and volition (a function of the thalamic reticular nucleus TRN) are of flesh, and are part of the deterministic brain. A doctor stimulates the TRN in a particular spot, and the subject's conscious focuses on a particular thought.

And be careful when using axioms. Axioms are correct by definition. 'A is A' is always correct. If A is a chair, then it is true that: a chair is a chair. But if A is a unicorn, it is still true that: a unicorn is a unicorn. Does that mean there are really unicorns? No. The iron clad part about 'A is A' is the operator 'is' when relating something to itself. Axioms only relate to reality if their terms relate to reality.

So if an interpretation of an experiment violates an axiom, then the interpretation and/or the terms in the axiom need to be re-evaluated.

Like you, my life is my standard of value so I will waste no more of it in trying to convince those who are apparently predetermined to disagree with me, and are unable to change their will.

If steps are taken to end the bullying practices of the moderator, I will still consider a debate, but only with those who are not prone to emotional outbursts.

Edited by DrBaltar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...