Is The Mind Deterministic?

[DavidOdden]

Ok, so when Objectivism Dualism all they're saying is that there is no soul as religions describe?

No, that is not all. A more complete but succint exposition is given in Paden's post above this.

[dondigitalia]

Property Dualism: "claims that there may not be a distinction in substance, but that mental and physical properties are still categorically distinct, and not reducible to each other. This type of dualism is sometimes referred to as "mind and body". This is in contrast to monism, which views mind and matter as being ultimately the same kind of thing."

You are setting up a false dichotomy here. You present two alternatives: mind and body as separate, unrelated things (dualism), and mind and body as being one in the same (monism). Objectivism rejects both of these standpoints, in favor of a mind-body integration. You must have both--always. They are two different things, which behave in different manners, but they are interrelated, and they do affect each other, so they are not categorically distinct.

In the same way that the laws of physics ultimately apply to programs running on a computer, they apply to thoughts in our brains. And if the laws of physics do not apply to consciousness, then it is by definition "supernatural".

The laws of physics do apply to the physical processes of our brains, but not to consciousness.

The definition from the link you provided is: "forces and phenomena which are beyond ordinary scientific understanding."

And in saying that it is by definition, supernatural, you are equating scientific laws with the laws of physics--physics is not the only science. There are a couple of sciences which study consciousness--epistemology and psychology (which is still in its early stages).

Edited to insert definition for easier reference.

Edited February 7, 2006 by dondigitalia

[DrBaltar]

You are setting up a false dichotomy here. You present two alternatives: mind and body as separate, unrelated things (dualism), and mind and body as being one in the same (monism).

Dualism only means ontologically separate, which is what you are implying.

The definition from the link you provided is: "forces and phenomena which are beyond ordinary scientific understanding."

And in saying that it is by definition, supernatural, you are equating scientific laws with the laws of physics--physics is not the only science. There are a couple of sciences which study consciousness--epistemology and psychology (which is still in its early stages).

There is also neuroscience, which all my opponents wish to completely ignore. That doesn't change the fact that neuroscience has made great strides in understanding the mind and consciousness. By ignoring discoveries in neuroscience you demonstrate a wish to keep consciousness in the realms of the supernatural.

Physics is not the only science. But based on the hierarchy of knowledge, neuroscience is based upon biology, which is based upon chemistry, which is based upon physics.

[dondigitalia]

Dualism only means ontologically separate, which is what you are implying.

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying it straight out. The two are not ontologically separate, but different. If the concept you call "dualism" is defined as a recognition of the "mind and body" as being different from one another, then according to that, I am a dualist, as are all Objectivists. That is not, however, the general historical usage, which implies a complete separation, sometimes into to completely different worlds.

I have no intention of outlining the entire history of this ancient dichotomy and how Objectivism resolves it. That's far too vast an undertaking for a forum.

In my view, it is pointless to debate the existence of volition. Volition cannot be proven (contrary to Inspectors assertions that is has been proven), any more than the validity of the senses can be proven, and anymore than the other 3 axioms can be proven. They are unprovable because any proof whatsoever presupposes them. One can, however, debate whether or not consciousness is reducible to the physical processes of the brain.

P.S. I have no idea what could have possibly given you the idea that Objectivism supports monism or reductionism, which seems to be your position. Even the most superficial inquiry into the Objectivist position on materialism or determinism should make it clear that it does not.

There is also neuroscience, which all my opponents wish to completely ignore. That doesn't change the fact that neuroscience has made great strides in understanding the mind and consciousness. By ignoring discoveries in neuroscience you demonstrate a wish to keep consciousness in the realms of the supernatural.

There is neuroscience, which is dedicated to the study of the physical processes of the brain. Neuroscience and psychology together, someday may explain the relationship between the brain and consciousness, but as far as I know, it's not there yet. Nobody here as denied that neuroscience exists.

Physics is not the only science. But based on the hierarchy of knowledge, neuroscience is based upon biology, which is based upon chemistry, which is based upon physics.

And all of those study physical phenomena. Physics is the fundamental physical science, so all physical studies can be ultimately reduced to it.

[DrBaltar]

That is not, however, the general historical usage, which implies a complete separation, sometimes into to completely different worlds.

That type of Dualism is Cartesian Dualism. I haven't said any of you subscribe to that.

In my view, it is pointless to debate the existence of volition.

No one is asking you to debate this, except perhaps Inspector and AisA. I would tell you what this debate is really about but I've already lost count of how many times I've said it before. I cannot even communicate that one simple fact to you.

P.S. I have no idea what could have possibly given you the idea that Objectivism supports monism or reductionism, which seems to be your position. Even the most superficial inquiry into the Objectivist position on materialism or determinism should make it clear that it does not.

You are right. I made an incorrect assumption based on reading that Objectivism was an atheistic philosophy based on rational thinking. I assumed that meant Objectivists did not believe in the supernatural, and were open to scientific inquiry. Sorry... my mistake.

There is neuroscience, which is dedicated to the study of the physical processes of the brain. Neuroscience and psychology together, someday may explain the relationship between the brain and consciousness, but as far as I know, it's not there yet.

Neuroscience has made great strides. This book will enlighten you.

One can, however, debate whether or not consciousness is reducible to the physical processes of the brain.

Not if one side klings to the idea of the supernatural, which any form of Dualism implies.

But when men claim to possess supernatural means of knowledge, no persuasion, communication or understanding are possible.

If one takes Ayn Rand's words literally, debating this would be the futile excersize this is proving to be.

[softwareNerd]

..., debating this would be the futile exercize this is proving to be.

I understand your frustration. Don't blame your opponents, though. Their past experiences have led to their cortexes being configured in such a manner that this illusion is persisting inside their brains.

Perhaps someday you will find the right combination of words that will trigger their brain-configurations to be more in line with yours.

[dondigitalia]

That type of Dualism is Cartesian Dualism. I haven't said any of you subscribe to that.

The extreme form I was talking about was actually Platonist dualism, but yeah, Cartesian dualism is the same idea. I can understand how Objectivism might seem dualistic to you at the moment. I assure you, it is not. The best thing I can do to give you the most accurate description of how Objectivism is a 3rd alternative to that dichotomy is to point to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Diana Hsieh's paper that was linked to earlier in this thread, and maybe even Peikoff's lecture on the One and the Many, which is available for free listen here. I understand that pointing in the direction of a bunch of books doesn't really do much for a discussion, but I really think the complexity of this issue is beyond the scope of an internet message board.

The best I can sum up a comparison of Objectivism to monism and dualism is that, in a sense its neither of the two, but in another sense it's both. Objectivism tends to be like that with a lot of these age-old dichotomies.

No one is asking you to debate this, except perhaps Inspector and AisA. I would tell you what this debate is really about but I've already lost count of how many times I've said it before. I cannot even communicate that one simple fact to you.

What simple fact can't you communicate to me? I didn't read the first couple of pages of this thread and haven't been debating the free-will topic at all, so I was mainly just giving some advice to anyone who was debating the free-will issue.

I assumed that meant Objectivists did not believe in the supernatural, and were open to scientific inquiry. Sorry... my mistake.

Objectivists most definitely do not believe in the supernatural, and are open to scientific inquiry, but as you noted before, there is a hierarchy to knowledge. What you did not note, and I'm not sure you fully grasp, is that Philosophy is at the base of that hierarchy, and is more fundamental than any special science, including Physics.

Neuroscience has made great strides. This book will enlighten you.

I wish that book had a "look inside" feature. I'm not going to buy it. Not that I'm dismissing what you have to offer out of hand--I'm just a poor student with no money who already has too much to read. I have heard about the amazing advances in neuroscience (not what the advances are, just that they were made) a lot. Neuroscience, however does not study consciousness, per se, however. Now, of course, I'm talking about the axiomatic concept that, in Objectivism is called "consciousness," which may be a different concept than the one neurologists refer to by the same term.

Not if one side klings to the idea of the supernatural, which any form of Dualism implies.

:sigh: Consciousness is not supernatural. I showed the error in your reasoning from the definition you gave (which is a surprisingly good definition, I might add, considering it was from wikipedia.) If there is some other definition you'd like to use at this point, state it, and I'll tell you whether or not I think such things exists.

If one takes Ayn Rand's words literally, debating this would be the futile excersize this is proving to be.

One can take her words literally, but I'll tell you straight out that she regarded consciousness as neither physical, outside the realm of scientific study, nor deterministic (she did regard the perceptual level as deterministic).

Edited February 7, 2006 by dondigitalia

[AisA]

When you drink a cool glass of water, you can feel it going down your esophagus. When you think about things, are you aware of different parts of your brain becoming active to work on the problem as MRIs show? No.

So what? When I perceive a table, I am not aware of light hitting my retina, I am not aware of electrical signals travelling along the optic nerve, I am not aware of how many synapses fire, I am not aware of which part of my brain receives the signal, I have no idea what happens to the various levels of chemicals in my brain during this process and I am completely clueless about how my brain turns these signals into the image I see before me. Does this argue that my perception of the table is flawed in some fashion? No. Does this argue that what is in front of me is not a table and that I am suffering an illusion? No. Why, then, is extrospective perception deemed valid, in spite of the fact that I cannot be aware of all of these factors, but introspective perception is damned for the same lack of awareness?

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

Are you familiar with the fallacy of begging the question? Your response does just that. Either explain why an inability to sense our brain activity affects introspection, but does not affect extrospection -- or admit that it affects neither. But don't assume the truth of what you are trying to prove and then pretend that what I wrote supports it or means that I agree with it.

Why is it that way? 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.

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?

When I recall my name, my telephone number, the solution to an equation or the law of identity, I am not aware of "the interactions between dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine" either. Does this mean that my recollection of my name, my telephone number, the solution to an equation or the law of identity is all an illusion?

Memories are vital to our survival as well.

The ability to make the correct choice between thinking and not thinking is certainly as vital to our suvival as is our memory. Why has evolution given us one but not the other?

If your perception of your volition is an illusion, then your perception that you are being logical might also be an illusion.

We both think we're being logical, yet we're coming up with opposite conclusions. Think about that.

So it is your position, then, that our perception that we are being logical is only an illusion? We cannot know when we are being logical and when it is merely an illusion?

Did you think about it yet?

If you have a point to make about this, then I think you should make it. And you should answer the questions.

[dondigitalia]

Perhaps someday you will find the right combination of words that will trigger their brain-configurations to be more in line with yours.

Perhaps we can come up with the right combination of words to trigger his brain-configurations to come up the the right words to trigger ours. But, then what will trigger ours to do that? Hmmm....

[mrocktor]

Guacamole.

mrocktor

[Hal]

Dualism

It would be worth your while looking at how the self was conceived of by the Greeks, Aristotle in particular. Ayn Rand's conception of man as an integrated unity is rooted in the Aristotlean tradition, not in the system of categories which were created by post-Cartesian philosophy. The idea of a metaphysical gap between the mind and body is a modern notion which did not exist in pre-enlightenment thought, nor is it acknowledged in the work of those who either follow a roughly Aristotelian approach or reject Cartesianism such as Heidegger or Searle (not that I'm saying the views of these people have anything specific in common with ARs, which is probably more closely related to Aristotle's). Trying to classify all conceptions of the self as being either 'dualist' or 'monist' is an attempt to shoehorn everything into a Cartesian framework. Dualism is a poorly defined term which presupposes a lot of questionable metaphysical assumptions, such as there being a principled distinction between the physical and the non-physical.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Hal

[Hal]

The mind can't be an abstract thing. It doesn't exist without the brain.

Well, this is debateable. There's no reason to think that consciousness necessarily depends on brains - this would rule out a priori the possibility of (eg) conscious computers or conscious aliens with radically different physiologies than ours. While we can say that consciousness must have a physical basis, theres no reason why this physical basis has to be a brain. And in this sense, consciousness is something abstract - it can be realised in many different mediums in a similar way to computer programs or a musical score. Indeed, the computationalist viewpoint you presented early generally holds that conciousness is the result of the implementation by physical systems of certain algorithms, and this is often taken as an argument in favour of non-reductive materialism (not that I agree with any of this).

The structure of the brain at least strongly influences the mind.

This is true, but it also contradicts the idea of the mind and brain being identical. If X strongly influences Y, then X cannot be strictly identical to Y.

The thought processes in the mind can be seen by MRIs as activity in the brain.

Well, you can make the decision to call what you see in MRI scans the 'observation of thought processes'. But theres no obvious reason to do so - saying that what we are actually observing is the brain processes correlated with thought is equally consistent with the facts, and does less violence to common sense. Noone is denying that events in the brain influence consciousness, but this is very different from saying that the mind and the brain are identical. To go back to your computer analogy, the transistors and electrons moving around my motherboard are not Microsoft Office, even though they 'strongly influence' how Microsoft Office runs on my computer. Edited February 7, 2006 by Hal

[DrBaltar]

I understand your frustration. Don't blame your opponents, though. Their past experiences have led to their cortexes being configured in such a manner that this illusion is persisting inside their brains.

LOL right... like I said before - They are predetermined to think as they do. They cannot "choose" to think otherwise, and they demonstrate that with each post.

It's usefull before I get too frustrated to recognize this for what it is: an attempt to bridge between the natural and the supernatural. The natural side wants the bridge to be made of bricks. The supernatural side wants the bridge to be made of Farie Dust. (hey that's good... I'm going to write that down)

What simple fact can't you communicate to me? I didn't read the first couple of pages of this thread and haven't been debating the free-will topic at all, so I was mainly just giving some advice to anyone who was debating the free-will issue.

This debate stemmed from a discussion on free-will with EC and others. I recognized that debating free-will was opening a can of worms so I concentrated the debate on a couple things EC said: The first comparing the brain and mind to a computer and software, and the second being this quote:

1) The universe behaves in a natural cause & effect way

2) God is not required to explain phenomenon observed on earth or in the universe

3) The metaphysical is everything that is physical, i.e., all that exists.

4) The universe is deterministic (seen after several physics classes)

5) 3 implies that the brain is also physical

6) 4 does not imply that the brain is also deterministic because it would contradict the self-evident fact of volition.

which he wrote after I wrote

1) The universe behaves in a natural cause & effect way

2) God is not required to explain phenomenon observed on earth or in the universe

3) Everything is physical, there is no supernatural

4) The universe is deterministic (seen after several physics classes)

5) 3 implies that the brain is also physical

6) 4 implies that the brain is also deterministic

So seeing where the root of our disagreement was I came up with the topic of debate which was "Is the Mind Deterministic", meaning physically deterministic, not philosophically deterministic.

Objectivists most definitely do not believe in the supernatural, and are open to scientific inquiry, but as you noted before, there is a hierarchy to knowledge. What you did not note, and I'm not sure you fully grasp, is that Philosophy is at the base of that hierarchy, and is more fundamental than any special science, including Physics.

Aristotle's philosophy may have eventually lead to the scientific method, but it is not the base of the actual sciences. In the field of neuroscience, you can say that the anterior congulate cortex is made of neurons (biology), and interacts with other neurons based on chemicals (chemistry) and electromagnetism (physics). In biology, you can say the neuron cells have mitochondria, DNA, etc, and perform osmosis, create energy, etc (chemistry). In chemistry, you can say that adenosine triphosphate stores energy because of the way atoms interact (physics). In physics you can say atoms interact a certain way because of quantum mechanics, and then whatever your favorite theory of everything is. But it stops there. The base of Newtonian physics is his 3 laws, and more specifically F=mass*accelleration. The base of Einsteinian physics adds to Newtonian physics the concept that the speed of light is the same for everyone in every frame of reference, which results in a 3D cartesian space plus an imaginary (mathematically) axis for time, or (-1,1,1,1). I challenge you to reduce these further into philosophical axioms. You may be able to use philosophical axioms to talk about these things, but they do not reduce to axioms.

Now, of course, I'm talking about the axiomatic concept that, in Objectivism is called "consciousness," which may be a different concept than the one neurologists refer to by the same term.

That could possibly be part of the problem. My definition for consciousness is: 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. Objectivism defines consciousness as “the faculty of perceiving that which exists.” If an interpretation of an experiment violates an axiom, then the interpretation and/or the terms in the axiom need to be re-evaluated.

:sigh: Consciousness is not supernatural. I showed the error in your reasoning from the definition you gave (which is a surprisingly good definition, I might add, considering it was from wikipedia.)

This is what you said:

The laws of physics do apply to the physical processes of our brains, but not to consciousness.

The definition from the link you provided is: "forces and phenomena which are beyond ordinary scientific understanding."

You agreed that at the root of all sciences was physics. As I explained above (which you will probably not agree with) philosophy is not the root of any of the sciences but probably was the root of the scientific method. So if the laws of physics do not apply, as you say, to consciousness, then no science applies to consciousness. So, by the definition of supernatural, it is beyond ordinary scientific understanding, and therefore supernatural. I know you will never admit to this because it would seriously undermine your position. But A is A.

Perhaps neuroscience cannot yet explain 100% how consciousness works. That only means at a high level we don't know everything each area of the brain does or how, but we do know that fundamentally it's the firing of neurons. That is a physical process, and in the realm of science.

Speaking of A is A...

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

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.

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.

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.

If you have a point to make about this, then I think you should make it. And you should answer the questions.

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.

Guacamole.

mrocktor... you hit the nail on the head!

[Inspector]

Volition cannot be proven (contrary to Inspectors assertions that is has been proven),

Sorry, but I didn't say that volition had been proven, I said that it had been proven to be axiomatic, and that DrBaltar had been proven to be wrong. My apologies if I was unclear in how I phrased this.

As you say, "proof" is dependant on the axioms and they are not "proven," as such.

[DrBaltar]

Well, this is debateable. There's no reason to think that consciousness necessarily depends on brains - this would rule out a priori the possibility of (eg) conscious computers or conscious aliens with radically different physiologies than ours. While we can say that consciousness must have a physical basis, theres no reason why this physical basis has to be a brain.

Quite true...

And in this sense, consciousness is something abstract - it can be realised in many different mediums in a similar way to computer programs or a musical score. Indeed, the computationalist viewpoint you presented early generally holds that conciousness is the result of the implementation by physical systems of certain algorithms, and this is often taken as an argument in favour of non-reductive materialism (not that I agree with any of this).

The concept of consciousness is abstract, but the actual implemenation is by something physical... a brain, computer, or whatever. Since physical neurons, or physical transistors or whatever are coaxed into emulating this consciousness, then consciousness in this implementation is physical.

This is true, but it also contradicts the idea of the mind and brain being identical. If X strongly influences Y, then X cannot be strictly identical to Y.

I meant in dualist terms. If you assume they are separate you would still have to admit that the structure of the brain strongly influences the mind. I'm saying that the brain/mind is one thing, and that is why there is such a strong correlation.

To go back to your computer analogy, the transistors and electrons moving around my motherboard are not Microsoft Office, even though they 'strongly influence' how Microsoft Office runs on my computer.

Microsoft Office can be loaded on any type of IBM compatible computer, regardless of CPU type, and can even be run on Macintosh computers. A better example would be a computer and its BIOS. They are much more tightly coupled.

[dondigitalia]

Ok, here is the first problem then:

)3) The metaphysical is everything that is physical, i.e., all that exists.

3) Everything is physical, there is no supernatural

This sets up another false dichotomy between the physical and the supernatural. It presupposes that there are no non-physical, natural existents. Supernatural does not mean non-physical, it means beyond the realm of scientific study. EC made his big error in accepting your premise that all that exists is physical.

4) The universe is deterministic (seen after several physics classes)

5) 3 implies that the brain is also physical

6) 4 implies that the brain is also deterministic

This is all true, but the brain and consciousness are not the same thing.

It's usefull before I get too frustrated to recognize this for what it is: an attempt to bridge between the natural and the supernatural. The natural side wants the bridge to be made of bricks. The supernatural side wants the bridge to be made of Farie Dust.

Why do you continue to speak, not only as though non-physical is equivalent to supernatural, but as though it's a self-evident fact?

Aristotle's philosophy may have eventually lead to the scientific method, but it is not the base of the actual sciences...

Well, I didn't say Aristotle's philosophy specifically, but Philosophy in general. And yes, it is the base of all knowledge.

I challenge you to reduce these further into philosophical axioms. You may be able to use philosophical axioms to talk about these things, but they do not reduce to axioms.

Just using mathematics... it reduces to the law of identity. This law is at the base of all logic, and so is at the base of all mathematics. The facts that you learn from the special sciences are not able to be deduced directly from Philosophy (that would be rationalistic), but it is Philosophy that that determines the principles by which all of that knowledge is gained. This is a whole different topic, though.

This is what you said:

You agreed that at the root of all sciences was physics.

No, that is not what I said. I said: "Physics is the fundamental physical science, so all physical studies can be ultimately reduced to it."

I find it highly suspect and rationalistic that you conveniently left out a word which, not only changes the entire meaning of my statement, but which is the crux of my entire position. Do not straw-man me.

As I explained above (which you will probably not agree with) philosophy is not the root of any of the sciences but probably was the root of the scientific method.

...without which no science would be possible. So philosophy is pretty fundamental to the sciences. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the "root." I haven't used that term. What I say is that Philosophy is more fundamental, which means something very specific. It means that the special sciences depend on the knowledge gained in Philosophy. Philosophy sets the principles to which the sciences must adhere to be valid.

So if the laws of physics do not apply, as you say, to consciousness, then no science applies to consciousness. So, by the definition of supernatural, it is beyond ordinary scientific understanding, and therefore supernatural. I know you will never admit to this because it would seriously undermine your position. But A is A.

Again, you are equating science with physics. There are a number of non-physical sciences which are not based on physics at all. Mathematics and Psychology are the first two that come to mind.

If you insist on continuing to package-deal science and physics (a fallacy), and equate "supernatural" with "physical" (a fallacy), then I don't see any point in continuing. I have pointed both of these errors out to you a couple of times, and you have either changed my words (a sign of disrespect and a fallacy) or ignored them (a sign of disrespect, but also a clue that you might be evading). In any case, your avoidance of facing my actual position, instead of an imaginary position you created for me is highly unscientific, and being scientific is something you claimed to value in Objectivism.

Perhaps neuroscience cannot yet explain 100% how consciousness works. That only means at a high level we don't know everything each area of the brain does or how, but we do know that fundamentally it's the firing of neurons. That is a physical process, and in the realm of science.

Speaking of A is A...

You're equating again. How is it that consciousness magically morphs into the brain halfway through your argument? I thought A is A.

We both think we're being logical, yet we're coming up with opposite conclusions. Think about that.

Only one of us is being logical. I've shown you the fallacies in your argument. Show me mine.

Of course, the existence of logic at all presupposes a non-deterministic consciousness...

If you have a point to make about this, then I think you should make it. And you should answer the questions.

I've made my point.

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.

There is no such thing as "perception of being logical." Any evaluation of logic is conceptual. Even if there was such a thing as "perception of being logical," your argument still would not logically follow.

EDIT: One more thing. My apologies to Inspector for recalling his statement incorrectly, although I'm still not entirely sure I agree.

Edited February 8, 2006 by dondigitalia

[DrBaltar]

This sets up another false dichotomy between the physical and the supernatural. It presupposes that there are no non-physical, natural existents.

By physical I mean matter, energy, and the fabric of space. I think that pretty much covers everything, and the sciences deal with all of that.

Supernatural does not mean non-physical, it means beyond the realm of scientific study.

It has been said here (by DavidOdden I think) that Consciousness does not follow physical laws. That puts it beyond the realm of scientific study. If you disagree, you might want to talk to him about that (if it was him) because, again whether you'll admit to it or not, you're calling consciousness supernatural.

This is all true, but the brain and consciousness are not the same thing.

I said brain, and I meant brain. Are you trying to lure me into a free-will discussion again?

Just using mathematics... it reduces to the law of identity. This law is at the base of all logic, and so is at the base of all mathematics. The facts that you learn from the special sciences are not able to be deduced directly from Philosophy (that would be rationalistic), but it is Philosophy that that determines the principles by which all of that knowledge is gained.

Exactly.... The Scientific Method. I will agree that at the root of phyics is mathematics, and the axiom A is A applies. But existence exists is not at the root of mathematics, nor is Consciousness is conscious, nor that volition is an attribute of consciousness. Therefore, the only axiom that applies to my Physical Argument is A is A (read it and you'll see. it's in the 2nd post here). You cannot claim that my Physical Argument is false at its root.

No, that is not what I said. I said: "Physics is the fundamental physical science, so all physical studies can be ultimately reduced to it."

I find it highly suspect and rationalistic that you conveniently left out a word which, not only changes the entire meaning of my statement, but which is the crux of my entire position. Do not straw-man me.

I'm not sure how one word will change what I said into what you said, but I apologize if I paraphrased you wrong. What you said is fine too.

Again, you are equating science with physics. There are a number of non-physical sciences which are not based on physics at all. Mathematics and Psychology are the first two that come to mind.

Mathematics is not a science. It's based upon mathematical axioms, and in no way follows the scientific method. Psychology isn't a science either. If I must, I can go into why (but double check yourself first), but that's outside the topic here.

You're equating again. How is it that consciousness magically morphs into the brain halfway through your argument?

Consciousness is 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. Like I said... fundamentally it's the firing of neurons.

I can't really address the rest of your post because you're responding to things I quoted from AisA when addressing his points and you're thinking I said them.

[Inspector]

Mathematics is not a science. It's based upon mathematical axioms, and in no way follows the scientific method.

Then mathematics is supernatural?

BTW Dave, if you get to the bottom of what troubles you with my statements, let me know. I want to get this stuff right.

[Proverb]

Like I said... fundamentally it's the firing of neurons.

Do you propose that you understand the specific connection between the brain and the functioning of conscious thought? If so, your synopsis of this knowledge would be very helpful in this thread.

This is my question to you DrBaltar:

Do you think that the physical functioning of the brain and its specific connection to the conscious mind (whatever it may be) is irreconcilable with an indeterminate functioning of the mind?

If so, the burden of proof is upon you in the debate that you propose.

Nonetheless, to me this issue appears to have the following essentials:

1. The deterministic nature of physical entities seems (at least with the current level of physical science) to be irreconcilable with the concept of an indeterminate functioning of the mind.

which is being thrown back and fourth between the following:

2. A simple level of introspection and an analysis of the nature of 'knowledge' reveals the reality of the indeterminate nature of consciousness.

The obvious level of frustration in this topic seems to be propagated by this dichotomy of sorts.

Nonetheless, to claim, because of the nature of physical entities, that the mind is deterministic is as false as claiming, because of the nature of the mind, that physical entities are indeterminate.

Science at this point happens to explicitly explain a little more about physical entities than it does about the mind which in turn makes it difficult for most to exercise the discipline required to maintain ones integrity in the realm of epistemology.

I am not saying that the mind is 'beyond or detached from the physical' I am saying that it is a product of the physical and is unique as such in a way we currently do not understand.

[dondigitalia]

By physical I mean matter, energy, and the fabric of space. I think that pretty much covers everything, and the sciences deal with all of that.

Those are all physical things, except maybe this "fabric of space" thing you're talking about. If you mean the ultimate constituents of reality, they are not necessarily physical, although they might be--that's a subject for future science. To suppose that they are physical, though, just because the physical universe is physical involves yet another fallacy--a reverse of the fallacy of composition.

It has been said here (by DavidOdden I think) that Consciousness does not follow physical laws. That puts it beyond the realm of scientific study. If you disagree, you might want to talk to him about that (if it was him) because, again whether you'll admit to it or not, you're calling consciousness supernatural.

Why would I take up a disagreement with somebody who agrees with me? That would be silly.

If you define supernatural as non-physical, then, yeah I'm calling consciousness supernatural. That is not, however, the definition you provided. If you wish to retract or modify your definition, say so.

I said brain, and I meant brain. Are you trying to lure me into a free-will discussion again?

You've said things about both consciousness and the brain, in a manner that indicates you are equating the two. I quoted on such instance. They are two different things, one of which is physical and deterministic, the other of which is non-physical and non-deterministic. Neither is supernatural, under the definition you provided from wikipedia.

I'm not trying to lure you into anything. I don't operate like that. I think it's a dishonest way to discuss things (in fact, it is the Red Herring fallacy), and I'm a little offended that it was suggested.

Exactly.... The Scientific Method. I will agree that at the root of phyics is mathematics, and the axiom A is A applies. But existence exists is not at the root of mathematics, nor is Consciousness is conscious, nor that volition is an attribute of consciousness. Therefore, the only axiom that applies to my Physical Argument is A is A (read it and you'll see. it's in the 2nd post here). You cannot claim that my Physical Argument is false at its root.

Are you aware that identity depends on existence. In fact, identity is existence, viewed from a particular perspective. You cannot sever one from the other. Mathematics, in being based on the law of identity, is also based on existence.

On the subject of how consciousness relates to mathematics, I'll paraphrase Ayn Rand: Consciousness is not inherent in mathematics as such, but it is inherent in your grasp of mathematics.

I'm not sure how one word will change what I said into what you said, but I apologize if I paraphrased you wrong. What you said is fine too.

It completely changed the context of my statement from talking about physical sciences to talking about all sciences, thereby smuggling a false premise into my argument: that no non-physical science exists.

Mathematics is not a science. It's based upon mathematical axioms, and in no way follows the scientific method. Psychology isn't a science either. If I must, I can go into why (but double check yourself first), but that's outside the topic here.

Omg, psychology isn't a science?!?! You. have. got. to. be. kidding. Are you a scientologist?

Consciousness is 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. Like I said... fundamentally it's the firing of neurons.

What do you mean by a "layer of abstraction." Define in your own words, "abstraction." Or don't. You still have not addressed the (several) fallacies I pointed out in your arguments. You still have not pointed out any fallacies in mine (probably because they don't exist). If you refuse to acknoweldge them, then there is no point in having a discussion with you. Until you do, I'm not wasting any more of my time, when I could be watching movies with crude humor.

BTW Dave, if you get to the bottom of what troubles you with my statements, let me know. I want to get this stuff right.

Axioms are kind of outside the realm of proof. I'm inclined toward thinking that their axiom-ness is outside the realm of proof, too, but that's more of a gut feeling than anything else, so it doesn't hold much weight. At present, I'm neutral on the matter.

[EC]

EC made his big error in accepting your premise that all that exists is physical.

I don't think I made a mistake here. I just wasn't explicit enough. I should have said that everything that exists has a basis in the physical. I.e., a concept is not physical, but it is formed and stored via physical processes in the brain.

All physical interactions in the universe are deterministic via the law of causality. The law of causality states that all entities act according to their identity. Man perceives the universe automatically and therefore deterministicly.

The mind is an "emergent" property of a complex physical system, i.e, the brain. The two are NOT synonomous. A is A. A rough analogy is that the mind is the software that runs on the hardware of the brain. A computer program is not a computer. A is A. But both work via physical processes. The data on a computer is encoded in a binary code of magnetic or spin states. But those binary bits are NOT the data they "emerge" into the data in a non-physical way. The same way perceptual data that is stored in the brain is processed into non-physical concepts.

Why is the software/computer not a perfect analogy to mind/brain? It is because the mind has the ability to focus or not on whatever it chooses to. Why does it make that choice while software on a computer would never make any choice? Simple. A person possess's life, and if he considers his a value he must make choices to support his life. A computer doesn't have a "life" and therefore has no values to persue, and therefore would never make any choices that aren't preprogrammed.

As I said in another thread, I think the ability to focus is the "bridge" between the fact of physical determinism and consiousness. Let me explain that. Objectivism states that to focus or not is the primary choice. It states that the choice is simply made without stating why. It says that their is no "why" in this case because the choice to focus or not is a prerequisite to all choice.

So here I posit that the action that initiates the choice to focus or not is a deterministic process. Take a photon hitting your eye for instance, it travels to your retina-- deterministicly. It's converted into an electro-chemical impulse and sent to the brain for processing--deterministicly. But once your brain starts processing this datum it then deterministicly activates your ability to focus. From there you can make the choice to focus on this datum to whatever degree you so choose or ignore it. But everytime some data impinges on your brain it "turns on" one ability to focus-- deterministicly. But after your focus is on the rest is up to your mind. Continue to focus or not. Increase your focus level or evade your sense data. Focus on that data or on something else.

The data from your senses is like a signal that travels to the brain and causes the mind's volition to activate like a relay or transistor. Or maybe more accurately it triggers the mind's ability to focus in the same way a photon impinging on a photosensor causes a door to open at the supermarket.

To sum up the brain operates in a deterministic manner and the data that it processes deterministicly activate the mind's ability to focus on various data. With the ability to focus and make choices being necassary if one's life is a value.

[dondigitalia]

I don't think I made a mistake here. I just wasn't explicit enough. I should have said that everything that exists has a basis in the physical.

It may be true that everything that exists has a basis in the physical, but might also be untrue, too. I don't have an answer to that (scientific) question. What you said, however was:

The metaphysical is everything that is physical, i.e., all that exists.

The metaphysical is simply: that which pertains to the nature of existence (or Being, in the ancient terms) as such, which has nothing to do with the existence of physical entities.

Even if future science proves that everything does arise from some physical phenomena, it still cannot be considered part of the metaphysical nature of existence.

Current science, however, not having identified the fundamental constituents of reality, cannot say whether or not all comes from the physical. If the ultimate constituents turn out to be non-physical, then it will mean that all comes from the non-physical.

Once you say, "Existence exists," you've kind of reached the end of metaphysics, since that's really all we can say at the pre-epistemological level. The rest of metaphysics involves identifying the implications of that one statement. Other philosophers have tried to make it more than that, but they were wrong.

[DrBaltar]

Are you aware that identity depends on existence. In fact, identity is existence, viewed from a particular perspective. You cannot sever one from the other.

Identity does not depend on existence. A is A is only a symbolic axiom. It defines 'is' and says everything is identical with itself. A could be anything. You could say "a unicorn is a unicorn". That's true but unrelated to existence. Identity does not depend on perspective. A is A no matter who perceives A or even if there is no one to perceive A. A is A.

Mathematics, in being based on the law of identity, is also based on existence.

Mathematics is actually a good example of why the law of identity does not imply existence. If mathematics was based on existence, then mathematics could only be applied towards reality. Purely hypothetical universes can be constructed using math though. Instead of defining the universe as (-1,1,1,1) or 3d cartesian space with one imaginary axis for time, you could say (-1,-1,1,1,1,1). That notation btw is the trace of a matrix for a particular universe - real or unreal. In the later case you'd have 4 spatial dimensions and 2 axis of time. Obviously nothing like reality but still mathematics can handle it as effortlessly as it can handle the real thing.

Which still leaves my physical argument standing...

Again, as much fun as it would be to informally debate a multitude of people advocating free-will and the supernatural as a result of facts A-L, I have other things to do. It may surprise you but this subject is not what interests me most about objectivism.

The proposed debate was on the subject "Is the Mind Deterministic?", and we cannot even agree to what the mind is. I see nothing except your denial that indicates your position is not based on the supernatural, and I thought that I had left that behind when I joined a forum that advocates atheism. If any one would like to continue to debate me, then we can narrow down the topic and set up the ground rules.

[softwareNerd]

Identity does not depend on existence.... Mathematics is actually a good example of why the law of identity does not imply existence....

Just want to point out to any late-comers that the above is not the Objectivist position.

Actually, mathematics itself "depends" on existence, as does "A".

[Inspector]

Just want to point out to any late-comers that the above is not the Objectivist position.

Actually, mathematics itself "depends" on existence, as does "A".

As does "is."