|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: There is too little Wonder
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Although determinism has been partly rejected in many areas of science, hasn't it? Stochastic processes are also referred to, for example, in the field of evolution, in relation to genetic drift.
I don't think I agree that stochastic processes are non-deterministic. To me, they are deterministic processes, just ones that we know less about.
(PS I just wanted to say that I find it increasingly difficult to discuss things with SusanDoris if she keeps on not responding to my questions, but singling out words of my posts and starting semantic debates about them.)
The trouble is, if we talk about genetic drift, somebody is bound to get out those bloody coloured marbles again, in glass jars, and insist that I keep taking one out at a time, and put it in a bowl. But I don't want to play marbles! Can we have a drink instead?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Can we have a drink instead?
I need a stiff one.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Lots of rude jokes spring to mind, but this is my good week, so maybe next week.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
LeRoc
The Soff is one of my favourite places to browse and learn. I really am sorry that I do not answer some of your questions; I assure you that I am not deliberately avoiding them. I answer as best I can but I never studied Philosophy nor have I been involved in very serious debating groups. Discussion groups, although decidedly not trivial ones, with friends, yes, for many years. So there are times when I have to say I don't know, rather than pretend knowledge I don't have.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
@SusanDoris: On SoF, you often express your admiration of the working of the human mind, and you frequently use it as a base of your argumentation. I respect this admiration that you have, and I share it, although maybe in a slightly different way.
But if we're going to discuss about it, it would be good to have a basic idea of how you think about the working of the human brain.
There are a lot of theories around about how the brain works, and how this connects with consciousness, self-awareness, free will... I don't have an in-depth understanding of all of those theories either, but it would be good to have at least a basic idea on where you stand more or less.
That's why I ask you these questions, so that we can discuss about it further. The frustrating thing is that often this is what happens:- You post an argument that involves the working of the human brain, partly in terms that seems confusing or even contradictory to me.
- I ask you questions, to try to clarify what you're saying.
- You don't answer my questions, but pick one word out of my post and start a semantic discussions about it in terms that I don't understand very well either.
- Go back to step 2.
I just don't know if we can get very far in this way.
So, what can we do? Could I ask you to answer the question I put to you here? Or should I point you to this Wikipedia page and ask you to try to position yourselves with respect to the theories listed here? (Although I don't find that page very clearly structured.)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Susan--
Sorry for the delay!
Actually, I've tried out many things. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) I take a "don't know" attitude to most of life. I've found *that *very* freeing. (Had a fun discussion of that on the "Come On Down, Trisagion" thread in Hell (now in Oblivion), about a year ago.
From past experience, I think an "absolutely no God/god, no way, no how" approach will never work for me. But I do readily acknowledge that She may not exist. Maybe we're truly on our own. or perhaps Ambassador DeLenn on "Babylon 5" was pointing in the right direction with "We are star stuff--we are the universe made manifest, trying to figure itself out". All kinds of possibilities to play with.
I think I skimmed some humanist sites, long ago. Will take a look again, when I get the chance. Thanks for the suggestion!
Well, if there *is* anything beyond this life, perhaps we can expect Douglas Adams to be both exploring and writing about it, in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to Heaven"? Perhaps with a comforting "Don't Panic!" on the cover! When I go, I'm tempted to have a good, sturdy towel cremated with me.
Interesting post , thank you. I'll go and have a look at that link later. I think your idea of a towel in with me at cremation is an excellent one!! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
This seems to be a blog, with a lot of information (some of it seems to agree with me [Biased] )
Do you have an example of a non-elimitive materialist theory, so that we might discuss it?
Yeah, it is a blog, but the most interesting parts are the links on the right hand side, where he discusses the ideas of the biggest players in the consciousness game. What makes it more interesting is that each discussion has two viewpoints, one with a standard materialist view and the other more sceptical of reductive materialist ideas.
But I don't think you are going to get what you are looking for in this area. For a start, I don't think eliminative materialism is your real interest here - as I have been at pains to point out, it is not a corollary of materialism.
Your real target is determinism and the problem of free will.
if you were to ask me this:
quote:
So, what can we do? Could I ask you to answer the question I put to you here?
I'd say I am a compatibilist regarding free will, in that I believe determinism and any meaningful definition of free will are compatible. And then I'd ask you how you avoid your horn of the dilemma of determinism?
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Grokesx: Yeah, it is a blog, but the most interesting parts are the links on the right hand side, where he discusses the ideas of the biggest players in the consciousness game.
Ok, I'll try to have a look there.
quote:
Grokesx: I'd say I am a compatibilist regarding free will, in that I believe determinism and any meaningful definition of free will are compatible.
I'm reading the Wikipedia article on Compatibilism right now, I'll get back to you on that. For the moment, I'm afraid that I'm going to agree with Immanuel Kant that this is all 'word jugglery'.
quote:
Grokesx: And then I'd ask you how you avoid your horn of the dilemma of determinism?
That's easy. I believe that our thoughts are neither completely determined by lawful nor by random events.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
That's easy. I believe that our thoughts are neither completely determined by lawful nor by random events.
Sounds like word jugglery to me. So what are they determined by?
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Grokesx: Sounds like word jugglery to me. So what are they determined by?
For me personally, they are determined by something that Science can't describe, and that is connected to God.
I know that this is an omtoch answer, but as far as I can see, so is Compatibilism. Which brings us back to our earlier discussion: if Science can't give an answer, we are free to choose any omtoch answer we want.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Once again, you are imposing limits that do not necessarily exist. You have no more reason other than you cannot accept that they do not.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
lilBuddha: Once again, you are imposing limits that do not necessarily exist. You have no more reason other than you cannot accept that they do not.
Could you unpack that please? Imposing limits on what?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The electro-chemical processes in our brain are determined by natural laws that leave no room for free choice.
This limit.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
lilBuddha: This limit.
Do you think that an electron has a choice when it's moving through an electrical field? Do you think that when a piece of RNA encounters an amino acid, it has a choice "Hmm, shall I connect to this molecule or not?"
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
LeRoc
Thank you for your post. I will do my very best to answer your questions, but will need a day or three, I think!*
I am sure of one thing though; any conclusion I come to will not include something super(i.e. 'not') natural.
*and @ quetzalcoatl: allowing time for tap dancing of course!
I am definitely not going to come to a conclusion that there is anyy
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SusanDoris: I am definitely not going to come to a conclusion that there is anyy
(You didn't finish this sentence. Are you ok?)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
lilBuddha: This limit.
Do you think that an electron has a choice when it's moving through an electrical field?
Heisenberg (and quantum mechanics more generally) says that the electron, if not exactly "choosing" anything doesn't necessarily behave in a deterministic manner. Good thing, too, or these wouldn't work.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I always wonder what the panpsychic people say about that - electrons and so on. If awareness is said to be 'built into' nature at all levels, then how is this manifest at different levels?
I think that in some Eastern religions you have a kind of idealism, that everything is observed, or as Bohr said, a phenomenon is an observed phenomenon.
This is really saying that there is only experience.
However, the Western panpsychics or panpsychicists argue rather differently. I suppose this includes Nagel, Galen Strawson, and further back, Leibniz, and Whitehead. Bloody hell, that's a lot of reading.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crœsos: Heisenberg (and quantum mechanics more generally) says that the electron, if not exactly "choosing" anything doesn't necessarily behave in a deterministic manner. Good thing, too, or these wouldn't work.
Yes, definitely. (Just for information, I have a post-doctoral degree in Theoretical Nuclear Physics, but my life took a different path after that.)
I think there are people on both sides of the discussion that use quantum incertainty in their argument. Materialists might say "The movement of electrons in our brain isn't completely determined, so this gives room for free choice", while religionists might say "The movement of electrons in our brain isn't completely determined, so this gives room for God to act."
I think we have to be careful with this argument, at both sides of this discussion. We might be getting ourselves into a "free will of the gaps" or a "God of the gaps" here. Also, it doesn't solve the dilemma of determinism, that Grokesx referred to earlier in this thread.
BTW Just to be sure, I'm planning to have Heisenberg compensators installed in my brain ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
LeRoc
Is it true that there are tons of physicists who are religious, but few biologists? I keep hearing people say that, but it might be a kind of urban myth.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Is it true that there are tons of physicists who are religious, but few biologists?
I don't know. In my non-representative experience, it seems to be the other way around. When I studied Physics/Mathematics, I didn't have any Christian fellow students. When I became active in the University Pastorate in my city, there were a number of biologists there, but no physicists.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
My husband is a physicist, one of his two supervisors was Christian, and we have several Christian physicist friends. Obviously this proves nothing though, other than we socialise with like minded people - we don't know any biologists, though we do know several Christian biochemists from church. I believe there are a handful of Christians at his work in an office of about 40.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Do you think that an electron has a choice when it's moving through an electrical field?
Only if humans have free will.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Oh dear, too late to delete the last meaningless line on my last post!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Grokesx: Only if humans have free will.
Heh, this theory also recognize that there is a problem with the elementary particles in our brain who don't have free will, and we who do. I don't agree with their solution though.
quote:
SusanDoris: Oh dear, too late to delete the last meaningless line on my last post!
Glad you're ok. For a moment I was afraid that you'd been Raptured
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Heh, this theory also recognize that there is a problem with the elementary particles in our brain who don't have free will, and we who do. I don't agree with their solution though.
I'm pretty sure that's a textbook example of the fallacy of division.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
SusanDoris: Oh dear, too late to delete the last meaningless line on my last post!
Glad you're ok. For a moment I was afraid that you'd been Raptured
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) You wicked thing, LeRoc!
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
SusanDoris: Oh dear, too late to delete the last meaningless line on my last post!
Glad you're ok. For a moment I was afraid that you'd been Raptured
I clicked on the video too, to see if there was a person managing to say all that with a straight face! But all Vivaldi instead!
I'll just catch up on the new posts, then I'll go to work.and see what I can do to complete an answer, as promised.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crœsos: I'm pretty sure that's a textbook example of the fallacy of division.
No, it isn't. It would be a fallacy of division if I would say:- We have free will.
- Our brains consists of electro-chemical elements and processes.
- Therefore, the electro-chemical elements and processes must have free will.
What I'm saying instead is:- We have free will.
- Our brains consists of electro-chemical elements and processes.
- Therefore, if these electro-chemical processes don't have free will, we need an explanation why we do.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
LeRoc
I think I'll send you a pm when I've finished thinking, but in the meantime:
I think of the evolved human brain and all the aspects of the evolutionary process, and the work which has been done in so comparatively short a time to understand how it works, as deserving a sense of wonder; but not with the idea that it is too difficult to keep on trying to understand all its functions.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What I'm saying instead is:- We have free will.
- Our brains consists of electro-chemical elements and processes.
- Therefore, if these electro-chemical processes don't have free will, we need an explanation why we do.
That conclusion only makes sense in terms of the fallacy of division.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crœsos: That conclusion only makes sense in terms of the fallacy of division.
Ok, let's go with the example of the fallacy of division that's in the Wikipedia article:- A Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean.
- A Boeing 747 has jet engines.
- Therefore, one of its jet engines can fly unaided across the ocean.
Conclusion 3 is clearly false here. But it leaves the question open "Why can a Boeing 747 fly unaided across the ocean?" Well, because of its jet engines, but also because the shape of its wings that creates lift, etc. etc.
I'm going to literally make the substitution now:- Boeing 747 = we
- Jet engines = electro-chemical processes in our brain
- To be able to fly unaided across the ocean = to have free will
If the electro-chemical processes in our brain don't have free will, this leaves the question open "Why do we have free will?" Well, because of the electro-chemical processes in our brain, but also because ...
Fill in your favourite answer on the ellipsis. There are people on this thread who say that just having electro-chemical processes (jet engines) is enough. I don't agree with them. You need some kind of explanation of how you get from there to free will.
[ 03. July 2013, 12:48: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If the electro-chemical processes in our brain don't have free will, this leaves the question open "Why do we have free will?" Well, because of the electro-chemical processes in our brain, but also because ...
It sounds like you're still trying to figure out which specific component of a 747 can fly across the ocean by itself. If we accept that things in aggregate can have properties that none of their individual components possess, why the continued search for the specific part(s) of the human where free will is located?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crœsos: It sounds like you're still trying to figure out which specific component of a 747 can fly across the ocean by itself.
No, I don't. Explicitly so.
quote:
Crœsos: If we accept that things in aggregate can have properties that none of their individual components possess, why the continued search for the specific part(s) of the human where free will is located?
I'm fully prepared to accept that things in aggregate can have properties that none of their individual components possess, but this will never suffice as a scientific explanation.
If we ask "Why can a car drive down the road whereas its individual components can't?" then "A car can have properties that none of its individual components possess" is true, but doesn't suffice as an answer. Science can do better than that, it can explain why a car can drive down the road.
If we ask "Why can our heart pump blood around our body whereas its individual cells can't?" then "A heart can have properties that none of its individual cells possess" is true, but doesn't suffice as an answer. Science can do better than that, it can explain why a heart can pump the blood around.
If we ask "Why do we have free will whereas the individual cells of our brain don't" then "A brain can have properties that none of its individual cells possess" might be true, but doesn't suffice as an answer. Science should be able to do better than that.
[ 03. July 2013, 13:51: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Crœsos: It sounds like you're still trying to figure out which specific component of a 747 can fly across the ocean by itself.
No, I don't. Explicitly so.
If that's the case, then why the repeated assertions that at least one component of a human must have its own free will in order for a human to have free will?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
LeRoc
and Science will do better than that, but give them time! In the meantime, it's a 'don't know'/
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crœsos: If that's the case, then why the repeated assertions that at least one component of a human must have its own free will in order for a human to have free will?
In none of these posts I have asserted that at least one component of a human must have its own free will in order for a human to have free will.
quote:
SusanDoris: and Science will do better than that, but give them time! In the meantime, it's a 'don't know'/
That's wishful thinking. "We don't know" is the only honest answer Science can give right now.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I was waiting for the old promissory note for science - one day, we will explain X. I admire the faith involved.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In none of these posts I have asserted that at least one component of a human must have its own free will in order for a human to have free will.
None of your posts on the last page make sense without that implicit assumption. For instance:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Because you can't hold all of these positions together:- The electro-chemical processes in our brain are determined by natural laws that leave no room for free choice.
- Our brain consists of gazillion chemical elements and the electro-chemical processes between them.
- We have free choice.
Something has to give here. And each of our theories on how the brain works depend on which of these three statements we are prepared to alter.
The clear assumption being made here is that if no individual component has free choice, the larger assemblage cannot have free choice either. If that's not what you're trying to say in the above post, what was your point?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos: The clear assumption being made here is that if no individual component has free choice, the larger assemblage cannot have free choice either. If that's not what you're trying to say in the above post, what was your point?
If no individual component has free choice, then we need an explanation of why the larger assemblage can have free choice.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If no individual component has free choice, then we need an explanation of why the larger assemblage can have free choice.
Your conclusion does not flow naturally from your premise. We don't want an explanation because our expectations are premised on the fallacy of division. We want an explanation because we're curious. Your concentration on whether or not individual electrons exercise free will seems an exercise in artificially creating an intellectual difficulty in order to "solve" it with your preferred solution.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crœsos: We don't want an explanation because our expectations are premised on the fallacy of division. We want an explanation because we're curious.
You were the one who introduced the fallacy of division here, not me. But I agree with the last part: we want an explanation because we're curious. I guess it's also an answer to claims by SusanDoris that Science can explain the working of our brain.
quote:
Crœsos: Your concentration on whether or not individual electrons exercise free will seems an exercise in artificially creating an intellectual difficulty in order to "solve" it with your preferred solution.
No. If we are curious about the working of the brain, then "Why can the brain exercise free will while its individual electrons can't?" is a perfectly valid —and even necessary— question.
(The post you linked to here was a reaction to an assertion by lilBuddha that the electro-chemical processes in our brain have room for free choice. In my reaction, I specified this assertion a bit, to find out if this was really what (s)he meant.)
[ 03. July 2013, 15:02: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You were the one who introduced the fallacy of division here, not me.
No, that was you. I just pointed out that it was being used.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Crœsos: Your concentration on whether or not individual electrons exercise free will seems an exercise in artificially creating an intellectual difficulty in order to "solve" it with your preferred solution.
No. If we are curious about the working of the brain, then "Why can the brain exercise free will while its individual electrons can't?" is a perfectly valid —and even necessary— question.
Only if we buy into the fallacy of division and find it remarkable that assemblages have properties that their individual components don't.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
It is a perfectly valid question, my objection is you seem to have factored in a conclusion based more upon want than result.
ETA: Response to LeRoc
[ 03. July 2013, 15:24: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crœsos: Only if we buy into the fallacy of division and find it remarkable that assemblages have properties that their individual components don't.
No, I'm afraid that you don't understand the fallacy of division. The fallacy of division doesn't take away the necessity to explain why a specific assemblage has properties that its individual components don't.
I told before on this thread that I have studied Nuclear Physics. As part of these studies, I worked at a Particle Accelerator that smashes protons, nuclei and stuff together at high speeds and looks at what comes out, and in which directions.
The experimental people of the Accelerator got a result they couldn't explain: when smashed together, big nuclei showed a behaviour that was different from their individual components. Protons and alpha-particles showed one type of behaviour, bigger nuclei that are made up of these particles showed a different behaviour.
As a theoricist, my task was to explain this difference in behaviour. Imagine that my thesis was like this:
Explanation for the difference in behaviour of bigger nuclei from that of their components in experiment X
Roc, L., University of YY
Assamblages can have properties that their individual components don't.
Q.E.D.
Do you think I would have gotten my Masters degree if I had handed in this thesis?
quote:
lilBuddha: It is a perfectly valid question, my objection is you seem to have factored in a conclusion based more upon want than result.
Yes, and I admit that. Science isn't giving an answer here, so I'm free to personally choose my own answer.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Crœsos: Only if we buy into the fallacy of division and find it remarkable that assemblages have properties that their individual components don't.
No, I'm afraid that you don't understand the fallacy of division. The fallacy of division doesn't take away the necessity to explain why a specific assemblage has properties that its individual components don't.
But it does take away the assumption or expectation that an assemblage should have the same properties as some or all of its components. That's an assumption that seems implicit in most of your posts on why it's such a problem that humans have free will when none of their components seem to.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
And I have no problem with that.
I admit I get a bit frustrated with the desired outcome being offered as conclusion. This is often the core of atheist v. theist debate.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And I have no problem with that.
I admit I get a bit frustrated with the desired outcome being offered as conclusion. This is often the core of atheist v. theist debate.
ETA: response to LeRoc.
And curse you, and your faster fingers, Crœsos!
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crœsos: But it does take away the assumption or expectation that an assemblage should have the same properties as some or all of its components.
Aargh... no it doesn't. The only assumption is that if an assemblage does have different properties from its components, Science cannot claim to have explained the assamblage without having given a explanation of why its properties are different from its components.
Is there anyone who can explain the fallacy of division to Crœsos better than I can? ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:
lilBuddha: And I have no problem with that.
I admit I get a bit frustrated with the desired outcome being offered as conclusion. This is often the core of atheist v. theist debate.
I completely agree.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
