On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[email protected]');> > wrote:
Why are all of your actions "obviously" due to subconscious influences? If >>> that were the case why would personal awareness exist? >>> >> >> Your actions are due to physical processes in your brain which move your >> muscles, but you are not actually aware of these physical processes. >> > > How can you be any more aware of those processes than by being them? > Because I have no idea that these processes are going on, or even that I have a brain. Why do you think people used to believe that they think with their hearts, or with their immaterial soul? > You can't tell me that you feel neurons firing in your cerebellum, for >> example. >> > > No, neurons firing are my feeling already, there is no more way that they > can be felt from the human perspective. > But you are directly aware that your fingers are hitting the keys and control them to write your email. You do not make such a decision to activate cortical centres; it happens when you do something, but it is subconscious. > It is an inference from empirical data that the brain is the organ of >> thought at all. >> >> You seem stuck on the belief that it is not possible to be conscious if >> the processes leading to consciousness are deterministic, random or >> subconscious. As a matter of logical deduction, this is false. It is >> possible for a thing to have qualities different from its parts. >> > > This would be a case where the intentional would have to come from its > complete opposite - from the unintentional (determined and random), which > could happen theoretically, but not in a universe which had no use for > intention. A universe where intentionality is fundamental can pretend to be > unintentional, but unintentional can't pretend to be anything. > Unintentional is anesthetic and has no plausible use for intention. > Why does the universe need to hae a "use" for something? Who made this rule? And what difference does it make if you say intentionality is fundamental or emergent? It could be a fundamental fact that consciousness will emerge when matter is organised in particular ways. > * "...I never said that the laws of physics deny the possibility of free >>>>> will, >>>>> but free will is impossible if you define it in such a way as to be >>>>> incompatible with the laws of physics or even with logic."* >>>>> * >>>>> * >>>>> The "Laws" of physics are our deduction from the so far observed >>>>> incomplete >>>>> circumstances - they don't "allow" or "deny" - maybe explain at the >>>>> level of their >>>>> compatibility. The "impossibility" of free will is not a no-no, unless >>>>> it has been >>>>> proven to be an existing(?) FACT (what I do not believe in). >>>>> Logic is the ultimate human pretension, especially if not said 'what >>>>> kind of'. >>>>> >>>> >>>> In order to decide if free will exists the first thing is to understand >>>> what is meant by the term. If it means "I choose to do what I want I do" >>>> then free will exists. If it means something else such as "neither >>>> determined nor random" then it doesn't exist. >>>> >>> >>> What do you claim is the difference between choosing to do what you want >>> to do and acting as a physical phenomenon which is intentional rather than >>> unintentional (determined or random)? >>> >> >> I don't accept your claim that "intentional" (either in the common sense >> or the philosophical sense) is incompatible with the phenomenon being >> determined or random. It seems to be something you just made up and present >> as self-evident, which it certainly is not. >> > > You don't accept it but you have no reason to offer for your opinion. I > present my view as self-evident because to me it certainly is. It's funny > for you to talk about 'making things up' since that is certainly a thing > which makes no sense in an unintentional universe. > I have a good reason for my opinion: Fact 1 accepted by everyone: we are conscious. Fact 2 accepted by everyone except you: everything that happens in the universe is either determined or random. Conclusion: hence, consciousness is compatible with a deterministic or random universe. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
