On Nov 19, 3:11 am, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Rex, > > > Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the source) > > where someone asked "Who pushes who around inside the brain?", meaning is it > > the matter that causes thought to move around a certain way, or is it the > > opposite? The looped hierarchies described by Hofstadter, if present, make > > this a difficult question to answer. If the highest levels of thought and > > reason are required in your decision making, does it still make sense to say > > we are slaves of deterministic motions of particles or is that missing a few > > steps? > > Well, I find it entirely conceivable that fundamental physical laws > acting on fundamental physical entities (particles, fields, strings, > whatever) could account for human behavior and ability. > > So if human behavior and ability is what we are trying to explain, > then I see no reason to invoke thought and reason as causal forces.
Because you think that leads to some overdetermination and it doesn;t. Shaking Muhammad Ali's hand is shaking Cassius Clay's. It's a different and equally valid of the same stuff > And, even if you wanted to, I don't see how they could be made to > serve that role. 1Z and I discussed this in the other thread. > > We don't invoke thought and reason to explain the abilities and > behavior of chess playing computers - and while human behavior and > ability is much more complex and extensive, I think it can be put in > the same general category. It's precisely because the microphysics is so complex that we do use higher level descriptions > The conscious experience that accompanies human behavior is another > matter entirely, but I don't think it serves any causal role either. > > > I could not perfectly predict your behavior without creating a full > > simulation of your brain. Doing so would instantiate your consciousness. > > Therefore I cannot determine what you will do without invoking your > > consciousness, thought, reason, etc. > > I wouldn't necessarily agree that a full computer simulation of a > human brain would produce conscious experience. > > Maybe it's true. Maybe it's not. I have serious doubts. > > I'm not a physicalist, or a dualist, but rather an accidental > idealist. Or maybe an idealistic accidentalist? One or the other. > > > I do not disagree with your assertion that something must be either caused > > or random, but does _what_ caused you to do something have any bearing? If > > your mind is the cause, does that count as free will? > > Even if that were the case, there must be *something* that connects > the mind to the choice. Otherwise how can you say that the mind is > the cause of the choice? > So what is the nature of that connective "something"? > If it is a rule or a law, then the choice was determined by the rule/law. Nope. That reason causes choice causes action does not mean reason was itself caused. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
