On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 1:54 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's obviously not true. Maybe you just haven't looked at it in a >> simple enough way. Taking any individual particle in your arm, it can >> only move in a direction determined by its own physical properties and >> the forces acting on it. If it's a water molecule inside a skin cell >> on your finger tip, there is the force of gravity, the force from any >> electromagnetic fields (since it is slightly polarised), its own >> thermal motion and momentum, and the forces from all the other >> molecules around it which are constantly jostling it. > > Yet we can move our arms. Is your position that your every movement, > and indeed every function of every living organism can be determined > by applying field equations of gravity and electromagnetism? Your > position is that there is no qualitative difference between what > animates a cheetah and what animates a pile of sand. I thought this was everyone's position. In fact, you have stated confusingly that it is also your position - that living tissue follows the usual physical laws and there is no magic.. >> It won't do >> anything magical contrary to these physical factors, which is what you >> are claiming when you say there is no physical law which determines if >> you move your arm left or right. > > If you actually read what I write, you will see that I have made it > very clear that I make no claims contrary to physical science > whatsoever. What determines whether I move my arm left or right could > be called a physical law or not, but it makes no difference. If you > call it physical when it has no qualities associated with physicality > (mass, specific gravity, density, etc) then the term physical really > can have no meaning. Whatever it is, it is the muscle cells of the arm > which supervene upon the higher order sensorimotive intention to > contract themselves as a group. So the physical particles are moved by a non-physical factor, which is magic. That's what I mean when I say you are confusing on your position. >> The same applies for every other >> particle in the body, and indeed every other particle in the universe. >> You move your arm because you decide to move your arm, but the >> decision to move your arm consists of a large number of particles >> jostling each other in a particular way. > > If the particles are making the decision by jostling each other in a > 'particular way', why do they need an illusionary metaphysical voyeur > to imagine that it's 'you' moving 'your arm'? What's 'you' made out of > that makes it not see that it's only particular particulate jostling? There is no separate "me". I am the result of the physical processes in my body; stop those processes and I stop being conscious. You call it an "illusion" that I am something over and above the jostling atoms and perhaps you are right, since it does sort of feel that way. Are you now going to claim that there are no illusions, and if you feel that something is so it must actually be so? >>The only point of contention >> here is to what extent quantum randomness plays a part in the brain; >> but even if it does, randomness is just another aspect of the physical >> world, not a mysterious non-physical life force. > > No, it's not the only point of contention. If your opinion is nothing > but randomness and electromagnetism, why bother writing at all? What > does it serve the physical purpose of your particles to write or > think? It seems interesting to engage in this debate, which is why I do it. Maybe you would say that this is just an illusion. OK: I do it because I have the *illusion* that it is interesting, although of course I understand that I only act in this way due to my biology. Is that better? > The relationship between awareness and physical existence is symmetric > though. You cannot have physical properties without some detection > process to give rise to physical qualia. If you close your eyes does the world disappear? >> A finite machine has a finite number of states, and an organism is a >> finite machine. > > It's not a finite machine. As long as there's no time limit, there's > no limit to species morphology. A zebra is not contained within the > states of blue green algae, yet they are both part of the same > evolving cellular process. A fixed volume of matter has only a finite number of states. Given infinite time, it has to start repeating. The number of possible states in living matter is far less than this theoretical limit since most changes would be non-viable. I think you may be bamboozled by the large numbers involved; a large number is not the same as infinity. >>The organism's repertoire can be increased by >> modifying it or adding to it but you would need an organism of >> infinite size for it to have an infinite number of states. > > You're assuming that all states occupy physical space and stored > internally. That's not how it works. States are recapitulated and > iconicized. They are projected outward to the infinite exterior, just > as I project my mental states out into your computer in this > conversation. Physical states occupy physical space. Mental states do not, but if they supervene on physical states the number of mental states cannot be greater than the number of physical states. >>Therefore, >> like a machine of finite size an organism will start repeating given >> enough time. At present, human brains have greater information >> processing capacity than computers but computers are improving all the >> time, whereas brains aren't. > > Since size is not the limitation of awareness, and since the idea of a > pattern repeating supervenes on awareness, it's not a problem, even in > the radically theoretical sense that you intend. If you have a greater number of possible physical states then you have a greater number of possible mental states. This is not to say that a particular large object will necessarily have more physical states than a smaller object, since the larger object may be simpler. >> We do something either because it is determined or because it is >> random. > > So either those sentences are determined (and therefore you are unable > to express any contrary opinion) or they are random. Which is it? Why > am I talking to someone who has no ability to control their own > opinions? Who is it that's reading this now...gravity? Which particle > is it in your brain which randomly jostles a meaningless opinion out > of your brain right now? I control my own opinions insofar as I take in information, assess it and decide what opinion to have. It is my opinion since it occurs in my brain, whether it's due to random or deterministic processes. It is thought that quantum randomness plays only a small part in the brain. >> That exhausts the possibilities. > > Um, yeah. Congratulations on logically proving to yourself that logic > doesn't exist. Is logic determined by physical forces in our brain's > particles, or is it random? Logic and mathematics occur as abstractions, true in all possible worlds, and independent of any actual physical reality. >>Some people say that they >> have free will if their decisions are determined, some that they have >> free will if their decisions are random, some that they lack free will >> if their decisions are determined, and some that they lack free will >> if their decisions are random. Some say they lack free will whether >> their decisions are determined or random, others say they have free >> will whether their decisions are determined or random. Disagreement >> can occur about whether free will is present or not despite everyone >> agreeing on the facts. It therefore appears that the definition of >> free will is a matter of taste. > > Isn't something being a 'matter of taste' make it supervenient on > choice? Free Will is choice, no? The definition of free will is a matter of taste. You think that if our actions are determined we don't have free will, I think that we do. We disagree on the definition of free will, not on any substantive issue about reality. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.
