Problems with materialism

[austintorn@aol.com]

Ok, if the will is unfree, then what determines its choices?

Memories, associations, learning, desires, inputs, wishes, character, personality, goals… all that you have become up to the moment. Just as we would want it to be.

Probably no one would wish their actions not to depend on who they are, yet that seems deterministic.

We have to wonder exactly what would be the alternative to 'determined' choices without it being the dreaded case of random choices depending on nothing.

Wider learning grants more informed choices, but… the choices still come from you as you are.

Even those lucky enough to pause and and reflect before impulsively reacting are still deterministically using the "free won't" strategy.

As an aside, perhaps the brain superimposes the scenarios of the consequences of all actions in a quantum-like way, thus being so quick to think sometimes.

Also, perhaps the universe is a quantum computer, following all paths at once.

[SteveA]

Ok, if the will is unfree, then what determines its choices?

Memories, associations, learning, desires, inputs, wishes, character, personality, goals… all that you have become up to the moment. Just as we would want it to be.

Probably no one would wish their actions not to depend on who they are, yet that seems deterministic.

Agreed, and though I admit I can be nothing other than I am on (on some large enough perspective). For all real intents and purposes, that appears at least partly a dynamically definable structure over time, though some significant elements may not be.

We have to wonder exactly what would be the alternative to 'determined' choices without it being the dreaded case of random choices depending on nothing.

If we consider that time does not allow for repetition, then at least one restriction would be that you could only choose something that allowed a change compatible with time.

Though, not everything about onesself is necessarily required to change to allow for the entirety of onesself to be changed and exist over a extended period of time.

Wider learning grants more informed choices, but… the choices still come from you as you are.

... and your inherent capabilities, which is another question regarding how those exist or were inherited etc.

Even those lucky enough to pause and and reflect before impulsively reacting are still deterministically using the "free won't" strategy.

It's interesting to consider that such pauses may allow for a greater conscious influence to develop between moments.

Consider that we could go through a trace of a computer program and demonstrate that everything was deterministic in its operation. At not point, within the execution of the code, did an invisible hand reach out and alter a previously determined value.

But the program cannot compute what form the computer takes (that may in some ways be irrelevant though), and following through a trace of the program doesn't explain the purpose for which the program was constructed beyond itself - the programmer cannot be seen within the program, so a deterministic physical universe does not determine as well that conscious actions are determined by it - instead we perceive the universe and so it must exist as a smaller complexity object than ourselves (I'm ignoring the vast sea of physical unknowns as they're no more real than God, to whatever extent each may be real).

As an aside, perhaps the brain superimposes the scenarios of the consequences of all actions in a quantum-like way, thus being so quick to think sometimes.

Also, perhaps the universe is a quantum computer, following all paths at once.

There's likely something to this. It's amazing that from the first time someone manages to flash a light bulb via. a relay the results of artificial intelligence have always appear figuratively "just around the corner", yet it's rather amazing how much computational power it takes to even emulate small components mental processes.

We're either designing things inefficiently (quite possible) or there are factors involve in conscious intelligence that are not being emulated in these mechanical systems (also possible).

[SB_UK]

- though if there exists a dichotomy that every good experience must be attached to a bad one ...

just ideas

---1---
For each 'good' experience we have (in waking external reality) - we can imagine its 'bad' (equal and opposite) equivalent.

---2---
Good experiences produce good feelings (emotions).

---3---
There's a hierarchy of pleasant experience -
- some are better than others.

---4---
The pleasant feeling isn't due to ligand:receptor interaction
- instead ligand:receptor interaction which interface in on some ABSOLUTE phenomenon
- some ABSOLUTE phenomenon which gives us the actual specific feeling of pleasure (itself).

That feeling has to be our insight into the effectively (from our perspective) ABSOLUTE.

---5---
Although it's tempting to believe that the 'pleasant' feeling is simply a biological interaction -
- for instance the seductive allure of narcotic -
- the bottom line is that these (drugs) are simply chemical structures -
- and chemical structures alone cannot lead to what we chase -
to what we call 'feeling'.

---6---
Instead
- imagine the ligand:receptor interaction opening up a circuit
- a circuit which permits us to feel 'an invigorating jolt of electricity' -
- where this 'electricity' tallies with the metaphysical term 'life-force' -
- where these terms associate with potential energy -
- where evolution is geared towards the process of generating ever greater complexity of structure -
- with
~by definition~
ever greater electricity flowin' with/there-in.

---7---
However the transition from one structure to its post-speciation
(then 'real new' novel emergent structure) -
is going to need to involve a period of learning or optimization of that structure -
- a process of optimization which (at a very specific threshold of optimization)
will
herald
a speciation event

- a speciation event resulting in evolution of that structure to 'better'
- where 'better' is defined as (from above) greater potential energetic content - greater life force - higher electrical flow circulating there/with-in.

---8---
The electron is a fundamental 'particle'
- and life (matter) must represent structures formed from 'em
- where the simplest model for incorporating the electron 'd be in a circuit -
- a smoothly flowing electrical circuit
- imagine as a river of electron flow.

---9---
Evolution
- as a geometric arrangement which results in a ^2 increase in electrical current flowing within its novel (post-speciation) structure

---10---
From ---3---

There's a hierarchy of pleasant experience -
some are better than others.

where this hierarchy

'following the trail of crumbs'

is the mechanism which we're programmed to (and are currently) following for the transition/optimization process described in ---7---

---11---
And so we hone our ability to divine
fun -

... ... ... and ~evolve~.

---12---
Only evolution.

just ideas

Very nice post.

I believe that much of the confusion over the influence of conscious will arises from its generally limited effectivity in some areas - as I mentioned above, it would seem the will would be driven by emotional forces, though what desired or not doesn't appear completely beyond conscious alteration - though if there exists a dichotomy that every good experience must be attached to a bad one or that for every happy moment and unhappy one has to occur, or that gain and pain are inseparable, then something needs to be fixed! At a minimum, the relative magnitudes between these needs to be alterable. In many ways nature does a lot of nuturing in early childhood, but over time there are in some ways fewer safety nets - that's enabling because of fewer restrictions in some respects, but it's not specifically good or bad and it would appear valuable gaining a better insight, if possible, into how emotions mold ones desires and the subsequent actions taken by them and beyond that, there's a question over why emotions exist in the first place, though that appears to be a bit of a cyclic/recursive relationship in that I'd assume there's a purpose for knowing why they exist, and the question could be emotionally driven, which would be like trying to ask what's the purpose of having a purpose, so I assume some step beyond that question would be needed ... anyway, I admit having a lot of fun with these puzzles, so I can't deny being emotionally driven by these questions.

I enjoyed your description of the mind as an evolving structure with the equivalent of layers of functions with different qualities built upon the last. I have a feeling there's some truth to that, though it may not be the only possibility, nor ideal in all respects, but it would appear at least a "natural" manner of growth.

[SB_UK]

We're either designing things inefficiently (quite possible) or there are factors involve in conscious intelligence that are ot being emulated in these mechanical systems (also possible).

We have the capacity to drop down hierarchical as well as along sequential processes -
couple this with a finite number of choices on each level of the hierarchy -
and each level representing the same underlying geometric structure -

and each level representing the same essential underlying geometric structure -
<- explaining away the human capacity to intuit.

We can become 'more so' (make progress) using a process of discovery which mechanistically draws upon structural similarity between it (something new) and previous layers (of our construction) -

- previous (lower (more fundamental)) abstraction layers of our construction -
- translated onto higher (our current) level.

We're guided (then) by pattern from past precedent -
- though where actual specific past precedent

the mechanistic basis to becoming 'more so'

isn't necessary.

An image
--------------
Kinda' like knowing that the train station is always to the East of the Town Hall -
- and being dropped in some strange city (at the train station) -
and being able to find the Town Hall -
without

<- intuition ->

assistance.

Intuition -
an imprinted 'guide' to logic which may help us to navigate our way through new higher novel abstraction levels.

[SB_UK]

As an aside, perhaps the brain superimposes the scenarios of the consequences of all actions in a quantum-like way, thus being so quick to think sometimes.

Great idea
- pretty sure you're correct.

why?
-------

recursion of process by abstraction layer -

- we're going to find that reality is a recursive, hierarchical structure where we'll be able to piece together the whole -
by simply taking everything we know to be correct -
- on each different abstraction layer
(each
- in turn) -

- and then filling in the gaps (in our knowledge) on each of the layers -
- by simply extrapolating the others.

~*~

Example
---------
duality

mind:body duality
and
particle:wave duality

~*~

dualities
- no co-incidence that we're stumped by two *dualities*
- monotheism, dualities and Trinity
1,2 and 3 -

why do 1,2 and 3 (specifically) -
- appear everywhere?

Solution

One unknowable God, God and the virgin birth and The Holy Trinity
- as a complete metaphor for evolution

- where there is only evolution
- a geometric process of evolution of energy which generated this -
- our structured reality.

[SB_UK]

---8---
The electron is a fundamental 'particle'
- and life (matter) must represent structures formed from 'em
- where the simplest model for incorporating the electron 'd be in a circuit -
- a smoothly flowing electrical circuit
- imagine as a river of electron flow.

note
--------
fat is an electrical insulator.

vs

............................................'backup!'








X men X
-- Tyred Seroquel

[SteveA]

just ideas

---1---
For each 'good' experience we have (in waking external reality) - we can imagine its 'bad' (equal and opposite) equivalent.

---2---
Good experiences produce good feelings (emotions).

---3---
There's a hierarchy of pleasant experience -
- some are better than others.

There may be a hierarchy of "betters" but I've come to think that it could be best to avoid such a progression but finding a line that can be drawn to this.

Let's take the idea of heaven and see what potential problems can exist.

If we assume heaven is a state of absolute perfection in everything, then there appears a problem is such a state is to exist over time. Though "heaven" might be reached for an instant, how can another moment "in heaven" remain if time requires something to be altered and not repeated.

Certainly a minor change/divergence would be no problem, nor a second, but similar to space filling around an attractor, if no state could be experienced twice ultimately you'd have a divergence growing more significant over time.

So a point of complete perfection is just temporary, at least in time.

Now there is an interesting line that can be drawn that encompasses more than a single point and potentially is infinite and I believe for all intents and purposes could serve the same.

I'm certain most people have had moments in life in which there wasn't a care in the world, yes, there may after the fact be gradations to such experiences, but in the moment the most important aspect would appear to be whether or not you're desiring of something else.

If you're in a state that does not include a desire to have anything altered, then there would appear little purpose in seeking more than that.

Now the interesting difference between that and some form of absolute perfection is that there are many more states (and likely an infinite number) for which nothing further is desired at that moment - that appears to be something potentially sustainable over an infinite time.

So I guess I do agree with you that some progression of betters could fill this bill, it seems less likely to be realizable (then again, I can't necessarily argue against something "better" ) and my comment is to just point out a potentially stationary and infinite volume that would appear to be potentially just as satisfactory.

---4---
The pleasant feeling isn't due to ligand:receptor interaction
- instead ligand:receptor interaction which interface in on some ABSOLUTE phenomenon
- some ABSOLUTE phenomenon which gives us the actual specific feeling of pleasure (itself).

That feeling has to be our insight into the effectively (from our perspective) ABSOLUTE.

Yes, there's nothing physical that explains all the properties of emotions and the correlated physical interactions are not necessarily the cause of emotions - for example, we can't determine what caused the universe to create such and such chemical, nor why the human body reacts in such and such a manner with it, though we may know there's a correlation between the body and an interaction with it that is correlated with some conscious perception, but I have to assume the cause of does not arise from the physical events I observe because I'm quite confident that physical experiences are only a subset of conscious experiences and do not reflect the complete properties of existence.

To get a bit technical, and explain why I have such a firm belief in this, not only do many of the qualities of conscious experiences appear inexplicable in terms of physical communication and much of what we consider to be an absolute an immutable physical structure to the universe is actually something that appears to be learned over time from the first moment a baby "randomly" moves a hand around - distances and physical objects are mentally learned and though we could say that physical objects have an undeniable inertia, well so do mental patterns of thought. There is an unknown reality "out there", but I doubt it closely resembles the typical physical universe we experience and possibly, similar to your layered description of knowledge or mind, there are different "unknowns" "out there" for different forms of thought, where each performs computations based upon certain subsets of information and subsets of goals and sees different circumstances and unknowns.

Also, something that appears fundamental to making observations of a system time is a detachment of properties between the observer and observed. As I posted elsewhere, we truly only see in 2 dimensions (I think even this is built from a 1-D stream of information over time, but we can ignore that for now), and we learn to interpret depth, or a 3rd dimension. We then learn of properties in 3 dimensions and develop tools to analyze and predict changes in 3 dimension objects, hence 4 dimension models etc.

But fundamentally if we start back at the beginning of physical knowledge, everything begins as a string of perceptions without specific spacial context and we learn to grow a model of space from that, but time appears to effectively exist as the first dimension and most relevant dimension in any physical model (Though I've found similarities to string theory in some of these ideas, there is no need to instantiate the arbitrary existence of a dimensional space - but that's an entirely different subject).

Normally it's assumed that we need 2 distinct symbols to represent arbitrary binary information over time, but actually we need at least a third symbol to convey time itself.

If there only existed 2 symbols in the universe we could only witness it in one of two states ... but there would be no specific duration to either state. We actually need (at least) a third symbol in order to allow multiple sequential presentations of the same binary state to be conveyed.

And there's a progression to this - if you want to convey ternary information over time, you need transitions between 4 symbols.

If each symbol is a distinct conscious sense, then we can equate the quantities of these symbols with the equivalent number of orthogonal dimensions of a space (these dimensions need to be tied together by a common metric though so that they're all related in the same space and this should be some form of unit metric related to the observers self and measured in units of time).

Anyway, I just made these comments because, from my view, if we can see the physical universe as something changing externally over time, then we must possess at least one additional dimension of perception that's not shared in common with the universe and from my descriptions of communication via discrete symbols this dimension can be interpreted similar to transitions over time.

[SteveA]

---5---
Although it's tempting to believe that the 'pleasant' feeling is simply a biological interaction -
- for instance the seductive allure of narcotic -
- the bottom line is that these (drugs) are simply chemical structures -
- and chemical structures alone cannot lead to what we chase -
to what we call 'feeling'.

---6---
Instead
- imagine the ligand:receptor interaction opening up a circuit
- a circuit which permits us to feel 'an invigorating jolt of electricity' -
- where this 'electricity' tallies with the metaphysical term 'life-force' -
- where these terms associate with potential energy -
- where evolution is geared towards the process of generating ever greater complexity of structure -
- with
~by definition~
ever greater electricity flowin' with/there-in.

Yes, I agree that the physical observations of chemical interaction or electric currents etc. do not explain the conscious ability to detect these in terms of conscious qualities - for example, electricity flows through many things, yet I do not sense these flows directly (at least I'll assume I don't) and there is nothing physically different between electrons in my brain and those in a lightning discharge or powering a motor, yet I do not detect them as being equally significant.

We might try to say that it's because those external electrons aren't in a brain, but again we can ask about what's the specific property of a brain that makes the carbon or hydrogen atoms etc. in a brain react in a unique and consciously detectable manner different than electrons interacting with hydrogen in water.

The argument may then change to say that the brain is a localized physical structure and a vague reference to spacial position could be made, but if I move elsewhere, I'm no longer in the location I was and it would not appear that I happen to also be located at some unique position in spacetime.

My actual views are that some complete form of "self" never moves and never changes - we might as well call this the eternal and static definition of the concept of self. Obviously something that never moves or changes cannot be seen as something within a space that's described by movement and change.

There are likely some unlimited number of qualities available to conscious perceptions (for various reasons, to me, it appears time cannot be constrained to being finite and if it was, time would have already stopped - then again there may be things that are simply irrational in existence, but I don't think I'll have much trying to understand those concepts, so I'll ignore that for now). These conscious perceptions need to support an infinite perception of time and hence the qualities cannot be described in finite terms because, just like digits of a number, they need to be able to define unlimited counts.

If we sidestep the problem of what created it all and simply say that there never was a beginning and that everything has always existed, though when taken all at once it appears rather indistinguishable from nothing specific at all (imagine a space symmetrically filled with every possible thing and all its mirrorings and compliment - the space would just appear as a solid nothing because there would be nothing specific to interact with in it).

Of course the question then becomes one over why there exist specific subsets of this at any particular moment. Though in some ways, if any specific things exist at all, then it would be almost a given that such specifics would be present, but that's not a good explaination ... oh, and yes, I tend to ramble

---7---
However the transition from one structure to its post-speciation
(then 'real new' novel emergent structure) -
is going to need to involve a period of learning or optimization of that structure -
- a process of optimization which (at a very specific threshold of optimization)
will
herald
a speciation event

- a speciation event resulting in evolution of that structure to 'better'
- where 'better' is defined as (from above) greater potential energetic content - greater life force - higher electrical flow circulating there/with-in.

Again, though I can appreciate the possibilities of such an evolution, there are always questions over the results of growth and though there are reasons to believe this would likely be better ... I tend to be skeptical and would prefer something more predictable and stable (it can be fun exploring, but it can also be great to find a nice place to live for a while).

Though the option to progress should always be available, it's not necessarily a requirement and it may be that in many ways we already have everything we need, but that it's simply a matter of putting it together correctly (admittedly that's still something "better" so it could be we're talking about the same thing).

---8---
The electron is a fundamental 'particle'
- and life (matter) must represent structures formed from 'em
- where the simplest model for incorporating the electron 'd be in a circuit -
- a smoothly flowing electrical circuit
- imagine as a river of electron flow.

---9---
Evolution
- as a geometric arrangement which results in a ^2 increase in electrical current flowing within its novel (post-speciation) structure

---10---
From ---3---

where this hierarchy is the mechanism which we're programmed to (and are currently) following for the transition/optimization process described in ---7---

---11---
And so we hone our ability to divine
fun -

... ... ... and ~evolve~.

---12---
Only evolution.

There do appear to be commonalities in everything we know, and we could describe them in terms of inherited physical traits, but we could also look at them as having inherited, but the comprehension of them, a logic in this understanding.

For example, we could construct a new language and pick some letters and being to make words and sentences etc. We could even attempt to construct random ideas using these letters, but there are limits to what can be expressed in a specific language due to the finite quantities of letters we use to represent things.

For example, if I define the sequence ABC to represent a tree and I define BCA to represent growth, and I define A to represent an apple, then if I wrote the "word" ABCA, there are multiple possible interpretations that could be made of this (that's not a great example, but it should serve).

There are always tradeoffs in a language over its ability to support expansion, its ability to represent things concisely and its ability to form arbitrary concepts.

Basically, my intent was to try to demonstrate that all physical phenomenon we come to understand, almost by definition, inherit a logic that we place upon the interpretation of these events in order to make them understandable/comprehensible. This in itself can impose subsequently observed derivative traits and rules of interactions, simply because we segregated our understanding of physical observations into some specific form.

Now recognize that such interpretations would likely have been made since birth when learning about the world and physical laws etc. and then recognize that these interpretive influences have cumulative effects on the perceive traits of experiences that can be divergent over time (yes, interpreting a single event in one context or another doesn't appear to have much influence on subsequent interpretations made related to it, but as you stack up more of these filters, especially considering that such have likely been made from the first experiences in life because any laws of nature were recognized, such influences could lead to wildly different experiences and perceived forms of reality, even if the fundamental logic underlying all such constructions remained the same (even the wildest fantasy world has the equivalent of rules by which it must operate ... I could get into that discussion another time).

[Unreal Zelta]

Steve,

I find the posts very convoluted, perhaps you can reduce it down to a conclusive remark?

Yes, I agree that the physical observations of chemical interaction or electric currents etc. do not explain the conscious ability to detect these in terms of conscious qualities - for example, electricity flows through many things, yet I do not sense these flows directly (at least I'll assume I don't) and there is nothing physically different between electrons in my brain and those in a lightning discharge or powering a motor, yet I do not detect them as being equally significant.

We are physiologically incapable of having an innate sense of 'moving' electrical currents, but we are able to observe such phenomena as sight is one of our senses. The reason for your inability to detect the differences is due to the currents relative state to our body, I would imagine one would develop a sense of shock and discomfort from electricution.

Basically, my intent was to try to demonstrate that all physical phenomenon we come to understand, almost by definition, inherit a logic that we place upon the interpretation of these events in order to make them understandable/comprehensible. This in itself can impose subsequently observed derivative traits and rules of interactions, simply because we segregated our understanding of physical observations into some specific form.

That is simply reheated postmodernism with a slight pinch of wittgensteinian philosophy.

regards

Zelta

[SteveA]

Steve,

I find the posts very convoluted, perhaps you can reduce it down to a conclusive remark?

1) If we're to believe that physical events determine what our conscious actions are, then we can just as easily say that our current desires have molded physical events (which for a clockwork view of the universe would be since the Big Bang) to allow us to perform those actions in the present.

2) If our conscious perceptions arise from electrical currents within the brain, then what we perceive would be contained within a brain, just as a program is executed by a computer.

A program can't simulate the computer it exists within and an MRI wouldn't be literally detecting electrical signals constructing someones conscious perceptions.

We are physiologically incapable of having an innate sense of 'moving' electrical currents, but we are able to observe such phenomena as sight is one of our senses. The reason for your inability to detect the differences is due to the currents relative state to our body, I would imagine one would develop a sense of shock and discomfort from electricution.

Can you give some additional detail as to what makes such a current passing through one chain of molecules different in character than any other current passing through any other set of molecules?

You mentions a state relative to the body, but what is it specifically about the body that is unique? Atoms come and go all the time and the body changes in form etc.

What physical property of the body is unique? I don't believe there is such a unique property to the body - the physical body is a mental projection or representation of ones state relative to assumed external objects, but when you look at your arm for example, what are you seeing? Are you truly seeing outside your own mind or not?

That is simply reheated postmodernism with a slight pinch of wittgensteinian philosophy.

regards

Zelta

I'm not familiar with the terms but yes, it's been a longstanding issue that doesn't appear to have been satisfactorily answered by science (it may be something that physical sciences cannot directly address as the general character of consciousness is only experienced by individuals and is not a directly shared collective experience except to the extent a shared objective view is present).