granadina Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 If the so called ' Thought ' is part of human physiology , does it not render the phrase ' I think .. ' as senseless and mere fabrication ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomc Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Doesn't thought arise from physiology rather being a part of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granadina Posted October 22, 2011 Author Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) I'm afraid I don't see it rising . Can you help . And even if it does , where does it go ! Edited October 22, 2011 by granadina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomc Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granadina Posted October 22, 2011 Author Share Posted October 22, 2011 Where and When and How does it ' separate ' from the ' system ' ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomc Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I'm not sure to be honest. I don't know if it's reasonable to say that they were ever part of the system, they're a product if the system if anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) A computer program is an emergent property of electricity consisting of a series of voltage or no voltage; the resulting data signal is not a separate entity from the electricity, just like thoughts are not distinct from the brain. Another analogy would be the concerted movement of water molecules to make waves...you can't separate the wave from water or assign it to a single molecule..it is an emergent property of all the molecules in the wave.. A thought is not a single entity, it is a product of many electrochemical reactions meshing together to create the phenomenon of thought. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts...this is the essence of what emergence means. Edited October 22, 2011 by StringJunky 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomc Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 So the difficulty is in the way we tend to define objects? Then to say the whole is greater than the sum the parts is a kind of hedge for the discrepancy between how we intuitively define objects and how we should define them? Or it actually is greater than the sum of the parts? this is giving me brain squeak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmboy Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 So the difficulty is in the way we tend to define objects? Then to say the whole is greater than the sum the parts is a kind of hedge for the discrepancy between how we intuitively define objects and how we should define them? Or it actually is greater than the sum of the parts? this is giving me brain squeak. I don't think there is any problem with the way we define objects (systems). As someone else has already said consciousness is something that comes about as a result of the electrochemical processes taking place in our brains. It isn't a phenomena in its own right, distinct from our physicality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 So the difficulty is in the way we tend to define objects? Then to say the whole is greater than the sum the parts is a kind of hedge for the discrepancy between how we intuitively define objects and how we should define them? Or it actually is greater than the sum of the parts? this is giving me brain squeak. Yes, it seems strange how you can chuck some things together and you get a completely new and different phenomenon seemingly unrelated to its components...like magic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmboy Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 A little bit like scalar and vector quantities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomc Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I think i get it; it's an additional property of a system arising from the interactions of the original components of the system. Huzzah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 I think i get it; it's an additional property of a system arising from the interactions of the original components of the system. Huzzah. Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Boyles Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 So the difficulty is in the way we tend to define objects? Then to say the whole is greater than the sum the parts is a kind of hedge for the discrepancy between how we intuitively define objects and how we should define them? Or it actually is greater than the sum of the parts? this is giving me brain squeak. Emergent complexity can be mathematically defined in some cases, e.g. the Madelbrot set. So it is theoretically theoretically possible to also mathematically define the emergent complexity of thought and self from simple brain biochemistry and physiology. I.E. So that the complexity has a basis in the physical world and not just an illusion created inside our brains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granadina Posted October 23, 2011 Author Share Posted October 23, 2011 So the difficulty is in the way we tend to define objects? Then to say the whole is greater than the sum the parts is a kind of hedge for the discrepancy between how we intuitively define objects and how we should define them? Or it actually is greater than the sum of the parts? this is giving me brain squeak. So the difficulty is in the way we tend to define objects? The very act of representation could be viewed as falsification . Because this involves ignoring the underlying process .. which is all there is , and putting a label on the phenomena to suit our purpose . A thought is not a single entity, it is a product of many electrochemical reactions meshing together to create the phenomenon of thought. But can language help treating words as a single entity ! - you name it and it's gone ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomc Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) A computer program is an emergent property of electricity consisting of a series of voltage or no voltage; the resulting data signal is not a separate entity from the electricity, just like thoughts are not distinct from the brain. Another analogy would be the concerted movement of water molecules to make waves...you can't separate the wave from water or assign it to a single molecule..it is an emergent property of all the molecules in the wave.. A thought is not a single entity, it is a product of many electrochemical reactions meshing together to create the phenomenon of thought. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts...this is the essence of what emergence means. OK, i'm still not happy. Look at it like this: a 'high level' property/pattern/behaviour emerges from the interactions of 'low level' elements, and does so without external direction; it self-organises for higher complexity. So if the emergent property directs the organisation of the system we have a paradox, because if thought directs the chemistry of the brain producing more thought, then thought can't be an emergent phenomenon. So i will only accept that it is if you will stipulate that free will doesn't exist; because that seems to be the only reolution . Emergent complexity can be mathematically defined in some cases, e.g. the Madelbrot set. ...looks interesting but it's a bit beyond me. I suppose the complexity and self-similarity of the fractal increases measurably with an infinite number of iterations, and so maybe it defines a kind of metric for emergence or something like that? Edited October 23, 2011 by randomc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granadina Posted October 23, 2011 Author Share Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) because if thought directs the chemistry of the brain producing more thought, then thought can't be an emergent phenomenon. So i will only accept that it is if you will stipulate that free will doesn't exist; because that seems to be the only reolution . if thought directs the chemistry of the brain ..!! Where's the evidence ? So i will only accept that it is if you will stipulate that free will doesn't exist; because that seems to be the only reolution . Neuroscience and Freewill are incompatible . http://www.youtube.c...h?v=MNMBiQz8YLA Edited October 23, 2011 by granadina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomc Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 if thought directs the chemistry of the brain ..!! Where's the evidence ? Well, we can't have free will then! Neuroscience and Freewill are incompatible . Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 I think the point of the video posted is that neuroscience shows the brain to be controlled by deterministic processes; that usually makes people say free will doesn't exist. I've heard this quite a bit, but I'm still not sure on 2 points. What is freewill exactly and what does it matter if it exists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granadina Posted October 23, 2011 Author Share Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) I think the point of the video posted is that neuroscience shows the brain to be controlled by deterministic processes; that usually makes people say free will doesn't exist. I've heard this quite a bit, but I'm still not sure on 2 points. What is freewill exactly and what does it matter if it exists? It takes a load off your head to realize that you are not responsible for your actions . Even if the legal system believes otherwise . What is freewill exactly ? A forced deception , you can't live in a group without . Edited October 23, 2011 by granadina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Just because we live in a deterministic system doesn't mean responsibility is void. We are still doing what we are doing, we are our brain, there is no separation between what our brain does and what we do. Just because our conscious mind isn't the one that is necessarily in the drivers seat doesn't mean we aren't making the decisions. I'm unsure of what you mean by a forced deception. That would be a characteristic of free-will, if it doesn't exist, not the definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granadina Posted October 23, 2011 Author Share Posted October 23, 2011 Just because we live in a deterministic system doesn't mean responsibility is void. Agreed . Just because our conscious mind isn't the one that is necessarily in the drivers seat doesn't mean we aren't making the decisions. But doesn't that reduce you to a mere puppet ! Nobody knows who or what is pulling the strings . May be my brain is being influenced by somebody or some activity that is beyond my awareness , and I am found violating a law . I will be punished regardless of the invisible factors . Now it's no point protesting because these are simply unknown to the world . But the awareness of the fact that you are not the doer , can result in a more tolerant attitude . I'm unsure of what you mean by a forced deception. That would be a characteristic of free-will, if it doesn't exist, not the definition. The idea of free will should date back to the time when mind was supposed to be an entity other than the body , that could control the body . ' you are the maker of your destiny ' .. and stuff like that , which perhaps still holds sway . It was only when the mind-body duality sounded a dubious proposition , that things like free will ( that you have a choice , freedom .. to govern your actions ) appeared false . There is no such thing as the mind ; it is merely a concept . ( This is being openly discussed today ) While you can't say the same for the brain , which is out there as a physical reality . This discussion notwithstanding , one can't escape the social responsibility aspect . Can you ever teach children that they are uncontrollable ! This tempts me to use the word - forced . And deception - because the knowledge about lack of freewill can never be acted upon . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Mods Interesting though this is, it's wandering away from the pure science of the mind/brain relationship and should be in Philosophy or Speculations now I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Boyles Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 OK, i'm still not happy. Look at it like this: a 'high level' property/pattern/behaviour emerges from the interactions of 'low level' elements, and does so without external direction; it self-organises for higher complexity. So if the emergent property directs the organisation of the system we have a paradox, because if thought directs the chemistry of the brain producing more thought, then thought can't be an emergent phenomenon. So i will only accept that it is if you will stipulate that free will doesn't exist; because that seems to be the only reolution . ...looks interesting but it's a bit beyond me. I suppose the complexity and self-similarity of the fractal increases measurably with an infinite number of iterations, and so maybe it defines a kind of metric for emergence or something like that? 'Free will' is some what of an illusion. A great deal of what who presume that we choose to do is really a manifestation of instinctual behaviour, or at least directed and influenced by it. There is probably a fair amount of evidence that much of our behavioural patterns are 'quantised' within the realms of instinctual behavioural patterns influenced by the reasoning and logic of the frontal lobes. What we perecive as free choice is simply choosing from among those quantised behavioural patterns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomc Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 'Free will' is some what of an illusion. A great deal of what who presume that we choose to do is really a manifestation of instinctual behaviour, or at least directed and influenced by it. There is probably a fair amount of evidence that much of our behavioural patterns are 'quantised' within the realms of instinctual behavioural patterns influenced by the reasoning and logic of the frontal lobes. What we perecive as free choice is simply choosing from among those quantised behavioural patterns. The conclusion i came to after a bit of reading on wiki is we have a kind of 'veto', but that's about it. it's still free will though, it just works the other way round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now