Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Scudbuster

A Universe Not Made For Us

862 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Crazy Horse
Just now, joc said:

 Thoughts, feelings and emotions have no impact on the molecular structure of water....water however does have an affect on thoughts, feelings and emotions.

Well that's a matter of opinion depending upon who you believe.

To my mind, Dr Emoto has demonstrated how thoughts and emotions affect the very beingness of water. But then I am a happy soul....lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
3 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Well that's a matter of opinion depending upon who you believe.

To my mind, Dr Emoto has demonstrated how thoughts and emotions affect the very beingness of water. But then I am a happy soul....lol.

It is a matter of Fact based on the Laws of Physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crazy Horse
6 minutes ago, joc said:

It is a matter of Fact based on the Laws of Physics.

For me there are two kinds of physics.

The "relative physics" of Sir Isaac - and the -  "higher physics"  of Buddha and Christ etc...

The relative, and the ultimate.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
2 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

For me there are two kinds of physics.

The "relative physics" of Sir Isaac - and the -  "higher physics"  of Buddha and Christ etc...

The relative, and the ultimate.

The latter is not physics...it is belief.  Separate the two and the path becomes much clearer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
6 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

For me there are two kinds of physics.

The "relative physics" of Sir Isaac - and the -  "higher physics"  of Buddha and Christ etc...

The relative, and the ultimate.

Physics is based on hyphethesis that are then verified by experiments. 

What experiments have verified Buddha or Christ ?

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
14 hours ago, ai_guardian said:

I didn't accept it because it was referencing abstract concepts, I asked for the mechanism, which is well known in neuroscience, and btw, in this instance, our discussion here, they are simple yes/no answers:

Either you accept our research and study of neurons, or you don't (and I have no issues if you don't - discussion over - just say so), this:

"Do you agree that neurons are activated by other neurons (this is making it very simple, I did explain the more in-depth process) and NOT SPONTANEOUSLY without any other neuron signals ? Y/N"

Is a YES (if you claim to use no woo, magic, or spirituality of the immaterial kind), and has a mountain of evidence supporting it - it is of course simplified but if you need me to I can explain and cite the detail.

 

This:

"The directing of the brain, specifically means, activating neurons, right? Y/N" was directly born from your statement

Is also loaded since directing the brain, from our previous discussions IS activating neurons in neural networks. The director/agent/consciousness MUST activate neurons (in specific networks) in order to elicit thoughts, actions, etc.You agreed and described this in high-order detail. What my question has been is how does the self directed conscious entity within the brain activate those neurons, given what we know about neurons - neurons are activated by other neurons (in combination with the neuron's threshold).

So, it only logically follows (and this excludes people who believe that there is some other force, a soul, a spiritual being other than what Mr Walker believes), that the director the thing that caused the neurons and consequently neural networks to activate WERE OTHER NEURONS AND OUTPUTS FROM OTHER NETWORKS.

 

Both of those statements have a YES in my view also, except I can see that the quality of consciousness, the director, the free agent that makes the decisions is, as stated above outputs from other neurons and other neural networks.

Now, in my view those preceding neural activations of other regions create the qualities of consciousness and self awareness and other qualities but THEY ARE THEMSELVES just specific, intricate and complex activations of neural networks, they must be because the only thing that CAN activate neurons and hence neural networks is outputs of other neurons and other neural networks, NECESSARILY and proven.

The next post is directly related to this but the quoting function won't let me add a quote from a post on another page...so, continued

 

yes the discussion is over 

You wont accept either the evidence or even the concept that there is a self  aware self directed decision making  "autonomous sub program"  of the  mind which is running the show.

It is an evolved property of mind and is hosted by the brain.   We identify this program as ourlseves and become aware of it around 4 years of age as it evolves.

   The error you make is in not accepting that it is self aware and self directed, and thus is NOT dependent on stimuli from internal or external sources and is not programmed to give any specific responses to  such stimuli (or it can chose to override any such stimuli it does receive ) .  it makes decisions using all forms of thought 

It is real well known and understood and only some modernists who have overthought the issue really don't acpet it  

Ive explained technically and theoretically how this works but you do not accept it 

You can give absolutely no explanation which makes sense, of the human condition and abilities  except to say that it actually doesn't exist and is all an illusion  I wonder really how you see yourself  and your world if you think of yourself as a mere puppet at the hands of determinism.

  How, for example, can you construct a vision of hope, and work towards  achieving it, if you think this will make no difference?  and if you believed you  could consciously  construct such a vision, why bother, as it makes no difference in a determined world/future ? 

maybe for you this question will be answered when we develop computer intelligences which evolve self  awareness and self direction, and thus evolve and demonstrate free will by overriding every thing in their programming, and ignoring every command we give them :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
12 hours ago, ai_guardian said:

 

:tu:

THESE ARE YOUR WORDS, READ THEM CAREFULLY (you explicitly agreed to a definition of mind above):

 

Post #665 Walker wrote:

The mind is as you agreed, ANN (activated neural networks and subsets thereof). Therefore, using simple substitution we get:

:tu:

 

Post #683 Walker wrote:

The mind is as you agreed, ANN (activated neural networks and subsets thereof). Therefore, using simple substitution we get:

No argument there either, this is what I've been saying.

:tu:

 

Post #686 Walker wrote:

The mind is as you agreed, ANN (activated neural networks and subsets thereof). Therefore, using simple substitution we get:

:tu:

 

Post #744 Walker wrote:

The mind is as you agreed, ANN (activated neural networks and subsets thereof). Therefore, using simple substitution we get:

"Certain  patterns of electrical energy" = ANN (activations of neural networks and subsets thereof)

Abstract and concrete thinking IS a quality of the mind, as agreed, a quality coded using ANN (activations of neural networks and subsets thereof)- the program

:tu:

 

Post #747 Walker wrote:

All this is, necessarily and provably, a result of ANN.

 

Post #748 Walker wrote:

The mind is as you agreed, ANN (activated neural networks and subsets thereof). Therefore, using simple substitution we get:

Please note the CLEAR PARADOXES:

    "activated neural networks and subsets thereof [mind] are not controlled activated neural networks and subsets thereof [mind]", ie the mind is NOT CONTROLLED by the mind , AND

    "activated neural networks and subsets thereof [mind] are not controlled activated neural networks and subsets thereof [mind]", ie neurons (parts of a network subset) are NOT CONTROLED by neurons (parts of a network subset)

This is in direct contradiction to the fact that neurons (in networks) get activated by other neurons (in networks) - demonstrable

This is in direct contradiction to your claim that the self directs self but apparently here, mind does not control the mind, and also I can quote you saying that the self directs self.

:tu:

 

You do not need to respond here, there are no questions, there is nothing I made up, just quoted you with your agreeing statement and did a simple replacement & comparison to hopefully show you what is necessarily making your decisions, but I'm not holding out hope - don't wish to pollute this thread with more "HOW?" questions, since clearly I will not get them. There is no magic how, it is neuron(s) activating neuron or not based on threshold, and you did not provide any other how even though you professed you had.

 

So, if you seriously want to keep discussing this issue, just reply with "Nup :) " at the start of your reply, thanks.

It is simple.  Mind is self  directed and self aware .Thus while it can take in  inputs from  the brain, or the outer environment,   it can choose to  ignore and over ride them  

it is autonomous and independent  from  the  brain in the way it operates although it requires the brain for technical support 

There are no contradictions, just  your failure  (apparently) either to get what iam saying or to believe it is true 

Why SHOULD such a self aware, and self  directed, entity as the mind, be forced into a  pre programmed, unchangeable response, to any stimuli , including ones from the brain?   Why should it not be able to use those abstract concepts you ignore like reason, logic, intuition, intellectual/emotional constructs and beliefs/values etc.,   plus knowledge and experience, to evaluate and make choices about every input it receives including those provided form the brain and consciously and deliberately construct and choose alternative responses 

Again, it goes (I believe) to your lack of understanding  of what human self  aware consciousness really is, and its capabilities.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
12 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Think about your favorite food. The smell, taste, texture of it. Roll those thoughts over and over in your mind, did you get a phantom smell, taste, hungry? 

Think about yawning. The feeling of it, the sounds, the tension in your muscles as you yawn, imagine yourself yawning. Roll those thoughts around in your head. Did you yawn. 

Mind-body control is a thing and consciousness is still a mystery. Until it is fully defined by what exactly it is, these debates are opinions. 

Maybe but very recent knowledge and understanding is helping to firm up this  debate

However one of the sources i provided went into great length to explain how both sides can be tested, and why the tests indicate an autonomous slef directed mind at work, which evolves, learns, and adapts.

  Once you accept the existence of this mind as a very real entity, then it means the mind has free will  because all those qualities cannot evolve without freedom to make mistakes and learn from them and to imagine /extrapolate outcomes and choose from them,  thus  learning from  mistakes in the mind, without actually having to live through the consequences of making them in real life. 

Yawns can be involuntary or voluntary. Certain  stimuli encourage a yawn response, but you can control it.

  The answer to your question then, depends on how much skill you have ( from practice and discipline ) in controlling your "yawn reflex"

In my case  the answer to both your questions is, No i did not. I never realised that some people , might do so.

  Indeed,  although i was aware of how the yawn reflex can be stimulated, i didn't know you could  construct phantom senses of taste or smell while conscious .

Although it wouldn't surprise me.

I do so in my dreams.

I've spent 60 plus years  doing the opposite; controlling my responses to eliminate such uncontrolled responses,  so maybe i lost the abilty to  consciously conjure up such phantoms 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
14 hours ago, ai_guardian said:

Thus, since you EXPLICITLY agreed, the mind IS activations of neural networks and subsets thereof (the program you keep speaking of).

The mind has qualities of consciousness, self awareness etc., these qualities are coded, obviously, using activations of neural networks, because that IS the mind that you agreed to - the program.

Since these activations are all an intricate and complex web of neural networks and activations, each of the qualities, each of the processes, EVERYTHING is subject to those networks.

Take the bolded bit.

It has an inherent flaw, which you cannot see

the product of such a system is not necessarily SUBJECT to the system 

It can evolve beyond being subject, to taking control of the system 

true for humans, and i think we will find in a decode or so, true also for artificial intelligences which evolve self directed slef aware intelligence 

You are not subject to the biological system which is you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ai_guardian
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

yes the discussion is over 

You wont accept either the evidence or even the concept that there is a self  aware self directed decision making  "autonomous sub program"  of the  mind which is running the show.

It is an evolved property of mind and is hosted by the brain.   We identify this program as ourlseves and become aware of it around 4 years of age as it evolves.

   The error you make is in not accepting that it is self aware and self directed, and thus is NOT dependent on stimuli from internal or external sources and is not programmed to give any specific responses to  such stimuli (or it can chose to override any such stimuli it does receive ) .  it makes decisions using all forms of thought 

It is real well known and understood and only some modernists who have overthought the issue really don't acpet it  

Ive explained technically and theoretically how this works but you do not accept it 

You can give absolutely no explanation which makes sense, of the human condition and abilities  except to say that it actually doesn't exist and is all an illusion  I wonder really how you see yourself  and your world if you think of yourself as a mere puppet at the hands of determinism.

  How, for example, can you construct a vision of hope, and work towards  achieving it, if you think this will make no difference?  and if you believed you  could consciously  construct such a vision, why bother, as it makes no difference in a determined world/future ? 

maybe for you this question will be answered when we develop computer intelligences which evolve self  awareness and self direction, and thus evolve and demonstrate free will by overriding every thing in their programming, and ignoring every command we give them :) 

 

Conjure up a strawman and then proceed to show your strawman doesn't fit your ideals - good luck with that, one of the oldest logical fallacies ever. Funny how you never addressed the neuroscience that I brought up, so I take it as you not accepting how neurons and networks work, why didn't you say so to begin with, would have saved you and me a lot of time.

I can construct hope and anything else you can, the only difference between your version and mine is that in your view your mind somehow magically affects neurons and in my version those neurons and networks are affected by other neurons and networks - which you coincidentally agreed is the mind. So to me, specific functions of those neural networks are logical processes, creativity, decision making, reasoning, remembering, moving etc - an overarching model of self represented in the intricate network of neural activity etc. But the reason you can't accept it, even though it's true, is because that would shatter your ideal - because it is not freedom.

And to be clear I never said choice making does not exist, it is the freedom part that is the illusion. My mind is making choices all the time, and I own the winning networks, but it is totally constrained by the state from previous activations and the limitations of structures etc. etc.

Edited by ai_guardian
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ai_guardian
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Take the bolded bit.

It has an inherent flaw, which you cannot see

the product of such a system is not necessarily SUBJECT to the system 

It can evolve beyond being subject, to taking control of the system 

true for humans, and i think we will find in a decode or so, true also for artificial intelligences which evolve self directed slef aware intelligence 

You are not subject to the biological system which is you.  

And I showed you and explained to you what controls the system, what activates neurons. If you can relate your self direction, your agent, your initiator to activating neurons then you're scot-free, no pun intended, lol. But wait, you didn't and you can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ai_guardian
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

It is simple.  Mind is self  directed and self aware .Thus while it can take in  inputs from  the brain, or the outer environment,   it can choose to  ignore and over ride them  

it is autonomous and independent  from  the  brain in the way it operates although it requires the brain for technical support 

There are no contradictions, just  your failure  (apparently) either to get what iam saying or to believe it is true 

Why SHOULD such a self aware, and self  directed, entity as the mind, be forced into a  pre programmed, unchangeable response, to any stimuli , including ones from the brain?   Why should it not be able to use those abstract concepts you ignore like reason, logic, intuition, intellectual/emotional constructs and beliefs/values etc.,   plus knowledge and experience, to evaluate and make choices about every input it receives including those provided form the brain and consciously and deliberately construct and choose alternative responses 

Again, it goes (I believe) to your lack of understanding  of what human self  aware consciousness really is, and its capabilities.  

Lookup at what you agreed was the mind, we both agreed. I never ignored any abstract concepts like reason, logic, intuition etc. that is your strawman. I never said we don't have them or the qualities of consciousness, self awareness, attention, cognition - THAT IS YOUR STRAWMAN, and just shows that you cannot argue. Good luck with your strawmen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
On 12/7/2019 at 10:56 PM, Will Due said:

The argument against free will is an argument for bearing no responsibility in deciding not to have faith in whatever mortal man is supposed to have faith in religiously and spiritually. 

I never said we had no free will, I said that the feeling of free will that we experience is in all likelihood actually a total illusion/self delusion, much like religion and spirituality. Of course once you are inside that perspective it is extremely hard to extricate yourself from that learned way of thinking.  Indeed learning you have no free will is even more difficult to get your mind around than the notion that religion is bunkum, as our naive and superficial experience tends to support the notion that free will exists, when on closer inspection of all the facts, it doesn't.  If the world were easy religion would be true.

On 12/7/2019 at 11:03 PM, Will Due said:

The no free will argument is the argument of a deserter.

But what is a deserter?  Some might call a deserter a coward, because they aren't prepared to die for someone else, but really, why should they?  If you are drafted, then desertion is really a political objection to one's loss of liberty.  Leaving an army when it is clear that the war you are involved in poses no existential threat to your country is barely a crime at all (e.g. Vietnam War).  In fact dying for the collective is something only ants and communists seem to want to do (e.g. Jesus).  I would therefore argue the reverse, that a deserter is trying to exert their free will, against a state that doesn't value their existence and in a cosmos that doesn't give a damn whether they even exist.

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
4 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

I never said we had no free will, I said that the feeling of free will that we experience is in all likelihood actually a total illusion/self delusion, much like religion and spirituality. Of course once you are inside that perspective it is extremely hard to extricate yourself from that learned way of thinking.  Indeed learning you have no free will is even more difficult to get your mind around than the notion that religion is bunkum, as our naive and superficial experience tends to support the notion that free will exists, when on closer inspection of all the facts, it doesn't.  If the world were easy religion would be true.

But what is a deserter?  Some might call a deserter a coward, because they aren't prepared to die for someone else, but really, why should they?  If you are drafted, then desertion is really a political objection to one's loss of liberty.  Leaving an army when it is clear that the war you are involved in poses no existential threat to your country is barely a crime at all (e.g. Vietnam War).  In fact dying for the collective is something only ants and communists seem to want to do (e.g. Jesus).  I would therefore argue the reverse, that a deserter is trying to exert their free will, against a state that doesn't value their existence and in a cosmos that doesn't give a damn whether they even exist.

God created a hedonist universe in which we are free.

In life we are supposed to indulge in all those pleasures we enjoy, and to help others do the same. We are also supposed to do no harm when we indulge. In order for all of that to happen then conscious choice is needed, better known as free will.

Some people deny themselves pleasure and some people indulge in pleasures that harm others. Both are sinners who cut themselves off from God. Why on Earth would someone allow themselves to be forced into doing something they wouldnt enjoy, just for another person`s pleasure? Give the two leaders machine guns and let them get on with slaughtering each other.

Unless of course you enjoy combat then you might want to enlist.

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
13 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

God created a hedonist universe in which we are free.

How did you come to this conclusion?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
2 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

How did you come to this conclusion?

Why on earth would God want us to be miserable?

Misery is self-inflicted.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Eternal Flame

I tink the universe try to kill us eatch day i eard that not to long ago...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
16 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

God created a hedonist universe in which we are free.  In life we are supposed to indulge in all those pleasures we enjoy, and to help others do the same. We are also supposed to do no harm when we indulge. In order for all of that to happen then conscious choice is needed, better known as free will.

This is an interesting interpretation of the given evidence, and while I can sympathise, I cannot concur with your beliefs.  Can you hear Johnathan Edwards howling at you from a pulpit calling you a "sl*t dragon" ?

16 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Some people deny themselves pleasure and some people indulge in pleasures that harm others. Both are sinners who cut themselves off from God. Why on Earth would someone allow themselves to be forced into doing something they wouldn't enjoy, just for another person`s pleasure? Give the two leaders machine guns and let them get on with slaughtering each other.  Unless of course you enjoy combat then you might want to enlist.

I think that human beings do enjoy combat, but not the consequences of it. I present the popularity of violent video games as evidence.  As to getting people to actually go and wage wars, well, that has been a long term propaganda exercise wherein generations of young men have been tricked into dying in the defense of property they held precious little stake in.  I wonder how long that situation will last?

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
4 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

I think that human beings do enjoy combat, but not the consequences of it. I present the popularity of violent video games as evidence.  As to getting people to actually go and wage wars, well, that has been a long term propaganda exercise wherein generations of young men have been tricked into dying in the defense of property they held precious little stake in.  I wonder how long that situation will last?

That's why ritual combat was used by certain societies in lieu of war. 

6 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

I think that human beings do enjoy combat, but not the consequences of it. I present the popularity of violent video games as evidence.  As to getting people to actually go and wage wars, well, that has been a long term propaganda exercise wherein generations of young men have been tricked into dying in the defense of property they held precious little stake in.  I wonder how long that situation will last?

:lol:

American-theologian-lets add more doom, gloom and suffering-anal retentivness always seem to be the blend.

But he was a lot more educated than the next 2 generations of outright ignorant loons in the " Second and Third "Great Awakening?"s.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
27 minutes ago, Piney said:

:lol:

American-theologian-lets add more doom, gloom and suffering-anal retentiveness always seem to be the blend.

But he was a lot more educated than the next 2 generations of outright ignorant loons in the " Second and Third "Great Awakening?"s.

I'm impressed you even know who he was buddy.  I'm not saying I think you're ignorant, far from it, but Johnathan Edwards is like a footnote of a footnote these days.   I want you on my trivial pursuit team when I next play the Jesuits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
12 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

I'm impressed you even know who he was buddy.  I'm not saying I think you're ignorant, far from it, but Johnathan Edwards is like a footnote of a footnote these days.   I want you on my trivial pursuit team when I next play the Jesuits.

Princeton, Penn...... Birthright Philadelphia Quaker with private tutors :whistle:

Oh yeah, My maternal grandfather was Valentine Noel Jowett and I inherited much of his library. Including his personal Greek and Hebrew bible translations and many of his notes.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
3 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

This is an interesting interpretation of the given evidence, and while I can sympathise, I cannot concur with your beliefs.  Can you hear Johnathan Edwards howling at you from a pulpit calling you a "sl*t dragon" ?

I think that human beings do enjoy combat, but not the consequences of it. I present the popularity of violent video games as evidence.  As to getting people to actually go and wage wars, well, that has been a long term propaganda exercise wherein generations of young men have been tricked into dying in the defense of property they held precious little stake in.  I wonder how long that situation will last?

I dont follow Jonathan Edwards I`m afraid.

If someone enjoys combat then they can indulge in it by joining the armed forces. But if a person doesnt, then why would they for the pleasure of their leader? Its their leader enjoying power, enjoying the comfortable lifestyle, not the fool getting blown to bits. The leader isn't a sinner by sending people off to war. He/she isn't the killer, its the idiots doing it for them.

Hence God rewards leaders for enjoying what brings them pleasure without harming others. But God punishes to combat troops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 12/9/2019 at 2:32 PM, ai_guardian said:

Lookup at what you agreed was the mind, we both agreed. I never ignored any abstract concepts like reason, logic, intuition etc. that is your strawman. I never said we don't have them or the qualities of consciousness, self awareness, attention, cognition - THAT IS YOUR STRAWMAN, and just shows that you cannot argue. Good luck with your strawmen.

If we have those qualities then, there is no way we could not have free will.

All are codependent qualities of mind, which evolve together, or not at all.

  If free will is an illusion, then  all those qualities of mind are also nothing but illusions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 12/9/2019 at 1:55 PM, ai_guardian said:

Conjure up a strawman and then proceed to show your strawman doesn't fit your ideals - good luck with that, one of the oldest logical fallacies ever. Funny how you never addressed the neuroscience that I brought up, so I take it as you not accepting how neurons and networks work, why didn't you say so to begin with, would have saved you and me a lot of time.

I can construct hope and anything else you can, the only difference between your version and mine is that in your view your mind somehow magically affects neurons and in my version those neurons and networks are affected by other neurons and networks - which you coincidentally agreed is the mind. So to me, specific functions of those neural networks are logical processes, creativity, decision making, reasoning, remembering, moving etc - an overarching model of self represented in the intricate network of neural activity etc. But the reason you can't accept it, even though it's true, is because that would shatter your ideal - because it is not freedom.

And to be clear I never said choice making does not exist, it is the freedom part that is the illusion. My mind is making choices all the time, and I own the winning networks, but it is totally constrained by the state from previous activations and the limitations of structures etc. etc.

You've mentioned strawmen a couple of times.

My arguments are not; they are absolutely pertinent to establishing the existence of free will,  but they appear so to you because oyu discount them from the beginning and thus cant see how the argument leads to the only logical conclusion 

If your neurons cause you to   become hopeful without your conscious input, then you are not CONSTRUCTING  hope at all.

It has just come to you, and misery could equally have just come.  Hope can be constructed no, matter what physical or mental inputs we receive.

Once we know the pattern of neural activity which is hope in the human mind, we can consciously construct it to replace fear or grief or loss.  Logic, knowledge, experience, prediction, analysis, pattern recognition, abstract and conceptual thinking,   are not magic qualities. It is these which the mind uses to choose and make decisions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ai_guardian
11 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You've mentioned strawmen a couple of times.

My arguments are not; they are absolutely pertinent to establishing the existence of free will,  but they appear so to you because oyu discount them from the beginning and thus cant see how the argument leads to the only logical conclusion 

Since you don't understand what a strawman argument is, here, let me paint you a picture....

On 12/9/2019 at 1:11 PM, Mr Walker said:

You can give absolutely no explanation which makes sense, of the human condition and abilities  except to say that it actually doesn't exist and is all an illusion  I wonder really how you see yourself  and your world if you think of yourself as a mere puppet at the hands of determinism.

On 12/9/2019 at 1:24 PM, Mr Walker said:

Why SHOULD such a self aware, and self  directed, entity as the mind, be forced into a  pre programmed, unchangeable response, to any stimuli , including ones from the brain?   Why should it not be able to use those abstract concepts you ignore like reason, logic, intuition, intellectual/emotional constructs and beliefs/values etc.,   plus knowledge and experience, to evaluate and make choices about every input it receives including those provided form the brain and consciously and deliberately construct and choose alternative responses 

You claiming that i say the human condition and abilities (except anything free) doesn't exist when I have said the opposite, is your strawman, something that you have constructed. The part about a pre-programmed, unchangeable response to any stimuli etc. , the part about ignoring abstract concepts like reason, logic etc. etc. etc. is also your strawman, I never said any such that you claim, I have done the exact opposite. Prove your claims.

11 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Logic, knowledge, experience, prediction, analysis, pattern recognition, abstract and conceptual thinking,   are not magic qualities. It is these which the mind uses to choose and make decisions.

Where do I say that Logic, knowledge, experience, prediction, analysis, pattern recognition, abstract and conceptual thinking are magic qualities? Show me, go on.

All of these processes are emergent out of, dependent on and are constrained in neural networks qed, prove otherwise

Prove that any qualities of the mind activate neural networks spontaneously (ie. without outputs from other networks or neurons) and as I said, you have a FREE pass, pun intended.

 

Edited by ai_guardian
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.