Determinism?

If human behavior is entirely deterministic, with decision-making entirely reducible to deterministic physics within the brain, then there is no room for experience.

The very discussion of the concept of experience takes place through a physical medium; therefore the qualia themselves must necessarily have an impact on the physical environment. So if discussions of qualia are meaningful, then the brain cannot be fully deterministic because qualia add nothing to deterministic particle-twiddling. If the brain is fully deterministic, then qualia (experience) do not exist.

If you're not a p-zed then you know that qualia do exist.

Therefore your brain is not fully deterministic.

QED?

I agree.

Experience - Consciousness - Freewill - Abstract Concepts

=

reply to post by NewlyAwakened


Did you wake up and learn a new word today?

Why not elaborate on your theory ?

Originally posted by tpg65
Why not elaborate on your theory ?

Sure. What part of it don't you understand?

reply to post by NewlyAwakened


I believe you are getting Fatalism and Determinism confused. If you want a proper explanation of Determinism, then look no further than Daniel Dennett.

Here is an article interesting and useful article about Dennett that appeared in Reason Magazine in 2003:

Determinism Article

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
I believe you are getting Fatalism and Determinism confused. If you want a proper explanation of Determinism, then look no further than Daniel Dennett.

Here is an article interesting and useful article about Dennett that appeared in Reason Magazine in 2003:

Determinism Article

I'm familiar with Dennett. I have in fact read Consciousness Explained.

And I am not referring to fatalism, but determinism. You heard right the first time. Dennett is wrong, and the OP demonstrates why.

The linked article is written for the wrong audience. It implies that people who attack determinism do so because they have hangups about it. Perhaps most who attack it do for that reason. But I am not attacking it because of hangups; I am attacking it because it is false.

ETA: Didn't realize the article has more than one page. The absurdity abounds, and Dennett seems blissfully unaware of his own glaring contradiction. His determinism/fatalism dichotomy is a false one. Determinism equals fatalism. If a deterministic system is in state A at time t = 0, there is only one possible state it can be in at time t = 1. That's the definition of determinism.

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by NewlyAwakened

 

I believe you are getting Fatalism and Determinism confused. If you want a proper explanation of Determinism, then look no further than Daniel Dennett.

Here is an article interesting and useful article about Dennett that appeared in Reason Magazine in 2003:

Determinism Article

From the article:

if determinism is true, then there's less randomness. There's less unpredictability. To have freedom, you need the capacity to make reliable judgments about what's going to happen next, so you can base your action on it.

Dennett's position is that basically determinism holds our decision making process predictable, however, because we have to choose, we are characteristically free from fate. - so i think.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
If human behavior is entirely deterministic, with decision-making entirely reducible to deterministic physics within the brain, then there is no room for experience.

The very discussion of the concept of experience takes place through a physical medium; therefore the qualia themselves must necessarily have an impact on the physical environment. So if discussions of qualia are meaningful, then the brain cannot be fully deterministic because qualia add nothing to deterministic particle-twiddling. If the brain is fully deterministic, then qualia (experience) do not exist.

If you're not a p-zed then you know that qualia do exist.

Therefore your brain is not fully deterministic.

QED?

Lack of full knowledge of every variable that leads to qualia/experience gives rise to the illusion of randomness and free will. We could say everything is alive and motive of their own free will if we throw out all knowledge of every variable that occurs withing any objects existence.

For example, the rocks in death valley... No one knows how they move nor has captured them on film moving. Perhaps they are alive and move of their own free will.

Originally posted by sirnex
variable that leads to qualia/experience

Can you give an example of such a variable?

Even a hypothetical example of how a physically measurable quantity "leads to" qualia/experience?

I believe you and I have been down this road before, in the materialism thread. But if you want to give bumps to more of my threads, please do.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

Originally posted by sirnex
variable that leads to qualia/experience

Can you give an example of such a variable?

Even a hypothetical example of how a physically measurable quantity "leads to" qualia/experience?

I believe you and I have been down this road before, in the materialism thread. But if you want to give bumps to more of my threads, please do.

You understand what I'm saying. Unless you don't know what a variable is, in which case, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing this topic.

Originally posted by sirnex
You understand what I'm saying.

And you understand what an example is.

Originally posted by sirnex
perhaps you shouldn't be discussing this topic.

You're not getting rid of me that easy!

reply to post by NewlyAwakened


Here's an example. Hungry, what to eat.

Originally posted by sirnex
Here's an example. Hungry, what to eat.

I don't understand what you mean by this. How is this a "variable that leads to qualia/experience"?

I get the suspicion you still don't understand what the word "qualia" means. Until you do you're playing in the wrong league. I'm not going to try to make you understand the way I tried and failed in the materialism thread. I might advise you to do some reasearch to get a real sense of what it means. Though I haven't read it, the Wikipedia article might be a good place to start. It's long, which in my experience is rather typical for a discussion on a purely intuitive (and rather slippery) concept like qualia.

Not determinism, but irreversibility.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Are you talking about fatalism?



Perhaps this will be of some use to you:-



Peace.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
I get the suspicion you still don't understand what the word "qualia" means. Until you do you're playing in the wrong league. I'm not going to try to make you understand the way I tried and failed in the materialism thread.

This concept is a lot easier to explain in person.

But your original point was that experience (qualia) and freewill are inseparable right?

Because this is completely true.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
Are you talking about fatalism?

This cute fad going on these days with the philosophers of mind about the distinction between determinism and fatalism flies in the face of logic. A deterministic system has a past, present, and future that can be decided entirely by the state of just one "present" point in time of the system and the rules of the system. It is precisely this which is incompatible with qualia, unless qualia themselves are part of the "rules". If the rules involve only non-conscious "matter and energy", just particle interactions like you learn about in physics class, there is no room for qualia and therefore these rules describe a system which does not exist in reality. Right knowledge must account for all observable facts.

What they (including Harris in the case of your video) do is distract you from this fact by discussing how even if "free will" is an "illusion", it's still an important illusion, and thereby drawing their pseudo-distinction between determinism and fate. Their argument is all the more enticing because, aside from being a misdirection, it is absolutely true. The fact that people who blaze trails, who take risks, who are in touch with all their emotions, who possess self-control and self-restraint, and who live as if they are the causal agents of their own existence, are on average the most successful people, is just about indisputable.

Here's the thing. Anybody who's lived as long as these guys have and is not a complete failure at life, at some point or another learned, the hard way, the importance of courage and responsibility, of living in the moment and having a "personal center of gravity", as it were. And this fact in itself, as long as they don't dwell too deeply on the qualia problem, can be reasonably reconciled with a determinstic belief system. So they try their best to ignore or explain away the qualia problem, but that's where they find themselves on shaky ground. There's a reason Dennett's Consciousness Explained took 500 pages to write, and then he wasn't done and had to continue writing to continue responding to challenges. These guys find the spirit and then work tirelessly to explain it away. It's fascinating.

Now I'm not knocking their decision to keep responsibility. It's better than recognizing the incompatibility and throwing away the sense of free will, something that leads to a disordered life. The proper solution of course is to recognize responsibility and throw away the incompatible determinism. It's not like modern physics doesn't already potentially refute strict universal determinism (depending on how the laws of QM are interpreted).

Nor am I denying that our actions are, in fact, largely deterministic. Note I used the word "fully" in the OP. Incidentally I'm no stranger to studies of behaviorism.

But I also know from personal experience that there are extremely powerful ways of breaking old, entrenched habits that involve not moving a single muscle, methods that end up spawning loads of miscellaneous insights in the meantime. Even more importantly, and prior to this, I have had an involuntary religious experience. I recognize that's not an argument that holds any weight in an anonymous forum, but I must mention it for completeness' sake and to give you a clue of where I come from in my thought process. I should add though, on that note, that anybody who is interested in philosophy of mind might also be interested in reading the works of Carl Jung. He was a different sort of thinker, but give him a chance and you might end up pleasantly surprised.

Originally posted by Jezus
But your original point was that experience (qualia) and freewill are inseparable right?

I haven't fully thought through the notion of free will, and my own experience suggests that "will" is a deep, occult rabbit hole, but I would certainly answer this particular question in the affirmative at any rate. (On these boards I'm more concerned with refuting the "giant 3-D billards table" model of the universe.)

The observation of the cause, always occurs after the effect is produced, in that way, not knowing what is going to happen, will allow you more room to move in a deterministic universe.

reply to post by NewlyAwakened


How do you possibly not understand it? Do you not agree that hunger is something you experience, something that leads to a decision making process? Do you not agree that prior physical events take place that lead to hunger?

Name any other experience and we can reduce it enough to show that the experience stems from previous physical root causes and effects.