Philosophy Discussion Forums

@Pattern-chaser
It may be possible to know aspects of self beyond the conscious; but, obviously, not the completely unconscious, and there may be a spectrum. Perhaps, twilight states because wake and sleep offer some picture of this, including sleep and borderline sleep experiences. It may be worth noting that in most instances the person has a continuous sense of identity within dreams, of being self and body. I have some dreams in which I get out of my body but still retain the sense of 'I'. Buddhists often speak of ego consciousness as being illusory in some ways, but even if, in some senses, ego consciousness is illusory; it is the very basis of human identity as we know it. Without the 'I' of ego awareness it would be like swimming in a great pool of liquid experience or mind jelly.

@chewybrian
It does seem that each human being does have a shared sense of having a subjective sense of ''I' which is the essence of the subjective perspective of interpretation and choice. The 'I' of experience definitely is as real for the existentialists as it was for Descartes as the internal
focus point for making choices.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑December 4th, 2021, 3:33 pmHow important is the 'I' of consciousness which and what does it signify, exactly?

Who am I?

I am the brain; I have many layers.
I control thoughts, feelings, and the body,
From inputs within and without,
Interpreting and re-presenting them
With a better and more useful face
Painted upon the raw waves and frequencies.

My senses are as spy outposts upon reality;
Inside, my own developed language of qualia
Portrays the results of the messages produced
By my vast array of neural connections—
Of their analysis, which takes a bit of time.

Organized chaos.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑December 6th, 2021, 4:12 pm mind jelly.

Very squishy.

THE SIMPLE BASIS OF HUMAN BEING

As for forces, which are just a prelude here,
We note that two of them are transitional,
The Electric and the Magnetic,
Each giving rise to the other,

And that two others are oppositional,
The Weak and the Strong,
The Weak promoting changeability,
The Strong promoting stability.
Gravity is then left as the blend of all.

( Strong vs. Weak ) [Gravity] ( Electro <—> Magnetic )

So, would oppositional and transitional pairs
Work for our human being as well?

For us humans, all is of the
Movement of Appearances,
These Movements giving rise
To notions of time…

Past into Future,
Or the Then to When through the Now
Is transitional in only one direction,
While Appearances beget notions of
Matter lumps, in the place of Space…

Matter and Space, or the What and Where
Are a kind of an opposition in that
The knots of matter are separate
From the gaps of space in between;
Or in short, all seems to be the
Movement through time/distance
Of Matter in Space.

( Matter vs. Space ) [Being] ( Past —> Future )

We will see that our being is composed
From these simple notions begun,

For movement grants time—
The Then and the When
Of the Past and the Future,
Via change;

While Matter is the What,
And Space is the Where,
Via ‘clumps’.

The blend of all these would be
The spirit of life, or being.

These fields then further combine:
The What-Matter + When-Future field
Becoming the Progression
Of matter into the future,

And the What-Matter + Then-Past field
Becoming the History
Of the matter past—what has occurred.

The When-Future of Where-Space field
Makes for Wishes, hopes and dreams
In the future place of space;

The Then-Past + Where-Space field—
Begets Remembrance of memories
In the past space.

The emergent fields then further combine:

Learning becomes of Remembrance and History;

A Change of Outlook becomes
Of Remembrance and Wishes;

A Change in Structure is Progress from History;
And Vision is of Wishes and Progress.

At the next higher stage,
Being Creative is brought forth
From Learning combined with a Change in Structure;

Direction results from Learning
And a Change of Outlook;

Growth is the Vision for a Change of Outlook;

Planning is the Vision for a Change in Structure.

Finally, Creating, Direction, Growth, and Planning
Compose one’s being—The Who.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 6th, 2021, 12:13 pm

🦋 free will vs determinism wrote:

1. determinism: consciousness being an illusion (i.e. meaningless) and mind originating from the physical.
2. free will: meaning beyond the physical, with 'beyond' indicating that it must precede physical reality.

(1) The p-zombie thought experiment doesn't at all imply those two options.

The claim with regard the philosophical zombie theory was the following:

The philosophical zombie theory indicates that it is impossible to know (empirically) whether a (conscious) 'I' exists in another person.

Inferred is that one is unable to communicate 'meaningful experience' on the basis of which significance of a conscious 'I' is to be established.

In a simplified perspective, which is justified given the situation, the question whether conscious 'I' is to be considered concerns the simple question whether there is 'meaning' that cannot be captured empirically, which essence is addressed in the free will vs determinism debate.


(2) Determinism doesn't amount to consciousness being an illusion.

It was already established in the other topic Is consciousness an illusion? that the term illusion is used to denote the absence of 'meaningfulness', significance or purpose when it concerns conscious 'I', not that consciousness as it can be described to exist empirically, is non existent.

With determinism, life, intelligence and conscious 'I' is a product of the Universe (the laws of Physics).

"Your conscious 'I' is just some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest." ~ The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?


(3) Consciousness being an illusion doesn't amount to consciousness being "meaningless."

It was established that the term illusion itself involves the presence or absence of 'meaningfulness' when it concerns significance of conscious 'I'.


(4) Free will doesn't amount to meaning "beyond the physical."

Physical = anything of which it can be said to exist by empirical principles, which implies that in a purely physical world, one cannot escape determinism.

When it concerns significance of the concept free will, one is to establish whether meaning is applicable as precursor to the physical world.


(5) "Beyond the physical" wouldn't imply anything about temporal or logical priority.

From the perspective of individual life, meaning would appear to lay 'beyond' physical reality (the future or the arrow of time). On a fundamental nature level, that same meaning would precede physical reality.

The logic is very simple: empirical reality is by definition at most a retro perspective. Thus, when one considers anything empirically, one looks 'backwards in time' and looks in the direction of an origin. That origin itself therefore, must have preceded any possible empirical perspective, explaining that on a fundamental nature level, 'meaning' would precede physical reality while from the perspective of life, it lays beyond it.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 6th, 2021, 12:27 pm

Free Will Sceptics wrote: ↑December 6th, 2021, 10:44 am To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. Your conscious 'I' is just some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest.

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion

Re this in general, I'm not asking if you agree with it, but do you at least understand that not everyone believes that the physical world operates deterministically?

I specifically asked the following:

At question is, how can you argue that mind originates from the physical while in the same time maintaining that you are not a determinist?

What factor allows you to claim that you believe in free will when meaning beyond the physical (read) is impossible according to you?

For context:

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 5th, 2020, 4:30 pmSo I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

psyreporter wrote: ↑November 28th, 2021, 2:18 am

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

psyreporter wrote: ↑November 28th, 2021, 2:18 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 4th, 2021, 6:16 pm First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

Because without such knowledge, one can pose anything, from 'random chance' to 'illusion' to 'magic' to a simulation by aliens. Such a situation does not allow one to make a claim that poses that reality is 'real'.

At question: if there is just physical reality (intrinsic existence without mind), what 'factor' or 'aspect' allows one to escape determinism? The cited quote by free will sceptics argues that it is impossible to escape determinism under that condition.

Can you provide an exact argumentative foundation for the possibility to maintain a belief in free will? Do you consider it to be a belief, if so/not, why?

I don't want to tackle a bunch of stuff at once, especially if you're going to keep arguing.

psyreporter wrote: ↑December 7th, 2021, 8:29 am The philosophical zombie theory indicates that it is impossible to know (empirically) whether a (conscious) 'I' exists in another person.

This is incorrect. While an upshot of the p-zombie thought experiment is a reinforcement of the "other minds" issue, that is not the gist of the p-zombie thought experiment.

Inferred is that one is unable to communicate 'meaningful experience' on the basis of which significance of a conscious 'I' is to be established.

And that has nothing at all to do with the p-zombie thought experiment. Are you saying that you're inferring that from it--that is, basically you're reading that into it?

psyreporter wrote: ↑December 7th, 2021, 8:34 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 6th, 2021, 12:27 pm

Free Will Sceptics wrote: ↑December 6th, 2021, 10:44 am To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. Your conscious 'I' is just some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest.

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion

Re this in general, I'm not asking if you agree with it, but do you at least understand that not everyone believes that the physical world operates deterministically?

I specifically asked the following:

At question is, how can you argue that mind originates from the physical while in the same time maintaining that you are not a determinist?

What factor allows you to claim that you believe in free will when meaning beyond the physical (read) is impossible according to you?

For context:

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 5th, 2020, 4:30 pmSo I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

psyreporter wrote: ↑November 28th, 2021, 2:18 am

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

psyreporter wrote: ↑November 28th, 2021, 2:18 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 4th, 2021, 6:16 pm First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

Because without such knowledge, one can pose anything, from 'random chance' to 'illusion' to 'magic' to a simulation by aliens. Such a situation does not allow one to make a claim that poses that reality is 'real'.

At question: if there is just physical reality (intrinsic existence without mind), what 'factor' or 'aspect' allows one to escape determinism? The cited quote by free will sceptics argues that it is impossible to escape determinism under that condition.

Can you provide an exact argumentative foundation for the possibility to maintain a belief in free will? Do you consider it to be a belief, if so/not, why?

Can you first answer what I asked you:

Do you at least understand that not everyone believes that the physical world operates deterministically?

Yes, you understand that, or no, you do not?

@Poeticuniverse
We can ask to what extent brain and mind are identical? What is the clear distinction between mind and matter and how much is fuzzy? I really don't know where my mind and body end as categories, which is why I am often thrown into the confusion of 'mind jelly' at times because it sometimes seems so blurry and confusing. If only philosophy could involve clear ways of disentangling the physical, emotional and thoughts, because, it may that such fuzzy areas make understanding in psychology and philosophy so vague.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 7th, 2021, 11:19 am

Free Will Sceptics wrote: ↑December 6th, 2021, 10:44 am To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. Your conscious 'I' is just some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest.

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion

psyreporter wrote: ↑December 7th, 2021, 8:34 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 5th, 2020, 4:30 pmSo I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

psyreporter wrote: ↑November 28th, 2021, 2:18 am

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

If there is just physical reality (intrinsic existence without mind), what 'factor' or 'aspect' allows one to escape determinism? The cited quote by free will sceptics argues that it is impossible to escape determinism under that condition.

Can you provide an exact argumentative foundation for the possibility to maintain a belief in free will? Do you consider it to be a belief, if so/not, why?

Can you first answer what I asked you:

Do you at least understand that not everyone believes that the physical world operates deterministically?

Yes, you understand that, or no, you do not?

Are you trying to have me provide an argumentative foundation for an idea that is to be considered absurd according to the cited reasoning by free will sceptics? According to them, it is not possible to escape determinism in a purely physical world.

At question is simply: what is the basis for your claim that you 'believe' in free will? On what basis can it be said that you can escape determinism in a purely physical world?

psyreporter wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 6:04 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 7th, 2021, 11:19 am

Free Will Sceptics wrote: ↑December 6th, 2021, 10:44 am To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. Your conscious 'I' is just some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest.

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion

psyreporter wrote: ↑December 7th, 2021, 8:34 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 5th, 2020, 4:30 pmSo I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.



Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

If there is just physical reality (intrinsic existence without mind), what 'factor' or 'aspect' allows one to escape determinism? The cited quote by free will sceptics argues that it is impossible to escape determinism under that condition.

Can you provide an exact argumentative foundation for the possibility to maintain a belief in free will? Do you consider it to be a belief, if so/not, why?

Can you first answer what I asked you:

Do you at least understand that not everyone believes that the physical world operates deterministically?

Yes, you understand that, or no, you do not?

Are you trying to have me provide an argumentative foundation for an idea that is to be considered absurd according to the cited reasoning by free will sceptics?

No. I'm not trying to provide an "argumentative foundation." I'm simply asking you a question.

There are people who do not believe that the world in general in deterministic. That is, if we're talking about physics sans living creatures, there are people who believe that world would not be deterministic.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND the above or not?

It's a simple yes or no question. Either you understand this, or you do not. I'm just curious if you understand it. Keep in mind that I'm not asking if you agree with this view. I'm simply asking you if you understand that some people hold the view.

And when it's 1000x harder than pulling teeth to get you to answer such a simple question, I don't know how you expect to get into any more complex discussion about this stuff.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑December 4th, 2021, 6:24 pm When a person speaks of 'I' what does this refer to?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 5th, 2021, 12:23 pm Many of the questions you pose in this topic would require many thousands of words to consider them properly, and even then, the results may end up as purely speculative. But this one is more straightforward, I think. When a person speaks of "I", I think they normally mean to refer to their own conscious-mind. [Their nonconscious minds are rarely considered, and even more rarely included.] Depending on context, this might include their physical body too.

chewybrian wrote: ↑December 5th, 2021, 7:47 pm I think you pretty well nailed it. What occurs to me is that this implies that just about everyone, just about all the time, is referring to the same "I" of Descartes. They mean their own ego or personality, their will, their opinions and preferences and prejudices, their faculty of choice. Even those who say that free will is an illusion or that they are part of one universal consciousness or whatever will turn right around and use "I" to mean just what Descartes or the existentialists would say it means, which is the essence that supplants mere existence as we gain the ability to choose for ourselves.

I wonder if this just tells us that Descartes used the same ill-defined "I" that we all use every day, with the same lack of consideration as to what "I" actually represents?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 7:17 am

psyreporter wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 6:04 am Are you trying to have me provide an argumentative foundation for an idea that is to be considered absurd according to the cited reasoning by free will sceptics?

No. I'm not trying to provide an "argumentative foundation." I'm simply asking you a question.

There are people who do not believe that the world in general in deterministic. That is, if we're talking about physics sans living creatures, there are people who believe that world would not be deterministic.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND the above or not?

It's a simple yes or no question. Either you understand this, or you do not. I'm just curious if you understand it. Keep in mind that I'm not asking if you agree with this view. I'm simply asking you if you understand that some people hold the view.

And when it's 1000x harder than pulling teeth to get you to answer such a simple question, I don't know how you expect to get into any more complex discussion about this stuff.

Your argument: Do you at least understand that not everyone believes that the physical world operates deterministically?

Is it merely about the 'believing' part for you, similar to people's ability to believe in a pink elephant on the top of Mount Everest?

My question is the following: On what basis can it be said that you can escape determinism in a purely physical world?

In short: can you escape determinism in a purely physical world? If so, how?

When the cited reasoning by free will sceptics indicates that a belief in free will within a purely physical world is absurd, and when I ask you what the basis is for your claim that you are able to maintain a belief in free will, then it is not logical to ask me whether I could understand that some people would 'believe' in free will in a purely physical world.

Perhaps the issue is that you are neglecting the question 'why' the world exists as basis for the idea that physical reality is 'all there is' (i.e. the ultimate really real)

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 7th, 1992, 3:29 pm First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

My reply: Because without such knowledge, one can pose anything, from 'random chance' to 'illusion' to 'magic' to a simulation by aliens. Such a situation does not allow one to make a claim that poses that reality is 'real'.

psyreporter wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 12:50 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 7:17 am

psyreporter wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 6:04 am Are you trying to have me provide an argumentative foundation for an idea that is to be considered absurd according to the cited reasoning by free will sceptics?

No. I'm not trying to provide an "argumentative foundation." I'm simply asking you a question.

There are people who do not believe that the world in general in deterministic. That is, if we're talking about physics sans living creatures, there are people who believe that world would not be deterministic.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND the above or not?

It's a simple yes or no question. Either you understand this, or you do not. I'm just curious if you understand it. Keep in mind that I'm not asking if you agree with this view. I'm simply asking you if you understand that some people hold the view.

And when it's 1000x harder than pulling teeth to get you to answer such a simple question, I don't know how you expect to get into any more complex discussion about this stuff.

Your argument: Do you at least understand that not everyone believes that the physical world operates deterministically?

Is it merely about the 'believing' part for you, similar to people's ability to believe in a pink elephant on the top of Mount Everest?

My question is the following: On what basis can it be said that you can escape determinism in a purely physical world?

In short: can you escape determinism in a purely physical world? If so, how?

When the cited reasoning by free will sceptics indicates that a belief in free will within a purely physical world is absurd, and when I ask you what the basis is for your claim that you are able to maintain a belief in free will, then it is not logical to ask me whether I could understand that some people would 'believe' in free will in a purely physical world.

Perhaps the issue is that you are neglecting the question 'why' the world exists as basis for the idea that physical reality is 'all there is' (i.e. the ultimate really real)

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 7th, 1992, 3:29 pm First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

My reply: Because without such knowledge, one can pose anything, from 'random chance' to 'illusion' to 'magic' to a simulation by aliens. Such a situation does not allow one to make a claim that poses that reality is 'real'.

You need to answer yes or no. And sure, if there are people who believe that there's a pink elephant on top of Mount Everest, then there are people who believe that, and you should be able to understand that, right? Simple question, right?

So do you understand that there are people who believe that the physical world isn't deterministic? Yes or no. We need to be able to get past this simple step in order to move on. You need to answer yes, you understand that there are people who believe that, or no, you don't understand that there are people who believe that.