Skip to main content

Discussion on Consciousness

warning

Needs to be reformatted

Panpsychism​

How can anyone talk about atoms having consciousness?

There are two kinds of pan psychism. One is where the atoms carry a little bit of consciousness each and everyone. The other is where consciousness is fundamental, and atoms are created from the consciousness. I don’t believe either of these, so it’s going to be hard for me to defend them.

For me, I’m convinced the consciousness is the process of being aware of things. That means consciousness is a process, and it only occurs in a system capable of carrying on that process. So individual atoms don’t have consciousness. But if you have a system that is capable of sensing and responding to its environment, then you can have varying degrees of consciousness.

I think we agree that saying that atoms are conscious is silly. However a robot which just follows its instructions isn't conscious in any meaningful way is it?Otherwise we'd have to say that a doorbell is conscious because it senses pressure and responds by ringing a bell.

The doorbell example is not one of sense and respond. To have a conscious system, you need something that exhibits homeostasis, that is it can measure (sense) the environment and then take an action to counter the change. Sweating in response to being too hot is the simplest case I can think of.

Theories around how homeostasis works center on the free energy principle, which to work, the system exhibiting homeostasis must have an internal model of the external environment. It is from this model that consciousness arises.

So a thermostat is conscious since it senses the house getting too cold and turns on the furnace to change the environment?

This is a good question, since the thermostat is the simplest example of sense and respond. I am on the fence about this one. On one hand the thermostat/furnace/house together as a system is the absolute smallest "bit" of consciousness. Remember, consciousness exists at varying degrees, and this "bit" is some small it is incomprehensible what it means.

However the complete system is the thermostat with the furnace with the house. This system does not come about in its own. It does not actually maintain its integrity, but instead humans have to act to put the thermostat into place, and fix it when it fails. I am not sure that this really represents a system capable of consciousness, and I suspect it is not since it is a purpose-built human invention.

Life is a self-organizing phenomenon, and I believe it is the homeostatic behavior in a self-organizing system that brings about awareness.

And is our sweating a conscious act?

Yes, you feel hot. That hot feeling is the awareness that you need to sweat, and surely when you sweat you have felt hot? Nobody that I know of has awareness of the sweat itself coming out of the skin, but that is unimportant: the entire system is the body and its ability to be aware of the surroundings. Being conscious of being hot does not mean that you can sweat on demand when it is not hot. Consciousness is real, and there is no guarantee that you can force consciousness to "pretend" the world is no how it is.

How does consciousness arise from a model? After all all computer simulations have models of the environment that they're simulating built in but I doubt you'd say that the programs meteorologists use to predict the weather are conscious.

I don't know "how" consciousness arises from that model in the same way that I don't know "how" gravity causes the earth to attract the moon. What the science hopes to show is that whenever certain properties of a system exists, there also exists consciousness.

Like the thermostat, the weather simulation is not part of a self-organizing system. It might be possible to make a weather simulation that is conscious, but I doubt any of them running today are.

Definitions​

con·scious·ness /ˈkänSHəsnəs/

  • noun
    • the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. "she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"
      • Similar: awareness, wakefulness, alertness, responsiveness, sentience
      • Opposite: unconsciousness
    • the awareness or perception of something by a person. "her acute consciousness of Mike's presence"
    • the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.

Given the definition of "consciousness" one would need to redefine the word to apply it to a thermostat/furnace system.

First, I would not expect a dictionary to be the place to find out deep philosophical truths about the universe. instead what you find there is "typical" use by people who speak the language.

Second, you don't have to, because basically a thermostat is minimally "awake and aware of it's surroundings" if you accept that minimal consciousness is a very very tiny part of what we normally consider consciousness. I am quite sure individual subatomic particles don't have any consciousness and are not awake and aware of anything.

But the dictionary is the place where we find out what words mean isn't it?

Hence if one wants to talk about something that isn't what the dictionary says is consciousness we need to use a different word for it don't we?

I am a little surprised at your simplistic view of words and dictionaries. A dictionary records the most common meanings from a majority of speakers. But for abstruse topics, people tend to develop esoteric vernacular also called jargon which is understood only by that particular in-group. We are on a profound and arcane topic which the common person has not considered deeply, and for which common words may or may not exist. Surely you have read philosophers like Kant for which words have very special meanings that are not exactly in the dictionary, and in some cases are forced to use German phrases (like "ding an sich"). If you limit yourself to meaning found in the dictionary, there are some things you simply can't say.

No, the common dictionary definition of consciousness is NOT what I am talking about.

Why would we think that an insect is conscious in the sense that you and I are conscious? However as I understand the theories you don't agree with but are describing the problem isn't insects it's individual subatomic particles having consciousness isn't it?

The Stephen Hawking Argument​

Hawking has shown that true consciousness, the ability to make choices, is impossible for a purely natural system. Hawking made the following argument:

  1. We are purely material beings
  2. In that case all our thoughts are brain chemistry
  3. But chemical reactions are controlled by the laws of physics not by us That led Hawking to conclude: It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion. From Hawking, Stephen; Mlodinow, Leonard. "The Grand Design". Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

While I respect Hawking a lot, he was a physicist and not an expert on consciousness. None of his 3 points contradict this theory. I am happy if you would present a different theory of consciousness, but citing "one guy" that disagrees will get us nowhere.

Hawking is not saying consciousness is impossible, he is saying that free will is not possible. For this conversation, free will is NOT assumed to exist. Free will is a broken concept the way philosophers define it, and certainly does not exist. But we were talking about consciousness, not free will. Free will is not needed for consciousness.

Hawking saw that it is "hard to imagine" is saying something about your imagination, and not the real world. I am looking for evidence, not just whether you can imagine something.

Hawking is NOT an expert on the workings of the mind. He was a smart guy, but he was a cosmologist, not a psychologist. It is likely that he has misunderstandings about how the mind works -- just like everyone else. Hawking's opinion will NOT do as evidence for anything. The problem is that Hawking was not really aware of the nuances of the consciousness debate -- because he was not an expert.

Falsifiability​

So there is no way for science to show that our consciousness arises from purely material elements. Neuroscientists have no falsifiable theory about consciousness and to the best of my knowledge they haven't shown any error in Hawking's reasoning.

Do theists have a falsifiable theory about consciousness?

Rather they seem to just assume that we are purely material beings, as Hawking does, and conclude that since we are purely material and we are conscious then consciousness must arise from purely material mechanisms.

Yes, that is correct.

I don't know of anyone who would say that a thermostat is awake. Hawking presented a proof based on physics. I don't see that you've shown an error in that proof. Just how can we have the ability to make choices if all our thoughts are the result not of us but of the laws of physics? So if free will doesn't exist you didn't choose to respond to me right? We have souls so we can make choices. The proof of that is in your own thoughts which show that you do make choices. So until you can prove that your own thoughts are illusory the data shows that we aren't purely material beings. Once again consciousness can't arise from purely natural means since all natural means are controlled by physics. You need to show how the laws of physics lead to one's ability to make choices don't you?

These are good questions.

//I don't know of anyone who would say that a thermostat is awake.//

Indeed, this is a very erudite concept. On the face is seems absurd, and it incorporates a very special meaning / understanding that is not in the dictionary and not in common parlance.

// if free will doesn't exist you didn't choose to respond to me right?// Wrong. I did choose to respond. You do have thoughts and you do determine your actions as well. But that is not free will. We have self-determination. We have minds, and those minds are in the world, and our minds determine what we do. When we make a choice, our actions are determined by our needs and desires -- which is actually what you "want" to do.

Free will on the other hand is the ability to do something that is not determined at all by anything. That is, you could do something that you don't "want" to do. This is an old concept from philosophers who had no idea how a mind might exist in the world. I fear without the necessary background you might also have a hard time understanding how a mind works in the world.

We are physical beings, and as such, our thoughts are real physical things. We really do make choices, but we do so with minds that obey the laws of physics. If I had the ability to control 10^25 atoms individually, I could change the thoughts in your head, and make you have different thoughts, and there is nothing you could do about it.

//So until you can prove that your own thoughts are illusory//

Thoughts are not illusory. They are real, concrete, physical things. Thoughts are processes that obey all the natural laws. Your memories are physical as well. You brain collects memories of what you do and do not like, and those physical things are used by the mind to make real decisions.

What evidence do you have that thoughts and memories are not real physical things?

If we don't use dictionary definitions in common conversation then intelligent communication isn't possible. Neither of us are academics speaking in an academic context so we should us the common definition of words when we try to communicate shouldn't we? As a physicist I understand the issue of jargon which is why when I talk to non-physicists I use the common definition of words not the technical one. As I heard Feynman once say it's fine to simplify so long as one doesn't say something that isn't true. If you're not using the dictionary definition of "consciousness" then you need to use another word to avoid confusion don't you? I'm not aware of philosophers who would say that an inanimate object, such as a thermostat, is awake. How is you choosing to answer or not answer me not an example of free will? And clearly our actions are determined by us since we often choose to do things that aren't best of us because they are good for those we love. And just what is this "mind" you're talking about. How is it the product of purely natural processes? Free will, once again in common usage, is the ability for us, not our bodies following their genetic programming, to make choices. As you've defined it it's impossible since it would require us to make decisions with no inputs what so ever. Please prove your claim that we are only physical beings. As part of that proof explain why if we are our thoughts show that we make decisions which Hawking has proven is impossible if we are purely material beings since in that case our thoughts are chemical reactions in our brains which are controlled by the laws of physics not by us, our conscious selves. If our thoughts are real and they show that we do make choices and Hawking has proven that purely physical beings can't make choices doesn't that prove that we aren't purely physical beings?

//Free will, once again in common usage, is the ability for us, not our bodies following their genetic programming, to make choices.//

Genetics has nothing to do with your day to day choices, but instead your environment and experience through your memories is what determines your choices.

//Free will, . . . as you've defined it it's impossible//

I refer you to this definition of Free Will: Stanford Plato

Or if you prefer a more theistic explanation: Theopedia Free Will

These are not my definitions, nor are they necessarily what you find in day-to-day conversation. These define a type of free will that is logically inconsistent in my mind: they are impossible.

Perhaps are more modern treatment with the same conclusion is found here: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/83817782-determined

Hawking was saying free will is impossible, and I agree.

Hawking did not "prove" that we "don't make choices". Scientists don' prove anything -- that is for mathematicians. He never said we don't make choices, he said that our choices are determined. Big difference.

If we lack souls, if we are purely material, then all our actions are based on our genetics and our experiences. Other than those things what controls our thoughts if we are purely material beings?

On free will your source says: "The term “free will” has emerged over the past two millennia as the canonical designator for a significant kind of control over one’s actions." But as Hawking has shown if we're purely material creatures we have no control over our actions. Hence my use of "free will" is correct.

How can one "make choices" if one's choices are predetermined? And I don't see that you've reconciled the fact that your thoughts show that you do make choices with the idea that you don't.

The confusion arises from a misunderstanding of what "you" are. You have a worldview that you are separate from your body. That is, your body is your body, and you are the soul that somehow inhabits that body. This separation of you from the universe then causes you to reject the idea that "you" could be caused by the universe.

My view is a non-dualist view that says we are actually part of the universe, not separate from it. As a part of the universe, my actions and my entire being are intimately integrated with everything else.

I still feel like I am somehow separate and on my own, however this is an artifact of the way understanding has to word: to understand my part of the universe I need to artificially draw a line between "me" and "other" and all understanding comes from the comparing and contrasting these two. That gives an illusion of separation.

To understand what is really happening, we have to let go of thinking of the universe in terms of "things" and understand that everything is a relationship. That is, everything is relative to everything else. If you look carefully, you will see echoes of this in the teachings of Jesus before the religion got political.

I do make decisions. I decided to write this. However, my writing is completely limited by that knowledge. I can not write something that I don't know. I am free to write whatever I WANT to write. But what I WANT to write, is mediated by my memories.

But wait a minute. Who caused my memories? I didn't. But still I OWN my memories. They are mine. They are me. Thus, when I write something based on my memories, I am really choosing to write, and I am choosing what I write, even though my memories were determined by my past experience. I am a part of the universe, and I do make choices, even though everything is determined by the laws of physics.

As a dualist, you reject the idea that material beings can have consciousness because you have an ASSUMPTION that you are separate from material and that material can't do things as complex as thinking. We can't "feel" ourselves think, so thinking appears to us to be separate from the universe. This is an illusion. I leave you with these questions:

  • Can you say a word that you don't know?
  • Can you talk about a city that you don't know about?

Free will says that you are completely free to say and talk about anything, even things that you have not learned about.

Actually I have pointed out that your thoughts show that you make decisions. So not only have I presented evidence that our thoughts aren't determined you haven't shown that they are determined have you? But let us assume that our thoughts are determined. What does that make us other than mindless puppets? It's often said that "we are our choices" so if we make no choices what are we?

I agree that thoughts are real and actually make decisions.

You have not shown any evidence that decisions are not determined. When you make a decision, you find a "reason" for the decision. If I suggest you poke your eye out with a pen, I can predict reliably that you will say "no" because there are many reasons that you need your eye, and it would be a very bad decision to choose to poke it out. That decision is determined.

Even if I ask you to choose your dinner from a menu, you will come up with a "reason" for the choice. Even if your reason is to flip a coin, that decision is determined.

We are not mindless puppets. We are have minds. And those minds really do make decisions, but the decisions are determined by your NEEDS and DESIRES. You have zero control over those.

Let me try to explain why this is still important. Say you have decided to go to work every Monday morning. When Monday comes around it might be sunny, or it might be dark and rainy, or it might be snowy. Here is the important point: no matter what the weather is like, YOU will still take whatever steps are necessary to get there. You will put on the right clothes. You will scrape the windshield is necessary. You are not just a puppet to the wind and rain. You actually have goals and desires and you actually act on them.

However, the desire to have a job is complicated, but it is not entirely free. There are many good reasons why you choose to have a job, and they are all determined (in this case much because you want to maintain a certain social status which is itself a complicated concept). Your decision to go to work on Monday morning will act and overpower the random flow of events in the universe. You will have an effect.

What you have to understand is that you are an EMERGENT feature of the universe. That is you consciousness is real and it came into being at one point. While most of what material does is very short term bouncing around, your emergent consciousness can link intentionality across years, and can have a real effect on the universe, even though your needs and desires are determined. Does that help make sense?

As succinctly as you can, explain: "why can't consciousness be determined?"

I have a world view where I consist of a physical component, my body, and a non-physical component, my soul. I don't believe that my body isn't part of me. So no there is no dualism unless one says that since we're made of more than one type of thing, cell etc, we're dualistic too. The problem is that if we're only part of the material universe--note I believe that part of us is part of the material universe-- we can't explain why our thoughts show that we control our actions. Since you do make choices and purely material things don't why do you assume that the difference between you and mere matter isn't real? If the laws of physics controlling the chemical reactions in your brain determine what you write how are you making deciding anything? Isn't it just the laws of physics mindlessly controlling what your body does? I reject the idea that purely material beings can have consciousness since Hawking proved that is the case. Clearly if we have no input to our thoughts or control over our actions it's hard to say that we're "conscious" in any meaningful sense isn't it? Free will means I make choices. The fact that I don't have wings to fly so that I can't choose to fly doesn't mean that I can't make choices, such as not stepping off the top of tall buildings, does it?

Right. Good point, you own both the body and soul. But this is standard Christian dualism since the soul is separate from the body. Most people express that they "are" the soul, and they "have" a body but your position of "being" both is perfectly valid.

The non-dualist tradition suggests that there is no distinction between body and soul -- they are one and the same.

Have you thought about "where" the soul is? Does it occupy a region of space? Or is it in an entirely separate realm as Descartes suggested?

//Since you do make choices and purely material things don't . . .//

No, actually, purely material things DO make choices, and I have billions of examples. I know you don't accept that, however you have never demonstrated that material things don't make choices. You merely assume that and all argument after that point depends on this assumption.

No, Hawking did not prove what you say and it is getting a little tiresome that you are not acknowledging my points on this. He argued that "free will" is not possible. But free will is not required for consciousness.

//Free will means I make choices.//

No, that is "will". We agree we have a will and that we make choices. The question is whether that will is "free" from all causality. You think so, I think not, but the point is that consciousness exists either way. You have never demonstrated that will is REQUIRED to be free of all determining factors for consciousness to work.

//Clearly if we have no input to our thoughts . . .//

I have argued that we DO have input to our thoughts, in fact that is the main thing we do above all else. You should at this point understand my position on these. If you start with an assumption that I reject, then the argument is lost on me.

I am wondering if you have even picked up my positions at all. I know you don't agree with them, but can you state your positions and my positions and how they differ? I would like to know if you are actually listening.

Souls​

if we don't have souls then we don't have thoughts do we?

This is your assumption. You think that thoughts require a soul, and without a soul there would be no thoughts. However hundreds of psychology experiments demonstrate that thoughts are real processes that happen in the brain. You are pretty wedded to the idea that thoughts are from a soul, so you probably won't accept this fact even though it is quite firmly established.

Do you believe that materialists "think that we don't think"? that is nonsense. Of course materialists know that we think. it is just that thinking is a natural physical thing that we do. Even if you don't agree with this, please understand this point of view.

you are purely material it's the laws of physics which are making your decisions not you?

Again, you apologist indoctrination is preventing you from understanding the other point of view. Do you believe that materialists think they don't make decisions? That is nonsense. Materialists know they make decisions, they just see making decisions as being a real physical thing, based on thinking.

we [would just] have chemical reactions over which we have no control

First, chemical reaction can be very controlled. Look at the duplication of a DNA molecule. It is just a chemical reaction, but it is very controlled.

Second, (and I know you don't agree, I am just explaining the materialist point of view) we ARE chemical reactions. Consciousness is a real physical thing, we have thoughts, we make decisions. All this is done as chemical reactions, and we are those chemical reactions. Yes, it all obeys all the physical laws, and there is no reason why it shouldn't.

Is Creator Powerful Enough?​

You believe God made the universe, but you believe that the universe is fundamentally dead and unable to do anything without a magical soul from outside the universe. The limitation is that you don't believe God is powerful enough to make chemical reactions that "think". If God wanted to make chemical reactions that think, why wouldn't he? I see a universe that is infinitely more capable than you do. You believe your God is not powerful enough to make a universe that actually "lives".

Another Dialog​

thoughts are real then your thoughts that show that you make decisions are real aren't they?

Yes. Thoughts are real physical phenomenon. Decisions are real physical phenomenon.

if you make decisions then we can't be purely material beings

Yes we certainly can. You are a real physical phenomenon and that is how you make physical thoughts and physical decisions. The laws of physics allows real physical things to effect other real physical things.

we are purely material beings it's the laws of physics that control our thoughts

You control your thoughts because you are a real physical thing and real physical things can control other physical things WHILE obeying the laws of physics. Your real thoughts don't violate any laws of physics -- why do you think they do? Nobody said that thinking requires violating physics.

For some reason, you are convinced that thinking must violate the laws of physics. Do you have any evidence of this?

Show me how you control any chemical reaction in your brain

Play along with me for a moment: Raise your hand. Now, if you participated, your read my sentence and then decided to raise your hand. To actually accomplish the hand raising, chemical reactions ran in your muscles. Not only that but chemical reactions fired the nerves that signaled the muscles. We know this with 100% certainty. YOU DID control chemical reactions, that is a fact. (Surely you agree that muscles run on chemistry I hope.)

Not only that but your controlling of chemical reactions never violated any laws of physics.

In my view your mind is a physical phenomenon which runs in the nerve connections, and your physical mind triggered your muscles without violating any physical laws because you are physical.

In your view, you believe the mind is a magical thing floating separate from the material: but then any triggering of muscles would be a violation of the physical laws of the universe. You simply can't have something non-material affect material things, because if they did you would violate conservation of energy or momentum.

How can consciousness be real if in fact all our thoughts are the result of the laws of physics over which we have no control?

That is the central question. You do have control over your thoughts. Because you are a physical thing, and physical things can control other physical things.

I just don't understand why you have such a hard time understanding this.

Repeatedly you keep saying "if we were physical we would not be able to control our thoughts." Why do you think this? When I say your thoughts are real physical things, I am not saying that all you have are zombie thoughts. I am saying that real thoughts with ALL the qualities you know to be of thoughts are real physical phenomena. You simply don't believe that is possible and so you fail to understand it every time.

The fact is, that if you had immaterial thoughts you would not be able to control your muscles. Of course, you believe in magic, so you can say that thoughts magically control the muscles and magically violate the laws of physics. I can't stop you from thinking that, but there are some major holes in it.

you see a universe that is logically impossible

I understand that you believe material though is impossible. But it is not impossible. You just have to see that God made YOU out of material and every part of you, your body, your mind are made out of matter. Not only that, everything you do never violates the laws of physics. Think about how great that is (would be). That is far grander than just throwing up your hands and say: God did some magic. You think God couldn't do that. You think God is too limited.

Thoughts that are solely generated by the laws of physics can't be our thoughts.

That is your main misunderstanding: you don't violate the laws of physics. Yes, they are your thoughts, and yes they are physical, and yes you control your thoughts to the same extent as you think you control your thoughts.

If we have no control over our thoughts then we can't make decisions can we?

We do have control over our thoughts, because we ARE physical beings who can control thoughts.

One last thing: the laws of physics are what ALLOW you to think and do things. Let's talk about something you can't do. I am just making this up, but what if I asked you to renounce Christianity and become a Muslim? I think you might say this is impossible for you, and I agree. (I hope, I am guess on this, but please play along.) The reason you can't is because you believe that Christianity is right. that belief is coded into your neurons. You physically can not renounce Christianity BECAUSE it would violate the laws of physics for you to do so. The laws of physics are what is responsible for you doing what you WANT to do. Because what you want to do is encoded in your brain, and causes all the right chemical reactions to allow you to do what you want to do.

You may think this is crazy, but far crazier to believe that every time you life your arm you violate the laws of physics.

Immaterial Souls Can't Move an Arm​

Saying that we have a soul in no way violates the laws of physics since the laws of physics don't apply to non-material things like the soul do they?

Your hand is a physical thing, right? You believe that your immaterial soul can cause your arm to raise up? Or does your arm go up all on its own?

Imagine a billiard 8 ball sitting still on the table next to the pocket. (It is a very simple material thing.) Your immaterial soul pushes it into the pocket. How can it do that? Energy and force are material. Energy is always conserved (that is the relevant physical law).

The normal way would be to hit the 8 ball with the cue ball, and the cue ball will impart some of its energy into moving the 8 ball into the pocket. The cue ball has to give up some of its energy to make this happen.

But your immaterial soul has no energy to impart. If the immaterial soul gave some energy to the 8 ball, that would violate conservation of energy. All the energy after would be greater than the energy before. For the immaterial soul to move the 8 ball, it would have to violate conservation of energy.

There is the exact same problem with your nerves and the muscles in your arm. Your immaterial soul would have to violate conservation of energy in order to kick the nerve to kick the muscle to raise the arm.

You are correct saying that the laws of physics don't apply to immaterial things. But they DO apply to material things like your arm. The only way an immaterial think can cause anything to happen in the world, it would have to violate the laws of physics.

Reverse Discussion​

"There is always a "reason" and that reason determines your actions."

I don't know that you've said anything here that matters. If I'm thirsty and I decide to drink, drinking as an action has a reason that partially generates it. So what? I mean, this isn't really much unless you're trying to say something like 'all I mean to describe is that people have reasons and I mean determined defined as "reasons", and people have reasons for things'. Then all we would quibble over is why is that definition holding sway.

"Determinism says that everything that happens is caused by some prior condition. It particular: if you make a decision, that decision was determined by your needs and desires, and desires are determined by your prior experiences."

"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."

The key is that there no constraints, while determinism is that there are constraints.

"For the purpose of this discussion, I would like to ask that we use "free will" to mean completely free of any physical or material constraints at least at some moments in time, while "determined will" means that the will is determined entirely by physical/material constraints all the time. Would that be OK?"

I would not agree with the manner of description there, no. But you're close. No, there is no time that a human is completely free from physical constraints. They don't need to be for free will to apply. All that needs to be the case is that they inject will regarding actual options some of the time. Free will never means that jumping off the empire state building and willing that you will bounce when hitting the pavement happens some of the time. I'll grant you determined so that it remains what we are quibbling over.

"and I am sure I would make the same decision"

Here you're considering deliberative choice as all choice and all will, which probably needs to be broken down if someone was willing to put in the time about it. I'm not sure I am. Maybe a lesser attempt shall suffice here.

Determinism is a necessary force from which an alternative would not be available. Any contribution of some control into a circumstance breaks determinism into contingency and the contributor an agent - unless you wish to remain that all contingent contribution comes externally and there is not contribution of the being as self. It is the last sentence that returns to determinism. Because - contingency may exist for the external factors, they cease for the thing "determined", in this instance the consciousness.

"Most Christians take this position as well that the spirit is separate from the body, and therefor unconstrained by the forces on the body."

Free will is not biblical. Free will discussions come from outside of that and the bible is looked at as implying a free will or not implying a free will. But it isn't a direct subject. That conception comes from other places, Aristotle to Augustine to Aquinus, etc and so forth. And free will has implications regarding theological considerations for when it is invoked, and here we introduce Atheists and Apologists as a few more As to put on our theological list. So, to lump all christians into a single view here I think is overwrought as a dogmatic unity of theological defense. If one were to collect how prevalent free will appears as a dogmatic principle of emphasis across christianity as a whole, I think it's pretty far down on the list with the exception of two camps. One camp is the 'decision theology' basis and the other camp is the 'post Calvin calvinists'.

Then we get to the motives of "anti-materialist' argumentation where it doesn't really matter what the point is, so long it is employed to militate against a materialist defense. This is where I think we enter a performative battle. A materialist who 'has to' decide for determinism because it fits better with a material host of descriptions and the theist-based anti- position which 'has to' decide what to pick apart to disclaim materialism.

This specific religion pro / against performance does not captivate me. There is something that captivates me which might have sprung from repercussions of that set of folks. I am interested in the 'reductive removal of self' arguments. If they are motivated as reactionary against theism, I find that rather a sad state of affairs. It's another round of Skinner all over again. Let's just remove more bits of human because it serves us. What could go wrong? Plenty can from all appearances. And for what? Well, back to my put forward -- something that you (royal you) don't have. It's placing a bet ahead of what needs to be shown in order for the premise to be correct and claiming the comprehensive proof already in hand.

OK - so your opening parlay asks, "why can't consciousness be determined?"

And I'm watching what you're doing with that question. I think you're either one, participating in a reductive jump that you don't have and it doesn't stay put depending upon what you're speaking toward. And, there is some fairness to why. If you're encountering the performative apologetics as motivating, and those defenses span a gamut, is there an overarching defense that can be mounted against all encounters? OR two you find you're in sympathy with the accounts that are placing their bets because it seems to fit better with a whole set of explains.

As to the first, as I said I don't find that compelling. If you're motivated, I have nothing to contribute to your motivating desires that would at all matter nor do I much care. As the the second, that is where there is worthwhile discussion. As to the reductive jump. Your question might have begun in your consideration steps as something like:

i)
iP1: the universe is deterministic at bottom
iP2: the universe generated organic life
iP3: some organic life possesses what is called consciousness
iC1: therefore the universe's deterministic features generated consciousness

OK - so far that's a smaller claim. But you seem to continue

ii)
iiP1: physical laws do not cease
iiP2: physical laws are the sole reason of determined
iiC2: therefore physical laws determine everything necessarily
P3: determined means necessary controlling of all outcomes
C3: all facts of the control of consciousness are contained within physical laws
C4: consciousness is explained and controlled in total via physical laws

(Now as a point of departure, it seems to me that a theist might claim that God was the determiner, which well, I'm not going to get into that as I already mentioned. But if that's where you're encountering these steps, well that's a turn I'm not tackling) It is somewhere in ii that you don't have in hand or hold to consistently. And you need something in ii or its like, to move from i in order to state "consciousness be determined".

This is where the radical behaviorists came in. They have a 'fill in the blank' for that. You say 'nope, not that'. Which is fine enough. I agree there. You say something else, "people have true consciousness with an inner voice, needs, desires, moral considerations, as well as qualia like pain, pleasure, hunger, etc. But we are limited being: we make a model of the world, and base all our decisions on that model, but the model is not itself omniscient: it is limited by the extent of our experience with the world." Which too, is fine.

But, determined means that the inner voice was determined, it isn't a contributing voice but a determined to voice. And on down the line. This is where I maintain my stance on the argument. You (royal you) don't have it. There are not sufficient facts to account for the outcome of the claim.

Reverse Reverse Discussion​

No, there is no time that a human is completely free from physical constraints.

That is not quite it. Nobody says that "free will would allow you to jump to the moon". We accept physical constraints on movement and energy. Instead it is about making choices between physically possible alternates. For example, I could order either rocky road or cherry garcia flavor ice cream, and my uttering either choice is something I am capable of.

"will" - I can do what I want.

"free will" - my choice of what I want is not determined by the universe. I must insist on this definition, and I think it is the most common definition for libertarian free will.

Any contribution of some control into a circumstance breaks determinism into contingency and the contributor an agent

Yes, I think that is it. Is there any "control" that is inserted into the scene that is not determined by the prior events.

This is often described using the thought experiment: if you could go back to that moment in history, could you have made a different choice. The determinist point of view is that if you went back to that point in time, you would have exactly the same thoughts, the same needs, the same desires, and would make exactly the same choice. The "free will" advocates say you could have done something different.

What I am saying is that in the determinist point of view, we still think, we still have consciousness. I am aware of my thoughts, and I make conscious decisions. I end up ordering the flavor that I truly want at the time. But in a certain sense I could not have ordered any other flavor, because whatever logic that ran to make the choice at that time, would always run exactly the same at that time, and there is no way I could have chosen differently.

What I am ASKING in the OP if there is any evidence that my description is wrong? Can you point to something that would suggest that a consciousness can not be determined?

participating in a reductive jump

Right, if you can find the nature of the reductive jump I am making I would like to know it.

OR two you find you're in sympathy with the accounts that are placing their bets because it seems to fit better with a whole set of explans.

Yes, I think my description fits the world best, and I have not found anything that would falsify it.

Free will is not biblical.

I am not a bible scholar, but every single Christian I have discussed with say the same thing: God gave humans free will so they can freely choose between sin and following Jesus. Of this I am confident.

This dualist concept of a self that is independent of the universe is consistent with the idea of a spirit that persists after death, and again that is part of core Christianity. I am not sure how important that is to the discussion.

reductive removal of self

Should discuss more. I am saying that in the determinist world we still have a self and we still make conscious decisions. I am not removing the self.

Let's see if I can get the syllogism clarified:

  1. physical laws do not cease, and determine the outcome of every interaction
  2. Out of the 10^10 neurons that operate deterministically, emerges a higher level organization lets call consciousness. It is there, it is real.
  3. While consciousness is determined, it operates at a different time frame from most of the world. The weather changes in the order of hours or days, but a mind can hold a consistent goal for many years. The decision to go to work sometimes involves wearing a raincoat, and sometimes does not. That is, the rain itself does not make you wear a raincoat, but instead your conscious mind determines this. This is "top-down" causation.
  4. Quantum indeterminacy actually makes the atomic particle level of the world unpredictable, and this gives your consciousness some freedom from bottom-up determinism, and some freedom have an effect. It still operates deterministically (you are the sum of your prior experiences) at the same time it acts as an agent on the day to day movement of things. The butterfly effect might cause it to rain today, but my consciousness causes me to go to work whether it rains or shines. That inner voice is determined, but it is determined by things that one calls "myself". Which is actually what you want anyway.

That inner voice is determined, but it is determined by things that one calls "myself". Which is actually what you want anyway. Then, here is where I find a cake eating wanting it too moment. That's not determined. Not yet. The butterfly effect is a chaos theory that claims there is an order that is eventually calculable in some sense. Which fine. Except, well, that area of maths fell out of favor. And why? For the same background you're utilizing. If you can find a simpler description that serves some purpose, the purpose overwrites the description. Either way, you anticipate a calculable descriptive that will demonstrate deterministically outcomes and you move about the determinism to serve your declarations. It's not there in hand from facts in hand.

now look. If all you really wish to interject about is far too robust characteristics of free will, then fine. You might have a case or two to make about that. What I am not granting is the skipping over of that problem into a grounding that consciousness is determined.

What I am not granting is the skipping over of that problem into a grounding that consciousness is determined.

I am saying that your consciousness is determined. If I say "don't think of an elephant" you will in fact think of an elephant and there is nothing you can do about it. You have no power to change what your consciousness does.

At the same time, your consciousness is truly responsible for many of the things you do. When you walk, you place your foot somewhere, and that placement really is caused by your consciousness.

Our feeling of freedom is because consciousness really does decide and choose between the options. If you choose rocky road, then it is your fault that you chose rocky road. This choice is determined by you. You thought about the choice, you weighed which one you would prefer based on prior experiences and also based on your current body state, and you are entirely to blame for making that choice.

Schopenhauer says it best: "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." Maybe you think that consciousness is not determined? fine, give me an example.

Done. "At the same time, your consciousness is truly responsible for many of the things you do." Now, you're not dealing with, within this statement a few things. Your consciousness... responsible... You retain determined and are switching to 'responsible' which borders on a moralistic tone, one I think you mean to invoke but I'm not taking that bait. If consciousness is truly responsible, fine, then it is how determinism is no longer physicalist OR you stopped explaining your point in order to avoid what we're discussing.

Sorry, didn't mean to avoid what we are discussing. Talk of responsibility might be a digression. Let me instead ask: of your long message (or any other message) what did I fail to respond to?

the avoidance of discussion is the leap from i to ii in my layout, or perhaps an equivocation, or perhaps... the point is and remains, there is claim of determinism, a generally held feature of physicalist accounts and stops its attribution as having fully accounted for facts in hand and departs from what needs to be established in a consistent manner as comprehensively existing facts. Until then, my small claim is not undone.

Sorry, I am not completely clear on what your claim is at this point.

there is claim of determinism, a generally held feature of physicalist accounts and stops its attribution as having fully accounted for facts in hand and departs from what needs to be established in a consistent manner as comprehensively existing facts//

Can you clarify which facts it is that indicate that consciousness is not determined?

We certainly know that some things are determined: an engine only works because we can rely on gasses behaving in a determined manner. I think we agree that there is some determinism in the world. I am saying everything is determined, including consciousness, and I am looking for any evidence that it is not determined. That is, I would like to disprove the determinism of consciousness.

I was pointing back to this comment which I'm copying below. At any rate, I've just glanced back at this. I was dashing off at my last comment. I guess my point is I've laid out my explanation and then some. It doesn't seem as though you've actually engaged with it much. So, maybe that's all I am really noting. It is not the case that there is ever in space and time a nomologically sufficient body of fact in a Newtonian setting to determine what you will do. Before any collection of facts can nomologically be to linked to an event or action at some future time, you need to show there are no other facts or events in addition to those you’ve already accounted for. (Nomological = as a matter of physical law) where linked means ‘is determined into future’. Even in a quantum system it remains not even true. The notion of causation being imported into physical law is not what physics says. The physical laws are time reversible, so the preceding events causally determining our future events asymmetrically are not strong enough to establish that as a nomological fact. However the relations of Our pasts which can cause aspects of Our futures, that is strong enough to generate asymmetric effects which bring us into the causal chain and show us as agents. So, The framing as illusion is not only incorrect but interrupts what is illuminating about the actions of the causal chain agent / beings who interact with the system in which it is found -- contributing rather than only externally determined non-agents.

The physical laws are time reversible, so the preceding events causally determining our future events asymmetrically are not strong enough to establish that as a nomological fact.

I am not sure there is an asymmetry. As you point out, the reversible laws mean that if time went backward we would claim that the future caused the present, but that is simply a consequence of time going in the direction that it goes. The apparent asymmetry is actually a side effect of statistics and the number of states that might be occupied.

I would tend to agree. You are believing there is no asymmetry it seems. And that needs to show that your 10^10 neurons, following mechanical form and rules, though from them arises a complex system, it is the rules of that form which means determined. You say people have a "real choice". Well, that's not determinism, then. If you mean that throughout the entirety of the causal chain it all falls within a repeatable, reversible pattern attributed to the behavior of mechanical properties, sure you get determinism. But you have lost "real choice" by doing so. Yet you claim that remains. So... IDK man. I hear what you think. But you're adding non-determinism and calling it determinism because reasons, IDK.

thanks, you have arrived at the apparent paradox. Yes, I am saying that it is determined AND you make a real choice. How can this be true?

Why do we believe that a real choice is a contradiction to determinism? One might think that a "real choice" has to be non-deterministic. Why is that?

The reason is that the ego causes us to see ourselves as separate from the universe. I am here, and the universe is out there. Indeed, to understand that universe we must separate the "self" from "other" so everything we know (epistemic) about the universe is the difference between the universe and ourselves. So the illusion of separation is strong.

The answer to the paradox comes from understanding that we are actually part of the universe. All your thought are determined, and yet they are real thoughts. All your memories are determined, and yet they really are your memories. Your real needs and your real desires are part of the universe and they are yours at the same time. At the same time!

You can only understand this after you realize you are part of the universe. As long as your ego insists that it is separate from the universe the rest of this will make no sense.

But are these "real choices"? A lot of people would insist that "determined" behavior can't be that complex. usually they says something like "it's just billiard balls" implying that all determined interactions have to be simple. That is wrong. Determined interactions can be so complex that you simply can not imagine them. All of your thoughts are determined, but they are really really complex, right? Your thoughts are determined, but they are still yours because they depend on your unique memories. It is not the case that the wind causes your next thought, but instead the complex interplay between your memories and your senses determine your thoughts.

Finally, your memories are stable for many years while the external world is experiencing chaos from the butterfly effect. Your memories run your thought which run your muscles. Because of quantum chaos, your actions dominate what happens around you. You really do make choices, you really do act upon the world in the way that you want, you really do have a will, but it all is determined.

Start of the Universe​

we are the part of this universe and particles of the universe like electrons are in movement and even in our brain particles are in movement having interaction internally and externally that was fixed at the creation of this universe. We can't change anything. All decisions we take today was decided billions years ago in the creation of this universe.

Fatalism is the idea that everything was fixed at the beginning of time. BUT several things work against that. First is quantum randomness. Second is that the universe is chaotic by nature (butterfly effect). While most interactions are determined, these two work to prevent fatalism.

At the same time "you" are a bundle of memories and skills which are stable over long periods of time. You emerge and persist and as such have a causal role in the universe. While of course your desires are determined by those same memories, your ability to execute against those desires is a real thing.

Remember that emergence allows for downward causation. You as an emergent structure, are part of the world, but at the same time, you cause certain aspects of what happens around you.