Sorry, but I don't really feel like watching a 42-minute video, no offense. You still haven't explained in your post whence comes consciousness
It was in the video, and not all of it is based on the human brain. The brain is a network of several hundred billion neurons which react with eachother and with messages sent through things like the Central Nervous System. Empathy comes from neural shots which are the same as when we are doing the same thing to properly reflect what someone else is going through / doing.
Some parts of the brain cannot see themselves compared to other things which can reflect on our overall behaviour in a less extreme manner but our actions and behaviour is dependent on the social interactions reacting to it and vice versa. I am not a scientist, and it would be worse for me explaining than watching the video to the point where it tries blending some quantum mechnics into relative physics (or w/e, I haven't watched it in a while).
I'm not hiding. I know the studies, but altogether I'm not convinced. I think the idea of a consciousness requires more than chemical reactions, and I can't see how it could be any other way.
You say you know the studies but earlier you determined that things like consciousness and knowledge of the brain has no evidence?
You can't just say "this evolved to that, because that was better", you have to explain "this evolved to that in this way and through this process".
That would be incredibly in depth I would imagine. Going along it simply is the best we can do and often if an example is required we often do that. What do I think humans were meant to do? I don't know, perhaps be more intelligent, stronger and faster in flat enviroments?
(That's still shaky, as it doesn't say how our genes developed said cell)
Firstly, that's INCREDIBLY in-depth. Plus, how would a human be made in the first place? We eat food, are you saying that making a human from that is impossible? Because that is probably what humans are originally made from. Cells and etc I don't know how they're made but what about bacteria? It could be a familiar method with different requirements. I don't know, but there is good reason to find out.
Therefore, it cannot be chemical
Why does it need to be? The idealogy of free will is like the idealogy of NO free will, because they both follow the same principles with the added "do's" and "dont's".
And, of course, the source of all consciousness must be conscious. :P
Consciousness does not dictate individuality. The human brain has so many influences that people (including myself) will not recognise, symetrical people, people in red, the picture of an eye, being in the dark, having the word God spoken - they all inspire different thinks and can easily change our behaviour.
we are all derived from one source
I can't really deny that. Evolution is, if indeed real, a strange thing. How is it that we all developed like this? Is this why inter-family breeding isn't a good thing (nature-wise)? Maybe it bares more than what is needed to reproduce a unique being.
Okay, again, how about instead of saying "free will can evolve" and "we probably developed free will", explain HOW IT HAPPENED. Otherwise, it's just words.
Wait... Why would I need to prove it? Considering that if God gave us souls we could think of it ourselves, and that I've done what I could to prove that the human brain carries consciousness... Isn't that in itself a flag for free will being in Evolution?
That, or "no free will" not being in Evolution which sounds much less believable.
If we had two societies, mankind with free will and mankind without, the one without would take fewer risks and, overall, triumph over the one with free will.
That's a hypothetical situation and a conclusion cannot be therefore made on it. Not only that, but survival instincts and protecting yourself does cause a change of character - it was also in the video.
Defending yourself causes irrationality, aggressiveness and less thinking involved, often, a debate can create the same effect ("defending your beliefs"
. This can cause people to deny other peoples reasonings, logic or accusations no matter how much they may agree with them if they were rational.
I'm aware of this, and I do my best to avoid it.
Can we have predetermined actions and still have free will?
Depends what you mean by "
redetermined". If you mean predetermined by time then that is another subject altogether. If that is infact what you're talking about then yes - because that free will is our own and it is not "fate" which decides that.
What was just suggested is as likely to happen as me saying "Our free will changed predetermined time before it was made, and therefore the universe if of our own making."
As-in, if your brain is locked on physicalism, then you can't really appreciate my argument.
The problem with that point is that I've no reason to be open to ethrealism. I'd rather have everything proven than have "souls" be justified, and right now, I am being open to ethrealism but I question it because of its lack of basis. It relies more on "Physicalism doesn't / isn't / hasn't" than "Ethrealism has / got / is".
Furthermore, physicalism has "because", I don't see much hints of that in Ethrealism.
but it's hard to imagine all of that being stored in there through some naturally-developed chemical processes.
So is the thought of space-time continuum
A lot of things are hard to imagine, specifically things like in astronomy, in some cases. Especially with one of the things mentioned in the video, something being ten light-years long, I am not going to go into that atm though.
From recognizable objects to words, meanings, memories, people, social customs.... that's a lot to fit in our brains.
I think the reason it's easier to learn more at younger age is because those chemicals are in larger quantity? Changes in the brain can happen often - hell, think of the brain as a printer but it has no ink - when you get grey hair, it has ink. Grey is the natural dye of peoples hair, and blonde / brunette / red / brown and etc are actually the results of blockages in the printer.
Metaphorically, of course.
Well, have you really considered how crazy it is that our consciousnesses are single and whole, and how we continue to exist from one moment to the next? If consciousness could somehow be generated by having a specific orientation of electrons and whatnot to form a brain, it seems that from moment-to-moment there would be no sense of continued experience. Just one consciousness generated at one instant, another at another instant. This is yet another reason why I feel consciousness is something more than physical.
Also in the video. Yes, we are actually constantly changing people.
This is why open-mindedness, morality, self-dependence and etc forms a true individual because otherwise you're the paperwork of 1,000 different people - don't get me wrong, taking influences is good (sometimes), but in the end being taught to depend on yourself for morality etc is a better way to go. Enough time spent thinking about it can probably have people making good moral codes to live by and a strong passion to follow them.
One of mine is open-mindedness of course. But as of now, I have an argument contradicting yours and mine seems to properly explain things involved - if it was not physical then what is it, how, and where?
A miracle is supposed to be a pure violation of the rules of the Universe. Probability has nothing to do with it, the whole point is that something divine has to alter the rules of the Universe to cause it.
Then by your definition I've no recollection of a miracle happening. :/
Okay, firstly we weren't discussing what other people thought on the matter, we were discussing our own thoughts; so holy books are irrelevant.
Fair enough.
This part of the argument is reliant on the "God" aspect. Trouble for him to do it does go against the Holy Book and whilst it is irrelevant I must ask what this deity actually IS, by your definitions?
and why doesn't a computer "learn"?
Our technological growth isn't at peak performance yet, will it be? I don't know, but I think there have been some learning robots that have indeed formed different behaviours despite identical programming. It's the external enviroment which has effected them the most.
Can our actions be predetermined if we have free will?
I still don't know what you mean by this.
Does an analytical brain necessitate a consciousness?
Depends. Is it analytical to the point it looks at its job / goal, or is it analytical as to why, how, when, whether or not it should be doing it according to its own rules?
Couldn't people exist without being conscious?
Zombies are known as undead-- for a reason.
Honestly? A zombie would be no one, it would have the physical barings (par an arm and half their brain) to a person but won't be them. I usually think of a zombie as someone who has lost the parts of their brain which has facial recognition, the regional area responsible for communication through the mouth and has a very strange survival instinct (as in food).
How can one know with certainty that one is conscious?
Because I am. Do you need to be conscious to be conscious? It depends - is consciousness the physical and mental state or is it infact the level you are operating at?
Is it your mind, your beliefs and your entire personality? If so, then you cannot be conscious, because consciousness is you, you, are everything based around it.
How can one know that one has free will?
I have a choice to reply to this, correct?
Will I? Well, I already have - because right now I feel it's my responsibility. When you have the OPTION, it's free will, when you are able to take it, it is free will, once you deny it yourself, it is, in its own way, a lack of free will. But if you had to pick death for a slim slim chance of escape or a life of servitude under a tyrant - what would you pick? People have different choices on the matter.
What mechanical processes and conditions do you believe are required in order to spawn a consciousness?
Ones that were not previously asked for - ones that were made through your thoughts alone. It generally shouldn't be someone else who asked you something and caused it, it usually doesn't dictate you being you, but rather partially them. Surely, some of your own influence has gone into that and thus its impact isn't entire, however where did those influences come from?
That is why your own thoughts make you an individual. Everyone is often conscious because recognised or not, they have indeed done it. Can I imagine someone who has not done it? No, because I have, and honestly I think it's more of human nature - when they begin to question everything. Strangely enough this could even be puberty.
- H
