Servant or Will?

Originally posted by Conrau K
So really what your saying is that reasoning cannot be associated with the brain? I'm sure many neurologists would agree. 😉

Mutations are of course random, but evolution is not. It goes in a predictable direction determined by the environment. In the case of humans, by the need to understand the environment (and I realise I have given an extremely condensed version).

Should I take this as an inability on your part to provide a coherent logical proof on the development of reason from non-reason?

Originally posted by Halitose
Should I take this as an inability on your part to provide a coherent logical proof on the development of reason from non-reason?

1) Logic would provide an advantage to animal reproduction
2) Evolution gradually 'selects' genes which eventually result in greater brain size
3) The brain is capable of making observation and computing
4) Thus develops logic

Originally posted by Conrau K
1) Logic would provide an advantage to animal reproduction
2) Evolution gradually 'selects' genes which eventually result in greater brain size
3) The brain is capable of making observation and computing
4) Thus develops logic

3) does not follow 2)
4) does not follow 3)

You are going to have to do better than that. Try fleshing it out more. Start at a stage where there is no brain. End off with Reason.

Originally posted by Halitose
You are going to have to do better than that. Try fleshing it out more. Start at a stage where there is no brain. End off with Reason.

All living things and viruses too have the ability to reason in its most basic form. Depending on the environment cirtain decisions are made and results are produced.
This happens at the level of DNA, at the cellular level, at the organ level and throughout the whole organism. It is an essential feature of life. Note that I have not said that it is confined to life.
Brains are merely the most sophisticated forms of reasoning machines enabling more advanced reasoning and much greater flexibility in terms of possible actions to a wider variety of inputs and greater potential for special features of reason such as memory. Better more sophisticated reasoning is clearly desirable and therefore selected for in evolution. However it often comes at a cost and therefore is not always selected for. Still in a large enough eco system we should expect some organisms to find the benefits outweigh the cons and become better at reasoning.

Originally posted by Halitose
3) does not follow 2)
4) does not follow 3)

You are going to have to do better than that. Try fleshing it out more. Start at a stage where there is no brain. End off with Reason.

4) is my conclusion. The rest are premises. So duh!! 3) will not follow from 2).

4) follows from all premises.

Excuse me, but I haven't seen a logical argument (should I expect one? I guess not) that proves that free will implies logic.

But well done Hal! If logic must come from the logical (and not "random chemicals"😉 then there must be a soul. Bravo. I'm sure they'll give you the nobel prize for that (pitty there not a category for moron).

Originally posted by Conrau K
4) is my conclusion. The rest are premises. So duh!! 3) will not follow from 2).

4) follows from all premises.

Excuse me, but I haven't seen a logical argument (should I expect one? I guess not) that proves that free will implies logic.

But well done Hal! If logic must come from the logical (and not "random chemicals"😉 then there must be a soul ...[text shortened]... I'm sure they'll give you the nobel prize for that (pitty there not a category for moron).

4) is my conclusion. The rest are premises. So duh!! 3) will not follow from 2).

4) follows from all premises.

Oh. Escuuuseee meee for giving you the benefit of the doubt; thinking that you wouldn't make the most elementary of logical fallacies.

If 4) is your conclusion and the rest are premises, then your logic is as faulty as your insulting abilities. You assume the concept of logic in premise 1) and then conclude with it in premise 4) -- I'm sure it doesn't take much to notice that you are using circular reasoning, petitio principii, you assume the truth of the very thing being questioned, namely logic and reason.

But well done Hal! If logic must come from the logical (and not "random chemicals" ) then there must be a soul. Bravo. I'm sure they'll give you the nobel prize for that (pitty there not a category for moron).

Bravo! You have almost succeeded in your obtuse red herring. You were the one who claimed that free will doesn't exist, and now when you are being taken to task, you try to shift the burden of proof. The believability of your stance is not contingent on making me look stupid, btw. Just to give a little perspective that you seem to be sorely lacking:

1) You claimed that there is no free will; ultimately, all our actions and thoughts are the results of (non-intelligent) natural forces of causality.
2) I claimed that if you assumed 1), then you have no reason to think your logic or reasoning sound of profound - the elevation of your intelligence is unsolicited.
3) You rebutted with petty circular arguments and ad hominems.

So perhaps we should move back to 2) and I'll kindly ask you to make good on your bold stance and prove that your reason (and logic) as stated in 1) has any significance above mine (I hold that there is free will), which by your reasoning is in exactly the same boat.

Originally posted by twhitehead
All living things and viruses too have the ability to reason in its most basic form. Depending on the environment cirtain decisions are made and results are produced.
This happens at the level of DNA, at the cellular level, at the organ level and throughout the whole organism. It is an essential feature of life. Note that I have not said that it is confi ...[text shortened]... uld expect some organisms to find the benefits outweigh the cons and become better at reasoning.

Depending on the environment cirtain[sic] decisions are made and results are produced.

Your beef is with K. He claims that there is no decision making involved; our "decisions" are predestined by nature long before we arrive on the scene -- we are just going through the motions of life, helplessly riding the wave of materialism.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]4) is my conclusion. The rest are premises. So duh!! 3) will not follow from 2).

4) follows from all premises.

Oh. Escuuuseee meee for giving you the benefit of the doubt; thinking that you wouldn't make the most elementary of logical fallacies.

If 4) is your conclusion and the rest are premises, then your logic is as faulty as your insult ...[text shortened]... (I hold that there is free will), which by your reasoning is in exactly the same boat.[/b]

You assume the concept of logic in premise 1) and then conclude with it in premise 4) -- I'm sure it doesn't take much to notice that you are using circular reasoning, petitio principii, you assume the truth of the very thing being questioned, namely logic and reason.

I assumed no such thing. I did not "assume the concept of logic in premise 1)". Would you like me to repeat premise 1)? "Logic would confer an advantage to animals" (or something like that). If logic would would gave a reproductive advantage and if it is biologically possible to have logic within a finite system of chemicals then logic will develop into such a finite system of chemicals (i.e. the brain).

1) You claimed that there is no free will; ultimately, all our actions and thoughts are the results of (non-intelligent) natural forces of causality.
I never said natural forces were non-intelligent. My physics teacher (who has a PHD) often describes nature as intelligent. And I do not believe that non- intelligent cannot produce intelligence or that intelligence presupposes further intelligence. The science community is on my side here.

2) I claimed that if you assumed 1), then you have no reason to think your logic or reasoning sound of profound - the elevation of your intelligence is unsolicited.

I don't see any reason why logic and reasoning would be profound either way. But I dont question the scope of logic because to do that requires logic (a paradox)- even if it might not be profound or even might be wrong.

3) You rebutted with petty circular arguments and ad hominems.

No circular reasoning, I suspect you just misconstrued what I said.

So perhaps we should move back to 2) and I'll kindly ask you to make good on your bold stance and prove that your reason (and logic) as stated in 1) has any significance above mine (I hold that there is free will), which by your reasoning is in exactly the same boat.

You have still failed to connect free will to reasoning. You line of argument is extremely precarious- even untenable and I am convinced you are just being obstinate.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Depending on the environment cirtain[sic] decisions are made and results are produced.

Your beef is with K. He claims that there is no decision making involved; our "decisions" are predestined by nature long before we arrive on the scene -- we are just going through the motions of life, helplessly riding the wave of materialism.[/b]

I have no objection to the way he uses the word "decisions". However, the statement you quotes is evidently of determinist inclination- it is basically supporting my argument against the free will you are debating for.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]You assume the concept of logic in premise 1) and then conclude with it in premise 4) -- I'm sure it doesn't take much to notice that you are using circular reasoning, petitio principii, you assume the truth of the very thing being questioned, namely logic and reason.

I assumed no such thing. I did not "assume the concept of logic in premis is extremely precarious- even untenable and I am convinced you are just being obstinate.[/b]

You are squirming like an eel. Has it reached the point where I need to spell out your stance for you?

You hold a determinist view of free will, right? This means that you hold a mechanical view of your mind. Before you... er.. well... let me clarify. You view the mind as a complex chemical yet mechanical computer. The moment it can compute on its own, you have negated your view on the absence of free will, since the mind can then perform uncaused (self-caused) functions. Ergo, all the functions of the mind are caused by external sensory perceptions, which are themselves caused by external factors and forces.

The moment you concede that the mind can will itself to think or process anything then your (absence of) free will argument is in tatters. So essentially, you claim (some rudimentary knowledge of programming would help here) that the mind is a fixed operator set (and, not, or, etc, etc) which external causes flush functions through to bring about a computational results. Of course the mind is more complex, but basically there can be no self-induced rationalising, it is all fixed into the hardware.

The problem is that this hardware is itself the result of these external forces, which cannot in any way be considered to be reasoning. So basically, you have non-reasoning forces shaping non-reasoning hardware, to create reasoned thoughts? Am I the only one missing something here? Further, you need to demonstrate why this "computational result" which you so glibly call "reasoning" should be given any more merit than the brainwaves of a sperm whale, which by your reasoning its 9 kg brain should be producing much more profound thought than our meager 1.5 kg cerebral matter.

But I dont question the scope of logic because to do that requires logic (a paradox)- even if it might not be profound or even might be wrong.

I'm so happy you finally caught on to that one. So maybe instead of asking yourself what you are thinking, you should question why you think at all. Perhaps we should wait for the stars to be aligned to induce the correct thought in your brain.

You have still failed to connect free will to reasoning. You line of argument is extremely precarious- even untenable and I am convinced you are just being obstinate.

Oh but the inverse of your argument is what I hold. If the brain is truly a "mind" in any meaningful sense of the word, it should possess the ability to self-induce thought. This "self-induced" thought amongst creatures of the human species is what I would call "reason". That would explain how the inexperienced mind of a child would produce much simpler and even incorrect reasoning compared to the experienced adult.

Originally posted by ChessJester
Are we Gods Servant or are we Gods Will?

I don't understand. Couldn't we be both? (Assuming god exists.) Isn't it possible, god willed us to be his servants?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Quantum Mechanics does not allow for free will. If (as you say) free will requires freedom of action then QM does accommodate for this. However, free will entail the "freedom of choice". QM indeterminacy essentially describes the collapse of the wave function which gives rise to freedom of action. However, it does not allow for freedom of choice because the ...[text shortened]... the wave function is random and we know our choices are not random. Arguing with QM is absurd.

This is where you are wrong... they only appear to be random... but it may be that these "random" processes are actually influenced by consciousness itself.

See: Global Consciousness Project.

This is where they have random event generators (REG) set up all around the world recording the supposed "random" quantum events such as photons travelling through polorization filters and quantum tunnelling events and other such phenomena. These processes happen millions of times a minuite and all the data is recorded onto a computer database and then they look for a structure in the randomness (lets say a photon happens to be polarized 510 000 times out of one million instead of 500 000 times) and then the structure is correlated with world events and they attempt to see if there is any connection between the structures of the quantum events and the focus of human consciousnesss on earth.

They have found consistent structure occuring 5 mins before and 5 mins after new years every year.

This project has beed going on non-stop since 1998

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

They have also found correlations during 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and the south asia tsunami.

This would suggest that these quntam processes are being effected by consciousness in alternate universes while they are in a super-positioned state.

Originally posted by ChessJester
This is where you are wrong... they only appear to be random... but it may be that these "random" processes are actually influenced by consciousness itself.

See: Global Consciousness Project.

This is where they have random event generators (REG) set up all around the world recording the supposed "random" quantum events such as photons travelling th ...[text shortened]... effected by consciousness in alternate universes while they are in a super-positioned state.

I'm going to stop you there. First you say, "I'm wrong" but then the evidence you cite really says "I might be wrong". I should also warn you that you are exploring a very obscure line of research- it is not mainstream.

If you check the calculation of Quantum Mechanics, things like the collapse of the wave function, the measurement problem, etc. You will realise the complete arbitrariness of Quantum mechanics. It is random and this has been confirmed millions of times.

Originally posted by Halitose
You are squirming like an eel. Has it reached the point where I need to spell out your stance for you?

You hold a determinist view of free will, right? This means that you hold a mechanical view of your mind. Before you... er.. well... let me clarify. You view the mind as a complex chemical yet mechanical computer. The moment it can compute on its own, y ...[text shortened]... produce much simpler and even incorrect reasoning compared to the experienced adult.

Hal this is where we have gone wrong.

You hold a determinist view of free will, right? This means that you hold a mechanical view of your mind. Before you... er.. well... let me clarify. You view the mind as a complex chemical yet mechanical computer. The moment it can compute on its own, you have negated your view on the absence of free will, since the mind can then perform uncaused (self-caused) functions. Ergo, all the functions of the mind are caused by external sensory perceptions, which are themselves caused by external factors and forces.

You are in fact completely right (im not being sarcatsic either). We cannot be like computers. Consider Godels law- no finite system or language (i.e. mathematical system) can prove all truths. This means no computer with its congenitcal axioms could possibly develop a full understanding. It can't reason.

However, humans can learn, they can observe; they are malleable (and there are evolutionary justifications for this). They can reason and develop new axioms. But this does not imply free will either.

I suspect that the level of sophistication in the brain causes the illusion of a profoundly reasoning human. There is no reason to speculate on a something else (you are still yet to prove that something else could be "profound"😉

Originally posted by Conrau K
Hal this is where we have gone wrong.

[b]You hold a determinist view of free will, right? This means that you hold a mechanical view of your mind. Before you... er.. well... let me clarify. You view the mind as a complex chemical yet mechanical computer. The moment it can compute on its own, you have negated your view on the absence of free will, since late on a something else (you are still yet to prove that something else could be "profound"😉

[/b][/b]It's quite simple then: is the reasoning of the mind self-induced or externally caused?

If you hold to the former, then I don't see how you could disagree with free will of the mind -- freedom of thought. Since the mind controls our actions, free will is not a long shot from there.

If however you hold to the latter, then no amount of complexity (I think) would allow for a "mind" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Isn't this bbarr's field of expertise? I'd love to have his thoughts on this.