When I say you are a biochemical reaction, I say that because your personality, your thoughts, your ideas are all part of the illusion created by the brain, just like you choices. and choice in animals is the same as in humans. the only difference is in how complex the reaction is.
We discover things and we experiment with them with other things, and as such we learn how they work and then we use that knowledge on other things and learn how they work and before you know it (many many thousand years) we are able to split atoms.
Superiority complex, goddamn you. It's almost the same difference as a hobo and a billionaire.
Yeah, we're not different than animals at all except in the complexity of our brains. It doesn't change anything in terms of us having any actual choice.
I personally disagree with this, I don't believe that the brain is all that makes the mind/us, thus the free will debate is somewhat different for me.
Um, since the brain is essentially a neural network of electricity, couldn't we say that (since electrons are quantum particles) that their randomness enables free thought.
So you're making a claim that there is more than the brain that makes us but you have not a single theory or explanation for it?
Just because we haven't figured out how they actually work yet doesn't make them random, they are just currently labeled as such since they SEEM random.
All I'm saying is, I do not believe that physicalist accounts for the mind work.
IF the mind is purely physical (which I personally believe that it is, since there is no evidence to the contrary and no elements of the mind that have not been explained by physical sciences as of yet) then our brain is run purely by physical reactions, and by extension our decisions must be predetermined. That said, if you consider that pile of neurons and reactions to be "us," which I do, then we still have free will in the sense that it is "us" making the decisions. Whether or not that qualifies as free will depends on your definition of the word free.
Another point I am going to bring to the debate is that you are not the same person you where a year ago, any matter that has stayed behind only stayed due to chance and that a lot of your brain is dedicated to keeping this illusion of cohesion between events. Just thinking about all the information and data our brain keeps from being processed by our conciseness and changed just to keep up these necessarily illusions is immense, Did you know you have a massive blind spot on your eye, where your optic never touches the back of your eye, and you never notice it. Just thinking about it makes my head hurt, and I suppose that's another defense against us breaking down completely.
This is the kind of discussion that makes people feel insignificant and dull.
The way to defeat it is by talking about the mind. Science is baffled and in my opinion, forever will be.
That's why physiology is a soft science, you are studying something that your brain is stopping you from studying.
Psychology is indeed a soft science, interesting but not enough to give me the answers I need.
I don't think we have free will. I believe in determinism which basically states that, like the rest of the universe, our minds are subject to cause and effect. Thusly we do not decide, our minds simply give us the illusion that we have will as an evolutionary aid for survival. Its really extraordinary, some tests have been done that show that subconsciously the mind can make a choice as early as 7 seconds before we're even aware we've made a choice consciously.
and back to the mind, yes we can superficially judge people's actions. But only we ourselves can experience the glory.
in our own way.
2. If not, then does the concepts of choice exists for you? Define choice and the necessary conditions in which a choice can be made.
If we choose we do it based on our beliefs and the circumstances or we do it randomly.
If we do the first, then our choice is determined by them.
If we do the second then 'we' don't choose.
Freewill is to be defined only by choosing in a determined circumstance according to our beliefs. And that DOES happen.
I think it's silly to claim that people have blind faith and such and then you seem to do the exact same. Believeing that the brain is affected by something else as well but having no theories for it (or at least not sharing them).
"No, the mind must be affected by something else, but I have absolutely no idea what, whatsoever and I will not even attempt to understand what that other thing is whatsoever". That's what I'm hearing right now.
Not to completely derail the current conversation and the progression thereof (I merely mean to add on to it since it seems rather stagnated currently), but think about this:
If, in fact, the human consciousness (or illusion of such) and it's choice-making processes are completely controlled by physically observable and alterable chemical reactions, would it then be possible to modify these chemical reactions in such a way as to modify one's choices?
In typing the above, I think I just answered my own question. Wouldn't psychoactive drugs be a great example of the modification of the illusion of free choice? Free choice is based on a set of chemical processes, and by introducing a new process or modifying an existing one, one could observe a change in choice-making.
I need to sleep. I always get this way when I'm sleep deprived. It's horrible for my faith, as I start questioning myself and my own choices. Ouch. My head.
Instead of being predetermined to say yes in a situation you are predetermined to say no.
And the fact that your brain was going to be changed with psychoactive drugs was predertimened as well, so nothing actually changed.
Our brain and the biochemistry created the things we choose from? Like which chair to sit on, or which educational route to go for, or whatever.
Same goes for your normal animals like dog, they sometimes choose to do dumb or funny things. It's their brain that allows them to do stuff ("making choices") and humans are exactly the same, except there are a Hell of a lot more choices for us to choose from.
So free will or no free will, our brains are something quite miraculous. It's the key to all of this, even this debate and the choice of words we use to debate.
That said, how is this relevant to the discussion?
It must be clear that I'm not at all saying that we can't conclude that some facts about ourselves are true. I'm saying that we can only conclude them as long as they are 'objective' facts, that's how science works.
Anything else you've said, has been layered on by you.
So, let me put this crystal clear for you dgg.
"I do not believe that the physicalist accounts for consciousness are necessarily correct, and that consciousness or personal identity are the mere result of chemical reactions".
Just because I don't believe something is true because of flaws in the explanation provided by it, does not necessitate I have an alternative.
I do not believe there is anything but faith in this solution, because I don't believe that science has made any headway into the problem of consciousness or identity, or the science has successfully ruled out non-physical explanations or other explanations of consciousness.
I am also not the only one who has questions about the way science functions in this respect.
So it's almost like we have a free will. If you don't go by the weird definition of it, we have a free will.
The only thing that restricts our free will is handcuffs or a prison cell or something like that. Imo anyway.