More words, ultimately meaningless, to some
My comment, on this thread at whyevolutionistrue, is getting unbearable long, see what I mean?:
You, sleeprunning, are the one saying that we are just computers processing input, all you guys, Jeff and Steve, are saying we are just mechanically processing input.
Yet we are different from computers.
Not according to you guys. Oh, yes, you SAY we are human, we have emotions, blah blah BSblah.
I asked you to explain what part our minds play, and both Jeff and Steve have been honest enough to even address that once, each.
They both said that no, they can’t explain it <i>mechanically</i>, ….
You people want it both ways, you are the dualists. You are claiming that we work mechanically like computers, yet you admit we are different because we have minds and feel emotions and give meaning to life.
It is transparent bullshit that you claim one thing, that we are mechanically computing and arriving at the only one output that we can, because it is predetermined by linear cause and effect, then in the next breath you claim that we are aware.
WE ARE AWARE, AND THAT IS DIFFERENT. WE HAVE QUALIA, AND <B>THOSE QUALIA CANNOT BE EXPLAINED YET THEY ARE A CAUSE OF OUR BEHAVIOR!!<B>
You say that choice is being made even though only one possible flow of events are possible. In your world, somehow that excludes rocks falling, oh no, they are not choosing between falling and floating, they can only follow the laws of physics.
But when a computer, or our brains only follow the laws of physics to the only one possible outcome, like the rock falling, now you introduce the concept of choice, even though there is no conceptual difference between what is inevitable.
A rock falling has no meaning, no purpose, it does only what it can inevitably do, mindlessly obey the laws of physics.
BTW, I was going to go into theoretical physics, but I was better at chemistry, so I enrolled in Honors Chem at U of A. I flunked out because I chose to drink and play soccer and sports instead of homework, but I still got passing marks in my labs even though I didn’t go. I almost intuitively understand physics and chemistry and just went to lab tests and finals, and passed. I didn’t have enough hours, though, so I didn’t get credits.
Funny, my verbal IQ is higher than my other subscores, though, and I better at language, in aptitude, than math!!!
I know perfectly well that this is all bullshit, it has zero worth in determining my real understanding and deployment of information and physical concepts and mechanisms, except that one corporation they accused me of cheating on the mechanical and verbal aptitude tests because they didn’t believe it when I got the highest scores they had seen, so it remains for me to explain my ideas in a coherent way to others, just as that applies to everyone.
And yes, sleeprunning, it is the idea, only, that has merit, for that is what discussion is, but an exchange and evaluation of ideas, which are further ideas.
This is what I value most in reality. Ideas. This is the premier importance to making us human, who we are, our individuality is but an expression of our ideas(which I include emotions as part of abstract concepts in the idea theatre).
And the only way we can express our ideas is if they are different from a rock in freefall, or they are exactly as meaningless. It does not matter how complex and convoluted the path of flight is, it is still just the only event possible.
How do you people, sleeprunning, Jeff, Steve, the other anti-FW’s, somehow introduce the concept of choosing between alternatives when no alternatives exist?
<b>You are the ones that unmovabley obstinate about there being only one possible outcome when presented with a set of stimuli, you are the ones that insist that there are no conceivable scenarios that are different from the only one dictated by physics, you plead with us to understand that this is not amenable – you say there is one, and only one event allowable, even in concept</b>
Now, I told you that I could come up with more complete mechanistic explanations for our actions, so, Jeff et al, believe my when I say I get it, I understand what you are saying, I get it better than you do(appeal to my authority, yuk yuk!).
So, now I want to deal with a couple of points.
1 – your insistence of calling inevitable outcomes choices, and,
2 – your insistence that you understand completely, all the pertinent processes necessary for our behavior and functioning.
In both cases you employ A DUALITY OF INCOMPATIBLE CONCEPTS.
1. This is not open to debate, as afr as I can see. A rock falls. A plinko chip falls, and even though the ultimate path(outcome) is unpredictable, it is determinate. A flipping coin lands on one side of two possible, but the coin itself is not choosing anything.
Now, electrons passing through a gate or being stopped there, is not their decision. If their passage is determined by the state of the gate(lol) which is determined by the output from other gates, there is no decision, or choice, at any gate, or in fact, in any circuit in any computer. Beside random indeterminancy, the computer only has one possible output.
In fact, I know you agree, and more importantly, you also agree that our brains only process electro-chemically with one possible output. <b>No choice is introduced merely by adding steps to a series of one way, pre-determined outcomes, each operation being dependent on the next, and vise versa.</b>
A rock that falls on another rock, which falls, then, into another number of rocks, and they all fall in the only possible path, behaving, let’s say, as what we define as an avalanche, comes to rest in the only possible pile/arrangement possible to those rocks. They do not choose where they ultimately lie, which even may be on another precariously balance pile of still more rocks on the side of a mountain.
This resulting pile will only fall more if conditions, such as wind or erosion, dictate that they become subject to motion in a gravitational field.
At no point do they decide to fall or not fall, they just exist in an environment described by two way cause/effect forces. <b>There is no meaning to the behavior, they do not choose their paths, the only reason we might say they ‘choose’ one gully over another is because, to us, we don’t know which one will be prescribed by the laws of physics. There only ever was one possible outcome, no selecting between alternatives was made.</b>
The same with a computer, the same with our behavior, it is only ‘falling’ in one possible path with only one possible resultant outcome.
The same is therefore true with our behavior, for you guys(people) say that there exists, at the outset, however arbitrarily you assign it, only one possible outcome, which is defined as an action, and even many of these actions, defined as behavior, is still, the only series of events possible.
You people say so. Outside of random indeterminacy, you claim exactly this. And you are correct, there is only one possible outcome, <b>I agree with you 100% that that is a valid conclusion.</b>
Where we do disagree, however, <b><i>is whether or not to call this a process of choosing; for you do, indeed, introduce the concept of choice in your descriptions of these purely ‘pre-determined to follow one path to one pre-determined(by the laws of physics) outcome.'</i></b>
So, no, we do not choose anything, we don’t choose our feelings, our actions, our thoughts derived from our feelings, our actions and behaviors derived from our thoughts and emotions, nothing, nothing is chosen. It is entirely analogous to an avalanche, there is no meaning inherent in any of it.
Not only that, ‘meaning’ can not somehow magically appear at some mysterious point in the process, just as ‘choice’ cannot, either.
Now, in light of this understanding, <b>I want you people to explain where you get the principles of choice and meaning from any process in nature!</b>
Even your thoughts that there is meaning are meaningless, logically and, in reality, for these judgements of meaning are not judgements, but the only possible outcome of a pre-determined set of circumstances, and therefore, there is no meaning that way, <b>and in the fact that by definition, meaning could only possibly exist in a state of alternativesd, of which none exist!</b>
(Shite, I don’t even know if the formatting, or anything, really!, is sensical at this point – we need a preview option, and I need to shut up)
And, finally (whew):
2. None of the above, nor nonFWist concept, contains one iota of a shred of explanation for our awareness and qualia, except to say that no explanation is necessary and is therefore moot.
But, I retort, it is part of the causal chain.
So what?, say them, it is a result of known physical laws, and is therefore a combination of matter/energy and physical forces and can only be inevitable, given the physical arrangement of our brains and bodies, and behaves no different than any other system that can be conceived.
Well, I reply, then our minds must be the same as all other matter/energy, and explainable in concepts we already understand.
Yes, they say, that is correct.
But, and now I play dirty(because I won’t let them keep up their evasions), our minds/thoughts/qualia/values/abstract concepts are not apparently physically the same as all the other instances of matter and energy we have ever investigated!
It doesn’t matter(lol), they say.
I then conclude that they are silly and illogical, for they cannot ignore the impact of the most important entity in the universe! Surely they cannot <b>say that they understand how something they don’t understand</b>, or can equate in any known or conceivable way to any other state of matter/energy in the known universe, works and interacts with known solid matter. <b>They just said they don’t understand how it acts! Yet they understand how it interacts!!!</b>
I’ll say it again. You cannot say that the mind is unimportant, is secondary, and most of all, illusory, <b>and then claim, by using the same organ you describe, that what you know is in fact, not illusory, when you are using that very organ in a way that you cannot explain or conceive of why and how it does what it does, or even what it is capable of doing, FFS!!</b>
You do not know if our minds can function using unknown, and at this point inconceivable, methods that fit in line with our perceptions of experience.
You can not know what effect our qualia have on our physical actions, because you do not know how qualia interact and process data.
Because you cannot understand qualia and perception as a consequence of physical processes, it necessarily follows that the process of <b>generating our thinking, perceptions, and intentions</b> is completely unkown.
If this process of generation of a phenomena is completely unknown and un nonsensical, <b>then the reverse, the interaction of our qualia with the generator, our physical brains and bodies, is also unknown and nonsensical.</b>
What is going on in our heads is important for our survival and functioning(did I put that in the right order? lol).
The presence of our awarenesses does not make physical, or resourceful sense. <b>The only way that our minds make sense, is if they act in the manner that appear to, that they fulfill the functions that make sense ie. making decisions.</b>
You say that the making of decisions are illusory, and therefore not decisions or choices. So, what are our aware minds doing there in the first place?
First you claim that our minds are inconsequential, then you claim that yes they are consequential, they somehow give our lives value, even though value is a selective decision between possible alternatives. (Remember, in lesson 1, we learned that nothing is a choice or has value if it isn’t comparable to any alternative, and there are no possible alternatives in the reductionist minds.)
I, and my buddies(you know what I mean), if I may be so bold as to speak for others and assume they agree with me, haha, explain our minds in the only way that makes logical sense.
<b>You can claim we don’t make decisions or conscious selections all you bloody well want, but your claims are illogical, overall.</b>
If we don’t need our minds, why do we have them?
You people don’t fucking know, so don’t fucking tell me what makes sense, and what doesn’t.