The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

Dean wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Wrong, Dean. I did not go for anything supernatural at all. I offered a scientific hypothesis for the origin of consciousness: That any sufficiently complex self-referential and self-reflective process develops a consciousness. You may or may not believe in the hypothesis, but there is certainly nothing supernatural about that. Mark that the human brain is such a process. And the universe is such a process too, only on a much larger scale. Scientific? The much larger the scale the much smaller the likelihood that any of those complex processes can occur, on a universal scale that is asymtotic to zero (it is not one over infinity) - for it to occur it must defy nature and thus be supernatural. Quantum entanglement (or any pseudoscientific misapplication of scientific phenomena or theorems) is an insufficient and inadequate enabler for those process over cosmic distances. The speed of thought is governed by the same laws of physics as any other velocity vector - time and distance; apparent superluminal interaction is not the propagation of information. You can believe whatever you like, that is the beauty and wonder of a religion, but it is not science or scientific.

Not at all true, Dean. Nobody knows anything about the speed of thoughts. We don't even know how a thought is represented in the brain, and much less would we know so with the thoughts of the universe, provided there are some. And the speed-of-light barrier only afflicts physical objects.

You also probably think in a wrong time-scope; the universe has all the time in the world. It also appears to have some holographic qualities too, so the long distances are perhaps not necessary to be traveled at all for a process to be self-reflective and self-referential.

There are even non-local effects, as the Alain Aspect experiments have shown. While it is claimed that these non-local effects can not be used to communicate information they may nevertheless affect certain processes, which is all that would be needed.

I am pretty well aware that physicists are uncomfortable with the mind; it is slippery and can not be measured, and no-one knows where it comes from. Yet minds do exist; there is no doubt about that. And it is in my opinion one of the last vestiges of anthropocentrism to believe that there needs to be what we would call a "body" to house a mind.


Edited by BaldFriede - February 22 2013 at 05:45

This thread has become a gamecube.

The T wrote: This thread has become a gamecube.

timothy leary wrote:  Well done grasshopper, it seems you have a black belt in keyboard. The subject alone has reality.

Nor do I

^unless the brain is simply a receiver and transmitter of thought processes, in which case our mind as we perceive it is limited by the brain's capabilities, but our "ultimate" consciousness, which we cannot perceive because of the brain's limitations, is not.  Not sure I believe that, but it is not impossible. 

Edited by The Doctor - February 22 2013 at 16:47

Prove it's impossible.  

Here's an interesting question for you Dean, or for anyone else who cares to answer, as I've spent quite a bit of time contemplating this issue myself.  If consciousness is completely confined to the brain, and does not exist independently, what are your thoughts on free will?  For, if the brain controls our thoughts, via electrochemical reactions, then is it truly possible for us to have freewill.  After all, our thoughts and therefore our actions are controlled entirely by chemistry and physics, and if a mathematical equation complex enough could be developed, all of our lives could be mapped out for us in advance with such an equation, so that we could then know everything we will ever do, ever think, ever feel, etc., etc.  I think without at least some type of mind/body schism you end up with predetermination.  I'm not saying that's an impossibility.  I don't know.  But it is something I've given some thought to.  

Edited by The Doctor - February 22 2013 at 18:33

The Doctor wrote: Here's an interesting question for you Dean, or for anyone else who cares to answer, as I've spent quite a bit of time contemplating this issue myself.  If consciousness is completely confined to the brain, and does not exist independently, what are your thoughts on free will?  For, if the brain controls our thoughts, via electrochemical reactions, then is it truly possible for us to have freewill.  After all, our thoughts and therefore our actions are controlled entirely by chemistry and physics, and if a mathematical equation complex enough could be developed, all of our lives could be mapped out for us in advance with such an equation, so that we could then know everything we will ever do, ever think, ever feel, etc., etc.  I think without at least some type of mind/body schism you end up with predetermination.  I'm not saying that's an impossibility.  I don't know.  But it is something I've given some thought to.

thellama73 wrote: If we deny free will, I don't see hwo we can have a justice system at all. In the absense of free will, there is no difference between someone who is coerced into comitting a crime (who is not held responsible) and someone who acts autonomously (who is held accountable.) If the second individual had no choice in his actions, how can we hold him responsible for his actions?

I agree and figured the libertarians would chime in on that point.  However, that still doesn't answer the question as to whether free will exists or not. 

@Gerinski.  We may never be able to know what our future holds, i.e. it is unpredictable, but if it is predetermined, but unpredictable, that still eliminates free will.