GENIUS FORUMS

Some physicists now believe that memory is made of prions, the proteins which also cause mad cow disease.

If this is true, then memory which shapes so much of consciousness, free-will etc is completely physical and subject to causal laws.

It’s hard to figure how free-will can enter the picture at all. If faced with an option between an apple and an orange for example, you are retrieving two world-view pictures of oranges and apples. These pictures are completely passive. You have no control over how they are presented to the brain; they’re just a rush of perceptions all converging onto some internal screen. These perceptions are all made of particles, and quite complex molecules if they are indeed prions. Particles have little choice in the way they behave. If you accept this so far, at this stage, we’re no more than automatons.

How can we make a choice under these circumstances, if everything up to this stage is causal and deterministic?

We can’t just pluck a “choice” particle out of the air. Up until now, the energy all comes from other energy. So we can’t suddenly “create” a choice particle.

I’m wondering if the fabric of the universe is less empty than we think. Maybe there is a thin soup of electrically charged particles that permeates everywhere, including our brain. Maybe some of these particles could be drawn to one of the pictures, say oranges, because the atomic strength dominates the weaker picture, the apples. These particles could charge up the oranges picture, set up a chemical reaction, so that we opt for the orange, without really knowing why.

I like this idea, because it does away with a lot of the mystery. It also makes God redundant. Any thoughts on this?

Bilby,

Some physicists now believe that memory is made of prions, the proteins which also cause mad cow disease.

If this is true, then memory which shapes so much of consciousness, free-will etc is completely physical and subject to causal laws.

Well, nice to know, but otherwise too, memory would still be subject to causal laws. Causality is but a process, and irrelevant of this core principal through which all THINGS operate, a thing is distinctly a particular thing, and the distinctiveness are its attributes. Essentially, things create things and the process seen is named as causality, and once a new, more complex thing is created, it brings forth its own new effects according to its attributes, capability and particular nature, and that nature too operates through causality, but churns out effects according to that particular things nature; and hence through causality a human nature can choose to reject, (free-will), but the same causality cannot make an tree choose to shrug off a centipede.

The infiniteness of totality allows each thing to manifest its own effects irrelevant of the connectivity of all infinite things as seen because of a process. ‘Will’ being free does not undermine causality in any way, nor does it evoke the need for a theological God. We are thence necessarily responsible for all our actions as individuals, for causality creates the power within us to make a choice, otherwise, we can throw out morality if causality is what is responsible for all our actions. And further more; that would render logic and reasoning meaningless.

I’m wondering if the fabric of the universe is less empty than we think.

You know about prions, how about anti-matter? Dark-matter?

I like this idea, because it does away with a lot of the mystery. It also makes God redundant. Any thoughts on this?

Yes, it renders reasoning, morality and responsibility redundant too. Don't you think so?

I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be responsible for their actions. The world would be very unjust if that was the case. I was really asking a philosophical rather than a moral question, at this stage. How do you pin-point the actual moment that someone is responsible for the choices they make? I agree with you that “a thing is distinctly a particular thing”, but generally most people consider the mind to be both a “thing” and beyond causal laws, and this is what I have trouble understanding. I believe all physical things obey causality, but what about all non-physical things ? Can you have a non-physical thing? I would say no, you can’t have a non-physical thing (like a “mind”). If something is a “thing” then it has to be physical, i.e. it’s made of energy/matter. I don’t know whether or not you agree with this so far. How does a non-physical thing like the mind move a physical object? If a thing can move another physical thing, then that thing must be physical too. We might need to have consensus on what a “thing” actually is, before we can talk about “things” in any meaningful way that we all understand.

You say that “we can throw out morality if causality is what is responsible for all our actions”. I guess you’re saying that even if causality is responsible for our actions, this can’t be because of the social ramifications. This isn’t how you arrive at truth. I don’t agree with your logic here, although I agree with your sentiment. I wouldn’t like a world where wrong-doers could claim determinism as a mitigating factor either.

At what stage exactly, does the physical world of stimuli, perception, and memory switch to a “non-physical” choice – or free-will? This is the part I don’t understand.

Bilby,

At what stage exactly, does the physical world of stimuli, perception, and memory switch to a “non-physical” choice – or free-will? This is the part I don’t understand.

That’s a valid question, and I will respond to this and the rest of your post in detail, (I'm a bit pressed for time), but you need to answer one thing first.

In your opinion, can energy move matter?

Yes, Sapius. I look forward to your post tomorrow.

Bilby wrote:It’s hard to figure how free-will can enter the picture at all.

It doesn't. The whole concept of free will is based on an incoherent idea of existence. There is no inherently existing "you" or "I" to have free will.

Conventionally, we talk about people doing things of their own free will, meaning by their own choice, rather than being forced to do something. It's a convenient way to talk. That's all.

Bilby,

How do you pin-point the actual moment that someone is responsible for the choices they make?

This needs to be understood as a whole… and cannot be explained or answered in one sentence, so please bear with me. I speak from personal experiences hence certain things may not be explainable in a traditional manner.

Experiences (externally gained) retained by a particular (causally created) brain (matter/ennergy) aided by its deductive faculty (Known as 'mind', matter/energy) produce diverse results. And each particular brain creates different results because each has its own causality created internal conditions. The human brain is the only one known to ask questions - “WHY”? Or “Is this logical or that?” “Should I believe in this or that?” It is not only the question of choosing chocolate flavor over vanilla, but choosing one set of values over another too. This does not occur in animals for example, but they do operate through certain level of “though” processes, aided by sensual perceptions that help them take a particular calculative step. Otherwise most of the meat-eating animals will go hungry if they are as stupid (less calculative) as the cow.

but generally most people consider the mind to be both a “thing” and beyond causal laws, and this is what I have trouble understanding.

No, the “mind” is subject to causal laws too, but is tied down to a particular brain and its own unique experiences, calculations, and internal causal processes. Causality is not a single line of domino effect chain, but expands INFINITELY in every-which-direction, and works within every-which-thing, and the thing it creates (although subject to the same CAUSAL PROCESS) produces effects according to the complexity, nature of that particular thing.

If absolutely all is but a single chain of domino effect, then various conclusion reached are comparatively meaningless, because either way it is all DIRECT causality, so things become redundant or can be thrown out of the equation, and so can individual reasoning and conclusions. I want to know how can causality exist sans things and their particualr effects? Neither of the two can exist independently. Causality is as dependent on things as things are on causality. Things and the process are inseparable, and cannot even be imagined separately.

I believe all physical things obey causality, but what about all non-physical things ? Can you have a non-physical thing? I would say no, you can’t have a non-physical thing (like a “mind”). If something is a “thing” then it has to be physical, i.e. it’s made of energy/matter. I don’t know whether or not you agree with this so far.

I understand and agree, but what tells you that the mind itself is not made up of say energy ‘prions’? Say some sort of electro-particles created by the brain that interact internally and in turn can make use of information stored, and may even have its own capability of storing certain amount of information. If a tiny bit of DNA strand can store an entire genetic code, I don’t see how multiple electro-particles could not operate interactively wiht certain information storing capacity. I am told all matter is but different form of energy, so why can’t ‘mind’ be a different form of matter/energy?

You say that “we can throw out morality if causality is what is responsible for all our actions”. I guess you’re saying that even if causality is responsible for our actions, this can’t be because of the social ramifications.

Yes I said that, and it means that if there is no free-will, then morality, right/wrong, true/false, holds no comparative value, because sans-free-will, our participation as a thing is meaningless.

Surely it is because of individual reasoning and agreement between many that we arrive at moral values, but there are others who can reject my moral values or go against them. (Murder, rape, etc.) Agreed? But either way, IF it is simply causality that is driving each individual to an agreement OR rejection thereof, then an individual is relived of any responsibility because in any case his conclusions are casually dependant, over which HE has no control over. There is no way one can logically justify or hold one responsible if this is the case.

This isn’t how you arrive at truth. I don’t agree with your logic here, although I agree with your sentiment. I wouldn’t like a world where wrong-doers could claim determinism as a mitigating factor either.

You see! It is perfectly possible for YOU to DISAGREE to MY logic, (although I think you misread me), but if we both blame it on causality, then we are thrown out of the equation, and that it illogical according to me.

For example…

Bilby: It’s hard to figure how free-will can enter the picture at all.

To which DHoges responded… and I will respond to it in return. But to you I say, it (Will) always existed, and that is what existence is driven by, including physical trials and errors, which translates into learning from our mistakes in our thinking at a logically reasoning self-conscious level, and we are but a product of the same existence; in fact we are existence itself.

DHodges: It doesn't. The whole concept of free will is based on an incoherent idea of existence. There is no inherently existing "you" or "I" to have free will.

So what is the coherent idea of existence?

D: Conventionally, we talk about people doing things of their own free will, meaning by their own choice, rather than being forced to do something. It's a convenient way to talk. That's all.

So we are being forced, or that we are being thrown about like a leaf. Right? So, how can we justify any action as right or wrong? Any conclusion as True or false? Because either way, for one, there is no inherently existing (that is independently existing, on-its-own thing) “you” or “I”, (I take it because of causality), hence the responsibility falls directly on causality. Hence “you” or “I” cannot be held responsible for absolutely anything at all. And secondly, neither true nor false holds any meaning because both come from the same source, causality… causally created going back infinitely, sans "you" or "I".

B: At what stage exactly, does the physical world of stimuli, perception, and memory switch to a “non-physical” choice – or free-will? This is the part I don’t understand.

Stimuli, perception, and memory is not what “switches” to “non-physical”, mind (consciousness) and things are but the two faces of the same coin (existence), and have always existed as interactively existing matter/energy.

S: In your opinion, can energy move matter?

B: Yes,

Then you should not have much problem understanding what will be discussed.

Thank you for your reply. I’m hoping we can agree on some things. Energy/matter is the same stuff – it’s all particles. Energy is just matter doing work. So mind can be a “different” form of matter/energy (meaning different from what we understand), but it’s still physical in nature. Whatever form of energy the mind has, we’re still talking about particles, and all particles obey causal laws. So if all particles obey laws of physics, and can’t wander off and do their own thing, then the mind’s processes, as far as consciousness is concerned – memory, perception etc are all causal reactions. Do you agree so far?

If on the other hand, you believe that consciousness has a “non-physical” element to it, then now’s the time to state your case.

You raise an interesting point though. If all action is strictly causal, then we’re passively enmeshed in the universe, and there is no “I” or individuality. I can’t claim to independently exist, or have any real significance, if I’m just the same fabric as the rest of the universe. If everything in the universe operates robotically, purely on mechanical laws of cause-and-effect, then how would you separate me, and my actions, when it’s just the one universal group of actions? If the world was causal, none of us are responsible for our actions because they are purely deterministic. None of us has any significance. Everything that happens is just energy/matter responding to other energy/matter.

This presents a pretty glum picture of humankind, and no, I really can’t believe it’s this stark. But I do think you’re evading the tough questions. I would rather not believe the world is like this, so really, I’m struggling with my own point of view. You seem to agree that, up to a point, all human processes are physical, but I’d like you to clarify this. So the question remains: How do you pin-point the actual moment that someone is responsible for the choices they make?

Bilby,

Thank you for your reply. I’m hoping we can agree on some things. Energy/matter is the same stuff – it’s all particles. Energy is just matter doing work. So mind can be a “different” form of matter/energy (meaning different from what we understand), but it’s still physical in nature. Whatever form of energy the mind has, we’re still talking about particles, and all particles obey causal laws. So if all particles obey laws of physics, and can’t wander off and do their own thing, then the mind’s processes, as far as consciousness is concerned – memory, perception etc are all causal reactions. Do you agree so far?

Yes, but all particles when formed as a more complex thing than a single know particle at the quantum level, and such particles are held together tightly enough that can be distinguished as a distinctive thing according to certain dimension, then this newly formed thing has its own assigned attributes, and reacts accordingly; that is according to its nature and according to the dimension it is bound to. The only difference is what choices are open to it according to its own nature.

An apple tree will produce apples, not mangoes, that’s its nature. Even until here one can think that things are bound in a “mechanical” way. Now what we can discern and distinguish as “life”, reacts not only because of external effects, but internal too. An amoeba if probed will react and move back, but what exactly makes its body retract? Simple saying its caused to retract misses the important link in which that particular amoeba uses its own internal causes to move its own body, irrelevant of the fact of ‘why it had to move?’.

A hurricane strikes, I am blown off by wind, I try to grab a pole. Does the hurricane cause me to grab a pole or my logical deduction that tells me to save myself? In the same scenario, a tree cannot do the same, but a spider on that tree will try to cling to the bark, because its internal causes start working and resist the external causes that are blowing it away. The only causal connection is this case is that external causes trigger internal causes, but internal causes where life is concerned, can resist and work against external causes.

If I am thrown off balance for whatever reasons, what makes me regain balance? external or internal causes? The nature of my internal causes can go against external causes, and say NO to a proposed theory in a similar way, whereas someone else can accept it. Both operate through the laws of causality, but “YOU” and I” are not one and the same THING, and MY internal causal conditions can make ME say NO, YOU to conclude YES. IF absolutely all is but a mechanical causal chain that removes us from the equation, then surely any choice made either way is redundant, hence canceling out, nullifying individual logic and reasoning. So why should I take any body seriously, including DHodges? These kind of questions are open for me to ask, because I am using MY reasonings. On the other hand, I can choose to ignore. Would you like me to demonstrate?

If on the other hand, you believe that consciousness has a “non-physical” element to it, then now’s the time to state your case.

Thanks for the opportunity, but I’m trying to do just that as a whole :D

You raise an interesting point though. If all action is strictly causal, then we’re passively enmeshed in the universe, and there is no “I” or individuality. I can’t claim to independently exist, or have any real significance, if I’m just the same fabric as the rest of the universe. If everything in the universe operates robotically, purely on mechanical laws of cause-and-effect, then how would you separate me, and my actions, when it’s just the one universal group of actions? If the world was causal, none of us are responsible for our actions because they are purely deterministic. None of us has any significance. Everything that happens is just energy/matter responding to other energy/matter.

Exactly, but certain E/M held together as a thing, “me”, “you”, react not only due to external causes, but internal too, and yet all is bound to the PROCESS of causality. The difference I am talking about is subtle actually. It is ULTIMATELY E/M responding to E/M, BUT E/M produces “solid” things, and such things are E/M too, (and a thing seems “solid” within a certain dimensional relationship only); hence seem to be held together as a thing and is real as per dimension. This “thing”, is now capable of internal thought process (E/M) that can use information and stored experiences to evaluate circumstances and react according to its OWN calculations, not external calculations.

This presents a pretty glum picture of humankind, and no, I really can’t believe it’s this stark. But I do think you’re evading the tough questions. I would rather not believe the world is like this, so really, I’m struggling with my own point of view. You seem to agree that, up to a point, all human processes are physical, but I’d like you to clarify this. So the question remains: How do you pin-point the actual moment that someone is responsible for the choices they make?

Cheer up; it is not that gloomy; And I’m not being sentimental at all. We are seriously responsible for our choices and thence reactions accordingly, although they are casually created.

As I mentioned earlier “The only difference is what choices are open to it according to its own nature”. A –ve charge can but be attracted to +ve or repelled by –ve. That is the only choice it has according to its imbedded nature. Now you can calculate how many choices are open to a complex enough thing such as a mind. It is only a matter of how one looks at it, and according to me ‘mind’ is a distinctively operational M/E, bound to a particularly held together M/E thing. So, to “pin-point” the actual moment for a thing where it begins to make choices lays at the most fundamental quantum level. And as the complexities compile, “life” comes to be, more and more choices are open to choose and grab from. In my opinion, the choices open to the mind are infinite.

I’m sure you’re not intentionally obfuscating but I just didn’t understand a word of that.

You seem to be agreeing that external stimuli are mechanical in nature, but then refer to internal causes, apparently making decisions. What exactly, in your view, are these internal causes? Are they physical or not? Are you able to describe these internal causes in greater detail?

If the nature of internal courses can resist and work against external causes, and if external causes are physical in nature, then internal causes must also be physical in nature. Is this correct? If internal causes aren’t physical in nature, perhaps you could expand on this.

If all external, as well as internal causes (and you haven’t actually stated what these are) are bound to the process of causality, then anything bound to causality is following physical laws. I’m not aware of any physiological process which is bound to causal law, but which isn’t physical in nature; it seems a contradiction in terms.

The ball is back in your court, Sapius.

Bilby,

I’m sure you’re not intentionally obfuscating but I just didn’t understand a word of that.

Possible, because such an understanding has multiple, seemingly disconnected factors that need to be connected. Existence is like a huge jigsaw puzzle where each individual piece doesn’t make sense, especially if the pieces belong to two pictures (Duality), where in the end they fit as one coherent picture in an abstract sense, but cannot be proven, (not as yet at least), which makes it more difficult to explain or comprehend.

You seem to be agreeing that external stimuli are mechanical in nature, but then refer to internal causes, apparently making decisions.

Yes, making decisions.

If the nature of internal courses can resist and work against external causes, and if external causes are physical in nature, then internal causes must also be physical in nature. Is this correct?

Yes.

If all external, as well as internal causes (and you haven’t actually stated what these are) are bound to the process of causality, then anything bound to causality is following physical laws.

Yes they are.

I’m not aware of any physiological process which is bound to causal law, but which isn’t physical in nature; it seems a contradiction in terms.

The only “thing” non-physical is the process (causality) itself, all other things are but physical in nature. Causality depends on things being around, and things (M/E) depend on their dynamic nature for causality to be around. Both are inherently interdependent; if it weren’t for things (M/E) and their particular dynamic nature, “causality” could not exist. We simple assume that it is Causality that “forces” its way around to “create” things, whereas things actually create things and we define such a process as Causality. We have been making a God out of Causality as the doer, “creator” of all things, because psychologically we cannot believe that there isn’t any creator at all, and such a belief satisfies our innermost deep-seated need to KNOW, now that we are sentient.

Now this may come as a surprise; Human consciousness is but causality itself becoming sentient and is as empty or non-physical as causality; it is just that emergent thing to a thing process, that always lay at the heart of say quantum level, but can now influence or manipulate M/E through the retained experiential memory and abstract though, and can create imaginative (artistic creativity) and logically coherent (inventions) things. Where “life” comes to be, there starts internal causes that can intentionally (actively) influence external things, otherwise things influence things passively.

The ball is back in your court, Sapius.

Hehehee… I engage myself in discussions and expressing my understandings, not ‘prove it to me!’ games as such. It really does not matter to me what conclusions your experiences lead you to, I simply speak from my experiences, and my reasoning of them.

For example, I am perfectly clear on the possible existence of what is known as soul, spirit, ghost, or whatever, or any other paranormal or supposedly supernatural phenomenon, by understanding the nature of existence on the whole.

We may have to leave it there, Sapius. Thanks for contributing to my part of this discussion. It's certainly not an easy topic, and not for the faint-hearted, is it.

Bilby,

We may have to leave it there, Sapius. Thanks for contributing to my part of this discussion.

Thanks for questioning, which pushes me harder to express my reasoning.

It's certainly not an easy topic, and not for the faint-hearted, is it.

I can agree to that, but it is not necessarily that difficult either; it all depends on how open a mind one has or can develop. Its partially an effort on ones part too.

Just to clarify the ‘internal’ causes a bit… For example; whilst driving I think; “route 501 normally has heavy traffic this time of the day, (which is a past stored experience and I am not really aware of the present real-time situation), so I will take route 49”. Now these are internal causes at work according to me, (AKA abstract thinking) which use only past experiential information and make a decision to change course. Although the past experience was gained through external stimuli, a decision is made through logical deduction that have no real-time external information at hand for such a decision to be made.

All the best.