Functionism

[cheegster]

Thinking things are different from singular things like rocks. A rock exists internally by functioning in a manner that makes the idea of "rock" . Notice that I said "idea" because that rock exists by inter-functioning with the circumstances of its existence in a system with its environment and other circumstances. A thinking thing does that too, but has a personal component whereas the personal existence can dictate various circumstances that a rock cannot.

I don't know what you mean by 'singluar' things really. A rock is only different from a thinking thing because of the way it operates - it's just a more complex thing.

If you define the personal self as dictating various circumstances then a flower would also fall under this definition, in the world of floweriness.

Assuming that the rock exist alone is merely an idea, not a fact.

Trying to get my head around this, but I can't. Can you go ahead and explain more?

Reply to quoting system: I am new to this forum and I really don't know exactly how to use this system. Please explain

Well you seem to be using it okay at the moment. Just remember that the first name stated at the top of the quote is the one who is being addressed. Quotes within quotes just relay the conversation.

How can your mind tell your hand to raise? What tells your mind to tell your hand to do so? And who tells whatever that is to tell your mind?

You raise your hand, or you don't. Or you try, but are prevented. No-one tells anyone anything.

Yeah man, that's a big part of my hardcore physicalist argument. It's like the separation of the doer from the deed thing; the brain is what what a person is, nothing 'tells' the mind to do act in certain ways. A quote from good ol' Neech' to demonstrate the point -

For just as the popular mind separates the lightning from its flash and takes the latter for an action, for the operation of a subject called lightning, so popular morality also separates strength from expressions of strength, as if there were a neutral substratum behind the strong man, which was free to express strength or not to do so. But there is no such substratum; there is no "being" behind doing, effecting, becoming; "the doer" is merely a fiction added to the deed—the deed is everything.
—"Good and Evil," "Good and Bad," §13

[kyle2000]

you still haven't answered whether you think the personal self, or the mind is material or immaterial. functionalists believe the mind is material, but as I have already stated, creation requires choices. atoms have no choice, therefore atoms cannot create a brain.

That's... really irrelevant. A person doesn't have a university, therefore people cannot create a university. An atom has no mechanical strength, therefore atoms cannot create mechanical strength. My monkeywrench must be held together by something non-physical!

I think where many people go wrong is looking for some Thing that the mind is. "The mind", such as it is, is not a Thing, material or immaterial.

How can your mind tell your hand to raise? What tells your mind to tell your hand to do so? And who tells whatever that is to tell your mind?

You raise your hand, or you don't. Or you try, but are prevented. No-one tells anyone anything.

Humean, I think you're more of a man than most moderators. You don't seem to kick people out because they disagree with you. I'm willing to debate with you. But first I want your word of honor that you won't stoop to such low behavior as kicking me out merely because I disagree with you. I never use ad homs or insults or make subjective judgments about the quality of others ideas.

[cheegster]

Humean, I think you're more of a man than most moderators. You don't seem to kick people out because they disagree with you. I'm willing to debate with you. But first I want your word of honor that you won't stoop to such low behavior as kicking me out merely because I disagree with you. I never use ad homs or insults or make subjective judgments about the quality of others ideas.

Pfft, when has anybody ever been kicked out for disagreeing with a mod? Just go ahead and debate.

[Only_Humean]

Humean, I think you're more of a man than most moderators. You don't seem to kick people out because they disagree with you. I'm willing to debate with you. But first I want your word of honor that you won't stoop to such low behavior as kicking me out merely because I disagree with you. I never use ad homs or insults or make subjective judgments about the quality of others ideas.

I've yet to even be tempted to do so; I've not seen that happen on this site at all. In fact, mods generally give more latitude to people who they're discussing things with than to those who are in discussion with others. So you may certainly have my word that, barring infractions of the forum rules, I won't be disciplining you in any way from my position.

[kyle2000]

Ok, I'm working right now, but I'll have an answer in 7 hours.

[kyle2000]

That's... really irrelevant. A person doesn't have a university, therefore people cannot create a university. An atom has no mechanical strength, therefore atoms cannot create mechanical strength.

Atoms being bound together is not creation. Lipids can spontaneously form cell walls. There is a difference between spontaneous forming of an object and creation which requires foresight. Lipids forming cell walls is due to an inevitable obedience to chemical laws, when I create a book, the books creation is not 100% due to obedience to natural laws.

My monkeywrench must be held together by something non-physical!

Gravity is nonphysical, it is innate in matter, as well as the other forces but that doesn't mean that gravity chooses anything.

I think where many people go wrong is looking for some Thing that the mind is. "The mind", such as it is, is not a Thing, material or immaterial. How can your mind tell your hand to raise?

It's the same way you tell an avatar on a video game to move. You know how to move the avatar because you know what buttons to push. The mind knows what synapses to fire. If there was no mind that had the power to choose what synapses to fire, then there would be no life, no language, no art - because all of that requires choice. Obedience to physical laws is not choice.

What tells your mind to tell your hand to do so? And who tells whatever that is to tell your mind? You raise your hand, or you don't. Or you try, but are prevented. No-one tells anyone anything.

The mind must be an unmoved mover. If the mind were not an unmoved mover then choice could not exist. I have already stated why choice is necessary.

[Only_Humean]

Atoms being bound together is not creation. Lipids can spontaneously form cell walls. There is a difference between spontaneous forming of an object and creation which requires foresight. Lipids forming cell walls is due to an inevitable obedience to chemical laws, when I create a book, the books creation is not 100% due to obedience to natural laws.

That's true if it's true, not if it's not. Your proof of creativity being non-physical is that a book's creation is not due to natural laws...

If (and only if) a neuron detects a certain electrical input, it gives a certain electrical output. That much is physical, are we agreed?

If so, there exists the possibility that patterns of neuron activity are also physical. And hence, that perception, planning, foresight and so on are simply the way that we experience the patterns of neuron activity.

My monkeywrench must be held together by something non-physical!

Gravity is nonphysical, it is innate in matter, as well as the other forces but that doesn't mean that gravity chooses anything.

Gravity is physical. It's a physical law. That it is innate in matter, makes it physical.

I think where many people go wrong is looking for some Thing that the mind is. "The mind", such as it is, is not a Thing, material or immaterial. How can your mind tell your hand to raise?

It's the same way you tell an avatar on a video game to move. You know how to move the avatar because you know what buttons to push. The mind knows what synapses to fire. If there was no mind that had the power to choose what synapses to fire, then there would be no life, no language, no art - because all of that requires choice. Obedience to physical laws is not choice.

You're just restating the problem, but the question remains - how does your mind cause synapses to fire? Synapse firing is a physical process, caused by electrical potentials. How does this non-physical mind "key in" to the physical process?

Your choices are all constrained by physical laws. You can't choose not to be affected by gravity, or whether or not to be a semiconductor.

My point is, a choice can be a physical thing (a sequence of neurons firing, activating certain processes in the decision-making areas of the brain) and a mental thing (weighing up the alternatives and settling on one) at the same time - they are different descriptions of the same thing, not competing theories.

The mind must be an unmoved mover. If the mind were not an unmoved mover then choice could not exist. I have already stated why choice is necessary.

I think this is an incoherent worldview; since everything is determined, there must be something indeterminate, otherwise choices wouldn't feel so undetermined before they're made. But IMO you're confusing deterministic models (such as the body) with concepts that are based on tendencies and dispositions (such as mind), creating false dichotomies to solve.

That mental processes are incredibly complex, far beyond our abilities to recognise and predict, I'm not denying. That our inability to predict them means that they're none-physical, I see no reason to accept.

[kyle2000]

Atoms being bound together is not creation. Lipids can spontaneously form cell walls. There is a difference between spontaneous forming of an object and creation which requires foresight. Lipids forming cell walls is due to an inevitable obedience to chemical laws, when I create a book, the books creation is not 100% due to obedience to natural laws.

That's true if it's true, not if it's not. Your proof of creativity being non-physical is that a book's creation is not due to natural laws... If (and only if) a neuron detects a certain electrical input, it gives a certain electrical output. That much is physical, are we agreed? If so, there exists the possibility that patterns of neuron activity are also physical. And hence, that perception, planning, foresight and so on are simply the way that we experience the patterns of neuron activity.

neurons obey the laws of physics but the mind can turn them on and off. 40 billion neurons by themselves cannot coordinate with one another because coordinate requires communication and agreement. neurons have no knowledge. further, if neurons are simply obeying the laws of chemistry then there can be no foresight, because foresight requires choice. If everything is obeying physical laws then there is no choice.

My monkeywrench must be held together by something non-physical!

Gravity is nonphysical, it is innate in matter, as well as the other forces but that doesn't mean that gravity chooses anything.

Gravity is physical. It's a physical law. That it is innate in matter, makes it physical. [/quote]
We're just arguing over semantics. Fine. Gravity is physical but it is not material. It has power over material, it moves material without itself being material. However, gravity has no choice.

I think where many people go wrong is looking for some Thing that the mind is. "The mind", such as it is, is not a Thing, material or immaterial. How can your mind tell your hand to raise?

It's the same way you tell an avatar on a video game to move. You know how to move the avatar because you know what buttons to push. The mind knows what synapses to fire. If there was no mind that had the power to choose what synapses to fire, then there would be no life, no language, no art - because all of that requires choice. Obedience to physical laws is not choice.

You're just restating the problem, but the question remains - how does your mind cause synapses to fire? Synapse firing is a physical process, caused by electrical potentials. How does this non-physical mind "key in" to the physical process? Your choices are all constrained by physical laws. You can't choose not to be affected by gravity, or whether or not to be a semiconductor. My point is, a choice can be a physical thing (a sequence of neurons firing, activating certain processes in the decision-making areas of the brain) and a mental thing (weighing up the alternatives and settling on one) at the same time - they are different descriptions of the same thing, not competing theories. [/quote]

You're right, I am just restating the problem. Bad mistake on my part and I apologize. I was wrong. Here's a better answer. We don't know how the mind has power over the brain, however, we do know that pure materialism is logically impossible. Material objects obey natural laws. If everything obeys natural laws, then there can be no choice. Clearly there is choice in this world, otherwise, life, art, language, creativity would not exist. When you say "choices are all constrained by physical laws," yes, choices are constrained, but that does not mean that one does not have a choice at all, like, for example, a rock which is completely constrained by the laws of physics. My decision to write this sentence on the other hand is hardly affected by the laws of physics at all.

[Only_Humean]

neurons obey the laws of physics but the mind can turn them on and off.

Then the mind can generate electricity from nowhere, since neurons are turned on and off by electrochemical charge. This should be a simple enough empirical point to prove, but you'd devastate modern physics and biology with it. I say go for it.

40 billion neurons by themselves cannot coordinate with one another because coordinate requires communication and agreement.

No it doesn't; emergent phenomena require only that the components have some interaction.

further, if neurons are simply obeying the laws of chemistry then there can be no foresight, because foresight requires choice. If everything is obeying physical laws then there is no choice.

A robot can analyse its environment and choose the optimal path to traverse difficult terrain, say. Who invested it with a mind? Which circuits are keyed in to choice?

Gravity is nonphysical, it is innate in matter, as well as the other forces but that doesn't mean that gravity chooses anything.

Gravity is physical. It's a physical law. That it is innate in matter, makes it physical.

We're just arguing over semantics. Fine. Gravity is physical but it is not material. It has power over material, it moves material without itself being material. However, gravity has no choice.

If you're arguing that mind is physical/nonphysical, I think the semantics of "physical" are important. So are you saying that gravity is an unmoved mover?

We don't know how the mind has power over the brain, however, we do know that pure materialism is logically impossible. Material objects obey natural laws. If everything obeys natural laws, then there can be no choice.

I don't believe the case has been made, nor that it is logically impossible for choice to arise out of a complex physical source.

Clearly there is choice in this world, otherwise, life, art, language, creativity would not exist. When you say "choices are all constrained by physical laws," yes, choices are constrained, but that does not mean that one does not have a choice at all, like, for example, a rock which is completely constrained by the laws of physics.

"We're either rocks or we're supernatural" is a false dichotomy. Brains are vastly complex structures. Language is also complex, which is why category errors are possible.

Does a single-cell organism have a mind? A fungus? An ant? A cat? I ask in order to clarify at what point mind/will enters the picture?

[kyle2000]

neurons obey the laws of physics but the mind can turn them on and off.

Then the mind can generate electricity from nowhere, since neurons are turned on and off by electrochemical charge. This should be a simple enough empirical point to prove, but you'd devastate modern physics and biology with it. I say go for it.

The mind doesn't generate atoms, it moves the atoms that are already there in a coordinated fashion. To think that 40 billion neurons coordinate by luck is not rational.

40 billion neurons by themselves cannot coordinate with one another because coordinate requires communication and agreement.

No it doesn't; emergent phenomena require only that the components have some interaction.

Prove that emergent phenomena exist. Also tell me if you believe that one neuron knows what another neuron is doing and where this knowledge is located in time and space.

further, if neurons are simply obeying the laws of chemistry then there can be no foresight, because foresight requires choice. If everything is obeying physical laws then there is no choice.

A robot can analyse its environment and choose the optimal path to traverse difficult terrain, say. Who invested it with a mind? Which circuits are keyed in to choice?

No computer can choose. Computers only follow instructions. A computer can no more choose than can an abacus.

If you're arguing that mind is physical/nonphysical, I think the semantics of "physical" are important. So are you saying that gravity is an unmoved mover?

Gravity was created by the unmoved mover.

We don't know how the mind has power over the brain, however, we do know that pure materialism is logically impossible. Material objects obey natural laws. If everything obeys natural laws, then there can be no choice.

I don't believe the case has been made, nor that it is logically impossible for choice to arise out of a complex physical source.

You don't have a logical argument here. You're just asserting that you don't believe it. Choice does not exist when there is no choice. Physical laws cannot be violated. If physical laws cannot be violated then there is no choice.

"We're either rocks or we're supernatural" is a false dichotomy. Brains are vastly complex structures. Language is also complex, which is why category errors are possible.

I never said we're either rocks or we're supernatural. And you seriously ignored my arguments. You cannot explain the existence of creative art in a completely deterministic world. Creative art requires foresight and planning. If every object moves because it is hit by another object, then there is no foresight in that process.

Does a single-cell organism have a mind? A fungus? An ant? A cat? I ask in order to clarify at what point mind/will enters the picture?

All living things have a mind, even a bacteria, they just don't have much of one. Mind enters the picture when an objects movement ceases to be random and shows evidence of intelligence. Intelligence is defined as making choices so as to increase your probability of survival. A random object is not intelligent because it makes no effort to survive.

[phyllo]

No computer can choose. Computers only follow instructions. A computer can no more choose than can an abacus.

A computer playing chess chooses a move just as a human player chooses a move.

You cannot explain the existence of creative art in a completely deterministic world. Creative art requires foresight and planning.

A computer can be programmed to make art. If you combine existing art technique with a bit of randomization, then you will get creative art.

[Only_Humean]

Then the mind can generate electricity from nowhere, since neurons are turned on and off by electrochemical charge. This should be a simple enough empirical point to prove, but you'd devastate modern physics and biology with it. I say go for it.

The mind doesn't generate atoms, it moves the atoms that are already there in a coordinated fashion. To think that 40 billion neurons coordinate by luck is not rational.

Motion requires energy - kinetic rather than electrical - and you still have a non-material energy generator that defies physics. It's a simple empirical claim to test though.

Prove that emergent phenomena exist. Also tell me if you believe that one neuron knows what another neuron is doing and where this knowledge is located in time and space.

What? Emergent phenomena are everywhere. A swarm of locusts is not led by any one locust, it's simply the effect of millions of locusts responding in a fixed way to the next nearest locust. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
The neuron knows what its neighbour is doing insofar as it detects an electrical charge or not from its neighbour. That's all.

No computer can choose. Computers only follow instructions. A computer can no more choose than can an abacus.

Then what does the robot do?

I don't believe the case has been made, nor that it is logically impossible for choice to arise out of a complex physical source.

You don't have a logical argument here. You're just asserting that you don't believe it. Choice does not exist when there is no choice. Physical laws cannot be violated. If physical laws cannot be violated then there is no choice.

I can't provide a logical argument to what I consider an illogical statement. You haven't proven that choice cannot arise within the normal operation of physical laws. Or alternatively, you haven't proven that what you call choice is undetermined - art and literature and so on could be a complex artefact of causal laws. Just because we're unaware of the motivations of our choices, it doesn't mean they're undetermined. So there is no logical impossibility yet demonstrated.

I never said we're either rocks or we're supernatural. And you seriously ignored my arguments. You cannot explain the existence of creative art in a completely deterministic world. Creative art requires foresight and planning. If every object moves because it is hit by another object, then there is no foresight in that process.

Machines can plan ahead, and they are just deterministic numbercrunchers. Determinism doesn't negate foresight or planning. Computers can have recognition routines, planning modules, and with neural networks and fuzzy logic respond to unexpected events, adapt themselves. Self-reference is possible same for feedback loops.

All living things have a mind, even a bacteria, they just don't have much of one. Mind enters the picture when an objects movement ceases to be random and shows evidence of intelligence. Intelligence is defined as making choices so as to increase your probability of survival. A random object is not intelligent because it makes no effort to survive.

Single cells are pretty much chemical machines. What choices do they make? Does a sunflower choose to turn toward the sun? I'm trying to get a handle on what you're proposing.

[Only_Humean]

Also, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

The second argument is basically yours.

[frosty77]

Where is your argument? You assert a controversial conclusion without any premises.
Additionally you might want to re-word what you are saying a bit. You assert a teleological perspective by stating that "x exists by ... the manner in which they function in systems." It might be better to use the word 'behaviour', as generally the word 'function' is reserved for a relationship between a given input and output, as in mathematics.
Finally, aside from the assertion that existence is governed by the way in something behaves, your theory seems to be a restatement of foundationalism. You might want to expand more on your idea that existences build on each other, or else omit it.

Reply: I use the term "function in the sense that it performs or does. It is an accredited definition. If you will read my earlier work it will explain the premise for my argument.It is important that the circumstances and manner inwhich something functions creates its existance. A thing is constantly being created. The molecules of a rock are constantly functioning (as you would say-behaving) to make that rock a rock. If those molecules ceased to function (behave) in the manner in which it does it would cease to exist as the idea of the rock you previously knew. Do you have doubts?-explain

[kyle2000]

Then the mind can generate electricity from nowhere, since neurons are turned on and off by electrochemical charge. This should be a simple enough empirical point to prove, but you'd devastate modern physics and biology with it. I say go for it.

The mind doesn't generate atoms, it moves the atoms that are already there in a coordinated fashion. To think that 40 billion neurons coordinate by luck is not rational.

Motion requires energy - kinetic rather than electrical - and you still have a non-material energy generator that defies physics. It's a simple empirical claim to test though.

Sure, atoms move due to laws of physics, but in order for 40 billion individual parts to move in a coordinated fashion they need to choose to move in a coordinated fashion, they need knowledge of what the others are doing.

Prove that emergent phenomena exist. Also tell me if you believe that one neuron knows what another neuron is doing and where this knowledge is located in time and space.

What? Emergent phenomena are everywhere. A swarm of locusts is not led by any one locust, it's simply the effect of millions of locusts responding in a fixed way to the next nearest locust. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
The neuron knows what its neighbour is doing insofar as it detects an electrical charge or not from its neighbour. That's all.

That doesn't explain how you are not contradicting yourself. The materialist believes that
1. all physical objects operate according to physical laws and that physical laws can not be broken.
2. There can be no choice if one is has only one choice.
3. If material objects must obey physical laws then there can be no choice.
Moreover, without choice there can be no foresight, because foresight requires you to plan what choices you will make and when. The emergent phenomena argument answer nothing. Can emergent phenomena control the movement of other objects? Is the source of this power due to bodies moving?

No computer can choose. Computers only follow instructions. A computer can no more choose than can an abacus.

Then what does the robot do?

It follows the instructions that the human tells it to follow. It's an algorithm, there is no choice involved in an algorithm because an algorithm will produce the same result every time.

I don't believe the case has been made, nor that it is logically impossible for choice to arise out of a complex physical source.

You don't have a logical argument here. You're just asserting that you don't believe it. Choice does not exist when there is no choice. Physical laws cannot be violated. If physical laws cannot be violated then there is no choice.

I can't provide a logical argument to what I consider an illogical statement. You haven't proven that choice cannot arise within the normal operation of physical laws.

It's a contradiction to suggest that choice can arise amid the normal operation of physical laws. Physical laws compel only one result. There can be no choice if only one result is possible.

Or alternatively, you haven't proven that what you call choice is undetermined - art and literature and so on could be a complex artefact of causal laws. Just because we're unaware of the motivations of our choices, it doesn't mean they're undetermined. So there is no logical impossibility yet demonstrated.

Physical laws have no desire, no goals, no intentions, no will, no caring and no foresight. Physical laws are 100% predictable on the classical level provided one knows everything about the obejcts in question. Art is anything but predictable. In music, any note can be played at any time. If I have not proven that art requires choice, I would like to see you prove that gravity or some other law can write a symphony.

I never said we're either rocks or we're supernatural. And you seriously ignored my arguments. You cannot explain the existence of creative art in a completely deterministic world. Creative art requires foresight and planning. If every object moves because it is hit by another object, then there is no foresight in that process.

Machines can plan ahead, and they are just deterministic numbercrunchers. Determinism doesn't negate foresight or planning. Computers can have recognition routines, planning modules, and with neural networks and fuzzy logic respond to unexpected events, adapt themselves. Self-reference is possible same for feedback loops.

It's the human that tells the computer what to do given a finite symbol. That's not the machine doing foresight, that's the machine following instructions. Can you give an example of a machine doing otherwise?

All living things have a mind, even a bacteria, they just don't have much of one. Mind enters the picture when an objects movement ceases to be random and shows evidence of intelligence. Intelligence is defined as making choices so as to increase your probability of survival. A random object is not intelligent because it makes no effort to survive.

Single cells are pretty much chemical machines. What choices do they make? Does a sunflower choose to turn toward the sun? I'm trying to get a handle on what you're proposing.

An E coli chooses where to move in a three dimensional plane. They have almost zero intelligence which is why to them virtually anywhere in that three dimensional plane is just as good as another. Sperm on the other hand, have the intelligence to find the egg and some sperm are more intelligent than other sperm. Plants don't have much intelligence, then again, they do not move that much, and I'm willing to consider the fact that perhaps their movement is the result of an algorithm written into their DNA. They perhaps have some lattitude on what length to grow their branches.

[anon]

I haven't finished reading this thread, so I hope this comment isn't outdated already, or odd given some context that I'm not caught up on... but isn't saying something is "caused by the laws of physics" as dualistic as saying something is "caused by the mind"? Or to put it another way, I think it's perfectly acceptable to make either claim.

[anon]

One can cease to exist as the same person who commits an act at the personal level by ceasing to think, act and feel in a certain manner toward a particular situation. This philosophical viewpoint is controversial in the sense that it can allow a physical self to escape punishment for a crime. However, ceasing to think, act and feel in a certain manner is not an easy thing to do.It requires a total undoing of a particular method of viewing a situation. Guilt, anger, love etc, tie people to a past manner of being.

Great stuff, Frosty. How would you say this philosophy might play out in political life? Or do you see it as a description of how political life already functions? After all, criminals do redeem themselves - i.e. if they are seen as completely changed people, society often does redeem them.

[Only_Humean]

Motion requires energy - kinetic rather than electrical - and you still have a non-material energy generator that defies physics. It's a simple empirical claim to test though.

Sure, atoms move due to laws of physics, but in order for 40 billion individual parts to move in a coordinated fashion they need to choose to move in a coordinated fashion, they need knowledge of what the others are doing.

Not what all the others are doing, only the immediate neighbours. And, as I said, it's a simple enough thesis to test experimentally, though. If minds have a physical effect generating energy, that can be measured.

That doesn't explain how you are not contradicting yourself. The materialist believes that
1. all physical objects operate according to physical laws and that physical laws can not be broken.
2. There can be no choice if one is has only one choice.
3. If material objects must obey physical laws then there can be no choice.
Moreover, without choice there can be no foresight, because foresight requires you to plan what choices you will make and when. The emergent phenomena argument answer nothing. Can emergent phenomena control the movement of other objects? Is the source of this power due to bodies moving?

The "choice" part is not describing a physical process. All chess is played according to the rules of chess, but even without breaking the rules of chess not all chess games are the same. You can describe the ways in which a bishop can move, how to castle, capturing en passant - but nothing in the rules describes why sacrificing your bishop is a good move, or how to use your pawns together to pin down the opponent's king in the endgame. They are different conceptual frameworks, describing different things. A nice cup of tea can be a relaxing way to start your evening, But the fact that atoms don't relax for the evening doesn't make boiling tea a non-physical process.

Emergent phenomena don't control anything, they describe things. That's what science does; classifies and describes.

A further point for the determinist remains that you may not have real choice, it may only be an illusion to you - the outcome of your seeming choice is decided long before you have to make it. You may be following an algorithm that would make you choose the same thing every time, under identical conditions, but be unaware of it.

It's a contradiction to suggest that choice can arise amid the normal operation of physical laws. Physical laws compel only one result. There can be no choice if only one result is possible.

It's only a contradiction if choice is taken to describe a physical process.

Machines can plan ahead, and they are just deterministic numbercrunchers. Determinism doesn't negate foresight or planning. Computers can have recognition routines, planning modules, and with neural networks and fuzzy logic respond to unexpected events, adapt themselves. Self-reference is possible same for feedback loops.

It's the human that tells the computer what to do given a finite symbol. That's not the machine doing foresight, that's the machine following instructions. Can you give an example of a machine doing otherwise?

Machines can adapt their own instructions based on their experience. Of course, they have to be programmed to do so. But that doesn't mean they don't learn. Maybe your brain has been programmed to learn too?

Single cells are pretty much chemical machines. What choices do they make? Does a sunflower choose to turn toward the sun? I'm trying to get a handle on what you're proposing.

An E coli chooses where to move in a three dimensional plane. They have almost zero intelligence which is why to them virtually anywhere in that three dimensional plane is just as good as another. Sperm on the other hand, have the intelligence to find the egg and some sperm are more intelligent than other sperm.

Can sperm choose not to try and find an egg?

[frosty77]

you still haven't answered whether you think the personal self, or the mind is material or immaterial. functionalists believe the mind is material, but as I have already stated, creation requires choices. atoms have no choice, therefore atoms cannot create a brain.

Reply: I'm not a functionalist, I'm a functionist. Two separate philosophies. The energy generated to create the functioning of the mind comes from material. The mind is a particular functioning that comes from the brain. I use the idea of the personal self as a reference to that which consciously, sub-consciously, and unconsciously decides and directs the physical self in that manner.

[frosty77]

atomic particles that function to create our physical body including the brain. The brain functions in a particulat manner to create the mind (ones personal self).

Dead atoms cannot create. Creation requires planning and foresight which atoms do not have. Individual atoms cannot choose to create anything.

The personal self governs how the physical self functions. An analogy is a person driving a car. If the person driving the car strikes another person; is the car or the person driving the car the guilty party? The answer is the person.

But is this person material? Is it located in time and space? I agree with your analogy, that the person is the mind and the car is the body, but the mind is immaterial.

Reply: Dead atoms; what are dead atoms? Atoms functioning in a certain manner create in that manner.

[frosty77]

you still haven't answered whether you think the personal self, or the mind is material or immaterial. functionalists believe the mind is material, but as I have already stated, creation requires choices. atoms have no choice, therefore atoms cannot create a brain.

That's... really irrelevant. A person doesn't have a university, therefore people cannot create a university. An atom has no mechanical strength, therefore atoms cannot create mechanical strength. My monkeywrench must be held together by something non-physical!

I think where many people go wrong is looking for some Thing that the mind is. "The mind", such as it is, is not a Thing, material or immaterial.

How can your mind tell your hand to raise? What tells your mind to tell your hand to do so? And who tells whatever that is to tell your mind?

You raise your hand, or you don't. Or you try, but are prevented. No-one tells anyone anything.

Reply: The mind IS a thing . It is also your personal self.

[frosty77]

you still haven't answered whether you think the personal self, or the mind is material or immaterial. functionalists believe the mind is material, but as I have already stated, creation requires choices. atoms have no choice, therefore atoms cannot create a brain.

That's... really irrelevant. A person doesn't have a university, therefore people cannot create a university. An atom has no mechanical strength, therefore atoms cannot create mechanical strength. My monkeywrench must be held together by something non-physical!

I think where many people go wrong is looking for some Thing that the mind is. "The mind", such as it is, is not a Thing, material or immaterial.

How can your mind tell your hand to raise? What tells your mind to tell your hand to do so? And who tells whatever that is to tell your mind?

You raise your hand, or you don't. Or you try, but are prevented. No-one tells anyone anything.

Reply to creation requires choices: Your logic is sketchy. Who says creation requires choices. Conscious and deliberate creation may require choices, but things are created all the time that are not conscious and deliberate.

[cheegster]

Reply: The mind IS a thing . It is also your personal self.

So how is the mind a thing? Why would you suggest that it is significantly detached from the our wholly physical self.

I would argue that the mind is a concept. Like democracy. But I invite you to argue otherwise...

[frosty77]

How can you blame your physical self for something your thoughts and feelings caused it to do? Your mind tells your body how, when, where to act.

Again, you have imposed a real duality here, with no real explanation of the gap.

Where are these thoughts and feelings located? Your mind and body are the same thing.

I fail to understand your argument in your 2nd and 3rd small paragraphs. Please re-state.

Sorry- bit confused - I only had 2 paragraphs?

Reply- It's about existence, which includes everything. It's called Functionism. I created this phiolosphy and I named it.

Yeah maaan, I gathered that - I was just clearing it up for JJ.

Reply : the personal self is created by functioning of brain cells, but the personal self becomes special in the sense that it is not dependent, in large part, upon the former for dictating like a response does to a stimulus. It creates and therefore causes brain cells to comply, to serve. It doesn't operate like a computer. I am aware that brain damage can alter thinking, but this thinking is still decision orientated. It just may be more limited than before.

[frosty77]

Well of course the 'physical' and 'personal' self are interconnected. Your OP suggested to me at first that you thought that the personal self was some sort of transcendental abstract thing, I'm not sure this is what you meant now though.

I am not suggesting that either (what you call) the physical self or the personal self cannot be wholly responsible for actions. For example - controversially, women here in England have been acquitted of charges for certain crimes (mainly violent ones) because of drastic hormonal changes. So in these cases, they have been absolved of any wrongdoing because their personal selves were not in control. A dangerous concept, huh? That's an example of the controversy you mentioned. The antithetical example would be your brain directly raising a hand, as you said.

However, on a deeper level, my argumen was based on the fact that this 'personal self' is really just the physical one - just part of the organism. Latent in any sort of intelligence lays a simple part of nature; it is physical make up. Even really complex structures.

In other words, the 'personal self' is wholly physical.

Reply: I'm not saying that the physical self doesn't have influences on the personal self, but the personal self makes the decision to act or think or feel a certain way. You brought up an interesting argument about the dualit stance. Thinking things are different from singular things like rocks. A rock exists internally by functioning in a manner that makes the idea of "rock" . Notice that I said "idea" because that rock exists by inter-functioning with the circumstances of its existence in a system with its environment and other circumstances. A thinking thing does that too, but has a personal component whereas the personal existence can dictate various circumstances that a rock cannot. To clarify what I meant by the rock existing, the rock exists, lets say, in a box in such and such area at such and such time, etc. The rock does not exist alone from those circumstances. If you take the rock out of the box and hold it in your hand, then the rock only exists as a rock in your hand in such and such area at such and such time, etc. Assuming that the rock exist alone is merely an idea, not a fact.

Reply to hormanal differences: My take on the women isn't that their persaonal self was not in charge, but that these women were not the same women that they were before the hormones influenced them. They didn't think, act or feel like the former people who occupied their body.