The key issue here is not complexity. The key issue here is the structure. — Truth Seeker
These attributes are weakly emergent properties of the electrochemical activities of the brain. — Truth Seeker
I did not say that events are predetermined. I said that events are determined in the present by the interaction of variables. Even in your thought experiment, what happens is determined in the present by the interaction of variables. — Truth Seeker
I have noticed something interesting about your posts. You frequently misquote me by claiming that I made statements I never made. — Truth Seeker
We don't have enough knowledge to predict people's behaviour with 100% accuracy but that does not mean that the behaviours are not deterministic. — Truth Seeker
Who is morally culpable? I don't know. I know that the legal system holds people culpable if they do anything illegal. Are criminals truly morally culpable? If hard determinism is true, then no one is morally culpable. How do we figure out whether or not hard determinism is true? Organisms make choices but their choices are not free from their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Their choices are determined and constrained by their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. For example, I would not be typing this post if I were alive 1,000 years ago instead of now as there was no computer and internet back then. If I had the genes of a chicken instead of my genes I would not be typing this post either. I would not be typing this post if I didn't experience learning the English language. I would not be typing this post if I was deprived of all the nutrients that I have consumed since I was conceived. Is it inevitable that I typed this post when and where I typed this post? Am I morally culpable for the choice to type this post? Please explain how you have worked out the answer. Thank you very much.
The question of how consciousness is produced is one of the most profound and challenging in both science and philosophy. There are several major theories and approaches to this question, but no definitive answers as of yet. Here's an overview of some of the leading theories on the production of consciousness:
1. Physicalist Theories
Integrated Information Theory (IIT)
Developed by Giulio Tononi, IIT proposes that consciousness arises from the integration of information within a system. It quantifies consciousness in terms of "phi," a measure of the system's integration of information. The theory suggests that any system with a high enough phi value is conscious.
Global Workspace Theory (GWT)
Proposed by Bernard Baars and further developed by Stanislas Dehaene and others, GWT posits that consciousness results from certain information being broadcast in a global workspace—a distributed network within the brain. This theory focuses on the accessibility of information across different cognitive systems for decision-making, reasoning, and planning.
2. Biological Theories
Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC)
An approach that aims to identify specific neural systems responsible for conscious awareness. The NCC approach is less of a theory of consciousness itself and more a method of studying how particular brain activities correlate with specific conscious experiences.
3. Quantum Theories
Penrose-Hameroff Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR)
This theory, developed by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, suggests that consciousness emerges from quantum state reductions that occur within microtubules in brain cells. They argue that these quantum events are orchestrated by biological processes to produce conscious experience, which is a theory not widely accepted in the scientific community due to its speculative nature.
4. Panpsychism
Panpsychism is a philosophical theory that posits that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of the universe. It suggests that all matter possesses some form of consciousness, with complex systems such as human brains exhibiting a richer and more complex form of consciousness. This perspective shifts the problem of consciousness from emergence to one of combination—how simple consciousness combines into more complex forms.
5. Dual-Aspect Theories
These theories suggest that mental and physical states are two aspects of the same underlying reality. This approach tries to bridge the explanatory gap by positing a non-material, yet not entirely separate, realm of existence that interacts with or parallels the physical.
6. Emergentism
Emergentism argues that consciousness emerges from complex patterns of physical interactions within the brain, but in a way that is not reducible to those interactions alone. This suggests a form of strong emergence where consciousness is seen as more than the sum of its parts.
Current Scientific Endeavors
In the scientific realm, ongoing research involves mapping brain activity and its correlation with conscious experience (trying to pinpoint the NCC), manipulating brain states (through technologies such as TMS and EEG) to see how changes in neural activity affect consciousness, and developing better computational models to simulate how networks of neurons might generate conscious awareness.
Despite substantial progress in understanding the brain's functioning, how consciousness arises from the activity of neurons, or whether it perhaps emerges from other processes, remains a profound mystery. Each theory provides valuable insights, but none has yet achieved consensus acceptance. The pursuit to understand consciousness is not only about discovering its mechanisms but also about exploring fundamental questions about the nature of existence and our place within it.
I think we both would agree that an omniscient and omnipotent being would be omniculpable. I don't know if any omniscient and omnipotent being exists. If such a being existed, he or she should be sued for failing to prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and death. — Truth Seeker
I clearly stated my position that "Organisms make choices but their choices are not free from their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Their choices are determined and constrained by their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences." — Truth Seeker
There is a 50% probability that the electron would spin right and a 50% probability that the electron would spin left. Due to quantum decoherence, our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences don't behave like electrons do. — Truth Seeker
It would be hard for you to predict this with 100% accuracy. It's logical to state that the more you knew about my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, the more precise your prediction would be. — Truth Seeker
, this does not mean the macroscopic world is like the quantum world. — Truth Seeker
Would you agree that the effects of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences can theoretically (not practically) all be reduced to physical phenomena? As in: Changing X gene does, deterministically, result in changes A, B and C. And placying someone in Y environment will, determinisitically, result in changes in D, F and G. And A, B, C, D, F, G are all physical phenomena (think: bigger nose, different neural connections, etc)
I will assume yes.
I have never seen your thought experiment as an actual experiment. If you are a physicist, could you please do the experiment and share the actual results with us?Do you agree that quantum randomness CAN under certain setups, cause macro level changes? (see cat)
I will also assume yes.
Ah, how are you sure of this? How are you sure that none of the setups where quantum randomness can have a macro effect (like with the cat) don't already exist in some environments or within our own bodies?
This is a testable hypothesis, but until we know the effects of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences on organisms fully, it will not have been tested. Until we fully understand our body and our world, it's still a possibility that such a quantum-randomness enabling setup already exists within us or our environment.
Yes, but it is not clear that it would ever be 100% accurate. The only way it can be is if there is no setups that allow quantum randomness to have a macro effect anywhere. And we don't know that.
can it do that WITHOUT said sentient beings awareness of such observations occurring meaning avoiding any conscious awareness such attempts to remove determinants and constraints are taking place...observations when sentient beings are aware of them happening, risk unnatural behavior taking place misplaced real data when its bias was just aware and leaning in its favor. The sentient beings level of conscious awareness holds power over attempts, even if they know it or not. Its intuit.
If you had my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences would you not be typing these words when and where I am typing these words? If I had your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences would I not be reading these words when and where you are reading these words? — Truth Seeker
Given the fact that quantum decoherence occurs, how would quantum phenomena such as superposition, indeterminacy and entanglement have any effect on the macroscopic world? — Truth Seeker
So, how can we claim that we are culpable for our choices? — Truth Seeker
How can quantum randomness remove determinants and constraints from the decision-making process in sentient organisms? — Truth Seeker
Monozygotic twins, often called identical twins, originate from the same fertilized egg that splits into two embryos. This shared origin means that they start with the same genetic material. However, saying they are completely genetically identical throughout their lives is an oversimplification due to several factors:
1. Mutations During Development
As the cells of the embryos divide and grow, small mutations can occur. These mutations might be different between the two twins, leading to slight genetic differences as they develop.
2. Epigenetic Differences
While the DNA sequence itself may be very similar, the way this genetic information is expressed can differ due to epigenetic changes. Epigenetics involves modifications that affect gene expression without altering the DNA sequence itself. Factors such as environment, lifestyle, and different experiences can lead to epigenetic changes that differ between the twins, influencing how their genes are expressed.
3. Somatic Mosaicism
Somatic mosaicism refers to the occurrence of two or more genetically different cell lines within the same individual, caused by mutations that occur after fertilization and during cell division. This can also happen independently in each twin, leading to differences between them.
4. Copy Number Variations
Small differences in the number of copies of certain genes can emerge during the early stages of embryonic development after the initial zygotic split. These variations can lead to further genetic divergence between monozygotic twins.
5. Environmental Influences
Even in the womb, monozygotic twins can experience different environments. For example, they might have different positions in the uterus or slightly different nourishment from the placenta. These subtle environmental differences can influence their development, both physically and potentially at the genetic expression level.
While monozygotic twins are genetically very similar compared to other siblings, they are not absolutely identical. The small genetic differences that can arise are typically not significant enough to affect the fact that they are more similar to each other than to anyone else, but these differences can be important in the context of medical research, forensic analysis, and understanding how genes and the environment interact to shape individuals.
I have never seen your thought experiment as an actual experiment. If you are a physicist, could you please do the experiment and share the actual results with us? — Truth Seeker
If it is involved then quantum mechanics could affect our choices which would make our choices random instead of deterministic. How can we be culpable if our choices are random instead of deterministic? — Truth Seeker
So, we are and always will be prisoners of determinants and constraints — Truth Seeker
Personally, I think this quantum randomness can provide a "refuge" for souls or spirits or whatever flavor of immaterial stuff you like. One could say that it is consciousness or souls or spirits or whatever that collapses wavestates, or that it at least has something to do with it. That would give "us" (if you define as some sort of immaterial soul) real agency in inacting physical change in the world. — khaled
But if that is NOT the case, if it really the case that quantum processes are completely random, you'd have to believe in some sort of compatibalism to believe in free will. — khaled
My question is, why do you require that we be COMPLETELY free to have ANY responsibility. — khaled
Let's say you are not quite omnipotent, you can only exert enough force to lift 10^9999999 tons. Quite the limit from pure omnipotence, but still extremely powerful. If you decide to kill someone now, would you still be responsible? I would say yes, DESPITE the fact that you have a constraint. Because I cannot see how this constraint would influence your decision on whether or not to kill someone at all, do you agree? — khaled
Now we keep adding limitations and limitations, until we get to a point that, say, you're a starving beggar, and steal a bit of food from someone who wouldn't even notice. Most people would say you are not morally culpable for this, because your limitations and constraints are influencial enough that you can be excused.
Now, where does the line lie for you? The line that separates "constrained enough to not be morally reponsible" from not constrained enough. Is it when we've added hunger? When you get confined to a physical body? When you became faced with death? Or was it all the way at the beginning, at the second you lost your omnipotence and got your first limit, that you no longer became morally responsible? — khaled
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.