tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609541124817386376.post1441251347216568978..comments2023-12-03T03:00:17.598-06:00Comments on Atheism & Philosophy: BeliefPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02115141650963300011noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609541124817386376.post-31386310616169699942012-04-14T20:40:30.040-05:002012-04-14T20:40:30.040-05:00Maybe it's my wanting to leave the door open f...Maybe it's my wanting to leave the door open for free will, because now that I'm thinking much harder about it, I see that this is really the core of my objection. If Sam Harris is right about this view, then it seems to me that he is also right about free will. In that if our consciousness is based entirely on brain states and chemical/electrical reactions in the brain, then those are determined by cause and effect as everything else in the universe, and the culmination of a long long chain of events in which we have no control.<br /><br />I do see how one view quite naturally leads to the other, if he is right about the brain, then he is right there is no such thing as free will.Jamie Suttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03585832830511543796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609541124817386376.post-402801350164931162012-04-14T10:57:11.540-05:002012-04-14T10:57:11.540-05:00But we do have lots of answers in practice. In fa...But we do have lots of answers in practice. In fact, every single answer regarding consciousness being a result of brains counts in favor of that observation. We have every reason to think that consciousness cannot exist apart from a brain, and no reason not to. Well, no good reason anyway. But you basically admit as much, so I assume it's just your persistent tendency to leave the door cracked for something "other" that leads you remain unconvinced. Or maybe you think being convinced about this particular hypothesis entails some sort of dogmatic commitment to naturalism? I mean, the fact that naturalism has been born out every single time so far doesn't mean that it couldn't be falsified tomorrow, right?Super Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17232031019529024050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609541124817386376.post-44823478127393893832012-04-13T20:51:52.126-05:002012-04-13T20:51:52.126-05:00Of course, you ask the question because you know I...Of course, you ask the question because you know I can't. But as Sam Harris says, a lack of answers in practice is not the lack of an answer in principle. ;)<br /><br />That being said, again, the "I" of consciousness seems to present itself to our awareness quite separately from thinking, because we can 'watch ourselves' think, we can observe and manipulate our thought processes. This seems to suggest that we're separate from them. Maybe this is just a perceptual illusion, Sam Harris certainly seems to believe it is. Of course, if that's true, then any sort of pharmacology that we DID invent that could change your emotions and feelings and the way you think, would be tantamount to suicide. If we are nothing more than the specific functions of our brain, then it would seem people's perceptions (like my friend's) that they "just aren't themselves" on psycho-active drugs is actually very accurate, taking such drugs means you really aren't yourself anymore, you're someone different, the old you has been erased, or whatever word fits the situation.<br /><br />At any rate, no one is arguing that science won't completely figure out consciousness at some point, who knows, maybe it will, I'm just saying that it seems to be leaping out quite a bit ahead of my understanding of where we are now in the research.Jamie Suttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03585832830511543796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609541124817386376.post-8896787638226509542012-04-12T22:45:29.667-05:002012-04-12T22:45:29.667-05:00Not quite convinced that consciousness is simply a...Not quite convinced that consciousness is simply a phenomenon resulting from brains, eh? Care to name an example of a consciousness that exists *apart* from a brain? That would surely help to clarify the argument.Super Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17232031019529024050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609541124817386376.post-7236277466464447632012-04-12T22:33:31.721-05:002012-04-12T22:33:31.721-05:00I have to say Erik, though I don't agree with ...I have to say Erik, though I don't agree with the specifics of all your views, this is really where Sam Harris has lost me in much of his argument this last chapter or two. I remain not quite convinced that consciousness is simply a complex electrical/chemical phenomenon resulting from our brain. It's clear that the brain is important, indispensable even, to our consciousness, but it's entirely possible to watch yourself think, watch your brain work. Even Sam's language (as inadequate as language is) betrays this. Who is the 'I' that is having all these thoughts and brain chemical impulses?Jamie Suttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03585832830511543796noreply@blogger.com