Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> perfectly aware that studies on how the brain thinks have shown 
>>> "awareness" as a post hock attempt to invent justification for an 
>>> action,
>>
>> Which isn't at odds with the supposition that there's something 
>> supernatural involved in helping people make "free will" choices. 
>> Perhaps the supernatural part is what starts the chain of events.
>>
> Uh.. I have a razor, if you want to shave that beard... Seriously, that 
> makes no bloody sense. 

I didn't say it did. I just said you couldn't draw the conclusion that there 
is no supernatural event simply because the actual knowledge of the decision 
you make comes *after* the supernatural cause of that decision.

> Why have a supernatural event that does nothing 
> but push a button, which sends data through a million separate machines, 
> and multiple levels of filters, all so the end machine can tell itself, 
> "I picked an apple, instead of an orange, because I haven't had one in a 
> while",

The supernatural event would be the decision to pick the apple. Then it goes 
through your brain to make your brain *aware* of it.

Not unlike how when you burn yourself and jerk your hand back, you then know 
you've jerked your hand back. Just because it's "reflex" doesn't mean you 
don't know about it after the fact.  Just because the decision happens 
before you're aware of it doesn't mean you didn't make a decision.

> In any case. What would be the point of such a supernatural button 
> pusher? It doesn't guide the decisions,

It would be guiding the decisions. That's the point. It's not an external 
button pusher. It's the source of you deciding you want one thing over another.

> it can't prevent the machine 
> from being intentionally derailed by someone else, and it doesn't have 
> any way to predict what the final, post hock, resolution of all the 
> steps are going to be.

Presumedly it does, or we wouldn't be saying it's the thing making the 
decision.

>>> Sentience is a deterministic machine, 
>>
>> I don't think you know that either. :-)  Certainly there's room for 
>> quantum effects, even if you leave out the supernatural.
>>
> I think the later can be discounted pretty well.

Why? By definition, you can't discount the supernatural, *especially* in 
something you don't understand the details for.

> The former.. is a bit iffy, 

In what way?

 > and some people take it in completely ridiculous directions.

That's true.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message