Re: OT: Memes Vs. Free Will

From: Robert Monsen (rcsurname_at_comcast.net)
Date: 09/26/04 

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:35:52 GMT

Scott Stephens wrote:
> Robert Monsen wrote:
>
>> I believe that the idea of 'free will' implies a form of dualism,
>> which basically means that your brain and your mind are separate, and
>> that there is some 'thing' which is separate from the meat, which is
>> calling the shots.
>>
>> If you believe that all behavior derives from the meat, then its
>> difficult to believe in such concepts as soul or free will.
>
>
> Not at all. The mind is an emergent property of the material brain. We
> discuss logic functions abstracted from circuit implementations.
> "Spirit" is the abstract information form, like a Karnough map or state
> diagram. "Soul" is an instance of a concrete, specific, functioning
> implementation.
>
> We can be kindred spirits, yet must have separate souls. Unless you
> consider the Internet as a gestalt, but we can't share its
> consciousness, unless some AI plugged into it and it became self-aware
> then clued us in.

You are simply redefining what it means to have free will. The fact that
its an 'emergent behavior' still means it comes from some physical
process. All you are really saying is that its much more complicated
than we can currently predict by observing the atoms. I'll agree with
that. Penrose, in "The Emperor's New Mind", goes further, to suggest
that we will *never* be able to predict (and thus build machines to
emulate it) it because of the laws of quantum physics. He's clearly
smarter than I am, so I can't rule that possibility out.

>
>> If, on the other hand, you consider your brain to be a kind of
>> receiver, channeling data from a divine soul, then its easy to believe
>> in free will. Its not the meat, its the 'ghost in the machine' that
>> has the free will.
>
>
> Think hard about your "free will". What do you exercise your free will
> to choose between? Where to surf on the net? What video to watch? What
> book to read? Your brain requires stimulation, if you don't stimulate
> it, it will hallucinate all on its own. It forces "you" to choose.
>
> Have you really done anything novel that you were not motivated to do?
>
> And here the "you" (the "I") is your brain being aware of it emotions
> motivating it, its thought considering options, weighing pros vs cons,
> then deciding. That is free will, in contrast to being forced, compelled
> by something such as habit, addiction, some crippling disease or a tax
> collector.
>

Actually, there is very good experimental evidence to suggest that
consiousness is an illusion we generate after the fact. It has nothing
to do with choice, because it happens moments after the fact. We make a
choice, then our brain creates the sensation of our conscious mind
having made the choice.

Why do we do this? I haven't a real clue, but I'm guessing that it has
something to do with the ability to communicate symbolically. In order
to posit that another creature has an experience similar to our own, and
thus that we can communicate with it, we need to have an "I" to use in
projecting, since we can't actually see the thing we are communicating with.

> How can our minds be receivers? Examining my own thoughts, I find it
> hard to be really outlandish in making novel sentences. "I listened to
> energizing that apple this time". It took me several seconds to think of
> that. It is much easier to make sense, than funny non-sense. Because our
> minds are some kind of massive linked-list of hierarchical concepts,
> extending in sequence-action associations as well as space.
>
> This morning I was listening to an e-book about the analytic/synthetic
> dichotomy vs. Objectivist theory of concepts while I had my skate. Any
> engineer would find Objectivism's theory of concepts much easier to deal
> with than Kant's or Plato's idealism. Rand doesn't box you in framing
> everything in the context of Kant's "categories of pure reason".
>
> You might implement associative arrays the same, but with Objectivism
> concepts are based on sensory concretes (ostensive concepts) and axioms,
> and mean what you think they do, rather than the meaning being defined
> as a meaningless linguistic context.
>
> The will (emotions) are given to us by nature. As children, we are
> motivated to learn and become reasonable, or we would just be wild
> animals. We have all forgotten that long ago, and now take for granted
> and deceive ourselves that we do things for "reasons" rather than
> motivating emotions. Because we are "free" to choose.
>

None of this makes any sense to me, having ardently and happily avoided
reading Rand.

>> Unfortunately, that idea, that the brain is a receiver, is based on
>> the notion that the spiritual can somehow affect only those pertinent
>> parts of our brains (it touches the meat and makes those proteins wiggle)
>
>
>> If we are computers, running 'memes' as programs, is the world any
>> less interesting or mysterious? Human behaviour is so complex as to be
>> inexplicable (at least this is true of my family!) Does that mean its
>> not mechanical, its not based on chemical interactions?
>
>
> Think about our neurons switching and being responsible for our
> thoughts. Do the neurons know what they are doing? And we propagate our
> memes, and our memes mold our relationships and culture. Memes are
> spirits. They have a soul - the instances of them living and propagating
> through our cultures. Some memes are evil - they call everyone else's
> memes bad, so they can fill the vacuum.

If you say so, although thats, again, a redefinition of what most people
mean by the word 'spirit'.

I like the idea of memes, which are kinda like the software that runs on
monkeys, and the idea that they exist independently. However, I fear
that that is nonsense; an abstration, which looks right at a certain
level, somewhat like the heat laws of gasses. When you focus on it,
though, you realize that its just another way of saying that symbols
exist for us. Memes are symbols.

Here is a wacky guess: Symbols are just an extrapolation of the original
symbol, our own consciousness. That original symbol is just a function
of the way our nervous system is built, and of environmental pressure to
build one. Its an enabler for communication.

>
> That is why I hate atheism. Not that I don't appreciate good atheist
> philosophy (like Ayn Rand's), but that most atheists just want to
> destroy a church and its cultural influence (like my Christmass tree
> that has had gifts under it for me since I was a child) because its got
> a bunch of traps that are causing a constant stream of victims (and I am
> one of them). But atheist almost never have anything better to replace
> it with, and much of the meanness, violence and sickness in our culture
> is the result of nihilistic "materialism".
>

Well, OK. However, most of the ideas that you associate with the church
actually came from a other traditions, many of which were atheistic.
Many of the bloodiest wars on the planet have derived from religious
differences, as have many of the most gruesome acts known to man.
Consider the Romans throwing christians to the lions, or the
Inquisition. The crusades. If you believe there is another place, better
than this one, then what you do here isn't so important. Also, happily
for whomever is currently in charge, you don't question authority,
because, of course, the meek inherit the earth.

However, in my opinion, the fear of going to hell doesn't really
motivate people to be good. It's social interaction and peer pressure
that does that. We care about what others think, because we, quite
rightly, understand that we and our children depend on those others for
our existence.

>> To me, its a far more wonderous and mysterious to contemplate the idea
>> that proteins, under pressure from natural selection, somehow managed
>> to invent God, than the other way around.
>
>
> The fractal-like universe invented nuclei, atoms, molecules, cells,
> organisms, cultures and biospheres. Then some of the creatures, to adapt
> better, became intelligent enough to examine their own thoughts - became
> self-aware, conscious, and discovered their minds. We discover our minds
> in childhood, but the universe invented them. Religion is primitive
> philosophy. It needs a lot of revising to make it tame and sensible.
>
> But I still need a concept of God (or existence) for two scientific
> reasons - the laws of physics, and a finite quantity of space-time real
> estate to apply them in; and a personal reason - to believe the universe
> is a good place to be conscious of, that it is something good and worth
> working to improve, rather than a meaningless accident I should find
> diversions to avoid thinking about too hard as I figure out how to loot
> it before I (and my evil memes) die.
>

Well, that last bit is where we differ. I don't really need god to
explain the laws of physics, or to give my life a moral meaning. God, in
this form, is just another way of saying "It happened somehow, we don't
really know why.".

However, I'd say that having a wonder and awe about the universe we are
in is a major motivator for both of us. That, I think, is a good thing
for anybody to have, regardless of whether god exists.

Regards,
  Bob Monsen

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science, God, and Free Will
    ... If it's 'secret' or driven by God it's not free will is it? ... developments in physics and neuroscience. ... Eccles's philosophy of mind: ... has shown that the mind is created by the brain... ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science, God, and Free Will
    ... driven by free will or God. ... Eccles's philosophy of mind: ... direct correlation between biology and 'mind'. ... has shown that the mind is created by the brain... ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Was There Ever Really a Beginning?
    ... that they can realize that God is real. ... She mentioned snow. ... My brain was saying to that ... It was "the flesh" mind that did not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The intrinsic Factor VS. The Unlikely
    ... infants with the capacity for natural language. ... expressed into our brain neural tissues.) ... Brain activity does not necessarly repersent 100% of the mind. ... The easy way out is claiming you have some 'soul' given to you by God, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: New kid on the block
    ... propagating of monkey genes, ... He's only addressing the causality chain starting at the DNA ... brain that wrote the book, and in the human brain that read the book, but ... memes exist in computers. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)