[alancalverd]

But , to believe in 2 mutually exclusive world views , that's a bizzare something that cannot be "achieved " but by guys like ...Ethos here . haha

It's the very essence of faith and many other perversions. Remarkably common among congregations and psychopaths.

[dlorde]

Well, some people, myself included, know they have a tendency to behave a certain way in certain circumstances, and instead of trying to use "will power" they simply prearrange those circumstances so that it less likely to have those effects.
...

Interesting point - I suppose it depends on your precise definition of free will. This is part of the definition problem - you don't have free will in some situation if there are explicit constraints on your choices or actions, or if you are coerced, but as you say, you may be free to solve the problem or make the choice another way, so you are free to exercise your will in one way but not in another...

There's a distinction to be made between being a creature that has free will, and being able to exercise free will in some context.

My everyday definition is a simple one: "the capability to act according to our preference without the perception of undue external coercion or constraint".

I say 'perception', because we may not be aware of all the choices, constraints or coercions, so it's entirely subjective, and you might change your mind with hindsight (e.g. "I thought I was making a free choice, but I was deceived").

I also mention 'external' coercion or constraint, but it's complicated by the issues of ethics, morals, and norms. One person might see the presence of a policeman as an external constraint on their freedom to take certain actions, another might not dream of taking those actions because they have internalised the moral constraints of that culture.

This is a contradiction at the heart of free will in respect of moral responsibility - we are said to be free to act against morals of the culture, but are expected to follow them; but while we may not be physically constrained from acting, are we not in some way constrained or coerced by our cultural programming, our conscience? And doesn't our cultural programming, our conscience, influence our preferences, our will?
So internalised cultural morality influences our will through our conscience, but also can be seen as a mental constraint or coercion on our freedom of action...

It's one of those abstract cultural concepts that seems to have superficial meaning, but is malleable enough to mean whatever you like, and when examined closely appears to have no substance or meaning at all.

[dlorde]

Here's an article from Science Daily that's kind of relevant to control or veto power.
Scientists Improve Human Self-Control Through Electrical Brain Stimulation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131213094949.htm

This must be the same braking circuit that was mentioned in those studies where brain activity consistent with a decision to act was detected before the subject was consciously aware of it, but apparently they were still able to veto the action before it took place.

It's unclear whether that action veto would be a feedback from conscious processes or the result of another pre-conscious decision process they subsequently became conscious of... I think the latter would be more interesting []

[dlorde]

But , to believe in 2 mutually exclusive world views , that's a bizzare something that cannot be "achieved " but by guys like ...Ethos here . haha

It's the very essence of faith and many other perversions. Remarkably common among congregations and psychopaths.

Yes, it's not uncommon; the mathematician & logician Charles Dodgeson (Lewis Carroll) was fascinated by it. In 'Through The Looking Glass', he has Alice and the White Queen discussing it:

"I'm just one hundred and one, five months and a day."
"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

[alancalverd]

I think that last phrase may have influenced Eddington, who said "the student of physics must get accustomed to having his common sense violated six times before breakfast". But abandoning a defective hypothesis (science) is not the same as holding mutually exclusive views (everything else).

[Ethos_]

... my five senses ...

Looks like there are more than five, e.g. thermoception , proprioception , nociception.

I stand corrected.............

[cheryl j]

This is quite amusing to me Cheryl because my wife does the same thing. And I, like most males I'm sure, responds exactly like your boy friend did. But that's a subject for an entirely different thread, or is it?

Gender differences might not be irrelevant to the topic of consciousness, although it’s possible if I respond in much detail a moderator will split off that discussion into a new thread. (Although maybe in the “New Theories” category, anything goes.)

The other problem is I am well aware I have a huge bias concerning the biological bases of gender differences. I would like, or strongly prefer, there not to be significant differences between men and women, or between races, because of the potential for discrimination, and probably because of my own issues of self-identity. I sometimes ask myself what I would do  if  confronted with irrefutable evidence that men were superior in many ways to women. How would I react? Would I, like Don, fervently deny it because of the threat it presents to my world view, or would I simply accept it, shrug my shoulders, and say, “Sucks to be me, I guess.” I’m really not sure.
Despite my bias, I can still make my best effort to think about the question reasonably. My strongest argument against strong sexual dimorphism is that only two of the 46 chromosomes are sex chromosomes, and the X is shared by males. So any differences between men and women have to be explained by genes on the Y chromosome (which contains surprisingly little information) regulatory effects of those genes on the Y, or selective gene expression through hormones. You’d have show what genes, and how many, on the autosomes are modulated by hormones.

Even if there are different evolutionary pressures on males and females, as long as a selective trait is not a disadvantage for the opposite gender, I don’t see why it would be suppressed. For example, distance vision might be more important for male hunters, and near vision for female gatherers, but if neither is a disadvantage or somehow  incompatible (where you can’t have one without the expense of the other) why would both sexes not inherit genes for both good near and distance vision?

My other argument is that physical differences that make men and women look so different are primarily related to mate selection and reproduction, but mental differences, like intelligence, perception, problem solving, language may be more important to survival in general,  in order to live to the age to reproduce, and facilitate  the survival of the group and off-spring.

On the other hand, there are documented behavioral differences between men and women, but they are somewhat statistical. It’s been proven in multiple ways that statistically that men are more aggressive than women, but that said, there are many assertive women and many shy passive men. Aggression in men and women are probably overlapping bell shaped curves. Behavioural differences don’t seem to be absolute differences like either having ovaries, or not having ovaries.

The other problem with statistical differences, is that statistics are more important to doctors, actuaries, and in marketing research, and less important (and accurate) in our daily relationships with a small number of individuals. Even if you can show statistically that men are better at math, or there are more male math geniuses, what difference does it make to the brilliant female mathematician that she is a statistical anomaly? How would an institution benefit by screening out all females and possibly overlooking her as the best candidate among the rest?

Here’s another everyday example. Hunting is a more popular sport among men than women. Yet in the small office I once worked, all of the hunters were female. This is probably explained by the fact that most of the women grew up here, a rural area, where hunting is a popular social activity and even needed in order to have a freezer full of meat all winter. All of the men in the office were doctors imported from cities and suburbs, where hunting is not as common (as were the female doctors.) But the rule of thumb that “most hunters are men”, wasn’t reflected in that small group, and if you applied that rule, you would be wrong.

There has been a lot of bias in evolutionary psychology, in my probably biased opinion. A popular book in the 70s was Desmond Morris’s “The Naked Ape” in which every evolutionary change in homo sapiens (walking up right, tool making, language, etc.) was connected to hunting. Obtaining food is a key  evolutionary pressure, but so is anything that effects the survival of offspring, especially helpless and late developing offspring like humans, and he just seemed to ignore  any evolutionary pressures on females. And I won’t even get into the bad science in books like “Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus.”

My final argument is that I do not own numerous pairs of shoes. Therefore, any scientific evidence of gender differences must be a result of the  “false misconception of nature by main stream scientists blinded by their outdated 19th century, Eurocentric world view.” (Okay, now I know I am biased.)

[Ethos_]

This is quite amusing to me Cheryl because my wife does the same thing. And I, like most males I'm sure, responds exactly like your boy friend did. But that's a subject for an entirely different thread, or is it?

Gender differences might not be irrelevant to the topic of consciousness, although it’s possible if I respond in much detail a moderator will split off that discussion into a new thread. (Although maybe in the “New Theories” category, anything goes.)

The other problem is I am well aware I have a huge bias concerning the biological bases of gender differences. I would like, or strongly prefer, there not to be significant differences between men and women, or between races, because of the potential for discrimination, and probably because of my own issues of self-identity. I sometimes ask myself what I would do  if  confronted with irrefutable evidence that men were superior in many ways to women. How would I react? Would I, like Don, fervently deny it because of the threat it presents to my world view, or would I simply accept it, shrug my shoulders, and say, “Sucks to be me, I guess.” I’m really not sure.
Despite my bias, I can still make my best effort to think about the question reasonably. My strongest argument against strong sexual dimorphism is that only two of the 46 chromosomes are sex chromosomes, and the X is shared by males. So any differences between men and women have to be explained by genes on the Y chromosome (which contains surprisingly little information) regulatory effects of those genes on the Y, or selective gene expression through hormones. You’d have show what genes, and how many, on the autosomes are modulated by hormones.

Even if there are different evolutionary pressures on males and females, as long as a selective trait is not a disadvantage for the opposite gender, I don’t see why it would be suppressed. For example, distance vision might be more important for male hunters, and near vision for female gatherers, but if neither is a disadvantage or somehow  incompatible (where you can’t have one without the expense of the other) why would both sexes not inherit genes for both good near and distance vision?

My other argument is that physical differences that make men and women look so different are primarily related to mate selection and reproduction, but mental differences, like intelligence, perception, problem solving, language may be more important to survival in general,  in order to live to the age to reproduce, and facilitate  the survival of the group and off-spring.

On the other hand, there are documented behavioral differences between men and women, but they are somewhat statistical. It’s been proven in multiple ways that statistically that men are more aggressive than women, but that said, there are many assertive women and many shy passive men. Aggression in men and women are probably overlapping bell shaped curves. Behavioural differences don’t seem to be absolute differences like either having ovaries, or not having ovaries.

The other problem with statistical differences, is that statistics are more important to doctors, actuaries, and in marketing research, and less important (and accurate) in our daily relationships with a small number of individuals. Even if you can show statistically that men are better at math, or there are more male math geniuses, what difference does it make to the brilliant female mathematician that she is a statistical anomaly? How would an institution benefit by screening out all females and possibly overlooking her as the best candidate among the rest?

Here’s another everyday example. Hunting is a more popular sport among men than women. Yet in the small office I once worked, all of the hunters were female. This is probably explained by the fact that most of the women grew up here, a rural area, where hunting is a popular social activity and even needed in order to have a freezer full of meat all winter. All of the men in the office were doctors imported from cities and suburbs, where hunting is not as common (as were the female doctors.) But the rule of thumb that “most hunters are men”, wasn’t reflected in that small group, and if you applied that rule, you would be wrong.

There has been a lot of bias in evolutionary psychology, in my probably biased opinion. A popular book in the 70s was Desmond Morris’s “The Naked Ape” in which every evolutionary change in homo sapiens (walking up right, tool making, language, etc.) was connected to hunting. Obtaining food is a key  evolutionary pressure, but so is anything that effects the survival of offspring, especially helpless and late developing offspring like humans, and he just seemed to ignore  any evolutionary pressures on females. And I won’t even get into the bad science in books like “Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus.”

My final argument is that I do not own numerous pairs of shoes. Therefore, any scientific evidence of gender differences must be a result of the  “false misconception of nature by main stream scientists blinded by their outdated 19th century, Eurocentric world view.” (Okay, now I know I am biased.)

Unlike some other contributors to this thread, I really enjoy the attention you pay to detail Cheryl. Your posts are always thoughtful and precise.

I'm confident we all have our personal biases, if that were not the case, we could all be classified as little more than robotic conformists. But yet, while bias is necessary to preserve our individuality, unreasonable biases construct walls of disagreement which can not be scaled. Case in point; Represented many times in this thread by an individual that is unwilling to view circumstances from any position but their own.

You continue to be one of my favorite personalities here at NSF and I'm not in the least bashful about spreading the word....................Ethos

[dlorde]

..My final argument is that I do not own numerous pairs of shoes. Therefore, any scientific evidence of gender differences must be a result of the  “false misconception of nature by main stream scientists blinded by their outdated 19th century, Eurocentric world view.” (Okay, now I know I am biased.)

Lol! nice one, Don []

However, the evidence coming in is surprising and interesting... Brain Connectivity Study Reveals Striking Differences Between Men and Women. But it's not all bad - '"It's quite striking how complementary the brains of women and men really are," said Dr. Ruben Gur.'

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I hate to say : "I told you so .",didn't i ?   
It took only 48 hrs to declare this thread clinically dead ...
I am not Jesus though : i cannot resurrect the dead , just the almost dead  like this thread is ...

Cheryl :

I do not reject any sort of empirical evidence, just the ,oh yes, the mainstream materialist false "scientific world view " = THE biggest lie ever .

And yes, there are differences between men and women, they just cannot be accounted for  just in terms of physics and chemistry alone indeed ,not fully at least , since the mental side of man cannot be reduced to just physics and chemistry .

So, don't worry , men are not 'superior  " to women : they are bot equal , at the human level : women are even smarter in many ways , they are the ones in charge in fact , while succeeding in making us , men , believe we are haha .

Women are the most beautiful graceful intelligent subtle ...you name it ...creatures on earth in fact .

Men and women do  have both feminine and masculin sides as well .

This world would be a better place ,if women would get impowered as they deserve to be , as the equals of men .

Try to read this unique book that might change your life in many ways :
" Lifting the veil : The feminine face of science " by organic chemist and neo-feminist Linda Jean Shepherd : a neo-feminist post-modern philosophy of science , ethics ....
Very enlightening indeed .

Take care .

alancalverd :

You just called your friend Ethos ...a psychopath , without even realising that fact .

Ethos :

Why have you been remaining silent in relation to your paradoxical mutually exclusive held beliefs ,you have not been addressing ?

dlorde :

How does it feel to replace a big lie ,by yet a bigger one , by a "scientific " one ?

Oh, boy , i hate to be in your shoes : i do sympathise with you in that regard .

You have just replaced your ex-christianity by yet another irrational dogmatic orthodox  religion,a secular one  : materialism .
Sweet dreams in your owm materialist wonderland, Alice  .
Don Quixote did realise the falsehood ,the absurdity and ridicule of his own  unrealistic and imaginary  idealism , i do hope the same for you , in relation to your own absurd outdated superseded and false ..."scientific " materialism  .

See ya , guys .

[dlorde]

As usual, Don's got time to drop in and post pointless guff about forum contributors, but not contribute anything of note himself.

So much for his 'promise':

And when i will come back, if i come back, i do promise that i will be delivering some challenging material that will be rocking your materialist sand castles , to the point where its sand grains will be flying in all directions ,thanks to the stormy wind that i will be triggering ...

[]

So what about the split-brain studies you linked to, Don?

So how does the non-physical external consciousness hypothesis account for the appearance of two separate conscious entities in place of one original when the corpus callosum is transsectioned? Can cutting the physical brain split the immaterial consciousness associated with it?

How does it account for each new consciousness having the proportional skills and abilities of the corresponding hemispheres that were integrated in the original consciousness?

What do you suppose happened to the original immaterial consciousness? Is it floating adrift of its physical vehicle? did it have to split into two less able consciousnesses?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

As usual, Don's got time to drop in and post pointless guff about forum contributors, but not contribute anything of note himself.

So much for his 'promise':

And when i will come back, if i come back, i do promise that i will be delivering some challenging material that will be rocking your materialist sand castles , to the point where its sand grains will be flying in all directions ,thanks to the stormy wind that i will be triggering ...

[]

So what about the split-brain studies you linked to, Don?

So how does the non-physical external consciousness hypothesis account for the appearance of two separate conscious entities in place of one original when the corpus callosum is transsectioned? Can cutting the physical brain split the immaterial consciousness associated with it?

How does it account for each new consciousness having the proportional skills and abilities of the corresponding hemispheres that were integrated in the original consciousness?

What do you suppose happened to the original immaterial consciousness? Is it floating adrift of its physical vehicle? did it have to split into two less able consciousnesses?

As for my promise , later then , as promised thus .
As for your above displayed questions :
Don't forget to bring to mind those tv set and radio relative analogies ,while you are at it :
If the tv set or radio are damaged , and then they stop functioning normally , that does not mean that the tv images or radio broadcasts are created by respectively the tv set or radio device .
In the case of human mind-body hard problem : the non-physical consciousness and the physical brain and body are inseparable = 1 .
As for the case of the split -brain phenomena : i can only speculate about that , in the sense that the disconnection of the 2 hemispheres might result  in those disconnected 2 different forms of corresponding consciousness ,almost in the same fashion in the case of myopia , for example, or in that of double sight : it's the mind that sees ,not the eyes ,or the brain .
Consciousness needs a vehicle , i guess , since body and mind are inseparable, in this life at least ,i don't know .
The brain is just a medium for consciousness ,since brain and mind are inseparable , in this life at least .
If the brain is damaged or altered ,thanks to injuries , disease , genetic malfunction or inheritance  ....then, the corresponding consciousness gets disconnected or does not get through , but it is still there though .

The bottom line is : there is still no serious falsifiable theory of consciounsness out there yet ,so, we can only speculate , at this stage at least , regarding mind-body or brain-mind interactions or relationships correlations ...
And since materialism is undeniably false ,and hence the mind is not in the brain, or the mind is no brain activity ,  then, we should be looking for non-materialist explanations of those and other phenomena , due to brain damage, brain disease , disorder .................
That there are no non-materialist falsifiable theories of consciousness out there today yet , does not mean there will be none tomorrow .

In short :
If i knew the answers to those question of yours , i wouldn't be here , would i ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

It's really absurd and total non-sense to even try to assume that the mind is in the brain, or that the mind is just brain activity,despite all appearances (Remember that appearances are deceptive and illusionary ) : the mind or consciousness, the soul, the self or whatever cannot rise  from  , let alone be the product of brain activity : neurons' interactions or neuro-transmitters ,neuro-chemistry cannot account for our subjective conscious states and experiences :  science is still totally in the dark regarding how brain activity can somehow be related to subjective conscious states and experiences .........
Otherwise ,folks, try to tell me what extraordinary evidence has materialism been delivering so far for its "all is matter , including the mind " extraordinary claims , regarding the nature of reality ?

[dlorde]

As for the case of the split -brain phenomena : i can only speculate about that , in the sense that the disconnection of the 2 hemispheres might result  in those disconnected 2 different forms of corresponding consciousness ,almost in the same fashion in the case of myopia , for example, or in that of double sight : it's the mind that sees ,not the eyes ,or the brain .

Interesting; so you're speculating that one supposedly immaterial consciousness splitting into two is 'almost the same' as shortsightedness (nearsightedness), or double vision - which are both due to physical (mechanical) misalignments? Really?  [] [)]

If 'it's the mind that sees ,not the eyes ,or the brain' how come damage to the eyes and brain causes visual impairment or blindness corresponding to the damage?

In short :
If i knew the answers to those question of yours , i wouldn't be here , would i ?

You have no idea at all, do you? All this variety of evidence we've posted that is entirely consistent with, and generally supportive of, consciousness being a process of the brain; seemingly none of it consistent with or plausibly explicable by the immaterial consciousness hypothesis, and much of it apparently contradicting that hypothesis - can you not put  2 and 2 together [?]

Truly is it said, 'none are so blind as those who will not see'   [xx(]

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

As promised , i will be behaving like Sint-Claus haha ,as to be delivering and offering you, guys , some christmas ' gifts , regarding the phony false materialism , and hence regarding the fact that the mind is not in the brain .................
If you think that science requires materialism, "just wait and see ", as Chalmers used to say ...

Be prepared ,both mentally and psychologically spiritually , for the surprises i will be offering you all, for ...christmas ,or for a bit later ...haha

Love is in the air .............

[Ethos_]

Be prepared ,both mentally and psychologically spiritually , for the surprises i will be offering you all, for ...christmas ,or for a bit later ...haha

Love is in the air .............

The only surprise I ever expect to receive from you Don..... is for you to produce evidence. Now,.............that would be a complete surprise!!

[dlorde]

It's really absurd and total non-sense to even try to assume that the mind is in the brain, or that the mind is just brain activity,despite all appearances (Remember that appearances are deceptive and illusionary ) : the mind or consciousness, the soul, the self or whatever cannot rise  from  , let alone be the product of brain activity...

In other words, ignore all the evidence (it's just 'appearances'), and just believe the bare, unsupported assertion. The 'it's obvious / absurd / nonsensical' claim is known as the 'Commonsense Fallacy', and, as previously explained, belief held despite all evidence to the contrary, is known as delusion.

[dlorde]

As promised , i will be behaving like Sint-Claus haha ,as to be delivering and offering you, guys , some christmas ' gifts , regarding the phony false materialism , and hence regarding the fact that the mind is not in the brain .................
If you think that science requires materialism, "just wait and see ", as Chalmers used to say ...

Be prepared ,both mentally and psychologically spiritually , for the surprises i will be offering you all, for ...christmas ,or for a bit later ...haha

Yeah right  []   - just like last time  [)]

[Ethos_]

It took only 48 hrs to declare this thread clinically dead ...

If only that were really true. I think we should bury it quickly so it doesn't resurrect.

[Ethos_]

Be prepared ,both mentally and psychologically spiritually , for the surprises i will be offering you all, for ...christmas ,or for a bit later ...haha

Come on Don.....Surprise me with your evidence. It would be the first you've offered!!!!!!