It rather seems that you postulate that human thinking is deterministic, but that doesn't mean that human intelligence is an illusion because illusion is something that doesn't exist. I mean we don't say a river is an illusion because it's flow is determined.

(December 11, 2018 at 1:08 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(December 11, 2018 at 11:31 am)The__Chameleon Wrote: Imagine a master painter creating a masterpiece one brush stroke at a time. Each movement of his hand meticulously chosen to create the desired effect. Yet, what if each of those motions was chosen for him before he was consciously aware of the choice and only took credit for it upon the moment of that awareness? Experiments by Libet, Soon, Fried, Haynes and others suggest exactly that.

No they don't.

Experiments suggest that our brains decide what we're going to do it before we're conscious of it.

This is very different.

Are you conscious of all the visual processing going on in your brain to determine that what you are looking at is an apple regardless of whether someone moves it up, down, sideways, further away, throws it, partially hides it or shines a blue light on it?

Moravec's paradox tells us that the majority of intelligence is devoted to these kind of tasks that we take for granted. Consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg.

You know this is a good point to make regarding what is wrong with scientism which you brought up in that other thread.

---

(December 11, 2018 at 2:04 pm)The__Chameleon Wrote:

(December 11, 2018 at 1:08 pm)Mathilda Wrote: No they don't.

Experiments suggest that our brains decide what we're going to do it before we're conscious of it.

This is very different.

Are you conscious of all the visual processing going on in your brain to determine that what you are looking at is an apple regardless of whether someone moves it up, down, sideways, further away, throws it, partially hides it or shines a blue light on it?

Moravec's paradox tells us that the majority of intelligence is devoted to these kind of tasks that we take for granted. Consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg.

If decisions are made in the brain before we are conscious of having made them, then "we" didn't make them, our brains did this unconsciously, just like processing visual information to identify an object. If we (our conscious self) can't take credit for having made a given choice, then we attribute this choice to an unconscious process. Unconscious processes are natural processes since a vital component of intelligence (as many would define it) is conscious choice. Without it there is no distinction from any autonomic response in the body.

I see no reason for such a dramatic disassociation between what your brain is doing and "you".  A good deal of our subjective/intentional/volitional life involves riding the waves of preconscious processing - and we are much more versatile and adaptive because of it.

(December 11, 2018 at 2:04 pm)The__Chameleon Wrote: If decisions are made in the brain before we are conscious of having made them, then "we" didn't make them, our brains did this unconsciously, just like processing visual information to identify an object. If we (our conscious self) can't take credit for having made a given choice, then we attribute this choice to an unconscious process. Unconscious processes are natural processes since a vital component of intelligence (as many would define it) is conscious choice. Without it there is no distinction from any autonomic response in the body.

Processes that are not directly accessible to the conscious are still part of who we are, as are the other functions. I lean towards the idea that our conscious mind is not actually in control of anything and is simply an observer of the results produced by the underlying levels of the brain and that those levels are what really constitute "me". "I" still made the decisions. As Hitchens said, I don't have body, I AM a body.

Is this just another rehash of causation and determinism?

(December 11, 2018 at 2:04 pm)The__Chameleon Wrote:

(December 11, 2018 at 1:08 pm)Mathilda Wrote: No they don't.

Experiments suggest that our brains decide what we're going to do it before we're conscious of it.

This is very different.

Are you conscious of all the visual processing going on in your brain to determine that what you are looking at is an apple regardless of whether someone moves it up, down, sideways, further away, throws it, partially hides it or shines a blue light on it?

Moravec's paradox tells us that the majority of intelligence is devoted to these kind of tasks that we take for granted. Consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg.

If decisions are made in the brain before we are conscious of having made them, then "we" didn't make them, our brains did this unconsciously,

No because you are your brain. You are more than just the conscious part of your brain. Think about it, you must be, otherwise what are you conscious of?

You are conscious of your body right? If I stab you then you feel pain. If you weren't also your body then you wouldn't be feeling pain.

(December 11, 2018 at 2:04 pm)The__Chameleon Wrote: Unconscious processes are natural processes since a vital component of intelligence (as many would define it) is conscious choice. Without it there is no distinction from any autonomic response in the body.

They are all arbitrary distinctions. Intelligence is also a natural process, regardless of whether it involves consciousness or not.

(December 11, 2018 at 2:04 pm)The__Chameleon Wrote: Would you consider instincts to be natural or intelligent?

Both. You are making an arbitrary distinction between natural and intelligent without any reason to. Intelligence is natural, unless it's artificial intelligence, which is something entirely different.

(December 11, 2018 at 2:04 pm)The__Chameleon Wrote: What I propose is that humans possess highly evolved instincts masquerading as free will.

What is free will? Will free from what? why do we need such a concept? Is it useful? Seems to be sending you round in circles trying to make sure there is a use for it.

I fail to see how determinism would necessarily undermine the meaning of either intelligence or self identity. A fulcrum and lever can accomplish things that can't be accomplished without them. The lack of free will doesn't negate any capacity to accomplish things in either case. And I think you are making unwarranted assumptions about what it means to be a self. Identifying self with consciousness has long been known to be a problematic idea. Without our memories and our, possibly deterministic, nature, our consciousness doesn't serve as a foundation for the self at all.

(December 11, 2018 at 1:08 pm)Mathilda Wrote: Experiments suggest that our brains decide what we're going to do it before we're conscious of it.

Who's "we"?

(December 11, 2018 at 2:04 pm)The__Chameleon Wrote: If decisions are made in the brain before we are conscious of having made them, then "we" didn't make them, our brains did this unconsciously, just like processing visual information to identify an object. If we (our conscious self) can't take credit for having made a given choice, then we attribute this choice to an unconscious process. Unconscious processes are natural processes since a vital component of intelligence (as many would define it) is conscious choice. Without it there is no distinction from any autonomic response in the body.

My "unconscious processes" are habits that I spent a long time exerting conscious efforts to make habitual.  Same with the artist in your OP.  Habits don't just happen to us, we very deliberately build up habits by how we pay attention, we select from among them to apply the right ones to the right situations, and we consciously monitor them to be sure they perform correctly.  Consciousness is not out of the loop, although since it works more slowly, it reacts with corrections after the fact.

That makes my habits as much "me" as my consciousness.  If you want to consider how we are determined, you have to look at non-conscious physical processes, instincts before they are overwritten by habits, and reflexes.

(December 11, 2018 at 2:04 pm)The__Chameleon Wrote: Would you consider instincts to be natural or intelligent? What I propose is that humans possess highly evolved instincts masquerading as free will. These instincts (or the parts of the brain associated with them)  react to and process input automatically rather than in response to a conscious choice. Our conscious awareness of these natural responses gives us the impression that our conscious mind initiated them when in fact this impression is false.

Let's say you have several potential responses to a particular stimuli.  You are hungry and have to decide which restaurant to visit.  You may consider prices, distances, menu items, diet, and other variables before you make a conscious decision to go to one in particular.  This process takes time and energy on your part, yet you assert that evolution gave us such an ability to work out our decisions without it being in any way causally effective.  Why would you even want to make such an assertion?  What exactly does it achieve?  Does consciousness as an evolved and causal property of matter bother you somehow?

You know what they say don't you Thoreauvian? When in doubt, tacos!

They're what's for dinner. My mind is made up!