We just might have some form of demonstration that leads us to conclude that our thoughts, emotions, etc are a product of our biology.... We could try an experiment, of course, which involves you surrendering your brain to me (as in taking it out of your head) and then attempting to formulate a thought......

(February 10, 2012 at 3:50 pm)Rhythm Wrote: We just might have some form of demonstration that leads us to conclude that our thoughts, emotions, etc are a product of our biology.... We could try an experiment, of course, which involves you surrendering your brain to me (as in taking it out of your head) and then attempting to formulate a thought......

Like I said, I don't equate brain with biology. If I surrender my brain, I'd be surrendering more than my biology. If on the other hand, we had an idea about which part of brain was responsible for our advanced consciousness and had a way to remove that, then we'd be talking.

Something like a lobotomy perhaps? Again, what you equate and what can be demonstrated...I have an obvious preference. If you hand me your brain the only thing you can demonstrate that you are handing me is a piece of biology. It just so happens that without this piece of biology you would be unable to formulate thoughts. Now, we could suggest a layer of unexplained mystery over and above what can be demonstrated, but I wonder what your reasons for doing so might be?

(February 10, 2012 at 4:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Something like a lobotomy perhaps? Again, what you equate and what can be demonstrated...I have an obvious preference. If you hand me your brain the only thing you can demonstrate that you are handing me is a piece of biology. It just so happens that without this piece of biology you would be unable to formulate thoughts. Now, we could suggest a layer of unexplained mystery over and above what can be demonstrated, but I wonder what your reasons for doing so might be?

I'm pretty sure that within this discussion, when we say biology, we mean instinctual behavior ingrained in genetic makeup, not a piece of my physical makeup. I thought you accepted this definition as well. You spoke about "biology and conditioning determining behavior". Well, the conditioning is stored in the brain as well, so brain and biology in this context are automatically not equivalent.

The conditioning is stored there, but that's not where it's sourced from. What about conditioning being stored in the brain makes brain and biology immediately not equivalent? Is your brain something other than biology?

(February 10, 2012 at 7:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The conditioning is stored there, but that's not where it's sourced from. What about conditioning being stored in the brain makes brain and biology immediately not equivalent? Is your brain something other than biology?

Your brain is your biology (instinctual behavior) + conditioning + rational behavior.

A computer analogy would be that the CPU has the basic operating system (innate to the system) + externally installed software + self-installed software. Except we haven't created computers with capacity for self-programming just yet.

I'm sorry, I was just referring to the brain as an organ, ergo biology. That's where our disconnect was. Can you establish that we program our own biological computers by the way? Seems to me that the world around us is doing the programming, giving us the inputs. What would an example of our own self programming be?

(February 10, 2012 at 8:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm sorry, I was just referring to the brain as an organ, ergo biology. That's where our disconnect was. Can you establish that we program our own biological computers by the way? Seems to me that the world around us is doing the programming, giving us the inputs. What would an example of our own self programming be?

Any self-taught behavior would be an example.
The world giving us inputs does not mean that it is doing the programming. The programming part comes in as getting the data, processing it (through the self-taught programs) and then giving the output. I don't believe the idea that any external input that comes your way automatically becomes a part of your programming. You can pick and choose which parts to retain and which to not.

For example, my family is mostly theistic and for quite some time I was too. And the idea of a god was hard for me to let go of. I went through theism, to deism to pantheism to finally atheism. That wasn't something that was biologically ingrained in me - in fact, I'm biologically ingrained not to let go of a long-held belief easily. It wasn't socio-cultural conditioning, since a great amount of input I was getting was pro-theism. It wasn't peer-group or online communities, because I came about such groups only after confirming my atheism. It wasn't even a necessary consequence. I could have, like so many people in the world, compartmentalized my theism and my rational outlook in two different parts of my mind. Yet, I chose to examine my beliefs and discard any irrational ones. And I still continue to do so. That would be an expression of my free-will.

Then the programmer giving the computer inputs is not doing the programming either. A PC can also filter what it wishes- antivirus. A self taught behavior? Is learning self taught? I wasn't aware that it was.

Perhaps it was simply an expression of your ability to think clearly and assess a situation or concept dispassionately, developed over millions of years of trial and error with an untimely death as the penalty for failure?

Along the same lines, but slightly OT. Let's imagine for a moment that we discover AI. We might give this entity personhood (maybe because we make the case that it has free will), but I've always been amused that this same event would also easily justify removing the title of person from ourselves..since we could no longer be said to be different from a machine...we prefer the former over the latter. I mention this because It's not that I disagree with your position on much of this, but because I'm skeptical of any determination of what constitutes a thought, or free will, or personhood, etc, that arises from the minds of human beings. "Our" thoughts are somehow different, "our" programming is somehow our own, everything else is inferior by comparison because we use our own characteristics as the bar. I used AI above, but when I take a look around me (at things which exist outside of my little thought experiment), it's very difficult to distinguish exactly what is doing the programming, and exactly what is exhibiting "free will" from what is not.

(February 11, 2012 at 12:08 pm)Rhythm Wrote: when I take a look around me (at things which exist outside of my little thought experiment), it's very difficult to distinguish exactly what is doing the programming, and exactly what is exhibiting "free will" from what is not.

Compounded by the fact that it's not just this or that particular 'what' that is doing the programming, if any, but a whole spectrum of influences and experiences, thousands, over a lifetime. Each with its own impact, intensity, duration, etc. etc. It's an unpredictable and infinitely variable cocktail. With consequently just as unpredictable and infinitely variable effects.