Is free-will dependent on something immaterial?

[WaveJumper]

Because they're aware of the fact that somehow giving into the chemical impulses is maladaptive. The chemical component of 'love', et cetera, is merely an impulse to go one way or the other; the human has the capacity to act on that or not act on that, much the same way they can have the capacity to murder or not murder when they feel something such as rage.

And this is explained How by physicalism? Why is the human able to act counter to its instincts? It is a doomed endeavour to try and explain high-level emergent behaviour(high level simplicity) by a reductionist approach(high level complexity). You can't get a woman in your bed by beating her. For some reason certain approaches just don't work while others do in this universe.

WaveJumper, your assertion about RNA and life I cannot find in my search of the literature

The RNA world hypotesis is pretty old(a few decades, that's an eon in your field of study hehe).

in any case, RNA is composed of nucleic acids; if by 'quantum particles' you mean 'elementary particles', the thing about, for example, up quarks and down quarks is that from what I know they have a tendency by their nature to form baryons, which include protons and neutrons, with other up quarks and down quarks. These compose the nuclei of atoms, and so on. This really needs more of a chemical perspective than a physical perspective, though you can't neglect the physical perspective.

The RNA world hypothesis supposes that the first Life molecule was a very simple self-replicating molecule(not its today's vast information carrier equivalent). This self-replicating molecule must have assembled itself on its own out of a number of atoms. If we reject this idea, we have to seek supernatural origins.

WaveJumper, am I right in inferring that your background is probably in physics so you probably have relatively less exposure to material on these things?

Only partly, i changed my major mid-term but my fascination with physics has remained ever since.

 

[wittgenstein]

"The favorite quote of every crackpot."
JoeDawg Probably true. But its also true that Wegener, Georg Cantor and Einstein* would ( tho perhaps not put it at the top) look very favorably on it.Or are you labeling Jaynes a 'kook" without bothering to read the recent papers about his theory?
* Or even Wittgenstein. At first the Tractatus was considered unworthy of even being published. Now the Tractatus is considered one of the seminal works of 20th century philosophy.

 

[Descartz2000]

"The favorite quote of every crackpot."
JoeDawg


Probably true. But its also true that Wegener, Georg Cantor and Einstein* would ( tho perhaps not put it at the top) look very favorably on it.Or are you labeling Jaynes a 'kook" without bothering to read the recent papers about his theory?
* Or even Wittgenstein. At first the Tractatus was considered unworthy of even being published. Now the Tractatus is considered one of the seminal works of 20th century philosophy.

I have read some of his theory and it seems to me that higher order thinking and consciousness is likely correlated with language development. However, I would question if one causes the other, my guess is that they both emerged in sync with one another. However, I highly doubt that earlier man found insight and guidance through voices. It seems if the evolution of the human brain is developed enough to create the voices in the first place, then why would these voices be required to guide his actions? This illustrates a type of dualism within the brain, which seems unlikely. I thought science has moved beyond dualism?

 

[wittgenstein]

Science has gone beyond dualism in what sense? Jaynes is talking about the brain having separate areas for separate functions and in his theory he is speaking of two parts (dualism).

 

[wittgenstein]

One side "tells" the other side what to do. We have integrated the two functions, but according to Jaynes back then the functions were more separate. Therefore there is a sense that the information is separate and given to us ( or at least one side of the brain).

 

[Descartz2000]

Science has gone beyond dualism in what sense? Jaynes is talking about the brain having separate areas for separate functions and in his theory he is speaking of two parts (dualism).

It seems there is no reason to assume that earlier man is guided by voices similar to a psychotic episode. There is a dualistic nature to this approach: the voices and the experiencer.

 

[wittgenstein]

Or are you saying that language caused the integration? If you prefer you can speak of language as a bio-chemical processing of information and ignore the qualia aspect of language.
The above was written before I saw your response.
In response to what you just said. Isn't it true that we "hear" a voice in our head when we think. When I think I create sentences in my mind. The only difference is that now ( as opposed to primal people) I see them ( the sentences) as part of me because both sides of my brain are integrated. I am not taking a pro or con position as to Jaynes only trying to understand his ideas and why they are no longer considered unworthy of investigation.

 

[Descartz2000]

Or are you saying that language caused the integration? If you prefer you can speak of language as a bio-chemical processing of information and ignore the qualia aspect of language.
The above was written before I saw your response.
In response to what you just said. Isn't it true that we "hear" a voice in our head when we think. When I think I create sentences in my mind. The only difference is that now ( as opposed to primal people) I see them ( the sentences) as part of me because both sides of my brain are integrated. I am not taking a pro or con position as to Jaynes only trying to understand his ideas and why they are no longer considered unworthy of investigation.

I would agree that when I 'think' it correlates to a voice type phenomena of some kind (not really a voice, but more of a recognition of language that I have in my head). I just doubt this relationship was separate in earlier man. I am not sure it was required for thought. I mean why couldn't thought develop without this separation?

 

[kldickson]

And this is explained How by physicalism? Why is the human able to act counter to its instincts? It is a doomed endeavour to try and explain high-level emergent behaviour(high level simplicity) by a reductionist approach(high level complexity). You can't get a woman in your bed by beating her. For some reason certain approaches just don't work while others do in this universe.

The RNA world hypotesis is pretty old(a few decades, that's an eon in your field of study hehe).

The RNA world hypothesis supposes that the first Life molecule was a very simple self-replicating molecule(not its today's vast information carrier equivalent). This self-replicating molecule must have assembled itself on its own out of a number of atoms. If we reject this idea, we have to seek supernatural origins.

Only partly, i changed my major mid-term but my fascination with physics has remained ever since.

The reason my explanation works is that we have a set of functions known as the executive functions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_functions ), which governs, essentially, cognitive control and expression of other aspects of, well, oneself. It governs everything from attention to sexuality; people with frontal lobe injuries can have issues controlling their temper or their urge to grab food when they are hungry when they did not have these problems before the injury.

I would appreciate it if you would point me to some resources about the RNA world hypothesis so I can read in depth about it a little more; as it stands, I am skeptical of the RNA world hypothesis's claims of emergence from quantum molecules and of any necessity of supernatural origins.

 

[wittgenstein]

"There is a dualistic nature to this approach: the voices and the experiencer."
Descartz2000
But does this not also apply to our own situation? The speaker of the voice in our mind is also the listener ( or as you put it the experiencer). Why would the speaker talk? To explain his own ideas to himself? Perhaps, this is why we feel that we can directly see into ourselves ( thoughts) and also why we can be objective about our internal states. But can an eye see itself? Does not this imply that what we think are one are actually two? In dreams we are the script writer and the actor. And sometimes the actor does not know what the script writer has in store for him or her! Note that I am not postulating a soul or anything like that. Only that the brain having two parts theory can explain the phenomenon.

 

[Anticitizen]

Yes, that's pretty much what Jaynes was getting at - and that before this mechanism took place, mankind was not truly conscious.

Whether you buy his theory or not, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind was one of the most interesting and well-written scientific books I've ever read. I think the first few chapters, which address a working definition of (and the 'problem' with) consciousness should be required reading for psychologists and philosophers.

 

[JoeDawg]

"The favorite quote of every crackpot."
JoeDawg


Or are you labeling Jaynes a 'kook" without bothering to read the recent papers about his theory?

No, I just don't think the fact someone is called a kook means we should listen to them.