(2023-06-07, 11:26 AM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]I suspect that Libet's results indicate that the mind interacts with matter (its brain) over a finite period of time, so that the observation that the brain seems to initiate action before the person is aware of making a decision, is analogous to the contradictions you can get out of QM, where for example a particle can be in two places at the same time.
I think this is the third time you have brought quantum mechanics into this thread, and the arguments don't seem to apply. QM deals with things that happen over very small distances on the order of the
Planck length [the atom] [edited 7/4/2-23]. The world we are familiar with, such as the world in which Libet experimented in, is very different. So no, one can not simply negate an experiment by saying that quantum experiments yield unexpected results.
There is a lot of healthy scientific discussion on Libet's experiment, but I know of no scientist using a QM analogy to refute it.
Since you keep bringing up quantum mechanics, can I ask you where you learned about quantum mechanics? There is a lot of Creationist nonsense out there about quantum mechanics that misunderstands what it is all about. Is that where you are getting your information? If not, where are you getting this information about quantum mechanics you mention? Are you an expert on QM?
Quote:Do think through for a moment, how this issue applies to you. Do you really believe that your brain makes decisions without you being aware, and then fools you into believing you made them?
Yes, of course, the brain does things subconsciously. And yes, we do fool ourselves regarding our motivation when the brain makes decisions. See, for instance,
this spilt brain experiment.
How did you form the sentences in the post you wrote? Did you search through a mental dictionary of all the words you knew, selecting those words that gave you the correct sentence? Or did the sentence somehow come to you as you sat at your computer? It seems to me that the sentences just come to us, and we type out what appears in our mind. We have no idea how our minds selected those sentences. The process is largely subconscious.
Yes, when a sentence comes to mind, we may decide to change it, but how did the original sentence get there? And how did the modified sentence suddenly pop into your mind?
Quote:The materialist approach to life may make sense to you (as I admitted above, it did to me) until you start to think about the many contradictions and puzzles it throws up.
So far I haven't seen anybody mention a serious contradiction or puzzle about materialism, other than a question about how material things can make consciousness. That is a well known problem, sometimes referred to as The Hard Problem of Consciousness. I don't know the answer to it. It may be there is something we might call non-material that is part of the cause of consciousness. Or it may be something akin to dark energy or dark matter. (I'm not even sure if those should be called material or non-material, but that is just an argument of definitions.) Or it might be just the brain and associated forces. That is an issue we all know about. What other "contradictions and puzzles" do you refer to?
Quote:Now let's just dwell on that, and ask what the hell it means. If the mind consists of actions done by the brain (or a bit more abstractly, by a bunch of electrochemical reactions) you seem to be envisioning a world in which all sorts of processes might have a mind - there are electrochemical reactions going on in plants, or on bits on iron as they go rusty
I know of no scientists that thinks that nails have consciousness. (If one thinks nails have consciousness, some might argue that this person is as dumb as a nail.
). Those that insist consciousness is strictly material will tell you it occurs only when there is enough material arranged in a complex way that creates consciousness.
Similarly, a single water molecules is not wet, but many together make a substance that is wet.