Quote:
Originally Posted by durkadurka33
Madnak: your definition of emergence is still extremely controversial.
There are multiple ontological interpretations of what you're describing. What sort of 'reality' do the 'emergent' properties have? How do they come about from their substrative causes? How do they interact with those causes?
It's a thin line between that and dualism.
I go away for less than a day, and madnak makes a relevant point.
I think (hunch only) that free will would require some sort of duality. Emergence would not be sufficient, I think.
How is emergence controversial? The brain is just made up of a big old pile of neurons. Neurons work due to chemical reactions. Chemical reactions are deterministic.* I doubt anyone is prepared to argue that chemical reactions are conscious (even a little bit). Consciousness either is brain activity (which I doubt - see neurons bit above), or it comes from brain activity (unless you are dualist, in which case, you could have the brain as a conduit or some other silly thing), but it is not the same thing as the brain.
As proof, I cite The Might Be Giants: I'd like to change your mind (he said), by hitting it with a rock." I actually know how to do an icepick frontal lobotomy, and it clearly does "change your mind."***
FWIW, consciousness was completely disdained by psychology research up until relatively recently. Dennet and Searle annoyed psychologists enough that they started working on it.
*I admit there is the possibility that they are probabilistic, but I doubt that this is the case.
**footnote left out due to something or other.
***This would be considered a threatening comment if I were making this argument while holding an ice pick in your presence.