Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I agree with Natalia Garntseva's answer in everything, the existence of consciousness is perfectly consistent with determinism.
I will only add that the assumption “the world is deterministic” is most likely incorrect. Modern quantum mechanics assumes that there is true randomness in the microcosm. That is, “god IS PLAYING dice” and Laplace's determinism is incorrect. Just the sum of millions of these random events of the microcosm in the macrocosm gives a deterministic result with a very high probability (but not 100%).
The “will” in the brain is arranged according to the principle of capacitors: a decision is made from two options, which means that a certain neuron receives signals from several inhibitory neurons and several excitatory ones, where the mathematics of electrical potentials is considered at a purely physical level. If the “action potential” is eventually reached, the signal will run further, there will be a solution #1. If the PD is not reached, the signal will not pass further, there will be a solution #2. If this is a decision based on very complex reasoning, then the brain will have many such “forks” with the mathematics of potentials, and the latest one will result directly in the solution.
Modern quantum physics assumes that in some very controversial situation, when the “arguments FOR and AGAINST”, that is, the forces of signals from excitatory and inhibitory neurons that come to the “fork” are equal, then true quantum randomness will play here. It is enough that at least once in the entire chain so “lucky”, and we can already say that the decision was not deterministic. And consciousness was not deterministic. Yes, true chance intervened.
But do not rush to identify the possible intervention of chance with free will. In my opinion, these are completely different things. However, the assumption of” absolute determinism ” of consciousness should be discarded.
By the way, it turns out that if a person is inclined to critical thinking, then his consciousness will be a little more deterministic, because one of the last “forks” will be like “Come on, think again first and compare the result”. This reduces the randomness factor.
The existence of consciousness as an ontological phenomenon is perfectly consistent with determinism, and there is, roughly speaking, no philosophical problem here.
The problem is such an attribute of consciousness as freedom. Consistent, rigid determinism points to the illusory nature of free will and moral responsibility, which contradicts our intuitive idea of ourselves as beings, one way or another, capable of making independent decisions, making free choices and being responsible for our actions. However, the question raised concerns not free will, but consciousness itself, and here everything seems quite obvious.
Determinism insists that everything in the world is causal, and to understand a phenomenon, you need to find out what its objective cause is. Consciousness is not some mystical self-sufficient entity detached from the world, but a natural phenomenon that is part of nature. The existence of consciousness is not accidental, it is natural and can be fully explained by material reasons.
For example, the evolutionary theory based on the principles of determinism treats consciousness as a tool that has emerged in the course of evolution, thanks to which an organism effectively manages its behavior and adapts to the environment.
Before answering this question, you must be absolutely clear that you yourself do not exist outside of the manifestation of consciousness. Everything that you feel, see, hear, perceive, everything that you think, imagine, all these are manifestations of yourself as CONSCIOUSNESS, as a result of awareness of yourself and the world. There is no other consciousness and its determinism.
The only question is to what degree of purity and freedom your consciousness demonstrates itself using the conceptual framework. Determinism, ontology, uncertainty, epiphenomenon, phenomenon, the concept of “consciousness”, contradictions between consciousness and matter, all these are phenomena/epiphenomena (deterministic processes in the brain) of consciousness in their awareness by a specific person(you), the subject of awareness.
Therefore, to talk about consciousness and determinism, without taking into account the fact that both are only manifestations of consciousness, although with different degrees of its sophistication, depth and awareness by different people, is to talk, being conditioned by the determinism of what has already been said, missing the very essence of consciousness in the manifestation of it by you at this very moment.
The question is, what is this chatter about consciousness and determinism worth if it is not directed at yourself to expose your own unconsciousness and ignorance of yourself?!
If I understand the question correctly, then we can add to it the implied condition ” consciousness is a necessary condition for the non-definiteness of human behavior, and therefore of the world, since it makes it possible to make decisions, choose or behave unpredictably.”
Consciousness does not necessarily contradict determinism. It can be an illusion-an epiphenomenon (a secondary phenomenon that has no effective feedback) of deterministic processes in the brain. A person thinks that he controls his behavior, but in reality he is a “robot”. This point of view is held by some dualists (consciousness and matter are two different substances, matter acts on consciousness, but consciousness does not act on matter in any way) and physicalists (the same thing, but there is only matter). This can be confirmed by some experiments (for example, the experiment of Benjamin Libet), although there are disagreements about the interpretation.
A similar point of view is shared by philosophers who believe that the question of metaphysical free will does not matter – its pragmatic understanding is more important. For example, in jurisprudence, the determinism of the world does not justify a cold-blooded crime, and in this sense the defendant acted in accordance with his “free will”, so he must bear responsibility.
You may also be interested in reading this answer thequestion.ru
The origin of consciousness is a separate and very big question.