Toadny wrote:
Consciousness depends on the location and momentum of the atoms in the brain. In the nervous systems of the simplest conscious animals, whichever those are, and in the nervous system of a fetus when it first develops consciousness, the location and momentum of the atoms is still determined by classical mechanics.
(...)
But highly developed conscious organisms like us can direct the location and momentum of the atoms in our brains. That's what we do when we think and reason, and when we make active use of our memories. A conscious experience is correlated with a succession of brain states, with the atoms located and moving in particular ways, and when we for example actively retrieve a particular memory, or reason our way through some ideas, then we are causing those atoms to behave in a different way to that which would be determined solely by classical mechanics.
That is how consciousness overcomes the constraints of determinism and gives us free will.
There are two problems with the above. One is that nobody has a direct power of his brain cells on the atomic level. I say "move this atom three inches to the left without moving any other" and you won't be able to do it.
The other problem is misinterpreting determinism. It is true that a biologically-linked carbon atom will move in different ways than another, dead-matter carbon atom. But biological forces are not unique; they are deterministic. Psychological influences are deterministic. Both "nature" and "nurture" in an individual's background which two will direct his or her actions, are deterministic. Differences in biological behaviour, in psychological make-up, in store of values and beliefs, can be explained by deterministic reasoning.
The carbon atom will move differently from other carbon atoms in a living thing vis-a-vis dead matter. But they won't defy the laws of quantum physical deterministic laws. Their different movements will be locational, not functional.
This is a dimensional concept, which is I believed described in "forms of movement". One is physical. One is chemical. One is biological. One is psychological. One is social. One is societal. These things interact, but they don't borrow, nor influence, the governing movement laws of each other. Within biological, there are more than one movement forms; for instance, in humans there is human movement and there is movement on the cellular level. Each cell has its desire and each cell will strive for attaining a comfortable stance; but that hardly ever coincides with what the entire structure and complexity of cells together, the human itself, finds comfortable; furthermore, humans as a whole, each, are unaware how their individual cells feel at a time, and humans can't influence their own cells by will.
----------------------------
There is another, deeper-level and more detailed-level explanation of the same phenomenon:
You are saying that in thought-production, the atoms will move in a different way than if left alone, not being part of a brain. True. But the way the brain moves these carbon atoms are not independent. The movement has been determined by the thought itself (whatever the thought is), and that is not a changeable thing. If I think "nice legs", then Carbon Atom system A will move through the hoops that "nice legs" will cause it to go through. The atoms will move differently than if I DID NOT THINK "nice legs", but if I think "nice legs", then the atoms will not go any different way than any other time.
Naturally, the brain's structure is not stagnant, so you can say "yes, but the atoms can't go through the same hoops as every other time you think "nice legs", because your brain structure is wholly different due to transformation in time due to other thoughts going through it, every different time you think "nice legs"." True, but the SYSTEMATIC STRIVING of the atom complex that gets moved by the thought "nice legs" will always induce the same type of biochemical reaction formation.
What this means, is that "nice legs" will make your other brain atoms move so you will smile; but in another instance, "nice legs" will makey our other brain atoms move so that you will cry; however, in both instances, the mechanisms of the end result are not dependent on any "independent" carbon-atom movement, they are dependent and determined by the previous state; and I suggest that if the previous state is exactly repeated, then the outcome will be the same.
For instance: you think of your loved spouse, "nice legs", bang, erotic stimulation. You think of your childhood ideal's legs, Marilyn Monroe's, for argument's sake, or of Roger Moore's, you will think, "nice legs" and cry. If you next time think of Marilyn Monroe's legs (or R.M.'s) and NOT cry, then there will be differences in the brain set-up of atoms in the first instance and the second. If you cry both times, then the differences will be in other areas of the complex brain, not in the set-up or arrangement of carbon atoms that make you cry.
Ignorance is power.
