Materialists......

[UndercoverElephant]

You'll need provide a coherent example of this. I don't think what you have just suggested can be coherent.

There's loads of examples. Think of a stereogram. If you do not know it is a stereogram or you don't know what a stereogram is then you will look at it and see nothing but noise. Well, maybe you might have a sort of intuition that it wasn't completely random, but you'd certainly not be able to make anything sensible out of the traces of a pattern if you could detect even those traces. But if you cross your eyes in just the right way, suddenly a three-dimensional representation of rabbit appears out of the noise. You can think of the randomness in reality as being a bit like the noise on the sterogram. For the most part, it looks random. No pattern is easily identifiable. What I am saying is that people who experience extreme synchronicity and/or mystical experiences find themselves in a position where, just like with the stereogram, an unmistakeable pattern suddenly emerges from the noise. It is useful as an example because this is a case of a gestalt shift. What I am talking about is also a gestalt shift. It is not the case that everything suddenly changes so the pattern reveals itself. The pattern was there all along, and emerges spontaneously as the result of a gestalt shift in the way the viewer is interpreting what he/she sees.

 

[DreadNiK]

There's loads of examples. Think of a stereogram. If you do not know it is a stereogram or you don't know what a stereogram is then you will look at it and see nothing but noise. Well, maybe you might have a sort of intuition that it wasn't completely random, but you'd certainly not be able to make anything sensible out of the traces of a pattern if you could detect even those traces. But if you cross your eyes in just the right way, suddenly a three-dimensional representation of rabbit appears out of the noise. You can think of the randomness in reality as being a bit like the noise on the sterogram. For the most part, it looks random. No pattern is easily identifiable. What I am saying is that people who experience extreme synchronicity and/or mystical experiences find themselves in a position where, just like with the stereogram, an unmistakeable pattern suddenly emerges from the noise. It is useful as an example because this is a case of a gestalt shift. What I am talking about is also a gestalt shift. It is not the case that everything suddenly changes so the pattern reveals itself. The pattern was there all along, and emerges spontaneously as the result of a gestalt shift in the way the viewer is interpreting what he/she sees.

By stereogram I assume you are meaning the 'magic eye' picture things.

Uh-uh, no, they can be described by science. They won't appear as different things to different people, they will either be noise or the image they are intended to be.

Try again.

 

[Belz...]

I don't believe there is any such thing as randomness.

Theoretically, a singularity is true chaos. Whatever happens there is acausal and impossible to determine.

It's not about the variables been "hidden". It's that even if you were to rewind time and check them again, they'd have a different value, this time.

That's because the scientists often don't understand the philosophical problems.

Or maybe they are non-problems.

This all depends on what you mean by "understand". Some people think "understanding the brain" or "explaining consciousness" involves denying its existence. That sort of understanding won't be enough. I want understanding that involves actual understanding.

Unfortunately, the answer may not please you or I, but it's an answer nonetheless.

What is the survival benefit of subjective consciousness at all? Wouldn't it have been more economical to have zombies instead?

Perhaps it was. And it is.

There is no evolutionary explanation for free will. Free will is ontologically prior to evolution. It comes straight from Zero. No evolution necessary.

Assumption. Please provide your reasoning.

Only rational beings are capable of willfully transcending this evolved capacity to act self-interestedly, but rationality alone is not enough. We also need the self-discipline ("will-power") to make it happen. [/edit]

Transcending the capacity for selfishness ? I don't think so. Whatever you do, you do for yourself, even if only for the personnal satisfaction of helping other people.

That sort of materialism implies determinism. Only QM changes the picture. But if you introduce QM and call QM "a purely physical theory" then you are introducing the inherent acausality of QM into your notion of physical and physicalism. At this point, free will is not incompatible with the laws of physics, because the laws of physics have expanded enough to encompass acausality.

Not sure how acausality supports the existence of free will, since, unless you can provide a clear definition of what free will is, "acausal" would mean "random", which you believe does not exist.

....or acausal free will or fate/karma.......

Isn't "fate" deterministic by definition ?

Multiverse theory is proposed because otherwise you have to explain why the cosmological constants look fine-tuned for life. If there are lots and lots of Universes, it ceases to be a problem. It's a metaphysical answer. Not an empirical one.

That's not the reason for the multiverse theory. The reason is that, if one spacetime-foam fluctuation could have caused THIS universe, there's no reason to think it was a unique "event".

They are pretty persistent for things that aren't real.

Argument from longevity ??

Then you appear to be excluding any possibility of ruling out quantum-metaphysical effects in the brain.

Quantum fluctuations MIGHT have an effect on the macroscopic world. But they ARE random. So you don't believe in them, anyway.

You cannot act upon free will. Free will is the absolute example of something which acts on things. It is itself not a thing. Therefore it cannot be acted upon. It is the non-thing which instigates acts on things.

More assumptions.

Humans being entirely driven by unfree-will are quite capable of behaving unpredictably. Hurricanes can behave unpredictably.

But if you knew all the variables, you'd be able to predict their movement perfectly. They are deterministic.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

By stereogram I assume you are meaning the 'magic eye' picture things.

I've never heard them called that.

Uh-uh, no, they can be described by science.

You have moved the goalpoasts. I never said they couldn't be described by science. I said you had to be "in the correct place" to be able to see the pattern.

They won't appear as different things to different people, they will either be noise or the image they are intended to be.

Erm....how is that "not appearing as different things to different people"?

Person 1 sees noise. Person 2 sees a rabbit. It's the same pattern.

Try again.

Why? There was nothing wrong with the example I gave you. What do you want? An example of something just like synchronicity which isn't synchronicity? That's a bit like asking for an example for something which is just like evolution but isn't evolution.

A reminder of what I originally posted:

Underlying patterns are crucial to this debate. There is an additional assumption in the text of that link you supplied. It assumes that if there is an underlying pattern to what we consider randomness that this pattern should be detectable objectively. But this is not the case. What if the pattern is embedded in reality, but only detectable within the context of the belief-system and life-situation of the viewer? If this were the case, some people would be able to see [bits of] the pattern and others would not. It would be a case of having to get yourself into the right place (existentially) to be able to see it, without knowing before hand exactly either what it is you are looking for or where to look. Not easy, but not impossible.

OK, so there is a difference between the stereogram and the patterns I am talking about in that the whilst both of them need both the correct viewing position and a gestalt shift in order for the pattern to be noticed, they are different in that with the stereogram it is possible for an entirely objective description of the situation to be provided. I cannot give you of another sort of pattern which can only be subjectively detected, because I know of no other phenomena/example. Why should there be two?

 

[chriswl]

Then you appear to be excluding any possibility of ruling out quantum-metaphysical effects in the brain.

I have no idea what a "quantum metaphysical" effect could be. Do you mean quantum mechanical?

Quantum mechanics applies to brains as much as it applies to anything else.

Yes, but the randomness almost always gets averaged away at anything but atomic dimensions. It's not obvious how the effect could be magnified to affect the switching of something as relatively large as a neuron.

But it's worse than that. Just adding a random factor to the operations of the neurons of the brain is not going to result in occasional unpredictable decisions. It would almost certainly be equivalent to brain damage. You can't just blindly add randomness to a complicated mechanism and expect it still to function. Imagine the effect of even occasional random opcodes in a computer.

To cause rational, well-formed but random decisions your random components would have to be very carefully, strategically placed. Or else the randomness will need to be smeared out over a whole functional area, like a quantum computer. Either way, we should be well capable of spotting such "engineering".

You cannot act upon free will. Free will is the absolute example of something which acts on things. It is itself not a thing. Therefore it cannot be acted upon. It is the non-thing which instigates acts on things.

I meant as in acting upon a decision or an impulse. I just mean actually exercising free will, I mean will that leads to action.

Humans being entirely driven by unfree-will are quite capable of behaving unpredictably. Hurricanes can behave unpredictably.

Not truly unpredictable, in the QM sense, just too complicated to predict accurately. We can recognise quantum randomness when we see it. We will recognise it if we find it in the human brain, too.

How did you arrive at "necessarily"?

I'm suggesting that maybe you cannot have certain types of complex agent-like behaviour without also having consciousness. That p-zombies are an absurdity.

Chris: As Dawkins put it, in the infamous last sentence of the Selfish Gene "We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of our selfish replicators."

Geoff: That is about the most philosophically-informed statement he has ever made.

But his statement here was inconsistent with everything else he believed (I doubt he has any time for speculative theories about quantum effects in the brain). He wrote it because he couldn't see how all human altruistic, cooperative behaviour could be fully explained by his theory. Over the next decade he changed his mind on this - it is now much clearer than it was in 1976 how altruism and cooperation can arise out of competition.

No, but it [rationality] opens the possibility of knowing the difference between what is moral, and what is not.

What has rationality got to do with our moral sense? I can't see any obvious connection.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I have no idea what a "quantum metaphysical" effect could be. Do you mean quantum mechanical?

No, I meant what I said. What is the problem with quantum-metaphysical? What do you think MWI is?

Yes, but the randomness almost always gets averaged away at anything but atomic dimensions. It's not obvious how the effect could be magnified to affect the switching of something as relatively large as a neuron.

"almost always", "not obvious".......in other words, we don't know, so it cannot be ruled out but should not be ruled in.

But it's worse than that. Just adding a random factor to the operations of the neurons of the brain is not going to result in occasional unpredictable decisions. It would almost certainly be equivalent to brain damage.

Why?

You can't just blindly add randomness to a complicated mechanism and expect it still to function. Imagine the effect of even occasional random opcodes in a computer.

We simply do not have the information to answer these questions at this time.

To cause rational, well-formed but random decisions your random components would have to be very carefully, strategically placed. Or else the randomness will need to be smeared out over a whole functional area, like a quantum computer.

Either would do it.

Either way, we should be well capable of spotting such "engineering".

Yeah, right. Not any time soon.

I'm suggesting that maybe you cannot have certain types of complex agent-like behaviour without also having consciousness.

Yes, you are claiming a connection to be necessary, even though it looks like it is contingent. You need to explain why it looks contingent, not merely state "it might be necessary".

But his statement here was inconsistent with everything else he believed....

Yeah, it does sound like a strange thing for Dawkins to say.

What has rationality got to do with our moral sense? I can't see any obvious connection.

Without reason, there can be no morality, because there can be no knowledge of good and evil (not even relative good and evil). Not only is idea central to Kant's philosophy, it is the single most important piece of symbolism in Genesis.

 

[chriswl]

Yes, you are claiming a connection to be necessary, even though it looks like it is contingent. You need to explain why it looks contingent, not merely state "it might be necessary".

I'm making an assumption. The same assumption that we make when we assume that other people are conscious. The same assumption that people have made about each other long before they had any idea what a brain was. We trust our judgement that other people are conscious and we usually have nothing but outward behaviour on which to base that judgement.

The connection between consciousness and conscious behaviour doesn't look contingent to me. It only looks contingent if we can truly imagine the case of a person who acted just like anyone else but actually had no consciousness. Perhaps we can point to some man in the street at random and imagine him walking down the road without any thoughts at all in his head, without any sentience. But could we maintain this belief if we got to know him? Is it really possible for you to believe (not just say the words but actually believe) that someone close to you has no consciousness? I don't think it is.

If you can't believe it of this person, who you know well while they are in front of you and while you are interacting with them then who can you believe it of? Some other, hypothetical person who is conveniently anonymous. But only because you are avoiding fully imagining the kind of interaction that would reveal their consciousness to you.

Without reason, there can be no morality, because there can be no knowledge of good and evil (not even relative good and evil). Not only is idea central to Kant's philosophy, it is the single most important piece of symbolism in Genesis.

Yes, I was vaguely aware that Kant had said something about that. It doesn't ring any bells with me. Smith's ideas about "moral sentiments" seem far more believable.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm making an assumption. The same assumption that we make when we assume that other people are conscious. The same assumption that people have made about each other long before they had any idea what a brain was. We trust our judgement that other people are conscious and we usually have nothing but outward behaviour on which to base that judgement.

OK....first, this isn't an assumption. It's a line of inductive reasoning. You observe other people behaving like you do, and you quite reasonably infer that this suggests they have minds like you do. This is the only way to avoid solipsism, so most people accept it. But none of this actually has anything to do with the fact that it appears to be contingent that minds always accompany living brains. That goes for yourself as much as it does for anybody else. In other words, your reply is to a different question. It is a reply to the question "Is it reasonable to believe other people have minds?" What I want to know is why minds should necessarily accompany brains at all. Why is this always so? Stating that apparently it is, doesn't explain why it is.

The connection between consciousness and conscious behaviour doesn't look contingent to me. It only looks contingent if we can truly imagine the case of a person who acted just like anyone else but actually had no consciousness. Perhaps we can point to some man in the street at random and imagine him walking down the road without any thoughts at all in his head, without any sentience. But could we maintain this belief if we got to know him? Is it really possible for you to believe (not just say the words but actually believe) that someone close to you has no consciousness? I don't think it is.

No, neither do I, but it is answering the wrong the question.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Belz,

Since I can't sleep because its horribly hot and humid, and I've run out of other people to reply to, you've been removed from my ignore list. I bet that's the best news you've had all day.

Theoretically, a singularity is true chaos. Whatever happens there is acausal and impossible to determine.

Agreed. I think there is a singularity involved here too. It is a singularity which is the source of free will.

Unfortunately, the answer may not please you or I, but it's an answer nonetheless.

It's a reply but it's not an answer. It doesn't explain anything. It just denies there is a need for an explanation, without explaining why there is no need for an explanation. It leaves you feeling like you've been mugged.

Perhaps it was. And it is.

So why aren't we zombies? If it's more efficient to be a zombie than a conscious being, why are we conscious?

Assumption. Please provide your reasoning.

It's an analytical truth - it is true by definition. If libertarian free will is true, then (hard) determinism is false, and libertarian free will cannot have arisen as the result of deterministic processes. Evolution is a deterministic process.

Transcending the capacity for selfishness ? I don't think so. Whatever you do, you do for yourself, even if only for the personnal satisfaction of helping other people.

That is the determinist/materialist position on altruism, as a matter of logical necessity. It does not apply in other cases. There is no room for genuine altruism if hard determinism is true. It does not follow that genuine altruism doesn't exist.

Not sure how acausality supports the existence of free will, since, unless you can provide a clear definition of what free will is, "acausal" would mean "random", which you believe does not exist.

That's been discussed at length over the past two pages. It doesn't "support" the existence of free will, but it does leave the door open for it. It provides some wiggle-room.

Isn't "fate" deterministic by definition ?

Depends on what you mean by fate. Yes, if you are a hard determinist, then there is a deterministic sort of fate in play because the future is completely predetermined by empirical laws. But if you believe in things like free will or karma then "fate" can take on a different meaning, where your fate is being determined by free will decisions. That's what "karma" is. It's like "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" except free will is the action and fate/karma is the reaction. The connection between them is non-empirical and appears acausal/random to empirical science.

Argument from longevity ??

No, just pointing out that if an apparent philosophical paradox has been around for centuries and won't go away then simply trying to claim it's not a problem without explaining why it's not a problem is not going to make it go away any sooner.

Quantum fluctuations MIGHT have an effect on the macroscopic world. But they ARE random. So you don't believe in them, anyway.

What does "random" mean?

 

[Belz...]

Since I can't sleep because its horribly hot and humid, and I've run out of other people to reply to, you've been removed from my ignore list.

Well, unfortunately this means I've been replying to you for nothing until now!

I bet that's the best news you've had all day.

Actually, it is.

Agreed. I think there is a singularity involved here too. It is a singularity which is the source of free will.

I'm a little lost, here. By definition, a singularity is, as I've said, pure chaos. Chaos is random in the absolute sense. Not because of "hidden" variables, but because the outcome is acausal and non-deterministic. How does that relate to Will ?

It's a reply but it's not an answer. It doesn't explain anything. It just denies there is a need for an explanation, without explaining why there is no need for an explanation. It leaves you feeling like you've been mugged.

Let's assume for a second that current science is right and that the universe comes "from" a singularity. How does that not suddenly explain everything ? A "place" of pure chaos can only result in something coherent, once in a while, and the dimensionless singularity is, short of nothing, the simplest thing one could imagine, without physical laws, purpose, structure or energy. How could one imagine a simpler, more complete answer ?

So why aren't we zombies? If it's more efficient to be a zombie than a conscious being, why are we conscious?

Are we ? Honestly, I'm not sure we're conscious the way we think we are. But leaving that aside, and assuming that you're conscious, consider this:

Let's say that, in 2018, we finally design an intelligent computer. One that can think for itself and which (who ?) is aware of its own existence. It is, by all means, sentient as much as you are. But how are you going to determine that it is ? How exactly is it going to act any different than if it were programmed to act sentient ?

Characters in movies, books and video games act more or less like real people, but they aren't real. But they're imagined by the author in a way that seems real, and portrayed by actors in a realistic fashion. The character still doesn't exist. The aforementionned sentient computer could be just that: a pre-programmed personnality that appears sentient but isn't. My question is, how could we tell the difference, and how can we be sure that other HUMANS are sentient at all ?

It's an analytical truth - it is true by definition. If libertarian free will is true, then (hard) determinism is false, and libertarian free will cannot have arisen as the result of deterministic processes. Evolution is a deterministic process.

The way I see it, your original comment assumed your conclusion: that libertarian free will exists. You then said that evolution can't explain it. Paul argues that there is a reason to assume that the illusion of free will can be part of the evolutionary process. I'm not sure I agree with him, but it's possible.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves, because we still haven't defined what free will is.

That is the determinist/materialist position on altruism, as a matter of logical necessity. It does not apply in other cases. There is no room for genuine altruism if hard determinism is true. It does not follow that genuine altruism doesn't exist.

Let's see. When you give a gift to someone or do something for someone, why do you do it ? Because of how THEY feel ? Of course not. You're doing it because of how YOU feel knowing how THEY feel, which is quite different. If you didn't feel anything knowing that they're happy about what you do for them, you wouldn't do it. So, in a twisted way, it IS selfish.

That's been discussed at length over the past two pages. It doesn't "support" the existence of free will, but it does leave the door open for it. It provides some wiggle-room.

I still don't see how, unless you can somehow demonstrate that acausal can mean something different than random.

Depends on what you mean by fate. Yes, if you are a hard determinist, then there is a deterministic sort of fate in play because the future is completely predetermined by empirical laws. But if you believe in things like free will or karma then "fate" can take on a different meaning, where your fate is being determined by free will decisions. That's what "karma" is. It's like "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" except free will is the action and fate/karma is the reaction. The connection between them is non-empirical and appears acausal/random to empirical science.

Okay, you didn't mean "fate" as "inescapable future". My mistake. However, "karma", as defined by you, seems to be completely deterministic. Again, the only acausal element is the will itself, still ill-defined.

No, just pointing out that if an apparent philosophical paradox has been around for centuries and won't go away then simply trying to claim it's not a problem without explaining why it's not a problem is not going to make it go away any sooner.

Fair enough. I'm only saying that, just because we have a hard time accepting a possibility (i.e. that free will might not exist, etc.) doesn't mean it's not true. Common sense doesn't always cope well with reality.

What does "random" mean?

It means that not only is the content of the variable not known, it is impossible to know because the content is non-deterministic. It has no cause because, otherwise, it wouldn't be random.

For example, let's say particle A is travelling at a certain speed towards particle B. Knowing all the variables involved, you can say precisely how the interaction is going to take place and what the result is going to be, every time.

Now, let's introduce a random fluctuation that knocks A slightly off "course" so it now misses B. The hell ? Rewind time itself... go back to that exact moment and... nothing happens. The fluctuation doesn't occur, and A collides with B. What happened ? A random event simply isn't caused, so even knowing all the variables doesn't help you, because the result is unpredictable by definition, and the results are always different, although all the variables were the same.

This is different from the usual meaning of "random" in which we simply DON'T have all the variables, but if we did, we'd be able to tell the outcome every time, and it'd always be the same.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Belz

I'm a little lost, here. By definition, a singularity is, as I've said, pure chaos.

I see it slightly differently, but not much. For me, a singularity is infinity itself. Not +infinity, which is a mathematical limit, but an actual, existing, infinity. It's "pure chaos" because it's infinity - it can BE anything. For me, it's "being" itself. "Pure chaos" doesn't really mean anything to me, but if it did, it would mean pretty much the same as what I mean by "infinity".

Chaos is random in the absolute sense. Not because of "hidden" variables, but because the outcome is acausal and non-deterministic. How does that relate to Will ?

Will is the expression of the infinity/singularity. It comes from the singularity. Stick it in the hidden variables and it can become any value, thus influencing what is happening.

Let's assume for a second that current science is right and that the universe comes "from" a singularity. How does that not suddenly explain everything ?

You are describing my own position. That's why I go on and on about the zero=infinity and 0 = 1 + -1. 0 is the singularity, that's why it's infinity as well a 0. The 1 and the -1 are a representation of how the 0/singularity explains everything.

A "place" of pure chaos can only result in something coherent, once in a while, and the dimensionless singularity is, short of nothing, the simplest thing one could imagine, without physical laws, purpose, structure or energy. How could one imagine a simpler, more complete answer ?

I don't know. I can't.

Are we ?

I am. I infer that you are, too...

Let's say that, in 2018, we finally design an intelligent computer. One that can think for itself and which (who ?) is aware of its own existence.

Then you are assuming something I think is impossible. I do not believe this can happen.

It is, by all means, sentient as much as you are. But how are you going to determine that it is?

You can't.

How exactly is it going to act any different than if it were programmed to be sentient?

Hypothetical question refering to a situation I do not believe can happen.

My question is, how could we tell the difference, and how can we be sure that other HUMANS are sentient at all ?

Empirically, we can't.

The way I see it, your original comment assumed your conclusion: that libertarian free will exists.

Not quite, it was conditional: IF libertarian free will exists THEN it cannot have evolved. That doesn't assume it's conclusion. It's just an "if" statement, and it's analytically valid.

You then said that evolution can't explain it. Paul argues that there is a reason to assume that the illusion of free will can be part of the evolutionary process. I'm not sure I agree with him, but it's possible.

That isn't libertarian free will anyway. It's compatibilist free will.

Let's think for a second. When you give a gift to someone or do something for someone, why do you do it ? Because of how THEY feel ? Of course not. you're doing it because of how YOU feel knowing how THEY feel, which is quite different. If you didn't feel anything knowing that they're happy about what you do for them, you wouldn't do it. So, in a twisted way, it IS selfish.

That example is. Let's take another one, an extreme one: Jesus. According to the mythology, he died on the cross to redeem humanity for its sins. This is a metaphor. It is a metaphor for free wil and transcedence of the ego. Let's assume there was a real Jesus, and he really did this, and he really did it for the reasons given. Was that, in a twisted way, selfish? You may think it was misguided, but selfish it was not. It would only have been selfish if he was really doing it so he could become the most famous human being to have ever lived, rather than to redeem humanity.

I still don't see how, unless you can somehow demonstrate that acausal can mean something different than random.

What I am saying is a little more subtle. I am saying that from within the materialistic perspective it will always look random, but that there are other perspectives (or levels of abstraction regarding descriptions of reality) where it no longer appears random becuase it is the result of a singularity/infinity imposing itself on something finite/material.

Okay, you didn't mean "fate" as "inescapable future". My mistake. However, "karma", as defined by you, seems to be completely deterministic.

Not deterministic in an empirical sense, no. But it could be thought of as deterministic on a metaphysical level. It is the result of one thing affecting another thing, just not empirically. Nothing outside of empirical reality is required - no "God", for example, as you might expect, since karma is a concept from non-theistic religions. All that is required is some sort of non-empirical cause-and-effect.

Geoff

 

[chriswl]

In other words, your reply is to a different question. It is a reply to the question "Is it reasonable to believe other people have minds?"

The question I'm replying to is the question "is it reasonable to always believe that other people have minds." I'm not assuming that it is merely true more often than not. Or that there could be another world where it was not true but where words like "mind" and "brain" would still mean the same thing.

What I want to know is why minds should necessarily accompany brains at all. Why is this always so?

I wasn't actually saying that. I think it is behaviour, not brains that are important. There is certain kinds of behaviour that we would take as evidence for consciousness (in fact it has to be a very rich, complex set of behaviours). I would suggest that rather than being evidence from which we infer something mysterious called consciousness this complex set of behaviours actually is what we mean by the word consciousness.

 

[hammegk]

Yeah, it does sound like a strange thing for Dawkins to say.

Just his closet dualism peeking out ....


BTW, as to a singularity at size zero, chaos? I'd say it would represent the lowest possible entropy.

 

[Belz...]

I see it slightly differently, but not much. For me, a singularity is infinity itself. Not +infinity, which is a mathematical limit, but an actual, existing, infinity. It's "pure chaos" because it's infinity - it can BE anything. For me, it's "being" itself. "Pure chaos" doesn't really mean anything to me, but if it did, it would mean pretty much the same as what I mean by "infinity".

I'm sorry, Geoff. But it seems to me like you're redefining real scientific terms to coincide with your world-view. But singularity doesn't mean what you say it means. I suggest we use other terms to refer to your position, otherwise it's going to get somewhat confusing.

Will is the expression of the infinity/singularity. It comes from the singularity. Stick it in the hidden variables and it can become any value, thus influencing what is happening.

Yes, but even by that definition it's RANDOM.

You are describing my own position. That's why I go on and on about the zero=infinity and 0 = 1 + -1. 0 is the singularity, that's why it's infinity as well a 0. The 1 and the -1 are a representation of how the 0/singularity explains everything.

Well I still don't understand where the -1 comes from or how the 1 corresponds to any real entity. I also don't see how you equate zero with infinity, so you'll have to help me out on that one.

I am. I infer that you are, too...

If the will is the expression of the singularity, then how exactly are your will and my will distinct ?

Then you are assuming something I think is impossible. I do not believe this can happen.

Well, of course; based on your assumptions about will and consciousness, that seems to follow. However, that assumption must reach either of two conclusions: either everything has a consciousness and a will (rocks, etc., but only living beigns can express it,) which would mean that computers have it, too; or only humans (or a similarily-defined group of beigns) have it, in which case you'll have to explain why.

Hypothetical question refering to a situation I do not believe can happen.

Let's just assume your belief is wrong. What then :

How exactly is it going to act any different than if it were programmed to be sentient?

Not quite, it was conditional: IF libertarian free will exists THEN it cannot have evolved. That doesn't assume it's conclusion. It's just an "if" statement, and it's analytically valid.

That isn't libertarian free will anyway. It's compatibilist free will.

I simply assumed you were talking about free will in general. But it seems again like you're assuming your conclusion that libertarian free will exists. Such an assumption seems to me counter-productive during a debate.

Let's take another one, an extreme one: Jesus. According to the mythology, he died on the cross to redeem humanity for its sins. This is a metaphor. It is a metaphor for free wil and transcedence of the ego. Let's assume there was a real Jesus, and he really did this, and he really did it for the reasons given. Was that, in a twisted way, selfish? You may think it was misguided, but selfish it was not. It would only have been selfish if he was really doing it so he could become the most famous human being to have ever lived, rather than to redeem humanity.

For all we know, god did it because he doesn't want to be alone and seeks to have a maximal number of people in heaven, or because he derives joy from seeing people happy forever. I can't think of ANY case in which someone does something willingly without ANY benefit to his persn whatsoever. And your example is no different.

What I am saying is a little more subtle. I am saying that from within the materialistic perspective it will always look random, but that there are other perspectives (or levels of abstraction regarding descriptions of reality) where it no longer appears random becuase it is the result of a singularity/infinity imposing itself on something finite/material.

Well, that's because you're using the wrong definition of random (see my previous post, last line, if memory serves.) You're assuming that what QM calls random really isn't, and I see no reason to make this assumption considering how successful that theory is so far.

Not deterministic in an empirical sense, no. But it could be thought of as deterministic on a metaphysical level. It is the result of one thing affecting another thing, just not empirically. Nothing outside of empirical reality is required - no "God", for example, as you might expect, since karma is a concept from non-theistic religions. All that is required is some sort of non-empirical cause-and-effect.

By non-empirical I presume you mean non-deterministic, or simply non-observable ?

In either case, the concept of karma doesn't seem particularily coherent. Also, it assumes that the universe is administrated by forces that tend to reward the good and punish the bad, and so it presumes an objective moral value to the universe, which flies in the face of everything we know.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm sorry, Geoff. But it seems to me like you're redefining real scientific terms to coincide with your world-view. But singularity doesn't mean what you say it means. I suggest we use other terms to refer to your position, otherwise it's going to get somewhat confusing.

Perhaps at this point we can just recognise what the other is saying, and continue, in the hope that we will understand each other better if we try to make progress, rather than being stuck arguing about details like this.

Infinities and Singularities are closely related. Look at this definition of singularity:

"The center of a black hole at which matter is crushed to an infinite density, the pull of gravity is infinitely strong, and the space-time curvature becomes infinitely large."

In other words, singularities are where infinity manifests.

Yes, but even by that definition it's RANDOM.

Only from the materialistic perspective.

Well I still don't understand where the -1 comes from or how the 1 corresponds to any real entity. I also don't see how you equate zero with infinity, so you'll have to help me out on that one.

Just try to go with it for now. If you don't completely understand it, it doesn't matter. It may become clearer at a later date. You don't need to "see how I equate them". You just need to know that I equate them.

If the will is the expression of the singularity, then how exactly are your will and my will distinct ?

In a way, they aren't. In a way, the are. Your will and my will have the same origin, but it is manifesting via two different outlets. The will itself is not distinct, but its expression is distinct because we do not share a physical brain. Will on it own cannot do anything. It needs a brain to think for it.

Well, of course; based on your assumptions about will and consciousness, that seems to follow. However, that assumption must reach either of two conclusions: either everything has a consciousness and a will (rocks, etc., but only living beigns can express it,) which would mean that computers have it, too; or only humans (or a similarily-defined group of beigns) have it, in which case you'll have to explain why.

Only organic beings with complex nervous systems can express it, IMO - although this could be wrong. I believe that is because there is something very special about brain tissue which enables it - probably something to do with quantum mechanics. I am in agreement with Penrose on this one. However, I don't pretend to understand the details of all of Penrose's arguments. They complex and contain a lot of mathematics which I do not understand.

Let's just assume your belief is wrong. What then :

How exactly is it going to act any different than if it were programmed to be sentient?

It's not, but I cannot accept the hypothetical situation anyway.

I simply assumed you were talking about free will in general. But it seems again like you're assuming your conclusion that libertarian free will exists. Such an assumption seems to me counter-productive during a debate.

No, for the second time I was NOT assuming my conclusion. I made a conditional statement - an IF statement. I would only be assuming my conclusion if I had started with a statement "Libertarian free will exists." By starting with an "IF" it is quite impossible for you to accuse me of assuming my conclusion. Had I done so, there would be no need for the "IF".

For all we know, god did it because he doesn't want to be alone and seeks to have a maximal number of people in heaven, or because he derives joy from seeing people happy forever. I can't think of ANY case in which someone does something willingly without ANY benefit to his persn whatsoever. And your example is no different.

What was the benefit to JC in being crucified to "save humanity"?

By non-empirical I presume you mean non-deterministic, or simply non-observable ?

It implies both.

In either case, the concept of karma doesn't seem particularily coherent. Also, it assumes that the universe is administrated by forces that tend to reward the good and punish the bad, and so it presumes an objective moral value to the universe, which flies in the face of everything we know.

Everything scientists know, maybe.....

 

[Belz...]

Perhaps at this point we can just recognise what the other is saying, and continue, in the hope that we will understand each other better if we try to make progress, rather than being stuck arguing about details like this.

As you wish.

Infinities and Singularities are closely related. Look at this definition of singularity:

"The center of a black hole at which matter is crushed to an infinite density, the pull of gravity is infinitely strong, and the space-time curvature becomes infinitely large."

In other words, singularities are where infinity manifests.

That's an interesting take on it. The way I understand it, there is no matter, energy, space or time within a singularity.

Only from the materialistic perspective.

It's only defined by materialistic science, so I don't see what other perspective could exist about it.

Just try to go with it for now. If you don't completely understand it, it doesn't matter.

It matters to me, because I can't argue with you properly if I don't understand your argument.

Your will and my will have the same origin, but it is manifesting via two different outlets. The will itself is not distinct, but its expression is distinct because we do not share a physical brain. Will on it own cannot do anything. It needs a brain to think for it.

Where do they connect, exactly ?

Only organic beings with complex nervous systems can express it, IMO - although this could be wrong. I believe that is because there is something very special about brain tissue which enables it - probably something to do with quantum mechanics.

Bolding mine.

Quantum mechanics deals with the infinitely small. From QM's point of view, if I understand it correctly, there is no difference between a brain and a computer. If the singularity is, as you seem to believe, the source of will, it should manifest in everything, even if not everything can "express" it. Is this what you believe ?

No, for the second time I was NOT assuming my conclusion. I made a conditional statement - an IF statement. I would only be assuming my conclusion if I had started with a statement "Libertarian free will exists." By starting with an "IF" it is quite impossible for you to accuse me of assuming my conclusion. Had I done so, there would be no need for the "IF".

Sorry, then.

What was the benefit to JC in being crucified to "save humanity"?

God didn't actually die, did he ? He didn't lose anything, and, according to christianity, gained a great deal in the process.

Everything scientists know, maybe.....

Pray tell, what knowledge do we have about "fate" except science ? Fiction ?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's only defined by materialistic science, so I don't see what other perspective could exist about it.

There is no shame in co-opting materialistic science when it sounds complicated enough to hide the necessary interfaces between Being and the physical world. This is why quantum mechanics, black holes, singularities, and so forth are so useful. You don't see anyone talking about the interface hiding in a bowl of water.

I really have no problem with the interface lurking in some quantum mechanical contraption. I just want to see the math.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That's an interesting take on it. The way I understand it, there is no matter, energy, space or time within a singularity.

Exactly. The laws governing those things have broken down because of the presence of infinity. The only thing science can do with infinities is line up the same number of them on each side of an "=" sign and try to get them to cancel each other out. But with a singularity which actually exists, you can't do this. It's real, after all, and not just an equation. The singularity itself is just infinity. There's no space or time.

Where do they connect, exactly ?

Unknown. Ask Penrose and Hameroff.

From QM's point of view, if I understand it correctly, there is no difference between a brain and a computer.

Unknown. Probably not true. It is not safe to equate a brain and a computer. There are metaphysical problems with this (see Penrose) and there is nothing like enough scientific knowledge of how brain tissue allows consciousness to exist. In fact, there's none at all.

If the singularity is, as you seem to believe, the source of will, it should manifest in everything, even if not everything can "express" it. Is this what you believe ?

No, I think there is something very special about brain tissue, as does Penrose, and for the same reasons.

God didn't actually die, did he?

Jesus did. Let's assume for the moment that he really was crucified (which could have happened) but not that he was resurected. His soul may have returned to God, whatever that might mean, but Jesus of Nazareth definately died.

He didn't lose anything, and, according to christianity, gained a great deal in the process.

What did he gain?

Pray tell, what knowledge do we have about "fate"...

"We" don't have any - there's none for sharing. Individual people might have, but that would be personal.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I really have no problem with the interface lurking in some quantum mechanical contraption. I just want to see the math.

~~ Paul

Have you seen the math in Penrose's "Shadow's of the Mind?" Unless you are a lot better at maths than me, it will be of no use to you whatsoever.

What we need is a better hypothesis - which is exactly what Penrose is trying to do. Unfortunately, far too many people are angry that he is even trying, because they do not understand his motivations. They react to Penrose in the same way that tbk reacts to me. Yet he is trying to provide precisely what you are asking for, so I presume you approve of the attempt.

 

[Belz...]

Exactly. The laws governing those things have broken down because of the presence of infinity.

The presence of infinity ? The cosmos is still in the presence of infinity, and yet the laws continue to exist.

And I wouldn't call a "place" where there's no time, space or energy "infinity".

The only thing science can do with infinities is line up the same number of them on each side of an "=" sign and try to get them to cancel each other out.

Infinities are not numbers. They don't cancel one another out.

Unknown. Probably not true. It is not safe to equate a brain and a computer. There are metaphysical problems with this (see Penrose) and there is nothing like enough scientific knowledge of how brain tissue allows consciousness to exist. In fact, there's none at all.

And by the same token, none that lead us to think that the actual composition of the brain makes any difference.

No, I think there is something very special about brain tissue, as does Penrose, and for the same reasons.

Well, I happen to think that this, assuming you want to demonstrate it, places the burden of proof on you.

Jesus did.

Not according to the dogma of trinity he didn't. Otherwise God the father would've died at the same time. Had he done so, now, I would agree with you that this counts as a true altruistic act. But he didn't die. Not according to christians, anyway. Jesus and God are one and the same, and God endured.

What did he gain?

The most dominating world-religion in the history of mankind ? Also, lots of new, potential heaven-dwellers.

"We" don't have any - there's none for sharing. Individual people might have, but that would be personal.

Therefore not very useful. Ergo, our only knowledge about those things comes from science, so your comment that "Everything scientists know, maybe..... " doesn't get us anywhere.