The unsolved problem of "free will"

[cyborg]

It's the same for free will. We're conscious of an array of potential decisions (input), we're conscious of acting (output), but we're not conscious of our personality as it determines our choice. Thus we assign the choice to consciousness, and call it "free will".

Indeed.

My heart does not need to be aware of the mechanics of a pump to pump.
My liver does not need to understand organic chemistry in order to detoxify my body.
My bladder does not need to understand fluid dynamics in order to store waste liquid.
My brain does not need to understand how neurons work in order to make decisions.

 

[Robin]

Now the questions you have to answer is: can the muse produce titles that the art critic cannot guess?

Depends. Is it possible that the ultimate painting for a given title is also the ultimate painting for another title? If so then we could have a title that the art critic cannot guess from the painting and yet have no indeterminacy at all.

The other point is that splashing paint on a canvas is precluded by your condition that there should always be the same painting for any given title.

Let's take it as read that any mathematical concept can be encoded as a natural number and that anything in nature could, at least potentially, be modelled using mathematical concepts unless it's behaviour is arbitrary.

But by definition the supernatural is not natural. So the proposition is that there something that cannot even potentially be modelled using mathematical concepts and yet is not arbitrary.

By definition then, the supernatural would not be logical (since logic is mathematical) while not actually being illogical.

Hence, as I say, I cannot actually prove that there is no supernatural, the concept is simply inaccessible to any methods of knowledge that I have.

 

[Dancing David]

A physical process can do nothing but the next step, given its inputs. Which is exactly what our brains do.

And if the physical process can make value judgements? "It is safe to cross the street." , a value judgement regarding the value "safety". When I cross the street my senses give me input and my brain makes perceptions and another part of me judges if it is "safe to cross". All physical processes, all done in my head, except for the body sense and vestibular.

 

[Dancing David]

There is no "ability" there. There is just physics.

Depends on how e define 'ability'. It is a dependant process of an organic brain. It is physics yes, and an ability unless we define it differently.

Ability to make judgements about perceptions? Ability to decide to cross the street? Ability to choose a shirt in the morning?(I grant you the last one is not demonstrated in any way.)

All subject to physics, no magic.

 

[cyborg]

Depends. Is it possible that the ultimate painting for a given title is also the ultimate painting for another title?

If it were then our naming scheme would be inconsistent... our art critic is always consistent so it can't be the case that two paintings would have two different titles or that the same title would describe two different paintings.

The other point is that splashing paint on a canvas is precluded by your condition that there should always be the same painting for any given title.

Ah, but the title in the latter case is given AFTER the painting is made. In the former case we give the title of the painting and the painting that is produced is constricted by the title.

Hence if we splash a tin of paint on a picture to produce a painting we should expect it to exist in our galleries and have a title - it is a piece of work in our collection no matter how haphazard its construction (since we have the complete works of art).

Let's take it as read that any mathematical concept can be encoded as a natural number and that anything in nature could, at least potentially, be modelled using mathematical concepts unless it's behaviour is arbitrary.

Which is something we have been doing in mathematics for a while now so this is on solid footing.

But by definition the supernatural is not natural. So the proposition is that there something that cannot even potentially be modelled using mathematical concepts and yet is not arbitrary.

Supernatural numbers...?

Your proposition eats itself. It is very well stating such a thing can exist - the problem is that it really can't.

If it is not arbitrary then mathematics can be used to describe it.
If it is arbitrary then mathematics can be used to describe it.
If it is not describable then how can one posit it exists?

By definition then, the supernatural would not be logical (since logic is mathematical) while not actually being illogical.

Illogic having a logic unto its own leads to a paradox - "X is undefinable" has defined X.

Hence, as I say, I cannot actually prove that there is no supernatural, the concept is simply inaccessible to any methods of knowledge that I have.

The concept is metamathematical. The problem is that the supernatural cannot give any access to anything more powerful than the mathematical. Hence the paradox. You need the metamathematical and yet the metamathematical is described mathematically.

Mathematics asserts its own inability to decide on the validity of its axioms.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Has anyone in these 10 pages (sorry, late to thread) asked if a random number generator was really random? If everything is a result of physics that has only one possible path, then what about a random number generator? Why wouldn't you be able to determine the physics and then predict the next number?

 

[cyborg]

Has anyone in these 10 pages (sorry, late to thread) asked if a random number generator was really random?

Yep - I have already alluded to this problem in my art gallery metaphor.

If everything is a result of physics that has only one possible path, then what about a random number generator? Why wouldn't you be able to determine the physics and then predict the next number?

1) Entanglement.
2) Complexity.

In the first case it's simply impossible because in order to get the information you need to make the correct prediction entails that you will affect that information in such a way as that you now don't have enough information to do so...

In the second case it merely asserts the difficulty of attaining the information you require in order to predict what will happen.

For example I give you a graph of a polynomial function with 10 billion different terms in it. It may very well be deterministic but you'd have a hell of time trying to recover the formula just by observing its output.

Now if we combine these two together then we might say that:

If it is the case that in some way all matter in the universe is entangled with all other matter then not only does one have to contend with the impossibility of trying to find out the precise information you would require to begin figuring what would happen next you'd also have to deal with some 10^220 atoms.

Needless to say this is basically a task that is totally infeasible to achieve - it may well not be purely and mathematically random (such that it is possible to create infinite deterministic systems that adhere perfectly to the statistical models for randomness) but it is sure as hell basically going to be as good as one might ever hope to achieve in a purely finite system.

 

[the PC apeman]

Has anyone in these 10 pages (sorry, late to thread) asked if a random number generator was really random? If everything is a result of physics that has only one possible path, then what about a random number generator? Why wouldn't you be able to determine the physics and then predict the next number?

If you're talking about the random number generating function found in the average personal computer, it is not a true random number generator. Knowing its algorithm would allow you to correctly predict the next number - by performing the same steps the computer does. Here's a brief introduction to these ideas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generator

 

[DanishDynamite]

And if the physical process can make value judgements? "It is safe to cross the street." , a value judgement regarding the value "safety". When I cross the street my senses give me input and my brain makes perceptions and another part of me judges if it is "safe to cross". All physical processes, all done in my head, except for the body sense and vestibular.

The physical process makes decisions, yes. There is no "other part of you" that judges anything or exists for that matter.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Depends on how e define 'ability'. It is a dependant process of an organic brain. It is physics yes, and an ability unless we define it differently.

Ability to make judgements about perceptions? Ability to decide to cross the street? Ability to choose a shirt in the morning?(I grant you the last one is not demonstrated in any way.)

All subject to physics, no magic.

The ability to make decisions is the very reason computers are so useful. A computer without an "if ...then..." ability would not be a computer.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Has anyone in these 10 pages (sorry, late to thread) asked if a random number generator was really random? If everything is a result of physics that has only one possible path, then what about a random number generator? Why wouldn't you be able to determine the physics and then predict the next number?

The concept that physical interactions can be either caused or non-caused, has already been covered.

 

[Robin]

If it were then our naming scheme would be inconsistent... our art critic is always consistent so it can't be the case that two paintings would have two different titles or that the same title would describe two different paintings.

The latter case was stated, the first was not. So we have a one to one mapping of titles to paintings.

Ah, but the title in the latter case is given AFTER the painting is made. In the former case we give the title of the painting and the painting that is produced is constricted by the title.

Hence if we splash a tin of paint on a picture to produce a painting we should expect it to exist in our galleries and have a title - it is a piece of work in our collection no matter how haphazard its construction (since we have the complete works of art).

Again, it was not clear from the story that there could be a painting in the art gallery that was not produced in the way you stated. So we have muse, artist, art critic and ... clumsy assistant?

Which is something we have been doing in mathematics for a while now so this is on solid footing.

Which is why I take it as read.

Supernatural numbers...?

Your proposition eats itself. It is very well stating such a thing can exist - the problem is that it really can't.

I don't know where you got the notion of supernatural numbers, not from anything I wrote, that is for sure. I said "So the proposition is that there something that cannot even potentially be modelled using mathematical concepts and yet is not arbitrary.". Numbers are a mathematical concept.

If it is not arbitrary then mathematics can be used to describe it.

How would you mathematically describe the how it feels to eat a peach?

You could describe the neuro-mechanics and the physics behind it in as much detail as you like and you would not have described how it feels to eat a peach.

If it is arbitrary then mathematics can be used to describe it.

Mathematics can describe a group of arbitrary events, but it could never describe a single arbitrary event or the event would not be arbitrary.

If it is not describable then how can one posit it exists?

You have hidden two very large assumptions in that question, 1) that anything describable can be described in mathematics and 2) anything undescribable cannot exist. That is not even true of the natural world.

Illogic having a logic unto its own leads to a paradox - "X is undefinable" has defined X.

And I don't know where you got the idea of illogic having a logic unto its own. Again, not from anything I wrote.

The concept is metamathematical. The problem is that the supernatural cannot give any access to anything more powerful than the mathematical. Hence the paradox. You need the metamathematical and yet the metamathematical is described mathematically.

Mathematics asserts its own inability to decide on the validity of its axioms.

What concept is metamathematical? The supernatural? Again, here is what I said "So the proposition is that there something that cannot even potentially be modelled using mathematical concepts and yet is not arbitrary." So obviously that would include metamathematical concepts.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Let me get this straight.

1. There is no "I"
2. processes in the brain generate the "I"

Right? So if there is no "I", what are the processes in the brain generating?

They are generating the "I" which all of us feel exists. It doesn't, except as a generation of the brain.

No brain, no "I". No functioning brain, no "I". The "I" is a by-product of a functioning brain.

So there is an "I", the "I" is whatever it is that you say the processes of the brain are generating.

Yes, there is the generated "I". And that is all there is.

But why make this so complicated? Of course there is a you - just look in the mirror. That homo sapien is you and contains the brain that is generating your experiences. How much more of a "you" could there be than that?

I didn't make anything complicated. In fact, I tried to make things as clear as possible.

Some people think there is some seperate "I" which can overule the brain's processes or decisions. Some supernatural "I" with supernatural powers existing in the brain. Glad you are not one of those.

 

[Robin]

The physical process makes decisions, yes. There is no "other part of you" that judges anything or exists for that matter.

And yet you have stated that subjective experience is not a physical process. You have still to answer what it is. You cannot deny that subjective experience is a part of you and that it exists.

So it seems that you believe that there is an "other part of you" that is not a physical process that exists.

 

[Robin]

They are generating the "I" which all of us feel exists. It doesn't, except as a generation of the brain.

No brain, no "I". No functioning brain, no "I". The "I" is a by-product of a functioning brain.

Yes, there is the generated "I". And that is all there is.

To summarise - there is an "I".

I didn't make anything complicated. In fact, I tried to make things as clear as possible.

Some people think there is some seperate "I" which can overule the brain's processes or decisions. Some supernatural "I" with supernatural powers existing in the brain. Glad you are not one of those.

I am glad I have finally got through to you what I have been clearly stating from the start.

It would have been really useful if you had stated what you meant from the start. Instead of claiming that there is no "I", you should have stated there is no supernatural "I". No argument. There is no supernatural anything.

On the other hand you are the one that is denying that subjective experience is a physical process.

 

[DanishDynamite]

And yet you have stated that subjective experience is not a physical process. You have still to answer what it is. You cannot deny that subjective experience is a part of you and that it exists.

So it seems that you believe that there is an "other part of you" that is not a physical process that exists.

The subjective experience is the subjective experience. I've tried to explain what it is, but the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what it is.

 

[cyborg]

The latter case was stated, the first was not. So we have a one to one mapping of titles to paintings.

It must be one to one otherwise when the muse gave the same title to the artist twice then he'd paint a different picture - which is contrary to the given behaviour for the artist (he must always paint the same picture given the same title).

Again, it was not clear from the story that there could be a painting in the art gallery that was not produced in the way you stated. So we have muse, artist, art critic and ... clumsy assistant?

Anything you wish - the point is that now any work you might wish to consider 'art' is in the gallery and as such should have a title. If the collection is complete then you attempts to create a piece of art not in the gallery must fail - by whatever means you attempt.

I don't know where you got the notion of supernatural numbers, not from anything I wrote, that is for sure.

Supernatural is to natural as supernatural numbers is to natural numbers...

How would you mathematically describe the how it feels to eat a peach?

Well that is the crux of the problem is it not? Argument from incredulence ("but I'M A REAL BOY!")

You could describe the neuro-mechanics and the physics behind it in as much detail as you like and you would not have described how it feels to eat a peach.

Yes. Yes I would. You would just fail to recognise the isomorphism. The fact that the description failed to resonate an emotional reaction in your brain ("but I'M A REAL BOY!") doesn't change the facts as written down.

Mathematics can describe a group of arbitrary events, but it could never describe a single arbitrary event or the event would not be arbitrary.

Er no... it can sure describe it - a single arbitrary event would be isomorphic to a non-arbitrary event.

You need to get your head around the concept of isomorphisms - this is why I introduced the notion of the painting as some drawn out aspect of the natural numbers. It is perfectly natural for a person to draw a visual isomorphism - i.e. if two things look the same they are the same.

You need to disentangle the isomorphic analysis (how the paintings look) from the typographical analysis (how the painting was constructed).

You have hidden two very large assumptions in that question, 1) that anything describable can be described in mathematics and 2) anything undescribable cannot exist. That is not even true of the natural world.

Well your attempts to show that so far are hardly water tight.

Demonstrate the existence of something you cannot describe. (Of course if you do so you tacitly say you really do not comprehend the paradox being presented here).

And I don't know where you got the idea of illogic having a logic unto its own. Again, not from anything I wrote.

It's there - you just don't recognise the paradox inherent in your own words as you continue to try and say defining the undefinable isn't defining it.

What concept is metamathematical? The supernatural?

It would be as it relates to the physical world.

Again, here is what I said "So the proposition is that there something that cannot even potentially be modelled using mathematical concepts and yet is not arbitrary." So obviously that would include metamathematical concepts.

I would like to know how you would prevent me inferring a mathematical isomorphism for a non-arbitrary supernatural system - I really would.

 

[Robin]

The subjective experience is the subjective experience. I've tried to explain what it is, but the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what it is.

Do you really think that is a satisfactory answer? You are saying, in effect "It is what it is and it doesn't matter what it is".

Will you at least agree with the proposition that subjective experience is physical?

 

[DanishDynamite]

To summarise - there is an "I".

I am glad I have finally got through to you what I have been clearly stating from the start.

It would have been really useful if you had stated what you meant from the start. Instead of claiming that there is no "I", you should have stated there is no supernatural "I". No argument. There is no supernatural anything.

Then what, on Ed's green Earth, have you been arguing so far??

On the other hand you are the one that is denying that subjective experience is a physical process.

Yes, of course. It is part of the debris of the physical process.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Do you really think that is a satisfactory answer? You are saying, in effect "It is what it is and it doesn't matter what it is".

It doesn't matter when discussing the topic of this thread, i.e. "free will". Otherwise it is of interest.

Will you at least agree with the proposition that subjective experience is physical?

It is physical in the sense that it the result of physical processes.