Science and free will

[UndercoverElephant]

UE - I enjoy your posts. May I respectfully suggest you calm down before posting again. I'd like to continue reading your posts. This discussion is interesting to me.

Sorry. Advice accepted. I tend to react badly when people start telling me that my own beliefs, which they don't understand, are harmful. I don't mind them saying they don't agree with me, but I'm not going to have people telling me they know what's best for me. I'm living my life. They are living theirs.

Nobody has the right to tell me what I ought to believe about religion and philosophy. It is patronising, insulting and an infringement of human rights.

Are you familiar with the concept of 'degrees of freedom'? Does your concept of free will allow for some constraints - i.e. free only within certain boundaries?

Yes.

You seem to be drawing a distinction between the subjective "I" and the physical "I". Is this correct? Do you feel these are different entities?

We have to distinguish between the content of the mind and the observer of that content. They are different because the content of mind is dependent on the brain and the observer of the content is not. This doesn't mean we can have disembodied minds, because an observer with nothing to observe is indistinguishable from nothing at all. Being aware of absolutely nothing is no different to being dead, or under a general anasthetic.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The agent of my free will os omniscient? Holy crap.

The agent of your free will is the same as the agent of my free will. There is only one, just like there is only one observer.

Nonetheless, if that awareness is what produces the agent's decisions, then they are determined.

Why? Why can't they be an act of free will which isn't determined by anything.

There is a difference between "being aware of" and "being constrained by". Your thoughts are constrained by what your brain is doing. You can't have a thought which doesn't have some sort of neural correlate. So those thoughts are determined. But the agent isn't your thoughts at all - it is the thing which is aware of those thoughts. IT is not determined.

The agent is aware of everything you are aware of. If it wasn't there, you'd be a zombie.

Indeed.

~~ Paul

We need to get the above sorted out before I address that question. At the moment you still think the agent is being constrained by things which it is aware of, but not constrained by.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The agent is uncaused. It is an uncaused cause.

Perhaps people would like to restate whatever point it is that they think I have not addressed?

How can I be meaningfully connected to an uncaused cause. As stipulated it comes out of nowhere, and I can not be meaningfully be said to have any impact on whatever ... well ... "value" this agent assumes, on if it takes on the value "yes" and not "no," (or vice versa,) with which in turn to affect, or control what I am going to do.

And no, when I say "I" I do not mean "God." You posited some sort of *I* that has certain features which are suspiciously divine in nature: simple entity maybe, but it observes everything (minds for instance), is unchanging, ever-present, and owns everything (and some other things).

But not this is not what I mean. I have free will, or so I have been told. Now, how can I (here Emsworth - and not God) be said to be connected to an uncaused cause.

Emsworth [?????] "free" Agent ---> Emsworth does x/Emsworth does ~x




Emsworth chose to make this post on his own [read: God's own] free will.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

How can I be meaningfully connected to an uncaused cause. As stipulated it comes out of nowhere, and I can not be meaningfully be said to have any impact on whatever ... well ... "value" this agent assumes, if it takes on the value "yes" and not "no," (or vice versa,) with which in turn to affect, or control what I am going to do.

And no, when I say "I" I do no mean "God." You posited some sort of *I* that has certain features which are suspiciously divine in nature: simple entity maybe, but it observes everything (minds for instance), is unchanging, ever-present, and owns everything (and some other things).

But not this is not what I mean. I have free will, or so I have been told. Now, how can I (here Emsworth - and not God) be said to be connected to an uncaused cause.

You aren't. That's like asking "does my body have the capacity for free will?" The answer is "no, it doesn't, it's the agent of free will (your 'soul') that has the capacity for free will."

 

[Beth]

Sorry. Advice accepted. I tend to react badly when people start telling me that my own beliefs, which they don't understand, are harmful. I don't mind them saying they don't agree with me, but I'm not going to have people telling me they know what's best for me. I'm living my life. They are living theirs.

Nobody has the right to tell me what I ought to believe about religion and philosophy. It is patronising, insulting and an infringement of human rights.

Your reaction was very understandable and I agree with all of the above except for the infringement of human rights bit. It doesn't infringe on my human rights for other people to tell me how I 'ought' to believe and/or behave. It's only when they require that I do as they think I ought that it infringes on my human rights.


Thanks for the answer to my questions but I'm afraid I'm not really grasping this:

We have to distinguish between the content of the mind and the observer of that content. They are different because the content of mind is dependent on the brain and the observer of the content is not. This doesn't mean we can have disembodied minds, because an observer with nothing to observe is indistinguishable from nothing at all. Being aware of absolutely nothing is no different to being dead, or under a general anasthetic.

If you could elaborate on what you mean by this, it would be appreciated.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You aren't. That's like asking "does my body have the capacity for free will?" The answer is "no, it doesn't, it's the agent of free will (your 'soul') that has the capacity for free will."

Good. I don't. Something called 'soul' does. Follow ups:
How is it my (Ems') soul?
How is this soul different from the outcome of an (imagined, and stipulated to be random) coin toss?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

And just as an aside. It is actually you who is insisting on all this metaphysical baggage. I never talked about mind, body or anything. I just said Emsworth. And then you brought up the body or something. Me, I never did.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

How is this soul different from the outcome of an (imagined, and stipulated to be random) coin toss?

To expound on this. This is not necessarily your normal, materialist coin. As such it knows what the coin tosser wants, thinks, desires etc. But it is not affected by this. Hey, why not? It is also not constrained in its outcome by anything (physical forces, for instance).

Now if this coin is tossed the outcome is free. Read, there is still a chance that either side could come up - P(Heads) > 0 and P(Tails) > 0.

The coin has access to what the tosser (Emsworth, say) thinks, but is not contstrained by it. And in turn the outcome of a coin toss is always open, free, call it what you will. But a specific outcome (Heads) then affects the further actions of the tosser.

Tosser = Emsworth
Coin = Soul
Outcome = Intention

 

[paximperium]

Then stop insulting mine. No scientific instrument can determine what the word "headache" means. Science studies BRAINS, Ron. It studies neurons and chemicals and electrical signals. It doesn't study headaches. "Headache" is a word used by humans to describe some aspect of their subjective experience. Scientists then go looking for NEURAL CORRELATES or causes of the headache. They don't go looking for the headache.

This is so simple I really do not understand why so many people apparently cannot understand what I am saying. Science studies objective, physical things, not subjective, non-physical things like "headaches" or "what red looks like to me."

Here goes more hiding behind the whole Qualia nonsense. Our "limited"(not inability) to study qualia is limited by our current technology just as once upon a time neuronal processes was magic in the eyes of mystics.

Every indication ranging from self reports to multiple brain scanning technology to medicines shows "headaches" are physical processes. Just because science currently is unable to objectively measure headaches, it suddenly becomes some magical thing.

More hiding behind Ignorance and Incredulity.

Even if I'd said "yes, we could be mistaken about anything at all", it still wouldn't collapse, because I'm not asking anybody else to take my personal experiences into account.

But you are Special Pleading yours and apparenly ALL "mystical" personal experience from any scrutiny so your argument collapses if it opens up your "oh so sure" and every and all experience to critical analysis.

You don't get a free pass in scrutinizing your pet beliefs just because you say so. It just shows inconsistency and inherent biases in your "metaphysics" which just adds more evidence as to its uselessness.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

We have to distinguish between the content of the mind and the observer of that content. They are different because the content of mind is dependent on the brain and the observer of the content is not. This doesn't mean we can have disembodied minds, because an observer with nothing to observe is indistinguishable from nothing at all. Being aware of absolutely nothing is no different to being dead, or under a general anasthetic.

If you could elaborate on what you mean by this, it would be appreciated.

I could do, but it would help if you explained what it is that isn't clear enough.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Good. I don't. Something called 'soul' does. Follow ups:
How is it my (Ems') soul?

Em is borrowing it.

How is this soul different from the outcome of an (imagined, and stipulated to be random) coin toss?

It is different because this thing is aware of the contents of your mind. It doesn't exist in isolation.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And just as an aside. It is actually you who is insisting on all this metaphysical baggage. I never talked about mind, body or anything. I just said Emsworth. And then you brought up the body or something. Me, I never did.

I had no choice but to bring up the metaphysical stuff. We are talking about libertarian free will, and it could possiblity exist. It is not possible to discuss the answer to that question without discussing metaphysics. It was a metaphysical question, so any attempt to answer it is going to have to be metaphysical too.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

To expound on this. This is not necessarily your normal, materialist coin. As such it knows what the coin tosser wants, thinks, desires etc. But it is not affected by this. Hey, why not? It is also not constrained in its outcome by anything (physical forces, for instance).

Now if this coin is tossed the outcome is free. Read, there is still a chance that either side could come up - P(Heads) > 0 and P(Tails) > 0.

The coin has access to what the tosser (Emsworth, say) thinks, but is not contstrained by it. And in turn the outcome of a coin toss is always open, free, call it what you will. But a specific outcome (Heads) then affects the further actions of the tosser.

Tosser = Emsworth
Coin = Soul
Outcome = Intention

It's a false analogy because it assumes that what the coin does is random - why else would you have used a coin?

Here's the analogy without inserting a random factor:

To expound on this. This is not necessarily your normal, materialist WILL. As such it knows what the brain wants, thinks, desires etc. But it is not affected by this. Hey, why not? It is also not constrained in its outcome by anything (physical forces, for instance).

The soul can act freely. What it does has nothing to do with chance. It's not a coin.

The will has access to what the brain (Emsworth, say) thinks, but is not contstrained by it. And in turn the outcome of the act of will is always open, free, call it what you will. But a specific outcome then affects the further actions of the brain/body.

Tosser = Emsworth
Soul = Soul
Outcome = Intention

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Here goes more hiding behind the whole Qualia nonsense. Our "limited"(not inability) to study qualia is limited by our current technology just as once upon a time neuronal processes was magic in the eyes of mystics.

So you think science can study qualia?
In which case why do large numbers of scientists deny that qualia even exist???

[rest of insults ignored, since your post failed catastrophically at the second sentence]

You are very quick to pile derision on me. Perhaps you should think about this a little harder?

The materialists of this world are all very good at calling everybody who questions materialism silly names and insulting their intelligence, but when we take a close look at all the different positions they take in order to defend their ontology, all we find is chaos. One lot claim it is silly to believe in qualia. Another lot claim it silly to claim that science can't investigate qualia. One lot claim minds can be reduced to matter. Another lot claim minds are matter. Another lot claim minds don't exist. Yet nearly all of them are insistent that they have no idea why anyone would think there is a problem with their beliefs!!" Anyone who questions this conceptual mess is assumed to be weak-headed and motivated by religious nonsense. Problem? What problem? So we all believe completely different things! Doesn't matter, because we all agree that there's no woo.

Try getting your story straight and then I might take some notice of you.

 

[paximperium]

So you think science can study qualia?

It depends. Which multitude of definitions would you like to use?

How about I put an electrode in your brain and make you taste red? Or smell purple?

How I about I remove your ability and memory to taste forever by removing a chunk of your brain? Did it even exist at all?

How about I augment your pain receptors into feeling pleasure?

In which case why do large numbers of scientists deny that qualia even exist???

Qualia exist in so much as your computer screen's "picture" exists in the CPU of your computer. A whole bunch of computer code, 1s and 0s and pixels coming together to represent a nice thing that our "mind" interpret as a picture.

It doesn't exist as any discrete thing. It is nothing more than a "virtual" byproduct of brain processes.

You are very quick to pile derision on me. Perhaps you should think about this a little harder?

Sorry. It's hard to hide my contempt for nonsense and people who love to hide in the shadow of ignorance and base arguments on their own incredulity.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It depends. Which multitude of definitions would you like to use?

Qualia are easy to define.

The word "qualia" isn't actually needed at all. Provided you are willing to accept that consciousness is subjective experiences then you don't need the term "qualia". However, some people choose to define consciousness as "brain activity", at which point the meaning of the word "qualia" becomes obvious. They are the subjective, "raw feels" which are still left out if you've defined consciousness to mean brain activity.

Anyway, it doesn't matter how I choose to define that word because the basic fact remains that the materialists of this world are anything but united about whether or not qualia exist and whether or not science could, in principle, study such things. This total lack of any sign of consensus is itself sufficient evidence to identify that there is a real problem here. If there was no problem then there wouldn't be a total lack of consensus. So please don't try to make out that it is perfectly obvious that no such problem exists. It's not true, and you know it.

It doesn't exist as any discrete thing. It is nothing more than a "virtual" byproduct of brain processes.

Completely meaningless. You are just making stuff up. It has nothing to do with science.

Sorry. It's hard to hide my contempt for nonsense and people who love to hide in the shadow of ignorance and base arguments on their own incredulity.

Oh, your contempt is quite obvious. So is the fact that you are trying to make out there is no problem when it is blindingly obvious to any free thinking person that there is in fact a very serious problem. Materialists can't solve this problem, which is why they try to bluff their way out of it by claiming it is obvious that there is no problem.

 

[paximperium]

The materialists of this world are all very good at calling everybody who questions materialism silly names and insulting their intelligence, but when we take a close look at all the different positions they take in order to defend their ontology, all we find is chaos.

Ahhh, so here is where it comes down to. You don't like Materialism because it does not give you safe happy answers that fit your fantasies.

Must be the reason why it has succeeded so well while fantasy based beliefs has degenerated into the happy fringe ideology of pseudo-philosphers and theistic apologists. Sorry, I don't like useless beliefs.

One lot claim it is silly to believe in qualia. Another lot claim it silly to claim that science can't investigate qualia. One lot claim minds can be reduced to matter. Another lot claim minds are matter. Another lot claim minds don't exist. Yet nearly all of them are insistent that they have no idea why anyone would think there is a problem with their beliefs!!"

Yes. It is called debate and scientific inquiry. You may not get this but WE DO NOT MAKE BULLCRAP UP.

There is no agreement because the question is still open and frankly we don't even know there is even a question there.

Anyone who questions this conceptual mess is assumed to be weak-headed and motivated by religious nonsense.

I have no problem in questioning anything. I have a problem in someone who bases just about his entire argument on his own ignorance, incredulity and semantic apologetics. Now, that is an example of weak-headed religious nonsense.

Problem? What problem? So we all believe completely different things! Doesn't matter, because we all agree that there's no woo.

Talk about the ultimate in stupid thinking processes and arguments.

Your "flaw" in "materialism" and the scientific method is it's ultimate strength, the ability to question everything even "mythical" pet beliefs. The ability to self correct.

Try getting your story straight and then I might take some notice of you.

Sorry, I don't like to make crap up and base my belief in dogma. I actually like to change my mind when evidence is presented. Progress and all that jazz.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes. It is called debate and scientific inquiry. You may not get this but WE DO NOT MAKE BULLCRAP UP.

There is no agreement because the question is still open and frankly we don't even know there is even a question there.

There's no agreement because the materialists haven't got the first frickin' clue how to solve the problem. All they are agreed on is that there definately must be a materialistic answer and that anyone who thinks differently is a deluded religious idiot.

Sounds a lot like creationism, doesn't it? The creationists are all agreed that evolution is wrong, but that's all they agree on. The materialists are all agreed that there is no reason whatsoever to believe in anything they class as "woo", but as soon as the discussion strays outside the boundaries of science, they've no idea what to say and each materialist ends up saying something different. Most of them can't even get their own version of it straight, let alone get it to agree with the versions of all the other materialists. But they don't make up BULLCRAP, oh no. Bullcrap? No, it's faecal matter from a male bovine.

Where is your intellectual honesty, PaxImperium? Why are you trying to pretend there is no problem? Could it be because your belief system would collapse if you faced up to the truth?

 

[paximperium]

Qualia are easy to define.

So easy that you didn't define it? Great

They are the subjective, "raw feels" which are still left out if you've define consciousness to mean brain activity.

Is that your definition? Okay.

So If I modify any specific brain activity in a multitude of test subjects(let's say 100billion people) and create the exact "subjective" experience, you're still claiming it cannot be studied?

If I record every neuronal signal and play back those signals into someone elses brain and they feel and experience exactly the same thing, you're claming it cannot be studied?

Anyway, it doesn't matter how I choose to define that word because the basic fact remains that the materialists of this world are anything but united about whether or not qualia exist and whether or not science could, in principle, study such things.

Yawn. Oh but it really really really matters. You claim something exist but refuse to define it. I could define it a multitude of different ways and depending on how I do so, I could either test it or it could be untestable. Just like the word "god", qualia so many different meanings as to make it almost untestable.

This total lack of any sign of consensus is itself sufficient evidence to identify that there is a real problem here. If there was no problem then there wouldn't be a total lack of consensus. So please don't try to make out that it is perfectly obvious that no such problem exists. It's not true, and you know it.

Of course. Since there is no set definition, there is no way to determine if it even exists.

A scientists could say that they have detected Qualia via an fMRI but you and others would claim "But oh, that's not MY definition of Qualia." The ever moving goalpost is always a great place to keep your pet beliefs since it keeps moving and can never be pinned down.

Completely meaningless. You are just making stuff up. It has nothing to do with science.

Sure I am. Keep telling yourself that.

If you unplug your monitor, does your computer picture of your screen still exist or does it not? Does this internet forum that you're typing on exist? Hmmmm?

Oh, your contempt is quite obvious. So is the fact that you are trying to make out there is no problem when it is blindingly obvious to any free thinking person that there is in fact a very serious problem.

What problem again? That some poorly defined concept exist or does not exist? Yeah, that is a great problem.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Sorry, PaxImperium, but your position is wobbling all over the place. Trying to attack it is as pointless as trying to nail jelly to a wall.