The free will fallacy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-08-2017, 11:44 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2017 12:57 PM by nosferatu323.)
RE: The free will fallacy
(01-08-2017 11:03 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  I am most definitely not a mysterian. I don't even know how to begin to address such unusual speculations, except to say they seem to me entirely unwarranted by the state of present science, even of quantum mechanics.
There are actually evidences against the idea that "there will be no mysteries in science", Gödel's incompleteness theorem being one of the strongest, since it's purely mathematical. Again, Freeman Dyson states:

Quote:"Gödel's theorem implies that pure mathematics is inexhaustible. No matter how many problems we solve, there will always be other problems that cannot be solved within the existing rules. […] Because of Gödel's theorem, physics is inexhaustible too. The laws of physics are a finite set of rules, and include the rules for doing mathematics, so that Gödel's theorem applies to them.

Hawking is quoted to say:
Quote:"Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind."

Quote:So the bottom line is that you do not agree with my premise. Okay.
Not really, I just tried to present an alternative view of consciousness which is rather popular, your assumption about consciousness being a product of evolution is certainly more popular though. I don't personally have any position in this regard, since I don't know what consciousness is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nosferatu323's post
01-08-2017, 02:00 PM
RE: The free will fallacy
It's a fallacy and nothing more. The moral argument based on free will is false. We make choices "because" of something. If someone does something completely randomly, we would find that odd and think they were either being eccentric or were mentally disturbed. We would "look" for the "cause" of their random choice which had no "reason" behind it. Similarly, in morality, we praise and admonish others in order to modify their behaviour because we know that people do, in reality, do things for reasons, and they aren't some kind of free radicals who zip around arbitrarily. Morality requires determinism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2017, 03:19 PM
RE: The free will fallacy
(01-08-2017 02:00 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It's a fallacy and nothing more. The moral argument based on free will is false. We make choices "because" of something. If someone does something completely randomly, we would find that odd and think they were either being eccentric or were mentally disturbed. We would "look" for the "cause" of their random choice which had no "reason" behind it. Similarly, in morality, we praise and admonish others in order to modify their behaviour because we know that people do, in reality, do things for reasons, and they aren't some kind of free radicals who zip around arbitrarily. Morality requires determinism.

You are lumping symbolically processed reasons together with materially determined causes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2017, 03:23 PM
RE: The free will fallacy
(01-08-2017 11:44 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  
(01-08-2017 11:03 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  I am most definitely not a mysterian.
There are actually evidences against the idea that "there will be no mysteries in science", Gödel's incompleteness theorem being one of the strongest, since it's purely mathematical.

"New mysterianism—or commonly just mysterianism—is a philosophical position proposing that the hard problem of consciousness cannot be resolved by humans. The unresolvable problem is how to explain the existence of qualia (individual instances of subjective, conscious experience). In terms of the various schools of philosophy of mind, mysterianism is a form of nonreductive physicalism. Some 'mysterians' state their case uncompromisingly (Colin McGinn has said that consciousness is 'a mystery that human intelligence will never unravel'); others believe merely that consciousness is not within the grasp of present human understanding, but may be comprehensible to future advances of science and technology."

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_mysterianism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
01-08-2017, 03:51 PM
RE: The free will fallacy
(01-08-2017 11:44 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  
(01-08-2017 11:03 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  So the bottom line is that you do not agree with my premise. Okay.
Not really, I just tried to present an alternative view of consciousness which is rather popular, your assumption about consciousness being a product of evolution is certainly more popular though. I don't personally have any position in this regard, since I don't know what consciousness is.

From my point of view, awareness requires a body with a brain. The body is what is aware of outside stimuli and the brain is what processes that information into some useful form. Consciousness is built on top of awareness. As I have suggested elsewhere, consciousness is awareness filtered through a self-concept. Through selective focus directed by our self-interest, we pick out and act on certain information alone. Another way of saying the same thing is that consciousness is self-directed awareness. What is the self? The self is a symbolic concept which can be either accurate or inaccurate. Spiritualists tend to think that the self is consciousness alone, as if consciousness could be discrete from a body that is aware. Materialists like me think of the body with a brain as the self, and consciousness is just one function of that self, not a self in itself. I therefore do not think of consciousness as a being but as an emergent property of a very complex arrangement of matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
01-08-2017, 08:13 PM
RE: The free will fallacy
(01-08-2017 03:51 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  From my point of view, awareness requires a body with a brain. The body is what is aware of outside stimuli and the brain is what processes that information into some useful form. Consciousness is built on top of awareness. As I have suggested elsewhere, consciousness is awareness filtered through a self-concept. Through selective focus directed by our self-interest, we pick out and act on certain information alone. Another way of saying the same thing is that consciousness is self-directed awareness. What is the self? The self is a symbolic concept which can be either accurate or inaccurate. Spiritualists tend to think that the self is consciousness alone, as if consciousness could be discrete from a body that is aware. Materialists like me think of the body with a brain as the self, and consciousness is just one function of that self, not a self in itself. I therefore do not think of consciousness as a being but as an emergent property of a very complex arrangement of matter.

Following your conception, what are the criteria for a brain? What makes brain an adequate information processing system to support consciousness and awareness? I think this is the essential question. The universe can be framed an an information processing system also. Considering the Quantum non-locality, maybe size would not be an issue. Even if your point of view is correct, I think it's not enough to infer that a biological brain is essential for consciousness, the same characteristics might exist in other information processing systems also. Maybe our computers are also conscious? Do we have a measure to figure it out, yet?

I didn't know about mysterianism, thanks for the information!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nosferatu323's post
01-08-2017, 08:22 PM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2017 08:26 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The free will fallacy
(01-08-2017 03:51 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  From my point of view, awareness requires a body with a brain. The body is what is aware of outside stimuli and the brain is what processes that information into some useful form.

Not only can the outside stimuli be simulated, but so can the transducers feeding into the executive controller and even the executive controller itself. Don't see any reason awareness can't be encoded. I mean, our brains are a demonstration that it can be encoded.

(01-08-2017 03:51 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  Consciousness is built on top of awareness. As I have suggested elsewhere, consciousness is awareness filtered through a self-concept. Through selective focus directed by our self-interest, we pick out and act on certain information alone. Another way of saying the same thing is that consciousness is self-directed awareness. What is the self? The self is a symbolic concept which can be either accurate or inaccurate. Spiritualists tend to think that the self is consciousness alone, as if consciousness could be discrete from a body that is aware. Materialists like me think of the body with a brain as the self, and consciousness is just one function of that self, not a self in itself. I therefore do not think of consciousness as a being but as an emergent property of a very complex arrangement of matter.

I think that's right. I also don't see any reason I can't code that up in C#. What happens when your simulation exceeds the fidelity of the model? Crazy fucked up nonlinear chaotic shit, that's what.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
01-08-2017, 08:33 PM
RE: The free will fallacy
I keep reading the thread title as The free willy fallacy.

[Image: 10-filmes-que-toda-crianca-deveria-assistir-3.jpg]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
02-08-2017, 06:30 AM
RE: The free will fallacy
(01-08-2017 08:22 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I think that's right. I also don't see any reason I can't code that up in C#. What happens when your simulation exceeds the fidelity of the model? Crazy fucked up nonlinear chaotic shit, that's what.

I heard a rumor reported on a TV news show the other day that two computers which could learn on their own were communicating with each other in ways which even their programmers couldn't understand. That sounds like the premise of some science fiction story to me.

Hobo

However, while computers can no doubt process sensory information as well as think, I still doubt they can ever become conscious in the biological sense of the word because of philosopher John Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment. From my point of view, consciousness must necessarily evolve in an indifferent environment over long stretches of time, and computer programmers are neither indifferent or patient.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2017, 06:42 AM
RE: The free will fallacy
(02-08-2017 06:30 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(01-08-2017 08:22 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I think that's right. I also don't see any reason I can't code that up in C#. What happens when your simulation exceeds the fidelity of the model? Crazy fucked up nonlinear chaotic shit, that's what.

I heard a rumor reported on a TV news show the other day that two computers which could learn on their own were communicating with each other in ways which even their programmers couldn't understand. That sounds like the premise of some science fiction story to me.

Hobo

Bots begin developing their own language

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: