In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[Juma]

Then please allow identical bodies for 5 seconds - and hey it's actually a possibility according to quantum probabilities.

For those 5 seconds, you are in Perth and not in Sydney. Shouldn't that be a ridiculous thing to say if there is absolutely no difference between you both?

You are a a property of the your body.
Thus you are where the body are.

It is only if we assume that both bodies are quantum mechanically entangled then we could say that the minds is one and the same mind (but since entanglement seems to require very little actual intraction = very low temperatures that would probably also mean being dead)

Again, as I said in my first post in this thread: you must have some strange assumption that the mind is not local in space.

 

[Juma]

This word salad doesnt male sense at all.

It addresses your last concern.

That may have been your intention but it is still a word salad without meaning.

 

[ryan]

Then please allow identical bodies for 5 seconds - and hey it's actually a possibility according to quantum probabilities.

For those 5 seconds, you are in Perth and not in Sydney. Shouldn't that be a ridiculous thing to say if there is absolutely no difference between you both?

You are a a property of the your body.
Thus you are where the body are.

It is only if we assume that both bodies are quantum mechanically entangled then we could say that the minds is one and the same mind (but since entanglement seems to require very little actual intraction = very low temperatures that would probably also mean being dead)

Again, as I said in my first post in this thread: you must have some strange assumption that the mind is not local in space.

No no no, that is what I think you and DBT have cornered yourselves into. I am trying to show you a nonphysical difference between the two bodies. I am saying that during the 5 seconds, DBT's mind is in Perth.

Again, it is your argument that needs some kind of singular mind for there not to be a difference between the two brains.

 

[Juma]

You are a a property of the your body.
Thus you are where the body are.

It is only if we assume that both bodies are quantum mechanically entangled then we could say that the minds is one and the same mind (but since entanglement seems to require very little actual intraction = very low temperatures that would probably also mean being dead)

Again, as I said in my first post in this thread: you must have some strange assumption that the mind is not local in space.

No no no, that is what I think you and DBT have cornered yourselves into. I am trying to show you a nonphysical difference between the two bodies. I am saying that during the 5 seconds, DBT's mind is in Perth.

Again, it is your argument that needs some kind of singular mind for there not to be a difference between the two brains.

Then you have misunderstood everything we have written in this thread.

The difference between the two bodies is them being two separate, non interacting, non-entangled bodies.

What makes a mind separate is behaviour. If it behaves the same then it is the same. It is exactly lika a computer software. If the SW makes two identical computers to behave identically then the SW are identical.

 

[ryan]

No no no, that is what I think you and DBT have cornered yourselves into. I am trying to show you a nonphysical difference between the two bodies. I am saying that during the 5 seconds, DBT's mind is in Perth.

Again, it is your argument that needs some kind of singular mind for there not to be a difference between the two brains.

Then you have misunderstood everything we have written in this thread.

The difference between the two bodies is them being two separate, non interacting, non-entangled bodies.

What makes a mind separate is behaviour. If it behaves the same then it is the same. It is exactly lika a computer software. If the SW makes two identical computers to behave identically then the SW are identical.

I know that there is no physical difference for the five seconds that both bodies are identical. But there is something about the DBT in Perth that is not the DBT in Sydney. Specifically, it is DBT's nonphysical mind that observes in Perth, but doesn't observe in Sydney.

 

[Juma]

I know that there is no physical difference for the five seconds that both bodies are identical. But there is something about the DBT in Perth that is not the DBT in Sydney.

Of course. It is a SEPARATE body. do you understand the implications of sysyems being separated from each other?

Specifically, it is DBT's nonphysical mind that observes in Perth, but doesn't observe in Sydney.

DBT:s mind is not "non-physical".

 

[ryan]

Of course. Ii is a SEPARATE body.

Specifically, it is DBT's nonphysical mind that observes in Perth, but doesn't observe in Sydney.

DBT:s mind is not "non-physical".

I don't think you are being honest with yourself. I usually know when my argument is weak. I don't think it is this time.

 

[Juma]

Of course. Ii is a SEPARATE body.


DBT:s mind is not "non-physical".

I don't think you are being honest with yourself. I usually know when my argument is weak. I don't think it is this time.

Then you are deluded: you misrepresent my and DBT:s position and then uses the alleged "non-physicality of the mind" as an argument for the "non-physicality of the mind".

 

[ryan]

I don't think you are being honest with yourself. I usually know when my argument is weak. I don't think it is this time.

Then you are deluded: you misrepresent my and DBT:s position and then uses the alleged "non-physicality of the mind" as an argument for the "non-physicality of the mind".

I think it's peculiar that everyone talks about subjectivity until they are faced with finding it; it quickly becomes nonexistent because there is no physical trace to it.

 

[Juma]

Then you are deluded: you misrepresent my and DBT:s position and then uses the alleged "non-physicality of the mind" as an argument for the "non-physicality of the mind".

I think it's peculiar that everyone talks about subjectivity until they are faced with finding it; it quickly becomes nonexistent because there is no physical trace to it.

But there is. And I have shown you how but you just dodge it.
The subjectivity is not a problem. It is easy to create systems that relates and observes. The problem lies in the actual "experience of experience" not the content of the experience.

 

[ryan]

I think it's peculiar that everyone talks about subjectivity until they are faced with finding it; it quickly becomes nonexistent because there is no physical trace to it.

But there is. And I have shown you how but you just dodge it.
The subjectivity is not a problem. It is easy to create systems that relates and observes. The problem lies in the actual "experience of experience" not the content of the experience.

Do you mean qualia?

 

[Juma]

But there is. And I have shown you how but you just dodge it.
The subjectivity is not a problem. It is easy to create systems that relates and observes. The problem lies in the actual "experience of experience" not the content of the experience.

Do you mean qualia?

No. The concept of qualia is misguided. I just mean the fact that we are experiencing. Not what.

 

[ryan]

Do you mean qualia?

No. The concept of qualia is misguided. I just mean the fact that we are experiencing. Not what.

Okay, so is experiencing just a process?

 

[Juma]

No. The concept of qualia is misguided. I just mean the fact that we are experiencing. Not what.

Okay, so is experiencing just a process?

I think you underestimates the concept of "process". But yes i believe that it does not require anything more than particles interacting in spacetime.

 

[DBT]

No no no, that is what I think you and DBT have cornered yourselves into. I am trying to show you a nonphysical difference between the two bodies. I am saying that during the 5 seconds, DBT's mind is in Perth.

Again, it is your argument that needs some kind of singular mind for there not to be a difference between the two brains.

Wrong.

ryan, as consciousness is a brain based phenomena/activity and if there are two brains, each brain generating its own conscious activity, there are two sets of consciousnesses being activated, each being specific to the brain that is generating that specific conscious activity, and not a single instance of conscious activity shared between brains. One brain being oblivious of the existence of the other located on the other side of the country.
Each experience of self awareness and thought being unique to the brain that is generating conscious activity, regardless of whether the thought content is identical for period of time, or not.

 

[ryan]

Okay, so is experiencing just a process?

I think you underestimates the concept of "process". But yes i believe that it does not require anything more than particles interacting in spacetime.

I agree that experiencing requires interactions of particles. But I want to know if you think they are the exact same thing.

I feel like you are conflicted between believing in the so-called strong emergence of the mind and the usual emergence that we observe from inanimate objects.

 

[Juma]

I think you underestimates the concept of "process". But yes i believe that it does not require anything more than particles interacting in spacetime.

I agree that experiencing requires interactions of particles. But I want to know if you think they are the exact same thing.

I feel like you are conflicted between believing in the so-called strong emergence of the mind and the usual emergence that we observe from inanimate objects.

Eh? What do you mean by "inanimate objects"? What "emergence" do you see in unmoving objects?

 

[ryan]

No no no, that is what I think you and DBT have cornered yourselves into. I am trying to show you a nonphysical difference between the two bodies. I am saying that during the 5 seconds, DBT's mind is in Perth.

Again, it is your argument that needs some kind of singular mind for there not to be a difference between the two brains.

Wrong.

ryan, as consciousness is a brain based phenomena/activity and if there are two brains, each brain generating its own conscious activity, there are two sets of consciousnesses being activated, each being specific to the brain that is generating that specific conscious activity, and not a single instance of conscious activity shared between brains. One brain being oblivious of the existence of the other located on the other side of the country.
Each experience of self awareness and thought being unique to the brain that is generating conscious activity, regardless of whether the thought content is identical for period of time, or not.

I was saying that your argument seems to imply a singular consciousness. Are you in Perth? What makes you distinct from the exact same body in Sydney?

 

[ryan]

I agree that experiencing requires interactions of particles. But I want to know if you think they are the exact same thing.

I feel like you are conflicted between believing in the so-called strong emergence of the mind and the usual emergence that we observe from inanimate objects.

Eh? What do you mean by "inanimate objects"? What "emergence" do you see in unmoving objects?

Inanimate usually means nonliving.

 

[DBT]

Wrong.

ryan, as consciousness is a brain based phenomena/activity and if there are two brains, each brain generating its own conscious activity, there are two sets of consciousnesses being activated, each being specific to the brain that is generating that specific conscious activity, and not a single instance of conscious activity shared between brains. One brain being oblivious of the existence of the other located on the other side of the country.
Each experience of self awareness and thought being unique to the brain that is generating conscious activity, regardless of whether the thought content is identical for period of time, or not.

I was saying that your argument seems to imply a singular consciousness. Are you in Perth? What makes you distinct from the exact same body in Sydney?

Particle position. Superposition not being a particularly common feature of macro scale physics....

I was saying that your argument seems to imply a singular consciousness.

No it doesn't. Just the opposite.