In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[Juma]

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

Inanimate usually means nonliving.

What has living to do with it?

 

[ryan]

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.

Well then this is weirder than I ever imagined; why should there be something different about the DBT in Perth just because of a different extrinsic feature?

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

Again, it is not me who needs a superposition.

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

No it doesn't. Just the opposite.

No, my argument leads to two different minds; you would be experiencing in Perth and not in Sydney.

 

[ryan]

Inanimate usually means nonliving.

What has living to do with it?

My argument is that something non-physical emerges out of the brain. I am not making this same argument for anything nonliving.

 

[Juma]

What has living to do with it?

My argument is that something non-physical emerges out of the brain. I am not making this same argument for anything nonliving.

Why not?

 

[ryan]

My argument is that something non-physical emerges out of the brain. I am not making this same argument for anything nonliving.

Why not?

I believe that each kind of elementary particle or at least one of them has an intrinsic quantum of conscious experience (panpsychism) that is dual to its physical properties and not a physical property itself (this works nicely with my extreme belief in reductionism). A rock, for example, would have a very simple conscious experience, something very regular like white noise. The brain, however, I believe has many entangled states of quantum consciousness which gives us instantaneous notions of whole meanings and whole feelings instead of a linear stream of consciousness. We would be quantum processors, not bit processors.

 

[fromderinside]

So we invent free will to justify our inclination for being special, self centered. I'm pretty (sure) Baboons in one tribe don't think much of baboons from another tribe. Typically in encounters between them the members of the larger tribe usually kills all the young and males of the other tribe. I think that goes for most social species. They have free will too?

I'm going to stick with apparent randomness of possible choices as a basis for free will if you don't mind.

You mean, as an argument that free will is bullshit or ? You are a bit hard to understand sometimes...

He, he, he. Sorry I'm so late in responding Juma.

Yet you seem to understand most of the time. I'll settle for an arrangement where choice is tied to whatever keeps the river flowing. For instance presume A's percept generated from selected attending is usable in the current social situation then others might presume from this percept A appeared to chose without coercion then for that instance one can say A demonstrated free will.

Of course we know that none of this is possible since we have a causality problem, a reality problem, and a reactive problem. Cause cannot be established without perdetermining the order of events, one cannot establish the relation of the percept to the state of the world at time t, and one is attempting to say one is choosing when one is reacting. Other than that the topic is perfectly reasonable.

So, as you say it's bullshit or ....

 

[ryan]

You mean, as an argument that free will is bullshit or ? You are a bit hard to understand sometimes...

He, he, he. Sorry I'm so late in responding Juma.

Yet you seem to understand most of the time. I'll settle for an arrangement where choice is tied to whatever keeps the river flowing. For instance presume A's percept generated from selected attending is usable in the current social situation then others might presume from this percept A appeared to chose without coercion then for that instance one can say A demonstrated free will.

Of course we know that none of this is possible since we have a causality problem, a reality problem, and a reactive problem. Cause cannot be established without perdetermining the order of events, one cannot establish the relation of the percept to the state of the world at time t, and one is attempting to say one is choosing when one is reacting. Other than that the topic is perfectly reasonable.

So, as you say it's bullshit or ....

Are you talking about freedom to control attention? If so, then what is the mechanism that makes me select A over B?

 

[DBT]

Particle position.

Well then this is weirder than I ever imagined; why should there be something different about the DBT in Perth just because of a different extrinsic feature?

The copy is a distinctly separate body and mind, wide separation is irrelevant. You could place your copy immediately next to you and an observer would count off 'one person on the left, and another person, who appears to be an identical twin, on the right....there are two people standing in front of me'' There being two people of identical appearance standing in the room does not mean their is a single consciousness shared between the two. There are two brains, each of them generating their own conscious activity, and experiencing the world from their own unique perspective.

Again, it is not me who needs a superposition.

Obviously it is you who needs superposition, as it is you who appears to be arguing that an original and a copy occupy the same space in terms of consciousness regardless of the location of either.

No it doesn't. Just the opposite.

No, my argument leads to two different minds; you would be experiencing in Perth and not in Sydney.

That's not what you have been arguing;

For example:

''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.'' - ryan

There is your implied superposition.

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

No it doesn't. I am arguing that the original and the copy are indeed two separate, material minds, with no 'non material' (whatever that is) component.

 

[ryan]

Well then this is weirder than I ever imagined; why should there be something different about the DBT in Perth just because of a different extrinsic feature?

The copy is a distinctly separate body and mind, wide separation is irrelevant. You could place your copy immediately next to you and an observer would count off 'one person on the left, and another person, who appears to be an identical twin, on the right....there are two people standing in front of me'' There being two people of identical appearance standing in the room does not mean their is a single consciousness shared between the two. There are two brains, each of them generating their own conscious activity, and experiencing the world from their own unique perspective.

Again, it is not me who needs a superposition.

Obviously it is you who needs superposition, as it is you who appears to be arguing that an original and a copy occupy the same space in terms of consciousness regardless of the location of either.

Where have I said that? I read my quotes below, and I don't understand how you still think this.

No, my argument leads to two different minds; you would be experiencing in Perth and not in Sydney.

That's not what you have been arguing;

For example:

''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.'' - ryan

There is your implied superposition.

Remember from my thought experiment that the "real" you is in Perth, and your clone is in Sydney,

You are in an isolated room in Perth. In Sydney they make a perfect replica of you in an equally identical room.

Which city are you in?

What is it about the body in Perth that makes you in that place?

.

 

[DBT]

The copy is a distinctly separate body and mind, wide separation is irrelevant. You could place your copy immediately next to you and an observer would count off 'one person on the left, and another person, who appears to be an identical twin, on the right....there are two people standing in front of me'' There being two people of identical appearance standing in the room does not mean their is a single consciousness shared between the two. There are two brains, each of them generating their own conscious activity, and experiencing the world from their own unique perspective.

Again, it is not me who needs a superposition.

Obviously it is you who needs superposition, as it is you who appears to be arguing that an original and a copy occupy the same space in terms of consciousness regardless of the location of either.

Where have I said that? I read my quotes below, and I don't understand how you still think this.

No, my argument leads to two different minds; you would be experiencing in Perth and not in Sydney.

That's not what you have been arguing;

For example:

''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.'' - ryan

There is your implied superposition.

Remember from my thought experiment that the "real" you is in Perth, and your clone is in Sydney,

You are in an isolated room in Perth. In Sydney they make a perfect replica of you in an equally identical room.

Which city are you in?

What is it about the body in Perth that makes you in that place?

.

OK, let's be clear on this... explain precisely what you are arguing for by presenting your proposition and reasoning in a formal argument, listing your points and including any evidence to support your case.

 

[ryan]

OK, let's be clear on this... explain precisely what you are arguing for by presenting your proposition and reasoning in a formal argument, listing your points and including any evidence to support your case.

Let's start with the scenario,

You are in an isolated room in Perth. In Sydney they make a perfect replica of you in an equally identical room. For 5 seconds, you both have perfectly identical bodies right down to the particles.

.

I will try to explain what I think it means.

Your body is A, and your clone's body is B. For 5 seconds, there is no physical difference between the two bodies except that A is you, and B is not you. You are the difference. You are not physical, but your body is.

 

[Juma]

Let's start with the scenario,

You are in an isolated room in Perth. In Sydney they make a perfect replica of you in an equally identical room. For 5 seconds, you both have perfectly identical bodies right down to the particles.

.

I will try to explain what I think it means.

Your body is A, and your clone's body is B. For 5 seconds, there is no physical difference between the two bodies except that A is you, and B is not you. You are the difference. You are not physical, but your body is.

There is a definitive physical difference: position.

 

[ryan]

Let's start with the scenario,

.

I will try to explain what I think it means.

Your body is A, and your clone's body is B. For 5 seconds, there is no physical difference between the two bodies except that A is you, and B is not you. You are the difference. You are not physical, but your body is.

There is a definitive physical difference: position.

That's the difference with the environment included; this is how we know the difference. It shouldn't make a difference to the continuousness of the original body.

 

[The AntiChris]

Let's start with the scenario,

You are in an isolated room in Perth. In Sydney they make a perfect replica of you in an equally identical room. For 5 seconds, you both have perfectly identical bodies right down to the particles.

.

I will try to explain what I think it means.

Your body is A, and your clone's body is B. For 5 seconds, there is no physical difference between the two bodies except that A is you, and B is not you.

The bolded part is begging the question.

If you subscribe to a bodily criterion of personal identity then A is "you" and B is not.

If you subscribe to a psychological criterion of personal identity then then both A and B qualify equally as different continuations of the "you" that was cloned.

In any case both A and B will believe themselves to be the 'original' and any perceived difference (in continuation of personal identity) lies solely in the subjective view of the observer.

 

[DBT]

Let's start with the scenario,

You are in an isolated room in Perth. In Sydney they make a perfect replica of you in an equally identical room. For 5 seconds, you both have perfectly identical bodies right down to the particles.

.

I will try to explain what I think it means.

Your body is A, and your clone's body is B. For 5 seconds, there is no physical difference between the two bodies except that A is you, and B is not you. You are the difference. You are not physical, but your body is.

But 'you' are inseparable from 'your' body, 'you' are a body of information encoded within the cells and connections of the brain of that body and brought to life by conscious activity as self awareness and self identity by that brain, and that brain alone.

 

[Juma]

There is a definitive physical difference: position.

That's the difference with the environment included; this is how we know the difference. It shouldn't make a difference to the continuousness of the original body.

What? No. Separation is an intrinsic property. If the bodies is not separate they would be a different system.(probably not living)

Why the fuck are you talking about "the continuousness of the oroginal body"? You are obviously not telling us the entire question here: what is the problem that you try to solve with your "non-physical" woo?

Please clearly state what difference between the two bodies that needs to be explained!

 

[ryan]

Let's start with the scenario,

.

I will try to explain what I think it means.

Your body is A, and your clone's body is B. For 5 seconds, there is no physical difference between the two bodies except that A is you, and B is not you.

The bolded part is begging the question.

If you subscribe to a bodily criterion of personal identity then A is "you" and B is not.

If you subscribe to a psychological criterion of personal identity then then both A and B qualify equally as different continuations of the "you" that was cloned.

In any case both A and B will believe themselves to be the 'original' and any perceived difference (in continuation of personal identity) lies solely in the subjective view of the observer.

But there is a truth "out there". B would be wrong about living before he was cloned, but A would be correct. The difference is their histories.

 

[ryan]

Let's start with the scenario,

.

I will try to explain what I think it means.

Your body is A, and your clone's body is B. For 5 seconds, there is no physical difference between the two bodies except that A is you, and B is not you. You are the difference. You are not physical, but your body is.

But 'you' are inseparable from 'your' body, 'you' are a body of information encoded within the cells and connections of the brain of that body and brought to life by conscious activity as self awareness and self identity by that brain, and that brain alone.

Okay, so do you believe that there is a difference between ryan in pain and being ryan in pain? This is not a physical difference. This is a different kind of knowledge that resides with each individual. For example, I can't scientifically prove what my mom told me 20 years ago, yet it still might be true.

 

[ryan]

That's the difference with the environment included; this is how we know the difference. It shouldn't make a difference to the continuousness of the original body.

What? No. Separation is an intrinsic property. If the bodies is not separate they would be a different system.(probably not living)

Why the fuck are you talking about "the continuousness of the oroginal body"? You are obviously not telling us the entire question here: what is the problem that you try to solve with your "non-physical" woo?

Please clearly state what difference between the two bodies that needs to be explained!

Like I asked DBT, is there a difference between ryan in pain and being ryan in pain? The difference cannot be physical. You eluded to this point a few days ago.

 

[Juma]

What? No. Separation is an intrinsic property. If the bodies is not separate they would be a different system.(probably not living)

Why the fuck are you talking about "the continuousness of the oroginal body"? You are obviously not telling us the entire question here: what is the problem that you try to solve with your "non-physical" woo?

Please clearly state what difference between the two bodies that needs to be explained!

Like I asked DBT, is there a difference between ryan in pain and being ryan in pain? The difference cannot be physical. You eluded to this point a few days ago.

Please answer my post instead of indulge in a new problem.