In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[The AntiChris]

Ok, given your thought experiment, what test could we apply to verify/falsify your theory that although A and B are physically identical, there is (according to you) a "nonphysical difference".

This claim is outside of the scope of science; it is philosophical. It relies on individual knowledge and also has to do with whether or not we trust it. It might be science one day, but I couldn't even conceive what the experiment would be.

So it's just your strong intuition and you're going to stick with it despite the lack of any scientific support. Ok.

 

[ryan]

This claim is outside of the scope of science; it is philosophical. It relies on individual knowledge and also has to do with whether or not we trust it. It might be science one day, but I couldn't even conceive what the experiment would be.

So it's just your strong intuition and you're going to stick with it despite the lack of any scientific support. Ok.

It is personal knowledge like a memory. It is not something that can be confirmed by other people.

 

[Juma]

So it's just your strong intuition and you're going to stick with it despite the lack of any scientific support. Ok.

It is personal knowledge like a memory. It is not something that can be confirmed by other people.

Why do you believe that memories cannot be read? It is already possible to trigger detectors by thinking of an image.

 

[The AntiChris]

So it's just your strong intuition and you're going to stick with it despite the lack of any scientific support. Ok.

It is personal knowledge like a memory. It is not something that can be confirmed by other people.

Sorry, I can't make sense of this response.

It does seem to me that many of your responses are designed to defy any rational challenge. Whilst this has the effect of appearing to render your dearly held beliefs bulletproof, it is, unfortunately, the complete antithesis of critical thinking.

 

[ryan]

It is personal knowledge like a memory. It is not something that can be confirmed by other people.

Why do you believe that memories cannot be read? It is already possible to trigger detectors by thinking of an image.

The point is that it does not need to be scientific to be true. Sometimes we know things without the need for science.

 

[bilby]

If we make an identical copy of you, then both copies think they are the original conscious identity; and in all important senses, they are both right.

Only an external observer can make the claim that A or B is 'the' original; and that observation is flawed - neither person is the physical individual he was yesterday.

As I have said before, you don't even have continuity of conscious identity with your 'yesterday self'; I suspect that the reason you have fallen into a cognitive trap here is that you observe apparent continuity of identity associated with continuity of (the vast majority of) physical structure. People typically persist in a mostly unchanged state from day to day, rather than being assembled atom by atom by highly advanced aliens. But whichever happened to get to where you are now, the result is indestinguishable.

Make an exact copy, and the two individuals are BOTH correct to claim to be the real 'I'.

By making a copy you end up with two brains, two hearts, and two consciousnesses.

It really is that simple. You are making it needlessly complex, probably because you are hung up on the illusion that identity is tied to the current physical body you inhabit. It is not - it is an inseparable property of your brain. Dualism is beguiling, but it is bullshit - even when it is sneaking in under your radar and you don't even realise you are doing it.

 

[ryan]

It is personal knowledge like a memory. It is not something that can be confirmed by other people.

Sorry, I can't make sense of this response.

It does seem to me that many of your responses are designed to defy any rational challenge. Whilst this has the effect of appearing to render your dearly held beliefs bulletproof, it is, unfortunately, the complete antithesis of critical thinking.

It's rational; it's just not scientific.

 

[ryan]

If we make an identical copy of you, then both copies think they are the original conscious identity; and in all important senses, they are both right.

Only an external observer can make the claim that A or B is 'the' original; and that observation is flawed - neither person is the physical individual he was yesterday.

As I have said before, you don't even have continuity of conscious identity with your 'yesterday self'; I suspect that the reason you have fallen into a cognitive trap here is that you observe apparent continuity of identity associated with continuity of (the vast majority of) physical structure. People typically persist in a mostly unchanged state from day to day, rather than being assembled atom by atom by highly advanced aliens. But whichever happened to get to where you are now, the result is indestinguishable.

Make an exact copy, and the two individuals are BOTH correct to claim to be the real 'I'.

By making a copy you end up with two brains, two hearts, and two consciousnesses.

It really is that simple. You are making it needlessly complex, probably because you are hung up on the illusion that identity is tied to the current physical body you inhabit. It is not - it is an inseparable property of your brain. Dualism is beguiling, but it is bullshit - even when it is sneaking in under your radar and you don't even realise you are doing it.

The more I think about this the more I realise that this is about the fact that the universe is different for everyone subjectively but the same for everyone objectively and physically. This is incredibly strange and interesting to me.

 

[DBT]

The bundle of information that is the organism - body/brain/mind - who calls itself/himself 'ryan.' An experience formed specifically by the brain in response to a given stimuli, in this instance 'slamming your finger with the door' being experienced in conscious form by neural activity.

I just want to nail down what is experiencing and what is the experience, or are they the same thing?

Consciousness is not an indivisible phenomena. It has aspects and attributes and parts, the sensation of pain being one aspect of conscious experience, as is the sensation of 'me' being hurt.

 

[ryan]

I just want to nail down what is experiencing and what is the experience, or are they the same thing?

Consciousness is not an indivisible phenomena. It has aspects and attributes and parts, the sensation of pain being one aspect of conscious experience, as is the sensation of 'me' being hurt.

I don't understand what you mean. How does my question lead you to this response?

 

[DBT]

Consciousness is not an indivisible phenomena. It has aspects and attributes and parts, the sensation of pain being one aspect of conscious experience, as is the sensation of 'me' being hurt.

I don't understand what you mean. How does my question lead you to this response?

You said ''I just want to nail down what is experiencing and what is the experience, or are they the same thing'' and I replied by saying that the experiencer is an aspect of the experience. The experience/experiencer being aspects of consciousness, which may include visual representation of the source of pain (your finger jammed in the door, etc), and the solution to easing the pain, reflex action, remove your finger from the door jam.

 

[ryan]

I don't understand what you mean. How does my question lead you to this response?

You said ''I just want to nail down what is experiencing and what is the experience, or are they the same thing'' and I replied by saying that the experiencer is an aspect of the experience. The experience/experiencer being aspects of consciousness, which may include visual representation of the source of pain (your finger jammed in the door, etc), and the solution to easing the pain, reflex action, remove your finger from the door jam.

Is the experiencer an isolated or divisible component of the experience?

 

[DBT]

You said ''I just want to nail down what is experiencing and what is the experience, or are they the same thing'' and I replied by saying that the experiencer is an aspect of the experience. The experience/experiencer being aspects of consciousness, which may include visual representation of the source of pain (your finger jammed in the door, etc), and the solution to easing the pain, reflex action, remove your finger from the door jam.

Is the experiencer an isolated or divisible component of the experience?

How can it be? If there is no conscious awareness of the pain, there is no experience of pain. The pain is an aspect of the experience/experiencer. Also, consider what happens to the experiencer/experience in conditions of memory dysfunction, where everything breaks down into unrecognized sensations.

 

[ryan]

Is the experiencer an isolated or divisible component of the experience?

How can it be? If there is no conscious awareness of the pain, there is no experience of pain. The pain is an aspect of the experience/experiencer.

You are not going to like this, but I think we are in agreement. You have merged two things, the experience and the experiencer. This is the so-called duality of body and mind. Both are represented as a physical process. However, there could have been just the physical process without the pain. The pain does need to be there for a physical account to be made.

 

[fromderinside]

One doesn't control attending. One selects from available attendings after the fact to tell a story, er, make a choice. The selecting may be fully conscious or something else, but that designation is meaningless because it is part of the script already in place.

So then what were you saying is random?

No. What I was saying is your choice is epiphenomenal making each choice or decision a phenomenon.It depends on your current state which is private. To others it may appear random, but, to you it is meaningful since your cognitive history, as opposed to history in reality, set the stage for what you came to choose. I don't think free fits in anywhere in that sentence.

 

[fromderinside]

If we make an identical copy of you, then both copies think they are the original conscious identity; and in all important senses, they are both right.

Only an external observer can make the claim that A or B is 'the' original; and that observation is flawed - neither person is the physical individual he was yesterday.

As I have said before, you don't even have continuity of conscious identity with your 'yesterday self'; I suspect that the reason you have fallen into a cognitive trap here is that you observe apparent continuity of identity associated with continuity of (the vast majority of) physical structure. People typically persist in a mostly unchanged state from day to day, rather than being assembled atom by atom by highly advanced aliens. But whichever happened to get to where you are now, the result is indestinguishable.

Make an exact copy, and the two individuals are BOTH correct to claim to be the real 'I'.

By making a copy you end up with two brains, two hearts, and two consciousnesses.

It really is that simple. You are making it needlessly complex, probably because you are hung up on the illusion that identity is tied to the current physical body you inhabit. It is not - it is an inseparable property of your brain. Dualism is beguiling, but it is bullshit - even when it is sneaking in under your radar and you don't even realise you are doing it.

Nope. They are in different places. Your speculation is correct the one choosing among the two hasn't experienced either of the two so similar should work just as well. if there is an experience relation between the choosing one and one of the clones the choosing one will not error in her choice of the correct one. Only the one who is recognized as the original to the choosing one will be familiar.

 

[ryan]

So then what were you saying is random?

No. What I was saying is your choice is epiphenomenal making each choice or decision a phenomenon.It depends on your current state which is private. To others it may appear random, but, to you it is meaningful since your cognitive history, as opposed to history in reality, set the stage for what you came to choose. I don't think free fits in anywhere in that sentence.

But most people think that the brain/body works by classical mechanics. So wouldn't that mean we are fully predictable? Of course I don't agree with this because of the probabilistic nature of what we are made of, leaving some apparent "freedom" to choose.

 

[DBT]

How can it be? If there is no conscious awareness of the pain, there is no experience of pain. The pain is an aspect of the experience/experiencer.

You are not going to like this, but I think we are in agreement. You have merged two things, the experience and the experiencer. This is the so-called duality of body and mind. Both are represented as a physical process. However, there could have been just the physical process without the pain. The pain does need to be there for a physical account to be made.

The evolved purpose of feeling pain is to be aware of, and attend to damage or injuries, and learn to avoid them in future. Response can be done as an unconscious mechanism reacting to damage and other stimuli, like with plants, but that doesn't allow the highly complex interactions of brain in relation to environment that we, as a self conscious entity of the brain, experience.

 

[fromderinside]

No. What I was saying is your choice is epiphenomenal making each choice or decision a phenomenon.It depends on your current state which is private. To others it may appear random, but, to you it is meaningful since your cognitive history, as opposed to history in reality, set the stage for what you came to choose. I don't think free fits in anywhere in that sentence.

But most people think that the brain/body works by classical mechanics. So wouldn't that mean we are fully predictable? Of course I don't agree with this because of the probabilistic nature of what we are made of, leaving some apparent "freedom" to choose.

No need to invoke belief of people. A personal phenomenon is not data. It is a phenomenon, it is of one, personal.

 

[ryan]

You are not going to like this, but I think we are in agreement. You have merged two things, the experience and the experiencer. This is the so-called duality of body and mind. Both are represented as a physical process. However, there could have been just the physical process without the pain. The pain does need to be there for a physical account to be made.

The evolved purpose of feeling pain is to be aware of, and attend to damage or injuries, and learn to avoid them in future. Response can be done as an unconscious mechanism reacting to damage and other stimuli, like with plants, but that doesn't allow the highly complex interactions of brain in relation to environment that we, as a self conscious entity of the brain, experience.

Terms like "feeling pain" and "experience" imply qualia. Do you really mean to use them as they are supposed to be used, or are you just using them to explain what why they don't need to exist?