There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[jab]

What did you imagine this thought experiment achieving?

It describes the situation in which libertarian free willers claim that more than possible option for action is available and in which hard determinists claim there can only ever be one option available. It's what defines the difference between the two camps.

I'm not aware of any free will argument which relies on the actualization of more than one precise set of circumstances.

But that's precisely the point. When it is demonstrably logically impossible for such a situation to ever occur, the thought experiment fails, surely?

This is circular logic and temporal reading since it assumes that something that is occuring has already occured.

 

[Subsymbolic]

But that's precisely the point. When it is demonstrably logically impossible for such a situation to ever occur, the thought experiment fails, surely?

This is circular logic and temporal reading since it assumes that something that is occuring has already occured.

Is it now? When the target is 'to be able to do otherwise, all other conditions remaining the same' I'd say you might want to sit back and have a bit of a think about it. As for the circular logic, can you explain precisely why the logic is circular please?

What is 'temporal reading'? I've never heard of it and nor has Google so if it is your own word, a definition might be helpful, please...

 

[Treedbear]

What would you call an imaginary choice that you then act upon?

What is wrong with what you just called it? If you need a single noun to describe it, would "option" suffice? "Opportunity"? "Dilemma"?

How about "arbitrary", "capricious", "unsupported", "whimsical", or "mercurial". So how is free will supposed to invoke personal responsibility?

I don't believe I was, at that point talking about freewill, only the difference between simulating rain and thought on a computer. Given that, can you explain your interesting word options?

Sorry, I don't know how I missed that. When I click on the link to your original quote I go back to post #180 which was in the midst of a discussion on free will. I seem to remember something about simulating rain appearing somewhere in the thread. If you could point me to it maybe I can work it in.

OK, I think I found it. Further on at post #183? I didn't understand your point, but I gather nothing to do with free will then.

 

[Subsymbolic]

What is wrong with what you just called it? If you need a single noun to describe it, would "option" suffice? "Opportunity"? "Dilemma"?

How about "arbitrary", "capricious", "unsupported", "whimsical", or "mercurial". So how is free will supposed to invoke personal responsibility?

I don't believe I was, at that point talking about freewill, only the difference between simulating rain and thought on a computer. Given that, can you explain your interesting word options?

Sorry, I don't know how I missed that. When I click on the link to your original quote I go back to post #180 which was in the midst of a discussion on free will. I seem to remember something about simulating rain appearing somewhere in the thread. If you could point me to it maybe I can work it in.

OK, I think I found it. Further on at post #183? I didn't understand your point, but I gather nothing to do with free will then.

I think it has something to do with free will for sure, but at that point it's just making a point about simulation which I'll probably push towards ideas of user illusions later, but if I'm doing that, I'll probably be a little more careful (if not any more convincing!).

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ironically, you appear to have missed it, or failed to understand what it was. Post 167, here it is to save you looking:

Frankly, I'm just using BT as it's a fairly compelling application of the axiom of choice that clearly demonstrates irreducible emergence. Where IE gets teeth is in the hands of people like Donald Davidson and Jaegwon Kim, but it's not half as compelling as BT to those without a solid philosophical training.

So, Here's a really simple thought experiment application - I'm being chased by a bunch of crazed determinists being guided by Laplace's Demon. Obviously, as a monist, I know that everything supervenes on the physical, but that doesn't mean everything can be reduced to the physical so during a particularly determined car chase I ask my passenger to run through the process of proving BT. Still entirely determined, I am determined to decide to turn left if the result is two and right if the result is one. At the crucial moment, my passenger calls out the result and I make the turn. Left. Of course, the demon will predict right and I will escape.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anomalous-monism/

For example.

I didn't really missed it since it wasn't addressed to me but to Emily Lake.

I just had a look and I think it's just more wasting of my time.


Next...

Meanwhile, your position that:

The upshot of this fact is that whatever happens inside a human body at any given point in time is determined by its physical state at that point. And then, I'm pretty sure all scientists concerned are convinced that whatever a human being does is best explained by the physical state of his body immediately before doing it. That's true because that's true of just about anything physical, save perhaps some weird particles and fundamental things.

Is clearly false as BT is one example, among many, of one's logical state determining what happens.

That's just bollocks. Banach Tarski does not apply to the real physical world.

of course one's logical state supervenes upon one's physical state but it is irreducibly emergent (you really need to get to grips with that idea)

I just had a look and it's just an idea.

Further, I like very much to see you arguing properly, something you clearly don't like doing, that my position you quoted above on "whatever happens inside a human body" is "clearly false", as you just claimed.

Providing links can only be auxiliary. First, you have to argue your position. You don't seem do that much.


Next...

and, as you have, perhap unwisely, argued already:

it wouldn't work in the real physical world

While it certainly does in the mathematical or logical world.

Simple.

Argue your position and then we'll talk.

EB

 

[Subsymbolic]

I didn't really missed it since it wasn't addressed to me but to Emily Lake.

I just had a look and I think it's just more wasting of my time.


Next...

Meanwhile, your position that:

The upshot of this fact is that whatever happens inside a human body at any given point in time is determined by its physical state at that point. And then, I'm pretty sure all scientists concerned are convinced that whatever a human being does is best explained by the physical state of his body immediately before doing it. That's true because that's true of just about anything physical, save perhaps some weird particles and fundamental things.

Is clearly false as BT is one example, among many, of one's logical state determining what happens.

That's just bollocks. Banach Tarski does not apply to the real physical world.

of course one's logical state supervenes upon one's physical state but it is irreducibly emergent (you really need to get to grips with that idea)

I just had a look and it's just an idea.

Further, I like very much to see you arguing properly, something you clearly don't like doing, that my position you quoted above on "whatever happens inside a human body" is "clearly false", as you just claimed.

Providing links can only be auxiliary. First, you have to argue your position. You don't seem do that much.


Next...

and, as you have, perhap unwisely, argued already:

it wouldn't work in the real physical world

While it certainly does in the mathematical or logical world.

Simple.

Argue your position and then we'll talk.

EB

I can't help it if you don't get my arguments but I'm equally clear that asserting I'm wasting your time isn't a rebuttal.

As for BT, you have a result you wouldn't get in the physical world, but which is communicable from the logical to the physical. You want to rebut my thought experiment rather than just slag it down, explain why I'd not turn left or why the determinists would. Simple.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I can't help it if you don't get my arguments but I'm equally clear that asserting I'm wasting your time isn't a rebuttal.

As for BT, you have a result you wouldn't get in the physical world, but which is communicable from the logical to the physical. You want to rebut my thought experiment rather than just slag it down, explain why I'd not turn left or why the determinists would. Simple.

You never address my points. Never.

Bye-bye.
EB

 

[Subsymbolic]

I can't help it if you don't get my arguments but I'm equally clear that asserting I'm wasting your time isn't a rebuttal.

As for BT, you have a result you wouldn't get in the physical world, but which is communicable from the logical to the physical. You want to rebut my thought experiment rather than just slag it down, explain why I'd not turn left or why the determinists would. Simple.

You never address my points. Never.

Bye-bye.
EB

You can only say things like 'bye' so many times, I suspect you are over that number already.

More to the point:

As for BT, you have a result you wouldn't get in the physical world, but which is communicable from the logical to the physical. You want to rebut my thought experiment rather than just slag it down, explain why I'd not turn left or why the determinists would. Simple.

is addressing your points, perhaps not as you'd wish but hey, Grice.

Try and stay focussed on the ideas rather than me.

 

[ryan]

That response is wrong on so many levels so there is really no way to answer it...
What I say is that the brain isa helluva complex thing and to model ut on a high level it just might be ok to use QM model but that diesnt mean that the brain actually acts using QM. Its is just a model.
At small scales though, atomic scales, we know that QM works, since it does everywhere.
But upon that scale there are numerous hierarchies in the brain that isnt QM at all. An it is these structures that makes your brain work as it does.
Thus, it may be that at the smallest scale the brain have QM parts, but each such part would handle so little informatio...

For us to be a QM pilot wave then all these tiny part be connected and there is absolutely no reason to belifve that they are.
And even if: how would this unified object be able to steer all these part (atoms!).

It is but a silly dream...

We would be a an entire entangled system of memories, predictions and decision making.

"The result would be the presence of entangled Posner's molecules in the cytoplasm of multiple presynaptic neurons, which could then lead to post-synaptic firing that is quantum correlated across these neurons."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5080346/

”Would be”.... it is all a dreamt up vision. There is no evidens for any of this. Such enormous entaglement just dosent exist.

Tell that to Fisher and the others from the article.

 

[ryan]

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztGNznlowic&t=1s start at 1:00 to 3:30 . He talks about exactly what you claim does not exist.

Don't you think that conscious unity problem is nicely solved with entanglement? I have tried to explain this to you before. Since, have you taken a step back to think about just how strange the unity of consciousness would be without a unity of neural processes? The unity of consciousness is objectively staring us in the face as entanglement.

And if you need science to back this panpsychic claim, information integration theory has an actual scientific hypothesis where there is the q-space dimension where the consciousness is unified. Although it does not require QM entanglement, it does argue for the panpsychism that "conscious entanglement" would require. It's so obvious and so natural that we are the particles; therefor, our will and the particle's behavior are the same thing.

DBT, you give me possible ways that this free will can't work, but all I need is one way where it can to make free will possible.

But there's a better solution that is more widely accepted and which we can make a lot more sense of - firing rates in the first instant and narrativization in the second. There are definitely quantum effects in the brain bu they provide the noise the brain needs to function properly they are not flipping coins at a putative executive level.

And what is the solution?

 

[ryan]

He explains how the consciousness goes back in time to make adjustments after receiving information, just for 2 mins.

As a start. Consciousness does not go back in time. Consciousness does not make adjustments. It is the brain that makes constant adjustments to consciousness using fresh inputs from the senses and signals from various body functions, limb movement, organs, etc. Consciousness being the brains mental representation of information from the external world and body/self through its central nervous system.

Again, you are simply discrediting Penrose's theory for no apparent reason.

If you could take 2 minutes, Hameroff explains that people will have an emotional response before the stimulus is applied.

You seem to prefer to be stuck in an incomplete theory of decision making while the rest of the world are providing possible solutions.

 

[untermensche]

He explains how the consciousness goes back in time to make adjustments after receiving information, just for 2 mins.

As a start. Consciousness does not go back in time. Consciousness does not make adjustments. It is the brain that makes constant adjustments to consciousness using fresh inputs from the senses and signals from various body functions, limb movement, organs, etc. Consciousness being the brains mental representation of information from the external world and body/self through its central nervous system.

Again, you are simply discrediting Penrose's theory for no apparent reason.

If you could take 2 minutes, Hameroff explains that people will have an emotional response before the stimulus is applied.

You seem to prefer to be stuck in an incomplete theory of decision making while the rest of the world are providing possible solutions.

Is there a working model for how any of the ideas you promote will result in something capable of having conscious animal experiences?

Modern neuroscience does not have a model for how cellular activity of some kind results in conscious experience.

There is no working model for how it could happen.

How is there any understanding of something without even a model to test?

You need some kind of approximation.

Absolutely no model and not even a hint at a model means you have no understanding of what is going on.

That does not prevent people from pretending to understand what is going on and pretending it is all matter of fact and silly little insignificant things like quantum properties of matter can't possibly be involved.

 

[DBT]

He explains how the consciousness goes back in time to make adjustments after receiving information, just for 2 mins.

As a start. Consciousness does not go back in time. Consciousness does not make adjustments. It is the brain that makes constant adjustments to consciousness using fresh inputs from the senses and signals from various body functions, limb movement, organs, etc. Consciousness being the brains mental representation of information from the external world and body/self through its central nervous system.

Again, you are simply discrediting Penrose's theory for no apparent reason.

There are reasons aplenty. I have repeatedly described the reasons why it is the structural and electrochemical state of a brain that determines or governs its behavioural output. Chemical changes alter consciousness. Structural changes alter consciousness. Electrical changes alter consciousness. Memory failure disrupts consciousness, and if progressive, completely unravels consciousness to the point where the sufferer no longer is able to recognize self or others, objects or events, only meaningless, unrecognizable sensation remaining, colours, shapes and events that cannot be understood...

If you could take 2 minutes, Hameroff explains that people will have an emotional response before the stimulus is applied.

There may be an emotional response in anticipation, but not because of actual mental time travel.

You seem to prefer to be stuck in an incomplete theory of decision making while the rest of the world are providing possible solutions.

You seem to be taking flights of fancy that are not supported by the current evidence. You appear to be basing this upon questionable source material.

If we were truly able to predict future events just before they happen, time travel by consciousness, the world would be a different place.

 

[ryan]

Again, you are simply discrediting Penrose's theory for no apparent reason.

If you could take 2 minutes, Hameroff explains that people will have an emotional response before the stimulus is applied.

You seem to prefer to be stuck in an incomplete theory of decision making while the rest of the world are providing possible solutions.

Is there a working model for how any of the ideas you promote will result in something capable of having conscious animal experiences?

Modern neuroscience does not have a model for how cellular activity of some kind results in conscious experience.

There is no working model for how it could happen.

How is there any understanding of something without even a model to test?

You need some kind of approximation.

Absolutely no model and not even a hint at a model means you have no understanding of what is going on.

That does not prevent people from pretending to understand what is going on and pretending it is all matter of fact and silly little insignificant things like quantum properties of matter can't possibly be involved.

What specifically did I say that you have an issue with?

 

[Juma]

”Would be”.... it is all a dreamt up vision. There is no evidens for any of this. Such enormous entaglement just dosent exist.

Tell that to Fisher and the others from the article.

That was the most lame comment ever.
It is one very hypotetical article. That is not something you should build your case on.

 

[ryan]

Again, you are simply discrediting Penrose's theory for no apparent reason.

There are reasons aplenty. I have repeatedly described the reasons why it is the structural and electrochemical state of a brain that determines or governs its behavioural output. Chemical changes alter consciousness. Structural changes alter consciousness. Electrical changes alter consciousness. Memory failure disrupts consciousness, and if progressive, completely unravels consciousness to the point where the sufferer no longer is able to recognize self or others, objects or events, only meaningless, unrecognizable sensation remaining, colours, shapes and events that cannot be understood...

And nobody denies this.

If you could take 2 minutes, Hameroff explains that people will have an emotional response before the stimulus is applied.

There may be an emotional response in anticipation, but not because of actual mental time travel.

So Hameroff explains that there have been tests done that show backward time effects to allow for free will, and you just say that it's not so. He even names the scientists who did the experiments in that 2 minute clip.

You seem to prefer to be stuck in an incomplete theory of decision making while the rest of the world are providing possible solutions.

You seem to be taking flights of fancy that are not supported by the current evidence. You appear to be basing this upon questionable source material.

not according to the scientists that did the experiments

Look, I am getting tired of bringing everyone up to speed on the current state of consciousness/free will/science. Everyone seems to have finished learning and are stuck somewhere in the past. You all have to fight me every step of the way for some reason.

If we were truly able to predict future events just before they happen, time travel by consciousness, the world would be a different place.

 

[ryan]

”Would be”.... it is all a dreamt up vision. There is no evidens for any of this. Such enormous entaglement just dosent exist.

Tell that to Fisher and the others from the article.

That was the most lame comment ever.
It is one very hypotetical article. That is not something you should build your case on.

In other words, you need to falsify his model in order to only partially justify your statement, "Such enormous entaglement just dosent exist".

 

[Juma]

That was the most lame comment ever.
It is one very hypotetical article. That is not something you should build your case on.

In other words, you need to falsify his model in order to only partially justify your statement, "Such enormous entaglement just dosent exist".

No. Current science says that such entanglements isnt possible. It is up to him to show that it is possible.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Firing rates and narratization

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem

Then just google around firing rates and synonyms for bp1. There’s a vast body of work on this now...

 

[ryan]

That was the most lame comment ever.
It is one very hypotetical article. That is not something you should build your case on.

In other words, you need to falsify his model in order to only partially justify your statement, "Such enormous entaglement just dosent exist".

No. Current science says that such entanglements isnt possible. It is up to him to show that it is possible.

You are the one with the claim against; can you support it? What is the limit of entanglements?