Determinism vs Free Will

[Holder of the Heel]

Edit: Before someone inevitably would say, I am indeed aware that this is in the actual Debate Hall, however this raises personal questions of mine that could be discussed or answered, and also the fact that not everyone can participate in that obviously, for example me, although applying for that some time ago.

This is something I have been hearing about since the start of my interest in philosophy, and at first glance to me it seemed absolutely a waste of time, though this comes to change as of late. If you do not already know, it is the debate between whether we freely live the way we do purely from a willful choice, as in when faced with a decision, you don't choose the decision you make because that is what a person in your placement necessarily had to do, it is simply a mere whim of yours from the logical steps (or errors) you make in your mind. People who believe in Determinism believe we do not have free will, and we are the way we are because from what nature and experiences has given us in life has created what we are, and although we may think and do things in a sense "freely", but the things that pop up in our mind did as a result of the previous steps taken in your existence. It is hard for me to explain, but take for example a set of ten seconds of your life, and say that HAD to happen, simply because what happened prior to it has taken place. If there are any misconceptions, correct me.

You'll also have to forgive me for my lack of "official" terms (though I don't see the point if I merely explain everything I mean), but "Free Will" seems to be something that is created and controlled by itself, and nothing reigns supreme over its movements (although a Free Will believer will at the very least, I would think, have to necessarily believe that it is slightly imprisoned from the fact that its source materials are limited of course). How a will can be made seems to confuse me, and how this "force" in our mind moves, especially of its own according, as if a prime mover like Aristotle called God. This seems to attribute also that the will somehow is made up of things separate from our experiences and memories, or else they'd be determined to follow them since they then would have a determined status and be ruled by experience, which Determinism would hold, to my knowledge.

I do have a couple of questions about this, because if these facts about the will are to be assumed, if you believed in it, wouldn't you believe that if two people were to wipe their memories, swap wills, achieve the memories of the other person, and would be capable of making different decisions although the will did not bring anything new to the table. Another way to pose this may be also that if you another YOU was born, and put through the exact same situations down to the dot and brought to the exact second that you are in now, he would have lived a completely different life because of infinite oppurtunities that you could have made a different decision on a whim. Basically, the will that is made from the brain somehow has a power irrespective of anything the brain has and thus can act independently. A third and final way to portray the belief of a Free Will and Determinism version of a person, when faced with a decision, and you somehow multiplied the present universe infinitely, if you believed in Determinism, you would have seen the things taking place around you and answered the same way because of the pros, cons, knowledge attained, etc. in every possible world, but if you believe in the Free Will, you would have arbitrarily made countless responses to the follow couple seconds even using the same knowledge and adversity. If I am missing something, please educate me, like Socrates I enjoy when I am pointed out that I am wrong.

Now, as for morale implications of this, I have heard people say that as a result of believing Determinism, punishment becomes illogical, or a universe that lives by such standards would not punish criminals, although this I disagree with, for I feel that since people would be determined to do so if possible, rehabilitating them and imprisoning would still follow logically in order to prevent possible illegal acts and to try and allow a change in the individual. As a result though, it would seem that people might have to stop believing in good and evil, almost taking Socrates' notion that no one commits an "evil" act intentionally, for there is knowledge that would have enlightened and saved that person from his unjust acts. In this vein, people who know killing is considered wrong but still does it is not evil but simply ignorant. Though things like dysfunction of the brain would also be taken into account, which determines a lot in people in how they think and handle things, and in such a case that is also not evil, simply impairment.

Anyways, now that I got these thoughts out, I want to hear thoughts.

 

[Orboknown]

Nice explanation.
As a Catholic, I kinda believe in a weird combination of the two. Im shaped by the Church's doctrine that God, assuming for the sake of this post he exists, has infinite foresight to know what we will do and plan for it accordingly.
That said, I also believe that a person's choices do affect them. Their choices who they are and what theydo.
Insert my strange personal belief. Assuming God exists as the Church says it does God is able to plan for the choice we make, but their is not a definitive choice that we will make. Inother words, For everychoice wemake God has a planready for that decision.

Hope i made my stance clear.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

So a combination is a compatilist (or something like that). Hmmm... I am not sure if having perfect and infinite insight necessarily means that it controls what we do, it simply means that he knows what we will inevitably make, so that is kind of irrespective of the will we possess. Though, if omniscient, he would know the decision, and wouldn't have Plan B and Plan C insights in mind if he is wrong about what you do in any given situation. I also am not sure either, if this is implied by your post, that we do things because he has planned for them, and nothing can be done if God does not plan for a next step.

Also, I am confused as to what you mean by "a person's choices do affect them. Their choices who they are and what they do."

 

[Orboknown]

Forgot a word in there.Sorry.
Our choices affect who we are- If a man or woman choose to **** someone, then in anothers eyes they become a rapist. It isn't just something they did, it becomes part of them in anothers eyes.
Likewise, if you choose one profession over another it affects what they do in life.

that we do things because he has planned for them, and nothing can be done if God does not plan for a next step.

I think we do what we do on our own, but that God had prepared for each circumstance. He knows what we might do, but not what we will do.

 

[GofG]

Uhm... These two are not incompatible?

Try to look at the algorithm from the inside.

Most people who believe in determinism were convinced by the following argument:

There are two competing causes for an event: Me and Physics. Since Physics is the cause of all events, Me is not the cause for any events.

This is wrong.

Fully immerse yourself in THIS diagram instead.

People's choices are determined by physics. What kind of physics? The kind of physics that includes weighing decisions, considering possible outcomes, judging them, being tempted, following morals, rationalizing transgressions, trying to do better...

There is no point where a quark swoops in from Pluto and overrides all this.

The thoughts of your decision process are all real, they are all something. But a thought is too big and complicated to be an atom. So thoughts are made of smaller things, and our name for the stuff that stuff is made of, is "physics".

Physics underlies our decisions and includes our decisions, it does not explain them away.

 

[rvkevin]

Uhm... These two are not incompatible?

What you said basically sums up compatibilism, which most determinists would not argue with. At most, they don't see it as "true" or meaningful freewill since if we replayed the situation using the same starting conditions (atom by atom), then you will make the same choice every single time and can't choose otherwise. This then becomes an argument about semantics which leads nowhere. However, if you define freewill to mean contra-causal freewill (which is at odds with determinism), then the diagram you created would not apply since they believe that "Me" is not a subset of physics; rather, they think that "Me" can overpower physics.

 

[GofG]

Oh, I thought reductionism was pretty much accepted as truth these days. My apologies.

 

[Dre89]

One the problems with determinism is that they sort of set a double standard.

Most determinists will say that brain activity can be explained by chemical processes, and therefore positing the existence of a non physical mind becomes an unecessary proposition.

But in turn, if a non physical mind doesn't exist, and mental states are explained entirely by chemical processes, the existence of consciousness becomes entirely unecessary, yet we know it exists.

So either way, you're left with an unnecessary proposition.

 

[AltF4]

But in turn, if a non physical mind doesn't exist, and mental states are explained entirely by chemical processes, the existence of consciousness becomes entirely unecessary, yet we know it exists

I was going to let this go, since this is the proving grounds. But this is just too much. We're supposed to believe that a non-physical "consciousness" exists simply because you declare it obvious? Or if it isn't non-physical... then in what sense can you declare it unnecessary? It exists. What more do you want?

(Said in the same sense that "soccer exists". Which is to say that a system of individual parts come together into a pattern we recognize as "soccer". Not that "soccer" in the abstract itself exists)

 

[AltF4]

Also, for the thread, fun challenge:

Try to define Free Will in a way that doesn't ammount to "magic". IE: If things just follow natural law, then there's clearly no room for "choice". So Free Will has to be defined as the ability to suspend natural law at someone's whim. AKA: Magic.

 

[ElvenKing]

I was going to let this go, since this is the proving grounds. But this is just too much. We're supposed to believe that a non-physical "consciousness" exists simply because you declare it obvious? Or if it isn't non-physical... then in what sense can you declare it unnecessary? It exists. What more do you want?

(Said in the same sense that "soccer exists". Which is to say that a system of individual parts come together into a pattern we recognize as "soccer". Not that "soccer" in the abstract itself exists)

Maybe the point they are trying to allude to is that consciousness cannot be directly observed in the manner that a ball on a table can be.

Still, their analysis is incorrect. Consciousness is actually required in a deterministic universe. Since we have experiences, it is absurd to suggest otherwise. There is no double standard. Their argument looks more like an attack on those who argue that there can only be a truth when it has been logically proven beyond a doubt.

 

[Dre89]

I was going to let this go, since this is the proving grounds. But this is just too much. We're supposed to believe that a non-physical "consciousness" exists simply because you declare it obvious? Or if it isn't non-physical... then in what sense can you declare it unnecessary? It exists. What more do you want?

(Said in the same sense that "soccer exists". Which is to say that a system of individual parts come together into a pattern we recognize as "soccer". Not that "soccer" in the abstract itself exists)

So you're denying that I have thoughts, imagination, and feel desires? You're saying that's all one big illusion?

That's what conciousness is. You havwe conciousness when you're awake, and not when you're sleep. Unless you're going to deny that distinction too, at which point I'm not going to bother anymore.

The point is if our activity is explained by chemical processes none of those things are neccessary. There would be no mental distinction between being asleep and being awake.


We would just be like plants or robots. Unless you're going to say they have thoughts, imaginations, and can actually feel desires too.

You'd basically have to say any process ever, be it organic or electronic would have to have thoughts, imagination and capable of feeling desires. That's the lengths you have to go to to defend your materialism.

I seriously don't see how any of that is more rational than believing that humans have free will.

 

[ElvenKing]

So you're denying that I have thoughts, imagination, and feel desires? You're saying that's all one big illusion?

That's what conciousness is. You havwe conciousness when you're awake, and not when you're sleep. Unless you're going to deny that distinction too, at which point I'm not going to bother anymore.

You'd basically have to say any process ever, be it organic or electronic would have to have thoughts, imagination and capable of feeling desires. That's the lengths you have to go to to defend your materialism.

I seriously don't see how any of that is more rational than believing that humans have free will.

Such an argument is easily dealt with by taking that all those things exist and are a product of physical process in the body.


This is an absurd suggestion because there is no reason to think that everything that results from such process must possess a consciousness. Indeed, going by the evidence, it is suggested that many of these things do not, at least to the level of a human consciousness.

We have reason to believe that humans possess a level consciousness that they do, drawn from how humans behave, through the association of one's own consciousness with their body(as it is other bodies that are seen behaving in a manner similar to the one I possess).

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I am quite confused, I don't understand how consciousness doesn't necessarily follow. We have a brain. It contains memories. We have senses that build these. The only illusion is time passing, the past combining with the future to give this illusory affect of the present (which can't be any instance of time, since as it passes it is past, and while it has not arrived it is future, even when someone is currently doing something it only means it has done it in the past and in theory should continue to do it, though this is off topic). Anyways, consciousness is obvious, to me, and not in some sort of suspension of the mind (the first post probably alluded to me believing in determinism), for we have memories in our brains and we learn from them and can use this datum to think and imagine by stimulation (I don't know how the process works exactly, but it is physical). Where is the trouble coming from? It is necessarily there because of how things are.

As for sleeping and being awake, I have no idea what point you are trying to make from that.

 

[AltF4]

Dre: What complete idiocy. You're telling me that in order for consciousness to be a physical phenomenon, it also must necessarily exist in plants? You just said that any process ever would have to have thoughts feelings and desires, including a rock. That's just such an absurd statement it's hard to respond to. I'm at a complete loss as to what would make someone say something so transparently wrong.

Do other physical phenomenon play by these rules? If supernovas are explained by physical processes, does that necessarily mean that supernovas exist in plants?

Making statements like "clearly consciousness exists" is also equally idiotic. Because it is so obvious, and yet says absolutely nothing. It doesn't at all explain what consciousness is. (And yet is worded dishonestly so as to clearly suggest that it is proof of something non-physical.) If you want to buy into an explanation where the mind and consciousness are non-physical then that's you're business. But don't just assert that your view is obvious, and the only possible explanation. That's just absurd.

 

[ElvenKing]

Also, for the thread, fun challenge:

Try to define Free Will in a way that doesn't ammount to "magic". IE: If things just follow natural law, then there's clearly no room for "choice". So Free Will has to be defined as the ability to suspend natural law at someone's whim. AKA: Magic.

I suspect that you have made it impossible there because you are holding that human decisions are determined as a result of natural law. If free will is to exist, the natural law that governs human decision making is the force of will, rather than any other determining force. To me this seems like you are suggesting that one define an existent free will when free will doesn't exist, which seems rather absurd.

Of course, even in the case of free will, one could not escape natural laws entirely, as one could not will that their arms were three feet long or make a choice that they did not have knowledge of, so if it is true that free will exists, there are some determining factors about what choice can be taken. The point in such an instance though is that one would have free choice between a number of alternatives as determined by one's knowledge and what is physically possible.

 

[Dre89]

Dre: What complete idiocy. You're telling me that in order for consciousness to be a physical phenomenon, it also must necessarily exist in plants? You just said that any process ever would have to have thoughts feelings and desires, including a rock. That's just such an absurd statement it's hard to respond to. I'm at a complete loss as to what would make someone say something so transparently wrong.

Do other physical phenomenon play by these rules? If supernovas are explained by physical processes, does that necessarily mean that supernovas exist in plants?

Making statements like "clearly consciousness exists" is also equally idiotic. Because it is so obvious, and yet says absolutely nothing. It doesn't at all explain what consciousness is. (And yet is worded dishonestly so as to clearly suggest that it is proof of something non-physical.) If you want to buy into an explanation where the mind and consciousness are non-physical then that's you're business. But don't just assert that your view is obvious, and the only possible explanation. That's just absurd.

Well then answer the question, are you saying that thoughts, imagination and the experience of desires don't exist?

The point is that your logic entails that everything has conciousness, not mine.

The plants and robots thing is a two horn dilemma. They function in a similar way as we do- they have processes in their body that react to stimulus and act accordingly.

So either-

Plants and robots are no different to us, meaning they have thoughts etc.

Or

Plants and robots don't have thoughts, imagination etc. which means they're not necessary for human function. So by saying that human activity is entirely a result of physical processes you're saying that thoughts etc. are an unnecessary addition, yet they exist. You're forced to assert an unecessary proposition, yet your reason for discrediting free will is that it asserts an unnecessary proposition.




You can't have it both ways. You can't say our activity is a result of purely physical processes, but then say our activity necessitates thoughts etc. when other things in the world with similar physical processes don't need these thoughts etc.

 

[ElvenKing]

Well then answer the question, are you saying that thoughts, imagination and the experience of desires don't exist?

The point is that your logic entails that everything has conciousness, not mine.

The plants and robots thing is a two horn dilemma. They function in a similar way as we do- they have processes in their body that react to stimulus and act accordingly.

So either-

Plants and robots don't have thoughts, imagination etc. which means they're not necessary for human function. So by saying that human activity is entirely a result of physical processes you're saying that thoughts etc. are an unecessary addition, yet they exist.

Or

Plants and robots are no different to us, meaning they have thoughts etc.



You can't have it both ways. You can't say our activity is a result of purely physical processes, but then say our activity necessitates thoughts etc. when other things in the world with similar physical processes don't need these thoughts etc.

Tell me, is a light breeze the same a nuclear explosion?

Not all physical processes have the same result. Indeed, looking at the evidence, how plants and computers work, there is a great physical difference between the structures involved and those of the human body. Combine this with the evidence of how they behave, the conclusion that humans possesses a consciousness while the others do not, or possess a different from of consciousness, is far from absurd.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

What ElvenKing said.

Humans have brains.

Computers and plants do not.

Human functionality =/= Computer and Plant functionality

 

[Dre89]

Tell me, is a light breeze the same a nuclear explosion?

Not all physical processes have the same result. Indeed, looking at the evidence, how plants and computers work, there is a great physical difference between the structures involved and those of the human body. Combine this with the evidence of how they behave, the conclusion that humans possesses a consciousness while the others do not, or possess a different from of consciousness, is far from absurd.

Exactly my point. Determinism is saying we function the way they do. My point is if we function the same way as them, then either conciousness is unecessary, meaning materialists are asserting an unecessary proposition, which is what they accuse of free willers of doing, or plants and robots must have conciousness too.

Seeing as it's unlikely they have conciousness too, my point is that either free will exists, or that the conciousness is an unnecessary existence.

 

[ElvenKing]

Exactly my point. Determinism is saying we function the way they do. My point is if we function the same way as them, then either conciousness is unecessary, meaning materialists are asserting an unecessary proposition, which is what they accuse of free willers of doing, or plants and robots must have conciousness too.

Seeing as it's unlikely they have conciousness too, my point is that either free will exists, or that the conciousness is an unnecessary existence.

Um, no. Determinism does not say that at all. Determinism says that actions are determined through the way that the world interacts with the human body and mind, as opposed to being selected with a free will. It does not say that all physical systems in existence function in the same manner at all.

 

[Dre89]

But that's what Alt is saying.

Alt is saying that all human activity can be explained through physical processes, and that the existence of a non-physical mind is an unecessary proposition.

This is different from say Calvinist determinism, which suggests we are all determined as a result of God's omnipotence, and who elects who to save from damnation. The existence of conciousness is more understandable in that case.

If physical processes can explain all activity then we wouldn't need to have thoughts because these add absolutely nothing to process. All our actions are a result of chemical processes, and as Alt said our thoughts are simply chemical processes too, meaning that we wouldn't need conciousness to do anything.

Because apart from thoughts in the materialist framework there really is little distinction between plants and animals. Plants are capable of motion, they have motion when they breed, or when something like a venus flytrap catches a fly.

Traditionally, the distinction between the two was that animals can move on their own accord. But remember according to the materialist framework they don't, they're simply reacting to external stimulus, just like plants and robots just that the stimulus is far less obvious.

So my point still stands that on the materialist framework conciousness isn't necessary, thus they are asserting an unnecessary proposition.

I'm waiting on Alt now to tell me how idiotic my arguments are and that I believe in magic.

 

[AltF4]

It's pretty obvious that the answer is that there is nothing magical about the element Carbon which produces human intelligence. Just as there is nothing magical about Silcon that produces a computer. In principle, you can make a computer out of anything. (Even minecraft blocks) This is not the same thing as saying that everything IS a computer. That would be an extraordinarily stupid thing to say. I think everyone can tell the difference between having the capability in principle to have a property, and actually having that property. Materialism in no way asserts, implies, or necessitates that rocks have intelligence.

And what I'm asserting is that you could in principle make a human intelligence out of another material than Carbon. Is this so outlandish? If I were to replace one neuron in your brain with a computer chip: would you suddenly become non-human? No. What about 2? No. At what point, then, does your non-physical consciousness leave you and you stop becoming alive? It's an aburd thing to think about. The reality of the matter is this hypothetical tranformation is that no loss of functionality ever takes place. Why should we expect you to suddenly (Dare I say magically) ever lose your consciousness?

 

[GofG]

Whole-brain emulation is possible with modern hardware; we simply don't have *enough* modern hardware to do it, but the human brain is turing complete and therefore could be written in any modern programming language. It would run very slowly, but it would be conscious and any sane moral system would attribute the program the same rights as any other human.

Consciousness emerges in a well-studied way from the brain. The mind is the conscious subset of the brain and is entirely physical in nature.

I have a magnificent proof of this, which unfortunately people who have not studied neurology would not understand. I have tried in the past, trust me, and there is no point to even trying to explain neurology to anyone who hasn't had at least a couple years of organic chem + bio, but you must take my words at face value anyway because I'm the neurology expert and you aren't, Dre.

edit: my little jab at you notwithstanding, I will mail you a copy of Susan Blackmoore's Consciousness: An Introduction, the best textbook available, if you say you will read it. Or perhaps, also by Susan Blackmoore, Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction. Either way, I need to spend this amazon gift card.

 

[ElvenKing]

But that's what Alt is saying.

Alt is saying that all human activity can be explained through physical processes, and that the existence of a non-physical mind is an unecessary proposition.

This is different from say Calvinist determinism, which suggests we are all determined as a result of God's omnipotence, and who elects who to save from damnation. The existence of conciousness is more understandable in that case.

If physical processes can explain all activity then we wouldn't need to have thoughts because these add absolutely nothing to process. All our actions are a result of chemical processes, and as Alt said our thoughts are simply chemical processes too, meaning that we wouldn't need conciousness to do anything.

Because apart from thoughts in the materialist framework there really is little distinction between plants and animals. Plants are capable of motion, they have motion when they breed, or when something like a venus flytrap catches a fly.

Traditionally, the distinction between the two was that animals can move on their own accord. But remember according to the materialist framework they don't, they're simply reacting to external stimulus, just like plants and robots just that the stimulus is far less obvious.

So my point still stands that on the materialist framework conciousness isn't necessary, thus they are asserting an unnecessary proposition.

I'm waiting on Alt now to tell me how idiotic my arguments are and that I believe in magic.

There is a huge different between plants and animals in terms of how the react to stimuli. Just as there is a huge difference between how animals and humans behave. We can see it. Everything reacting to stimulus does not equal all reactions to stimulus being the same.

As I have stated previously, there is reason to think that human bodies have a consciousness attached to them. The argument your are presenting, that there are other existent consciousness, actually requires that you accept this reason BEFORE you even get to the point of reasoning that the existence of consciousness is supported by actions being the result of a element of consciousness(free will), else there is no reason to think that there exist any other consciousnesses that possess such a will. This means that free will is not a required element to support the existence of consciousness at all.

You have used the very reason(that there my consciousnesses, attached to my body, which then behaves in a certain way) that determinism uses to presume the presence of consciousnesses(by taking that since other bodies, which are like mine, behave like me, it is the case that they possess consciousnesses) in others, allowing you to reasonable suggest that there might be multiple conscious entities(which then would allow, assuming free will exists, the actions of the bodies observed to be the result of free will), which allows you to build your argument. Assuming that you are considering it reasonable that other consciousnesses exist, there can be nothing wrong with a determinist suggesting that consciousnesses is attached to human bodies that are perceived.

Also, I ask this: how do you know, in a situation where actions are determined by free will, that a rock does not have consciousnesses and free will? You could appeal to that rocks don't seem to be taking any action, but it might be that rocks are simply choosing to sit still.

The only way that it can be suggested that a object in perception has or does not have consciousnesses is by looking at its actions and considering that they don't reflect how a conscious being would act, meaning that if it is inappropriate to consider something to possess or not possess consciousnesses on the grounds of how it appears to be different in observation(as you suggest, to argue that a determinist must say that everything is conscious or nothing is), the obligation to take that everything has consciousnesses or nothing does applies in any situation, even if decisions are determined by free will.

 

[Dre89]

GofG- The fact you think I'm questioning any neuroscience suggests you don't understand what I'm arguing. I don't deny that physical processes play a part in brain activity, that's what the nerve system if for.

It's pretty obvious that the answer is that there is nothing magical about the element Carbon which produces human intelligence. Just as there is nothing magical about Silcon that produces a computer. In principle, you can make a computer out of anything. (Even minecraft blocks) This is not the same thing as saying that everything IS a computer. That would be an extraordinarily stupid thing to say. I think everyone can tell the difference between having the capability in principle to have a property, and actually having that property. Materialism in no way asserts, implies, or necessitates that rocks have intelligence.

And what I'm asserting is that you could in principle make a human intelligence out of another material than Carbon. Is this so outlandish? If I were to replace one neuron in your brain with a computer chip: would you suddenly become non-human? No. What about 2? No. At what point, then, does your non-physical consciousness leave you and you stop becoming alive? It's an aburd thing to think about. The reality of the matter is this hypothetical tranformation is that no loss of functionality ever takes place. Why should we expect you to suddenly (Dare I say magically) ever lose your consciousness?

Yet again you avoid answering my question.

Do you believe humans have thoughts, imaginations, and feel desires?

If you do that's conciousness.

Now, explain to me how these things are necessary if human activity is purely a result of physical processes.

Elven- But I'm not saying other conciousnesses exist, that's absurd. My point is that the materialist is forced to believe this, or that conciousness is an unnecessary existence, but unnecessary propositions were the reason they reject free will in the first place.

Free will is what makes conciousness necessary. It's an argument against materialism specifically, because materialists can't have any unecessary propositions for the reason I stated above. This argument wouldn't work on Calvinists for example, who believe God predetermines everything and elects who to save, because in that scenario conciousness is still necessary.

Remeber, all the thoughts I have in my head are determined. Materialists believe the images I get in my head are purely chemical, so they don't need to be visualised by a conciousness because all the data for them was contained in my body to begin with.

There is basically no need for conciousness in the materialist framework. All human activity would be possible without it accordng to them, yet it exists.

 

[AltF4]

Of course humans have thoughts, feelings, imagination, and consciousness. We can observe that. But that doesn't explain what they are. Feelings and desires can very well be (and we have good reason to think they are) entirely physical processes. A feeling isn't "Produced by a physical process". It IS the process.

And I haven't the foggiest clue what this nonsense about being "necessary" is. There's nothing necessary about how the universe works. It is how it is, and we don't get a say in the matter. Once you determine that something exists, and you can explain what it is and how it works... that's all there is. The concept of it being "necessary" never comes into play.

And you definitely can't just waltz into a thread and make utterly ridiculous claims like that materialism necessarily implies that rocks have feelings. It's baffling to think that you're serious about this.

 

[ElvenKing]

Elven- But I'm not saying other conciousnesses exist, that's absurd. My point is that the materialist is forced to believe this, or that conciousness is an unnecessary existence, but unnecessary propositions were the reason they reject free will in the first place.

Free will is what makes conciousness necessary. It's an argument against materialism specifically, because materialists can't have any unecessary propositions for the reason I stated above. This argument wouldn't work on Calvinists for example, who believe God predetermines everything and elects who to save, because in that scenario conciousness is still necessary.

Remeber, all the thoughts I have in my head are determined. Materialists believe the images I get in my head are purely chemical, so they don't need to be visualised by a conciousness because all the data for them was contained in my body to begin with.

There is basically no need for conciousness in the materialist framework. All human activity would be possible without it accordng to them, yet it exists.

No, I wasn't saying you were. I was pointing out you are mistaken and is not actually the case for a materialist at all. I suppose I'll have to explain it step by step. Lets start with this question: why is it absurd to think that everything has consciousness?

Free will, if it were to exist, would be an element of consciousness. You can't make the argument that free will shows that consciousness must exist because free will is a part to it. If free will exists, you have already defined consciousness as existing, and are effectually making the argument because consciousness(free will) exists consciousness must exist, which is not actually reasoning supporting a conclusion that something must exist. It is simply a restatement of what is held to exist.

No, they think that chemicals cause as process which produces an image in your head as you perceive it. That your conscious perception, exactly as it is perceived, is produced by processes within the system of the body. Consciousness is just as much existent as under any other explanation. Nor is it irrelevant to what happen either, as consciousness allows an awareness of what is around you which may play a role in determining what action you are going to take next.

 

[GofG]

Do you believe humans have thoughts, imaginations, and feel desires?

If you do that's conciousness.

Now, explain to me how these things are necessary if human activity is purely a result of physical processes.

Because consciousness is a necessary side effect of having thoughts, imaginations, and desires. Those things are what consciousness *is*.

 

[Dre89]

Of course humans have thoughts, feelings, imagination, and consciousness. We can observe that. But that doesn't explain what they are. Feelings and desires can very well be (and we have good reason to think they are) entirely physical processes. A feeling isn't "Produced by a physical process". It IS the process.

And I haven't the foggiest clue what this nonsense about being "necessary" is. There's nothing necessary about how the universe works. It is how it is, and we don't get a say in the matter. Once you determine that something exists, and you can explain what it is and how it works... that's all there is. The concept of it being "necessary" never comes into play.

And you definitely can't just waltz into a thread and make utterly ridiculous claims like that materialism necessarily implies that rocks have feelings. It's baffling to think that you're serious about this.

It implies that either that rocks have conciousness, or that human activity can be achieved without conciousness, yet it exists.

Your first paragraph is completely irrelevant seeing as I challenged any of that. If anything, it strengthens my argument because the fact it is the process means that conciousness isn't necessary for it.

And you conveniently avoid my point about necessity by resorting to classic 'nothing in the universe is necessary' card that materialists and scientists do to try and straw man opposing arguments.

I never said humans needed to evolve anything. What I said is that according to the materialist, human activity can be explained without the need for conciousness, that's what I meant by conciousness not being necessary.

According to you, conciousness doesn't have any role to play in determining human activity. It is simply a product of activity already determined by physical processes in the body. So conciousness has no point at all, nor does it have any connection to human activity.

So my question is why do you believe humans have conciousness, and things like plants and rocks don't?

According to you the behaviour of a being can't display a concious or lack thereof, because behaviour is a result of physical processes entirely, conciousness is simply an after-effect.

This is my point about rocks. You would have no way of knowing whether they have conciousness or not because behavioural patterns do not give us any answers. The fact that humans have conciousness and things like rocks don't would be completely arbitrary.

If conciousness is entirely an after-effect of physical processes, why don't things like plants have conciousness too?

 

[GofG]

It implies that either that rocks have conciousness, or that human activity can be achieved without conciousness, yet it exists.

Your first paragraph is completely irrelevant seeing as I challenged any of that. If anything, it strengthens my argument because the fact it is the process means that conciousness isn't necessary for it.

And you conveniently avoid my point about necessity by resorting to classic 'nothing in the universe is necessary' card that materialists and scientists do to try and straw man opposing arguments.

I never said humans needed to evolve anything. What I said is that according to the materialist, human activity can be explained without the need for conciousness, that's what I meant by conciousness not being necessary.

According to you, conciousness doesn't have any role to play in determining human activity. It is simply a product of activity already determined by physical processes in the body. So conciousness has no point at all, nor does it have any connection to human activity.

So my question is why do you believe humans have conciousness, and things like plants and rocks don't?

According to you the behaviour of a being can't display a concious or lack thereof, because behaviour is a result of physical processes entirely, conciousness is simply an after-effect.

No, consciousness is an intermediate step in between a small number of the physical processes and the behaviors. Mostly what it does is rationalize the behaviors which it does not control, and make real decisions about long-term plans. It is a real function of real physical processes which is a requirement for a mammalian brain to have the kind of abilities that we have. It is not "unnecessary".

This is my point about rocks. You would have no way of knowing whether they have conciousness or not because behavioural patterns do not give us any answers. The fact that humans have consciousness and things like rocks don't would be completely arbitrary.

If conciousness is entirely an after-effect of physical processes, why don't things like plants have conciousness too?

Why are you defining consciousness the same way I define a soul? Plants don't have consciousness because they don't have selfawareness, desires, abstract thoughts, etc.

Your argument^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H strawman of our argument is the "zombie" argument; that is, you could recreate a human with the exact same brain, but with no 'soul/consciousness', and it would behave the same as that human would, but it wouldn't 'feel' anything or be 'aware'. See Eliezer Yudkovsky's rebuttal of this argument.

And seriously, you are demonstrating a very distinct lack of knowledge of neurology. I am serious about my offer of mailing you the definitive textbook.

 

[Dre89]

How am I displaying a lack of knowledge of neurology? Not that I deny I lack knowledge on it, but these aren't neurological points.

It's not like I'm denying that mental activity is a result of physical processes. Materialism isn't a neurological position, it's a philosophical one.

Alt is saying we aren't that different from robots. He thinks the only real distinction between us and complex robots is the fact we're organic. That's why he refers to 'carbon chauvinism'.

So Alt does believe it is possible to function at the human level of complexity without thoughts, or he thinks robots have thoughts too. It was his argument I was addressing.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

But by taking a materialistic philosophical position, you also by default must take a neurological one, considering it has neurological implications. We ARE talking about the brain, its consciousness, and whether free will is attached to it or not... right?

 

[GofG]

How am I displaying a lack of knowledge of neurology? Not that I deny I lack knowledge on it, but these aren't neurological points.

It's not like I'm denying that mental activity is a result of physical processes. Materialism isn't a neurological position, it's a philosophical one.

Alt is saying we aren't that different from robots. He thinks the only real distinction between us and complex robots is the fact we're organic. That's why he refers to 'carbon chauvinism'.

So Alt does believe it is possible to function at the human level of complexity without thoughts, or he thinks robots have thoughts too. It was his argument I was addressing.

We aren't different from robots at all. As I said, it would be entirely possible with enough GPUs to simulate a human brain on the atomic level (the differences between the atomic model and the subatomic model, in this situation, aren't large enough to make a difference at the scale of neurons), and the resulting simulation would be just as conscious as an organic human brain, because the consciousness emerges from certain (physical) aspects of the decision making process.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

It has never been proven that we can make a robot that can be original, have emotions, have a point of view "what is it like to be a robot?", contain biological knowledge, and we haven't even made autonomous robots yet. We don't understand technology enough to even pretend whether we know precisely how things like that can go down, that is one of the unanswered problems of philosophy.

I would interject that a robot only does what it is programmed to, and would thus error and not compute anything it does not know how to interact with, whereas a human could be thrust in with just a blank functioning brain and start interacting due to reactions in aforementioned brain primitively. A computer (although again we don't understand it entirely), may still in theory not have the consciousness to interact any further than a video game would that glitches when something not accounted for occurs.

Off topic, but I wanted to bring it up.

 

[GofG]

It has never been proven that we can make a robot that can be original, have emotions, have a point of view "what is it like to be a robot?", contain biological knowledge, and we haven't even made autonomous robots yet. We don't understand technology enough to even pretend whether we know precisely how things like that can go down, that is one of the unanswered problems of philosophy.

No, you are wrong. The human brain is turing complete and if we had many, many orders of magnitude more computational power than we have now, we could write it in javascript. The question of programming an original consciousness using our intelligence is up in the air, but we already know that consciousness can be programmed: evolution programmed us, afterall.

I would interject that a robot only does what it is programmed to, and would thus error and not compute anything it does not know how to interact with, whereas a human could be thrust in with just a blank functioning brain and start interacting due to reactions in aforementioned brain primitively. A computer (although again we don't understand it entirely), may still in theory not have the consciousness to interact any further than a video game would that glitches when something not accounted for occurs.

Off topic, but I wanted to bring it up.

I'm not talking about writing a program which simulates what humans do, I am talking about a program which simply emulates the electrical behavior of neurons at the atomic level. A 1:1 reproduction of a human brain would be a conscious human brain regardless of the medium it used for neurons.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

No, you are wrong. The human brain is turing complete and if we had many, many orders of magnitude more computational power than we have now, we could write it in javascript. The question of programming an original consciousness using our intelligence is up in the air, but we already know that consciousness can be programmed: evolution programmed us, afterall.

Okay, but I have never read anything online or heard anyone ever say that it was clear that this is the case, in fact everyone is still talking about it and is unanimously considered unsolved among many issues.

We were "programmed" (very loose and poor usage of the word, not parallel to actual programming at all) by evolution is incredibly different than humans making computers. Not even close.

I'm not talking about writing a program which simulates what humans do, I am talking about a program which simply emulates the electrical behavior of neurons at the atomic level. A 1:1 reproduction of a human brain would be a conscious human brain regardless of the medium it used for neurons.

Emulation doesn't imply consciousness, it simply appears as if one has consciousness. It is like the dilemma that is unsolved where a person puts a computer system (beyond our technology level as one can imagine) and a human, both somehow capable of communicating to you from inside, and that there are difficulties with how one can prove one is the other. That is it. And that is highly theoretical, and only involves simply speaking and listening.

 

[GofG]

Okay, but I have never read anything online or heard anyone ever say that it was clear that this is the case, in fact everyone is still talking about it and is unanimously considered unsolved among many issues.

We were "programmed" (very loose and poor usage of the word, not parallel to actual programming at all) by evolution is incredibly different than humans making computers. Not even close.

It is not a poor usage of the word at all. It is exactly what is going on. Anything that is turing complete can be said to be programmed. Evolution designed us to be adaptation-executors, and that's what we are. Just because any intelligence we were to ever design would be a utility-optimizer as opposed to an adaptation-executor, making its choices much more transparent, does not make it any less conscious than we are.

Emulation doesn't imply consciousness, it simply appears as if one has consciousness. It is like the dilemma that is unsolved where a person puts a computer system (beyond our technology level as one can imagine) and a human, both somehow capable of communicating to you from inside, and that there are difficulties with how one can prove one is the other. That is it. And that is highly theoretical, and only involves simply speaking and listening.

...Yes it does. If consciousness is a purely physical process (it is), then it is a byproduct of the interaction between the neurons in the brain, just like every other mental aspect of life.

You say it simply "appears" as if one has consciousness. By how much does it "appear" so?

Is there any experiment which could definitively distinguish as to whether a human-style brain built on transistors were any less conscious than one built on neurons? If not, then you are wrong.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

It is not a poor usage of the word at all. It is exactly what is going on. Anything that is turing complete can be said to be programmed. Evolution designed us to be adaptation-executors, and that's what we are. Just because any intelligence we were to ever design would be a utility-optimizer as opposed to an adaptation-executor, making its choices much more transparent, does not make it any less conscious than we are.

We were built by biochemical processes, which reacted with the environment, developing over the ages physically (and by extension mentally), something purely robotic would never do, that tries to react to the environment. These processes never had an inkling of what anything was until it surfaced it, learning by contact, rather than set programming. Also, wouldn't you attribute the ability to adapt something consciousness would allow? Would you consider yourself conscious if you were basically possessed to do whatever you were programmed were, and would error, not compute, and not "consciously" make note of, even passively? Imagination, thoughts?

...Yes it does. If consciousness is a purely physical process (it is), then it is a byproduct of the interaction between the neurons in the brain, just like every other mental aspect of life.

You say it simply "appears" as if one has consciousness. By how much does it "appear" so?

Is there any experiment which could definitively distinguish as to whether a human-style brain built on transistors were any less conscious than one built on neurons? If not, then you are wrong.

Do you know what emulate means? To imitate. So no, you can emulate it, but it doesn't mean possession.

Have we not mentioned the zombie consciousness thing? That everyone may be exhibiting everything that is like consciousness but could all very well be mindless zombies just emulating what you have. Guess what? We haven't proved against that, despite how insane that sounds. Signs do not entail actual possession of consciousness, sorry.

 

[GofG]

We were built by biochemical processes, which reacted with the environment, developing over the ages physically (and by extension mentally), something purely robotic would never do, that tries to react to the environment. These processes never had an inkling of what anything was until it surfaced it, learning by contact, rather than set programming. Also, wouldn't you attribute the ability to adapt something consciousness would allow? Would you consider yourself conscious if you were basically possessed to do whatever you were programmed were, and would error, not compute, and not "consciously" make note of, even passively? Imagination, thoughts?

The 'mental' realm is not opposed to the 'physical' realm; it is a subset of it. Consciousness is not some thing which is separate from the physical processes of the mind: it is created by the neurons just like every other aspect of the mind.

You say robots will never be conscious simply because they are not conscious right now. This is a limitation of our ability to write general artificial intelligence, and is not evidence against the conceptual existence of intelligently designed consciousness.

Do you know what emulate means? To imitate. So no, you can emulate it, but it doesn't mean possession.

What? My Dolphin emulator runs SSBM just as well as my gamecube does. They operate on the same model.

Have we not mentioned the zombie consciousness thing? That everyone may be exhibiting everything that is like consciousness but could all very well be mindless zombies just emulating what you have. Guess what? We haven't proved against that, despite how insane that sounds. Signs do not entail actual possession of consciousness, sorry.

Uhm, no? Consciousness is an essential part of our decision making process. Without it, our brains would make different decisions. Saying that a human could be a 'zombie', that is, look exactly like John Smith and behave exactly like John Smith and make the same decisions as John Smith except without being 'conscious' is like saying that you could have John Smith who made the same decisions and behaviors except without having 'eyes'. Consciousness is just as real a physical processes and just as important to our brains as any other thing. (Actually many times more important.)

I posted a link on this page in this thread to a rebuttal of the Zombie idea.

A philosophical zombie or p-zombie is a hypothetical entity that looks and behaves exactly like a human (often stipulated to be atom-by-atom identical to a human) but is not actually conscious. A p-zombie is as likely as anyone else to ask, "When I see red, do I see the same color that you see when you see red?" but they have no real experience of the color red; the zombie's speech can be explained purely in mechanistic terms. The zombie thought experiment is purported to show that consciousness cannot be reduced to merely physical things: our universe is purported to perhaps have special "bridging laws" which evoke a mind into existence when there are atoms in a suitable brain-like configuration.

Critics deny the possibility of zombies: if a p-zombie is atom-by-atom identical to a human being in our universe, then our speech can be explained by the same mechanisms as the zombie's, and yet it would seem awfully peculiar that our words and actions would have one entirely materialistic explanation, but also, furthermore, our universe happens to contain exactly the right bridging law such that our experiences are meaningful and our consciousness syncs up with what our merely physical bodies do. It's too much of a stretch: Occam's razor dictates that we favor a monistic universe with one uniform set of laws.

e: TL;DR If consciousness were some kind of 'magic' process, as opposed to being turing complete, then I could understand thinking that it possessed 'magical' qualities, but there is absolutely nothing magical about consciousness, and therefore it is a physical process, and therefore it as an algorithm is compatible with any hardware including carbon-based neurons, silicon-based transistors, or any other medium.