Determinism on the rack

[Nervous]

If I am my brain how can I be controlled by it?

You can't define the "self", certainly the self is not your brain.

How can I freely assent to the idea that there is no free-will?

Well, everything you do is determined by what happened to make you do it.
I hit you with fire, your "free-will" tells you to run from it.
There's always something that causes you to do what you do.

If the first thought is "I am" how can it get in my way?

If thoughts are illusions how did I discover the brain?

Depends on what you mean by illusion.
Thoughts exist, they're basically the only thing you can't be skeptical of.

[R.F.]

There is scientific evidence that the brain is non deterministic. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has also been used to prove that human behavior must be non deterministic.

It makes sense that desire and need come from sources outside of one's control. And it also makes sense that choice is based upon whichever desire or need is strongest. It would therefore follow that choice is based upon factors outside of one's control. If choice is not based upon desires and it is not random, what is really left for it to be based upon? I believe it is in the ability to desire. Consciousness itself is what gives us free will.

You should provide "scientific evidence" instead of claiming it exists.

Determinism is nothing more than cause and effect.
When looking at [real] evidence we can see how much the unconscious parts of the brain are affecting the choices we make "consciously". This is-to say the least- enough to conclude we are not in in control, or aware even, of our brain processes.

Here is a rather famous example-


Libet found that the unconscious brain activity leading up to the conscious decision by the subject to flick his or her wrist began approximately half a second before the subject consciously felt that she had decided to move

[trobd]

You should provide "scientific evidence" instead of claiming it exists.

Determinism is nothing more than cause and effect.
When looking at [real] evidence we can see how much the unconscious parts of the brain are affecting the choices we make "consciously".

Here is a rather famous example-


Libet found that the unconscious brain activity leading up to the conscious decision by the subject to flick his or her wrist began approximately half a second before the subject consciously felt that she had decided to move

From Wikipedia: "... the discovery by Hava Siegelmann in the 1990s that sufficiently complex analog recurrent neural networks were not Turing Machines". Wikipedia cited H.T. Siegelmann, "Computation Beyond the Turing Limit," Science, 238(28), April 1995: 632-637

John Lucas showed that humanity has free will is an implication of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. See THE GODELIAN ARGUMENT or the Wikipedia article on JR Lucas.

Also from Wikipedia "(Roger) Penrose has written controversial books on the connection between fundamental physics and human (or animal) consciousness. In The Emperor's New Mind (1989), he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness."

Also see "neuroscience of free will" on Wikipedia, where it discusses Libets finding: "The interpretation of these (Libets) findings has been criticized by Daniel Dennett, who argues that people will have to shift their attention from their intention to the clock, and that this introduces temporal mismatches between the felt experience of will and the perceived position of the clock hand."

I do not think that Libet's results are "to say the least- enough to conclude we are not in in control, or aware even, of our brain processes."

Even if Libet's results are correct, all they show is that we are not conscious of very minor decisions at the time we take action on the decision. They certainly do not show that in every circumstance "we are not in in control, or aware even, of our brain processes."

If it is true that everything is caused by something, then what was the first cause and how could it have been an exception to the rule that everything is caused by something?

[trobd]

Laplace's demon is a hypothetical entity that knows the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe. Based upon determinism, he is able to calculate their past and future values for any point in time and so can predict the future as well as see into the past.

Laplaces demon summons you. When you arrive he puts $1,000 on the left of his desk and a box on the right. He informs you that the box has either $0 or $1,000,000. Then he says that you can take the box, or the money and the box. Just as it occurs to you that the obvious choice is to take both, he tells you that he put $1,000,000 into the box if and only if he foresaw that you will only take the box. This changes the game entirely, since it means that if you take only the box, you get $1,000,000 whereas you take both you only get $1,000.

Laplaces demon, by virtue of his ability to predict the future, has changed the past! And yet, Laplace's demon is nothing other than determinism, and thus determinism, if it is true, implies that the course of events in the past can be changed.

It is called Newcomb's paradox.

[Jonesboy]

There is scientific evidence that the brain is non deterministic. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has also been used to prove that human behavior must be non deterministic.

It makes sense that desire and need come from sources outside of one's control. And it also makes sense that choice is based upon whichever desire or need is strongest. It would therefore follow that choice is based upon factors outside of one's control. If choice is not based upon desires and it is not random, what is really left for it to be based upon? I believe it is in the ability to desire. Consciousness itself is what gives us free will.

Godel's theory was nonsense. He made the same mistake as you. He, and you, modelled the world on its elements, or particulars, in place of the concept that rounded them up.

[trobd]

You can't define the "self", certainly the self is not your brain.


Well, everything you do is determined by what happened to make you do it.
I hit you with fire, your "free-will" tells you to run from it.
There's always something that causes you to do what you do.

The principle of sufficient reason states that anything that happens does so for a reason: no state of affairs can be obtained, and no statement can be true unless there is sufficient reason why it should not be otherwise. That means that for every object in existence, (tangible or intangible) it is either someones self, or there is sufficient reason why it is not. Thus there must be a definition of self, if it has any meaning at all.

[trobd]

Godel's thery was nonsense. He made the same mistake as you. He, and you, modelled the world on its elements, or particulars, in place of the concept that rounded them up.

I am not following you. Please elaborate.

[Jonesboy]

Quote:
Quote by: Jonesboy
If I am my brain how can I be controlled by it?

You can't define the "self", certainly the self is not your brain.

Quote:
How can I freely assent to the idea that there is no free-will?
Well, everything you do is determined by what happened to make you do it.
I hit you with fire, your "free-will" tells you to run from it.
There's always something that causes you to do what you do.

Quote:
If the first thought is "I am" how can it get in my way?


Quote:
If thoughts are illusions how did I discover the brain?
Depends on what you mean by illusion.
Thoughts exist, they're basically the only thing you can't be skeptical of
--------------

Jonesboy replied
I don't know what we mean when we say that we can't define a word that we use, a word like "self".

You never answered this question:
How can I freely assent to the idea that there is no free-will?
If there is no free-will then I can neither assent nor not assent to the idea.

My point was that we must use our descriptions of thought to build the map of the brain. But if thoughts are "illusions" how can we do that?
Neuroscience must support its own idea of illusion.

[Jonesboy]

You can't define the "self", certainly the self is not your brain.


Well, everything you do is determined by what happened to make you do it.
I hit you with fire, your "free-will" tells you to run from it.
There's always something that causes you to do what you do.





Depends on what you mean by illusion.
Thoughts exist, they're basically the only thing you can't be skeptical of.

I am not following you. Please elaborate.

It's a conceptual tight spot. Like Godel, you suppose that a description of the world is made complete from a description of its elements. So we say that this causes that. But there is a logic of identity which does not say that t'his' causes 'that', but instead, says that we cannot be affected by the thing that we are.

[trobd]

It's a conceptual tight spot. Like Godel, you suppose that a description of the world is made complete from a description of its elements. So we say that this causes that. But there is a logic of identity which does not say that t'his' causes 'that', but instead, says that we cannot be affected by the thing that we are.

I would agree that "a description of the world is made complete from a description of its elements". What, in your opinion, would be needed to complete a description of the world, once all elements have been described?

You say "so we say that this causes that" which is cause and effect. What is the connection between a description of the world and cause and effect? Cause and effect is not needed to describe everything for every point in time.

You say "but there is a logic of identity ... ". How is there more than one kind of logic?

How can you know that "we cannot be effected by the thing that we are"?

Here are Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. You said these are "nonsense". They are proven mathematical theorems. Are you questioning mathematical proof? Can you disprove these?

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (essentially, a computer program) is capable of proving all facts about the natural numbers. For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem shows that if such a system is also capable of proving certain basic facts about the natural numbers, then one particular arithmetical truth the system cannot prove is the consistency of the system itself.

[R.F.]

From Wikipedia: "... the discovery by Hava Siegelmann in the 1990s that sufficiently complex analog recurrent neural networks were not Turing Machines". Wikipedia cited H.T. Siegelmann, "Computation Beyond the Turing Limit," Science, 238(28), April 1995: 632-637

John Lucas showed that humanity has free will is an implication of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. See THE GODELIAN ARGUMENT or the Wikipedia article on JR Lucas.

Also from Wikipedia "(Roger) Penrose has written controversial books on the connection between fundamental physics and human (or animal) consciousness. In The Emperor's New Mind (1989), he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness."

Also see "neuroscience of free will" on Wikipedia, where it discusses Libets finding: "The interpretation of these (Libets) findings has been criticized by Daniel Dennett, who argues that people will have to shift their attention from their intention to the clock, and that this introduces temporal mismatches between the felt experience of will and the perceived position of the clock hand."

I do not think that Libet's results are "to say the least- enough to conclude we are not in in control, or aware even, of our brain processes."

Even if Libet's results are correct, all they show is that we are not conscious of very minor decisions at the time we take action on the decision. They certainly do not show that in every circumstance "we are not in in control, or aware even, of our brain processes."

If it is true that everything is caused by something, then what was the first cause and how could it have been an exception to the rule that everything is caused by something?

What do you conclude from the data of the study? I think you probably just didn't read it, or are incapable of interpreting informations. when moving- If the motor regions of the brain are active before the decision parts- then it follows the brain knew it was about to move before you "decided" to

[trobd]

What do you conclude from the data of the study? I think you probably just didn't read it, or are incapable of interpreting informations. when moving- If the motor regions of the brain are active before the decision parts- then it follows the brain knew it was about to move before you "decided" to

Correct on both accounts, I didn't read it because I am incapable of interpreting the information. Only a neurologist would be able to come to any conclusions from reviewing the data of the study. However, we can certainly have a neurologist interpret the study for us.

Here is what Wikipedia says "Note that these results were gathered using finger movements, and may not necessarily generalize to other actions such as thinking, or even other motor actions in different situations. Indeed, the human act of planning has implications for free will and so this ability must also be explained by any theories of unconscious decision making".

As I pointed out earlier, Daniel Dennett has made the point that people will have to shift their attention from their intention to the clock, and that this introduces temporal mismatches between the felt experience of will and the perceived position of the clock hand. (Daniel Dennett is the Co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and a University Professor at Tufts University)

In other words, per authorities of the subject, this study raises the possibility that "we are not in in control, or aware even, of our brain processes." It is, however, far from proving it.

What about the hard cold logical impossibility of determinism that I presented with JR Lucas's proof, the Newcomb's paradox or the fact that determinism has a huge logical gap in that it requires no beginning to the universe. (There can be no first cause).