Determinism vs. Free Will

This may be off-topic, but how does physics relate to indeterminate events? Or do you prescribe to Einstein's "God does not play dice." concept? (Of course no supernatural implications by myself or Einstein in that statement.) Because as far as I understand, at least as far as science understands now (which is really as far as we can go) there are still what we understand as indeterminate events. We can suggest statistical probabilities, but not certainties. This may be a point in the wikipedia article you linked, but I did not read it all because I didn't find a section that would describe what I have brought up. ( I suppose you may feel free to tell me to read it again if it is present, perhaps suggesting the section to look for it in)

I suppose it is plausible (although highly improbably) that some sort of outside force could influence (the mind, God, the Flying Spaghetti monster, whatever) the outcome of indeterminate events outside of current scientific observation. But then again, that is just as likely as a great invisible teapot circling the globe. But could it serve as a "hideout" for proponents of the possibility of free will?

AltF4 said:

- Causality is assumed. I think I made that fairly clear. It's a basic assumption you just have to make in order to move forward with anything. Otherwise, there is no rhyme or reason to anything. Strictly speaking, you don't "prove" it.

Click to expand...

Please define causality. As I have said before that wikipedia page confuses the heck out of me.

Also, I don't see how you need to assume causality to move forward with anything.

But every piece of evidence ever wrought for science is also evidence in support of causality. It demonstrates that the universe does not work according to whim or superstition. It works according to laws which can be expressed in the form of the language of mathematics. All of human discovery can be summarized as the gradual realization of this fact.

Click to expand...

Except for all those observations that support free will and the unpredictability of humans.

- There are many systems that science has yet to fully understand. Consider the weather. We are woefully unable to predict the weather with any degree of accuracy most of the time. It remains such an incredibly complex system that it many times SEEMS as if it had a consciousness behind it. As if there were a person pulling the strings, as it were. People used to seriously think this was true, too.

Of course we now know that this is nonsense. It's all just differences in air pressure, humidity, air currents, rotation of the earth, etc... Given more complete data and a better account of how the weather interacts, we could accurately predict the weather.

Why should we expect the human brain to be any different? Human actions can actually be predicted with high accuracy given a large enough sample size, but in any particular instance it remains too complex. There's so many processes happening and on such a small scale that it becomes difficult in practice to gain anything from it.

Click to expand...

There's a lot more evidence to support the "hidden variables" assumption about the weather than there is about humans.

Anyway, what do you mean when you say human actions can be predicted with high accuracy with a large sample size? Example?

But what is really different about the human brain from any other complex system? We happen to be made of the same basic elements. Is there some special chemical that can defy the laws of physics? Where in the brain is the gland that communicates with the non-physical mind?

Click to expand...

What is different is that there is this "illusion" of free will. That's evidence for free will, as I explained before.

The exact nature of these causes and effects are described not in words, but in the language of mathematics. Consider the law of universal gravitation:
F = G * ( m1 * m2 ) / r^2

You give it an initial state, (Two masses and the distance between them) and it tells you the cause (an attractive force). You can then use other laws to determine how that effect (the force) acts as a cause to other effects, and so on.

This is how physics works. Cause and effect. Nowhere will you find a mathematical equation that says:
d = H / sqrt( Z* )
*= Unless Z doesn't feel like it.

Click to expand...

Well, except for all our economics and sociology

Nah seriously though, I'm not sure what your point is here. Who says you have to be able to formulate a law that will tell you exactly what will happen?

Faithkeeper:

I think that's really just a rewording of what Ballin and I have been discussing for the most part. You're asking if there are "indeterminate events", and how that's dealt with in physics. The short answer is: no, there are no indeterminate events. (Things which happen without cause)

Einstein was specifically criticizing Quantum Mechanics because it seems like it violates causality. Particles pop in and out of existence randomly. Particles move around randomly. And all that seems to violate causality until you understand that particles are not what ultimately is a fundamental constituent of the universe. Probability distribution functions are. (Or at least, the most fundamental currently proposed) The particles are a product of those functions, a kind of illusion. Causality is maintained for the probability distribution functions.

Einstein was, in the end, incorrect. A fact that I think he acknowledged before he died, though I can't find a reference to it quickly. So perhaps not.

EDIT:
Ballin:

You're saying that I haven't defined causality, but I think I have. I described what it is at a high level. (Which everyone knows, anyway) And then said that the specific and precise definition is not in words. It's in mathematics.

When you say "Who says you have to be able to formulate a law that will tell you exactly what will happen?" THAT is called causality! That's what causality is. Otherwise, things just happen for no reason at all. Furthermore, it's not just me pushing this. I think I've linked to enough sources to show that this is a standard tenet for science.

I'm curious as to what constitutes evidence of Free Will, as you suggested. Something that can't also just be explained by not fully understood complexity. (You use the phrase "Hidden Variables" but that has a different distinct meaning in physics, so I avoid using it) If you just say "What made me think of elephants just now", you have to see why that's not an example.

And lastly, I mean that in the aggregate, humans are quite predictable. It's quite like predicting the weather. Predicting people is what marketers do. It's what economists do. There's a fudge factor in any calculation, but so is there in meteorology.


I want to probe the mechanics of Free Will more. How exactly does it work? Some gland, or chemical that violates physical law? And is it just humans? What about monkeys, dogs, cats, mice, flies, mites, bacteria, viruses, rocks? What causes the line to be drawn where it is?

Ballin, can you explain to me what the difference is between your argument and the classic "I don't understand it, therefore it must be magic" except instead of magic, you replace it with "free will"?

You have continued to ask for a definition of causality and alt has continued to provide you with many explanations... yet you have never defined free will even though it was asked of you.

Seriously, somebody in this thread define free will. It's like the word "natural" that people love to throw around. It doesn't MEAN anything.

-blazed

Blazed- Just to clarify, I was never saying memories permanently exist in the brain. All I'm saying is that when you conjure up a thought, something visual exists which has no apparent physical location, yet according to materialism/determinism everything is physical.

AltF4 said:

So I guess that means that Dre is not asserting to have proof of the existence of non-physical minds. Good. Let's ignore that line of reasoning then. Which was my intention.

Unless you are. In which case, call the Nobel committee.

Click to expand...

You acknowledge that you twisted my words yet you don't apologise.

So let me get this straight. If I present an argument claiming a point opposing yours, all of a sudden I'm an arrogant fool who thinks he's a genius, so my only option is to not argue for the non-physical?

And Alt, there are more angles apart from "the non-physical definitely exists" and "the non-physical deifnitely does not exist". All I was simply doing was posing a question which I deemed problematic for your theory.

For example, I wouldn't pose that question to a determinist who conceded the existence of the non-physical, because that question would not undermine their argument in any way.

But seeing as you've tried to avoid answering the question, I open the question to now to anyone who is a materialist and determinist, or at least wants to defend that position.

What you seem unable to understand, Dre, is that you are not merely proposing an argument. You are proposing a proof. There's no wiggle room for debate in the rules of logic. You just went from A, therefore B, therefore C. That's a proof. It's either right or it's wrong.

You didn't (like Ballin) say that there is evidence in support of it. Didn't say that it's possible. Didn't say that it is a personal belief. No, you just derived it from something known. That is not simply posing an honest question.

I don't have to do those things because I didn't come in here saying that free will exists because the non-physical exists. You don't even know if I think non-physical= free will.

If you remember (or look back at it) when I first addressed you I said that you concede that free will exists if the non-physical exists. So for you, you derive your determinism from your materialism. So my question was a question designed specifically for your argument, because it poses potential problems for your materialism= determinism theory.

It's not my personal argument for free will, it's just testing the stability of your specific theory. I wouldn't even ask that question to a non-physicalist determinist, because it wouldn't undermine their theory at all.

If someone asks a Christian how God can be good when evil exists, they don't need to be an atheist to ask that (in fact the first people to ask that question were theists). A non-physicalist determinist could have asked you the same question.

So no, I wasn't proposing a proof. If anything, it's a proof by your logic, because you were the one who conceded that non-physical= free will.

I perfectly agree that what I'm saying hinges on what you're calling "materialism". So far with Ballin4life, I haven't gotten much farther than to explain why materialism and free will can't* coexist. I then have to explain why materialism is real.

Which happens to be for the same reason, actually: causality. Physical law only deals with the physical. Any interaction with the non-physical would have to violate that, by definition. It would have to be an indeterminate set of interactions. Because if there are a set of laws governing the interactions, then in what sense can you call it the non-physical? It would just be our same-old ordinary universe acting according to laws like it always does.


Though I am not, nor should anyone else be, a "determinist". At least not in the usually understood LaPlace-ian sense. (Given the current state of the universe and all its laws, one can predict all future states of the universe) This has been disproven, it's a well known result.

The title of the thread is a false dichotomy. There is in fact a middle ground.

Also, what on earth is a "non-physicalist determinist". That seems so utterly contradictory...


*=Again, I wish to avoid stating it overly strong. It's conceivable, but less likely than a flat earth. Easily thrown out.

There are various forms of determinism. Determinism doesn't always entail "the ability to predict the future", it simply means a lack of free will.

A number of theologies are non-physicalist determinist. An example of one would be Calvanism, which says that God predestines all of humanity, and choses a select few people to go to Heaven.

I don't see how causality necessitates determinism. The laws of causality simply determine the potential acts an agent is capable of, it doesn't determine the method in which the agent selects an act.

The only way causality would necessitate determinism is if in circumstance X, Y necessarily must commit act Z. But you yourself said this was wrong, because if in every given circumstance, an agent can only commit one necessary act, then we would in fact be able to predict the future, a theory which according to you is wrong.

And back to the the location of non-physical thoughts question. The theory that everything is physical is not an a priori theory formed to reject the possibility of non-physical existences. It's an a posteroii (or empirical/ inductive) theory because we have not witnessed any non-physical agents.

Now this distinction is very important with regards to your specific theory. The problem is, when I presented the thought question, you treated it as if your physicalism was a priori, as if it was "it is impossible the non-physical exists, therefore the thought of an apple must be ncessarily physical". Your theory is a posteroii, so if the existence of a non-physical object is presented to you (eg. a mental image) then that undermines your physicalism, unless you can show that the mental image has a phsyical location.

Dre. said:

I don't see how causality necessitates determinism. The laws of causality simply determine the potential acts an agent is capable of, it doesn't determine the method in which the agent selects an act.

Click to expand...

You just completely made that up. Physical law doesn't work like that at all. Please do go find me an equation in a physics text book that looks like:

r = G x ( h* + f)
*= Unless h doesn't feel like it.

Have you been watching "What the bleep do we know"? Because that whole movie is pseudo-scientific nonsense. What you're saying sounds much like that movie.

And you also are assuming that "agents" exist, which is to beg the question.

The only way causality would necessitate determinism is if in circumstance X, Y necessarily must commit act Z.

Click to expand...

That is, in fact, how it works. (Providing that X, Y, and Z are fundamental particles)

But you yourself said this was wrong, because if in every given circumstance, an agent can only commit one necessary act, then we would in fact be able to predict the future, a theory which according to you is wrong.

Click to expand...

No, I said something much more subtle. I sense that you're still thinking in terms of macro objects. Causality just doesn't apply to that layer of abstraction. You have to think in terms of fundamental particles.

One cannot simultaneously know both the position and velocity of any particle. (Uncertainty principle) Furthermore, there is no single objective universe to observe. (Relativity)

If the existence of a non-physical object is presented to you (eg. a mental image) then that undermines your physicalism, unless you can show that the mental image has a phsyical location.

Click to expand...

Of course. And you should also know that I've already responded to that claim. A thought is merely electrochemical processes. One could, in principle, point to it in the same way that one could point to the bits stored on a hard drive on a computer representing an image.

We have no reason to think they're anything more.


Again, I want some answers as to how this whole "Free Will" thing works exactly. What about the problem of reduction? (Which animals get Free Will and which don't? And why?) What gland in the brain is responsible for communicating with the supernatural mind-realm?

Dre. said:

Now this distinction is very important with regards to your specific theory. The problem is, when I presented the thought question, you treated it as if your physicalism was a priori, as if it was "it is impossible the non-physical exists, therefore the thought of an apple must be ncessarily physical". Your theory is a posteroii, so if the existence of a non-physical object is presented to you (eg. a mental image) then that undermines your physicalism, unless you can show that the mental image has a phsyical location.

Click to expand...

Dre, I really don't understand your thought process here. There are people who spend their lifetime trying to understand the brain. There's plenty of research out there that you are welcome to peruse at your leisure. Not a single person in these fields has ever found that a "mental image" was anything more than some brain-related process.

Let me be extremely clear here, whatever you believe and tell yourself, the brain in fact is physical and the thoughts you have are entirely contained and explained by the physical world. There is no debate on this issue.

-blazed

blazedaces said:

There is no debate on this issue.-blazed

Click to expand...

>In debate hall. Self evidently false.

underdogs22 said:

>In debate hall. Self evidently false.

Click to expand...

Oh yea? Well, I would debate that this is even a debate hall.

underdogs22 said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eag7GIFO6kc

Click to expand...

... I take it back. There is no scientific debate on the subject.

Also, in this video the speaker made quite a few very obvious logical mistakes. I was incredibly unimpressed.

-blazed

I also watched the video. Sounds like essentially like what Dre is saying, but more verbose.

"We can imagine two people swapping bodies and keeping their minds. Therefore the mind is separate from the body."

Which was actually said (not word for word, though) in the video. I hope this is very obvious why it's wrong. Being able to image something says NOTHING about what is true in the universe. It merely means you've passed the lowest possible bar. Think of all the infinite number of things which are conceivable, but not ultimately possible in the real world. Or things which are possible, but just isn't true in our universe.

Consider Magnetic Monopoles. There is such a thing as electric monopoles, electrons. But not magnetic monopoles. Which is very odd, since electric fields and magnetic fields are so interrelated. Everyone student who takes 2nd year university physics is a little baffled by this fact. One would expect the universe to be more symmetric. You can, in fact, write an entire system of laws around the existence of magnetic monopoles which are consistent with each other. But alas, they just don't exist.
(strictly speaking, their existence is still an open question, but endeavors to find one have been completely fruitless. It's open in the same sense that the existence of Big Foot is still an open question.)

I don't know how such an otherwise seemingly intelligent person can be duped into such obvious lapses in logic. He then keeps asserting that there is "data" that "physicalists" are ignoring. But fails to mention what this data is.

From a scientific point of view, AltF4 has been pretty much accurate. If people want to debate neurology and thought processes, please do. However, everything the brain does could be replicated given an identical copy, down to the sensitivity and numbers of receptors at each synapse. In theory, the brain should be very predictable, as it is (at a fundamental level) just a huge elaboration of basic reflex arc to allow animals to make better decisions based on multiple stimuli. Memories are alterations in synapses to allow previous experiences to allow for better decisions. They are just the formation and alteration of synapses in response to certain stimuli, though a variety of molecular mechanisms which are becoming increasingly well understood. The brain is hard to understand through the sheer scale of its cell level interactions.

However, one thing that I feel has yet to be defined (unless I missed it, then I apologise), but how would one even begin to determine what has been done out of free will and what was determinism? If you could not determine if an action was one or the other, how can you even begin to debate the existence of free will? I take the side of determinism as a base as cause an effect can be seen and observed.

AltF4 said:

Which was actually said (not word for word, though) in the video. I hope this is very obvious why it's wrong. Being able to image something says NOTHING about what is true in the universe. It merely means you've passed the lowest possible bar. Think of all the infinite number of things which are conceivable, but not ultimately possible in the real world. Or things which are possible, but just isn't true in our universe.

Click to expand...

If a given entity A is identical to entity B, then there is no possible world in which A is not identical to B, for identity is a necessary property. What this means is that if the mind being not identical to the body is maybe, not true in this universe (the actual world), but is true in some possible world, then the mind is not identical to brain in the actual world. Of course you could just deny that conceivability entails possibility, but that is a separate matter.

Another take from Plantinga: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIEUWh6pG_A#t=5m58s

Oh, come now. Of course conceivability is different than possibility. Possibility is a statement about the laws of nature. It's a statement about whether the rules of our universe allow something. Conceivability is a statement about what our flawed and frequently wrong primate brains think is possible.

Why on Earth would you expect them to be the same? Saying something is conceivable says absolutely ZERO about what's possible nor actually true.

Plus, some things are only "conceivable" until you think about them for more than a few minutes and realize it doesn't make sense. Consider "mind swapping" as it happens in movies all the time. Clearly your brain affects your mind. Even if you believe in a supernatural mind world, you have to admit that memories and thoughts are partially physical processes. How can someone keep their mind fully in tact, while missing all those memories and thoughts that are in their old brain? It doesn't make sense.

AltF4 said:

Oh, come now. Of course conceivability is different than possibility. Possibility is a statement about the laws of nature. It's a statement about whether the rules of our universe allow something. Conceivability is a statement about what our flawed and frequently wrong primate brains think is possible.

Click to expand...

The claim isn't that conceivability is the same thing as possibility, but rather that conceivability entails possibility. Now you seems to be taking possibility here to mean physical possibility, about if something could actually happen in the actual world. What I am talking however is metaphysical possibility, that is, something being true in some possible world. Additionally by conceivable I mean that something can be pictured, or conceived of in the mind (or brain). I do not intend to defend the notion that conceivability entails possibility here but only point some misconceptions that you have here.

AltF4 said:

Plus, some things are only "conceivable" until you think about them for more than a few minutes and realize it doesn't make sense. Consider "mind swapping" as it happens in movies all the time. Clearly your brain affects your mind. Even if you believe in a supernatural mind world, you have to admit that memories and thoughts are partially physical processes. How can someone keep their mind fully in tact, while missing all those memories and thoughts that are in their old brain? It doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

Your argument here concerns whether this situation is physically, or actually possible. Of course, even if mind swapping were not physically possible, this has no relation to its metaphysical possibility.

Also I wouldn't equate minds with anything supernatural. A mind may be a natural phenomenon that is a product of natural laws, don't equate immateriality to supernaturality.

Why would I care if something is possible in some alternate universe? Oh, how low the bar has suddenly been put! Very quickly we went from "We have definite proof that non-physical minds exist" to "They could exist" to "It's possible they exist" and now "It's possible that they exist in some alternate universe".

If that's the best you have, then I'll gladly take it and call victory on the topic. It's exactly what I've been saying: We can't disprove Free Will in any strong metaphysical sense. But we can say that it's incompatible with everything we know about modern science.

You're missing the point the point of the argument. The point is that if the mind is identical to the brain, it is identical to the brain in all possible worlds (identity is a necessary property). Therefore if the mind could even possibly exist without the body (exist without the body in some possible world), the mind would not in fact be identical to the brain, this includes the actual world.

But you haven't shown that it's possible for the mind to exist without a brain. Just that you can conceive it. People conceive of all kinds of ridiculous and impossible things, that's what dreams are. Conceiving something demonstrates nothing of possibility.

I've already said that my purpose here isn't to defend the principle of conceivability entailing possibility but just to clarify some misconceptions you have about the argument.

Alt, think of it like semantics. You have two words for any given set of things. If those two words cover the same set of things, they are identical. If they cover different sets of things, they are not identical. If the labels disagree in some hypothetical example, a "possible alternative universe," then they are not identical, even if they cover the same set of things in this world. The argument basically says that the terms are not identical labels, that they don't have identical definitions. However, as you point out, this doesn't have much bearing on the actual phenomena present in this world. This doesn't have any bearing as to whether the mind actually is the result of the brain; it only says that there might (i.e. logical possibility, hypothetically) be other types of minds that don't rely on neural processes.

For example, magic is not identical to sleights of hand. We can imagine a world where people can perform magic without relying on tricks. These do not share identical definitions, so they are not identical, even though they apply to the same phenomena that occurs at magic shows. However, in this world, the two words "magic" and "sleights of hand" cover the same sets of things. For all intents and purposes, when we say magic, we are referring to sleights of hand because in this world, that is the only set of things that exists that the concept applies to.

* "Sleight of hand" is shorthand for any form of deception.

Then I'm still at a loss as to the point of this line of reasoning. Declaring "The mind is not the same as the body" is an extra-ordinarily misleading statement then.

Sure, you can define "mind" and "brain" in such a way that they aren't identical concepts. But that doesn't prove that non-physical minds actually exist. It's exactly as rvkevin said. You can define magic and sleight-of hand to be different, but that doesn't mean magic either exists or is even possible.

When you say "The mind is not the same as the body" you haven't shown anything more than your ability to define things in clever ways such that you can construct a sentence that appears like you have made a point. But you haven't.

There continues to be no way to justify Free Will with modern science. There continues to be no way to show how Free Will is even possible.

EDIT: And the people in the videos that underdogs has been linking to sure don't seem to think of this argument in wishy-washy "well, it shows that it's possible" terms. They mean the argument to be proof that non material minds definitely do exist.

That's because it's not an argument that only establishes that its possible! If an enitity has modal properties that another entity does not, they are not identical, not in any possible world, not in the actual world. It's not just slight of hand or word games, it's a function of modal logic.

Edit: I also want to mention that the modal argument isn't even the best or most popular argument for dualism.

I don't see how you can jump from "The mind and the brain can be defined as separate concepts" to "non physical minds exist".


And I still haven't even received even an attempt to answer some basic questions about how Free Will supposedly works? What animals have Free Will and which don't? What causes this distinction? Is it all life? Do plants have Free Will? Do viruses?

Is there a gland in the brain responsible for communicating with the supernatural mind? If so, what would happen if we removed it?

The more you try to think about how Free Will could work, the more you realize that it doesn't.

I really don't understand you people. The imagination and what is "possible" are entirely distinct things. There are both things we can imagine that obviously can't exist, and there are even things that are likely to exist that we can not possibly imagine, for example 5-dimensional objects.

Are you actually trying to suppose that only your imagination contains the realm of all that is possible? And if not, what makes you believe that just because you can imagine something that it must be possible? This would also imply that everyone's imagination limitations are the same, when obviously some people have more of a creative imagination than others. Whose imagination contains the realm of all that is possible?

Who cares that you can make up definitions that cause two words to be or not be the same thing according to those definitions? You're just playing word salad in an attempt to rectify the poor arguments presented in the video.

-blazed

The mind, memories etc are entirely physical, based on the formation, destruction and alteration of neural synapses in response to past experiences such that we may may appropriate responses in the future. The hippocampus is responsible for creating memories and the frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex is responsible for storage.

Trying to separate the brain and the mind is impossible in any sense which has bearing in the real world.

I just looked back at the last posts addressed to me, and if you guys honestly think I'm debating neurology then you have no idea what I'm saying.

I never contested that there is a physical process involved in the creation of thoughts. If I was contesting that then I'd be contesting neurology.

Neurology, a science, and physicalism, a philosophy, are two different things. Mental images are visually perceivable, they have a visual structure. If I conceive of an apple then there is a visual image of an apple in my head. Yes there are chemicals that created that image, but the image itself is not chemical, because otherwise there'd be chemicals in the shape of an apple sitting somewhere in my skull.

So if everything is physical, how can you have imagery, which is perceived by a being, but then has no location?

So you have to say either it exists non-physically, or it doesn't exist at all. But it clearly did exist, because it was perceived.

And Alt, you said you answered this question, but what was the answer you gave? All I remember you doing was committing ad hominems by trying to portray me as deceptive.|

Dre. said:

I just looked back at the last posts addressed to me, and if you guys honestly think I'm debating neurology then you have no idea what I'm saying.

I never contested that there is a physical process involved in the creation of thoughts. If I was contesting that then I'd be contesting neurology.

Neurology, a science, and physicalism, a philosophy, are two different things. Mental images are visually perceivable, they have a visual structure. If I conceive of an apple then there is a visual image of an apple in my head. Yes there are chemicals that created that image, but the image itself is not chemical, because otherwise there'd be chemicals in the shape of an apple sitting somewhere in my skull.

So if everything is physical, how can you have imagery, which is perceived by a being, but then has no location?

So you have to say either it exists non-physically, or it doesn't exist at all. But it clearly did exist, because it was perceived.

And Alt, you said you answered this question, but what was the answer you gave? All I remember you doing was committing ad hominems by trying to portray me as deceptive.|

Click to expand...

The same argument could be reworded to apply to computers. "If there's a visual image of an apple on the monitor, then the computer is storing the image of the apple somewhere in its memory. Yes, there are bits of data that created the image, but the image itself is not bits of data, because otherwise there would be bits of data in the shape of a apple sitting somewhere in memory"...

-blazed

Dre. said:

And Alt, you said you answered this question, but what was the answer you gave? All I remember you doing was committing ad hominems by trying to portray me as deceptive.|

Click to expand...

Where do you come up with this stuff? This is literally what I posted:

AltF4 said:

Of course. And you should also know that I've already responded to that claim.

Click to expand...

That's me saying I've already responded to the claim. Like you said I did. And then...

The very next sentences:

A thought is merely electrochemical processes. One could, in principle, point to it in the same way that one could point to the bits stored on a hard drive on a computer representing an image.

We have no reason to think they're anything more.

Click to expand...

No ad hominems. Just a simple and clear answer to the question you asked.


You could just as easily ask "Where is the color green?" There are objects which are green, but where is the color itself?

The word "exists" is highly overloaded. When I say "My chair exists", I mean that it is made of atoms, which have mass, a location, and a velocity. When I say that "Love exists", this means something totally different. It's shorthand for "People who exhibit the feeling of love exist".

So when you are saying that "The image of an apple exists", the word "exist" isn't being used in the same way that I used it with a chair. It's shorthand for "there exists an electrochemical process in my brain which is interpreted as an apple image".

Dre, you also have to realize that what we think of as an "image" is not necessarily a real 3-dimensional apple. The way our bodies "see" the world is not necessarily the way the world "really" looks. I mean this in the sense that we have two eyes, each that individually can only capture a 2-dimensional image, which when combined in our brain form an image with depth.

This idea of an "image" is limited and this limitation is what causes optical illusions to so easily exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion

You realize of course that some people are born lacking some of what you are probably lucky enough to have, like full access to color (color blindness). If you lacked some color in your images how would the apple's "image" seem to you now? What if you were born blind? Then how would you think of an "image"? Obviously in a different way. You'd be a lot more likely to associate the "image" of the apple with how it feels, what it sounds like when applied to another object, and probably even more so how it tastes. The idea of the "image" as a picture would be unnecessary and foreign to you.

So the how would the "image" be stored in your brain? The visual is gone, so how do you propose the storage "look" were we to examine the inside of a brain that is only physical? The entire idea of shape, size, and color are non-existent characteristics of this "image".

-blazed

Blazed- The computer example has already been proposed and I showed why it doesn't apply.

With a human, there's the data, then the mental image of the apple. With a computer there's only the data and the image that physically exists on the screen. The computer doesn't have a mind that conceives of the apple, distinct from the data, before it projects it physically on a screen.

Alt- Concepts and images are two different things. Concepts are not visually perceivable. You can only perceive an instance where the concept is applied. That's why concepts don't
necessarily have to exist, and why I never thought they posed
a problem with physicalism.

The whole reason why I mentioned the apple is because it's visually perceivable, that's why I'm asking where it's physical location is.

Concepts will exist as patterns of neural activity. Much like a computer could process the image of an apple without displaying it.

Dre. said:

Blazed- The computer example has already been proposed and I showed why it doesn't apply.

With a human, there's the data, then the mental image of the apple. With a computer there's only the data and the image that physically exists on the screen. The computer doesn't have a mind that conceives of the apple, distinct from the data, before it projects it physically on a screen.

Click to expand...

Using the conclusion as a premise in your argument is circular reasoning.

A computer technically has ram, a more quick-access memory (ignoring cache and other possibilities) where it preloads the image before it arrives on the screen. But obviously ram is not what you mean by a "mind".

In fact I still have no idea what you mean by a "mind". Most of the time I assumed you meant "brain" when you said "mind" but earlier you specifically made a distinction between the two. But in fact there is absolutely no evidence for a non-brain location where "mental images" are stored. And I don't quite understand why there is a need for one.

I don't care if you claim you proved the computer example wrong. I only showed that the same reasoning you used on the human brain could be applied to a computer in the same way... but we know full well there is no "mind" separate from the computer. Since your argument fails to apply to a computer it fails.

-blazed

blazedaces said:

Using the conclusion as a premise in your argument is circular reasoning.

A computer technically has ram, a more quick-access memory (ignoring cache and other possibilities) where it preloads the image before it arrives on the screen. But obviously ram is not what you mean by a "mind".

In fact I still have no idea what you mean by a "mind". Most of the time I assumed you meant "brain" when you said "mind" but earlier you specifically made a distinction between the two. But in fact there is absolutely no evidence for a non-brain location where "mental images" are stored. And I don't quite understand why there is a need for one.

I don't care if you claim you proved the computer example wrong. I only showed that the same reasoning you used on the human brain could be applied to a computer in the same way... but we know full well there is no "mind" separate from the computer. Since your argument fails to apply to a computer it fails.

-blazed

Click to expand...

Now you're asserting your conclusion as a premise.

The whole debate is whether there is a non-physical mind separate from the brain.

And I'm not talking about "stored" mental images. I'm not saying that physicalism necessitates a physical location for every single mental image I've ever had in my head, because at time t most of those images aren't being visually perceived in my head.

What I'm saying is that at time t, whatever mental image is conceived of at that time needs a a physical location accoridng to physicalism, because at that time it is visually perceivable, and in physicalism everything that is visually perceivable has a physical location.

And, no the computer example has no relevance. The fact you think I'm asserting my conclusion says to me you don't really understand what I'm saying (no offence). My conclusion is that there is a non-physical mind distinct form the brain, but that was never applied as a premise in my computer refutation. Let me break it down for you-

-The computer example is posed by physicalists because we know a computer doesn't have a non-physical mind, yet they are saying it functions the same as a human brain, therefore there is no need of an NP mind.

- What I said is that it doesn't apply because a human mind visually perceives a mental image, a computer doesn't. A computer has the data, and then projects it physically onto a screen. There is no point in the process where a computer visually perceives the image, before it is physically projected on a screen. In fact a computer can't visually perceive anything, because it doesn't have a brain with sense perception. So the example has no relevance.

Dre. said:

in physicalism everything that is visually perceivable has a physical location.

Click to expand...

I'm going to nit-pick you on use of language, here. Because wishy-washy, imprecise terminology ruins this debate.

Materialism (I prefer the term) just says that existence is defined by having mass*, a location, velocity, etc... When I say that Mars exists, there is a shared understanding between us of what I mean. I mean that the planet Mars is made of matter, it has a location in the universe, a velocity.

So it's abundantly clear that the statement "Everything that is visually perceivable has a physical location" is not true. "The perception itself" is merely a thought, an electrochemical process. So sure that has a location. But what the thought is "about" obviously does not.

In short: When you think of a pink unicorn, the thought has a location. The unicorn does not. Because the unicorn doesn't exist.

- What I said is that it doesn't apply because a human mind visually perceives a mental image, a computer doesn't. A computer has the data, and then projects it physically onto a screen. There is no point in the process where a computer visually perceives the image, before it is physically projected on a screen. In fact a computer can't visually perceive anything, because it doesn't have a brain with sense perception. So the example has no relevance.

Click to expand...

Who's to say that a computer doesn't "perceive" things? Try defining "perceive" in a way that doesn't make you beg the question. You're asserting that a human brain can do something which a computer cannot. But what gives the brain that special capacity? I've been asking this question over and over with no answer.

It sure sounds like you're saying: "The human brain has a non-physical mind controlling it" therefore it can do things a computer cannot. That sure would be begging the question.

A computer does a lot of processing on data before it can be represented on screen. You can study GPUs and graphics algorithms for years and not have a firm handle on how it all works. (Again, I remind you that I'm a computer engineer)

The brain, while complex, is nothing more than a Turing Machine. (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Turing_machine) It accepts input, processes the data, then produces output. It is bound by the same computational limits that any machine is.


Again: How exactly does Free Will work? Some gland, or chemical that violates physical law? And is it just humans? What about monkeys, dogs, cats, mice, flies, mites, bacteria, viruses, rocks? What causes the line to be drawn where it is?

What would happen if you made an exact, atom-for-atom duplicate of a person? Should we expect them to drop down dead because the copy has no "mind"?

Free Will is a binary proposition. You can either have it or not. There's no in-between. So, then at what point in the human development cycle does Free Will occur? Clearly, the mass of a few dozen cells shortly after conception doesn't have Free Will. But a grown adult does? So at what exact developmental period does Free Will occur? And what causes it to?


And even if you grant the existence+ of non-physical minds, any interactions between these worlds violate causality. If causality is not violated, then that means there's a set of physical laws governing the interactions. And then this "mind world" is just another corner of out everyday universe, and not "non-physical" at all.

From the very beginning of this debate, I've been trying to press for a definition of the term Free Will. Because you soon realize that violating causality isn't just a necessary consequence of Free Will, it is exactly what defines Free Will.

Free Will is nothing more than the belief that humans can violate physical law, because we think we're special.


*= There can theoretically be massless particles. But you get the point.
+= Again, though, it's not clear what "existence" even means when not talking about physical objects.