Split from AI sentience

[iNow]

8 hours ago, Eise said:

Do you then also agree that consciousness is evolutionary advantageous? 

I believe so, yes, in some instances (but not all). On net, however, we're aligned that it's proven useful more often than not.

8 hours ago, Eise said:

If so, how does this work when consciousness is just a byproduct? 

Because the source or cause of consciousness is independent from and unrelated to whether or not it confers any benefit or utility. 

8 hours ago, Eise said:

why shouldn't we call it an 'epiphenomenon'? 

I'd have no quarrel if you did. This is, IMO, broadly accurate and largely synonymous with calling it an emergent phenomenon (as I previously described it many times here and elsewhere).

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, iNow said:

If by "Keith" you mean the biological bag of water and chemicals, then we agree. If instead by Keith you mean a conscious mind or self, then we diverge from our consensus.

 

depends on what emerges.

[dimreepr]

On 4/17/2019 at 5:12 PM, iNow said:

What about my previous explanations was unclear?

Is Keith not conscious?

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Is Keith not conscious?

Insufficient info available to answer

[FreeWill]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Is Keith not conscious?

Keith will be conscious at some level. I think consciousness is about awareness /sense about the physical properties one exist with ( feelings, thoughts, knowledge included)

[dimreepr]

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, FreeWill said:

Keith will be conscious at some level. I think consciousness is about awareness /sense about the physical properties one exist with ( feelings, thoughts, knowledge included)

that doesn't mean he freely decided

fundamentally, we can't know

[FreeWill]

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

that doesn't mean he freely decided

I think this might be Absolutely true. Keith undeniably (pre)determined i.e his physical properties evolved to the current observed state and he acts accordingly.

Still his decision is free, he can follow any path in reality and he can be aware of the possible future!

Edited April 19, 2019 by FreeWill

[dimreepr]

 

 

1

6 minutes ago, FreeWill said:

I think this might be Absolutely true. Keith undeniably (pre)determined i.e his physical properties evolved to the current observed state and he acts accordingly.

the arguments are compelling on both sides.

[iNow]

54 minutes ago, FreeWill said:

his decision is free, he can follow any path

This is a bold claim. I suspect you'd struggle to support it if asked to do so.

[FreeWill]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

This is a bold claim. I suspect you'd struggle to support it if asked to do so.

Nothing can be absolutely independent (free) from reality. Every decision will be impacted by knowledge and experience but it helps to avoid bad decisions (awareness). 

We can consciously make bad decisions as well and be aware of the consequences. 

I think the impossibility of Absolute Freedom does not exclude the possibility of a free decision.

Note that even knowledge helps us to exclude many options in a scenario, we are still left with an almost infinite option to execute. Think about the tone and content you can choose when you communicate with your kids, even you excluded the physical restrictions.

For me freedom is the possibility to be aware of reality (including me) and be able to impact every decision and action I take in peace.

I do not think that I can have more Freedom.

I do not really need more freedom.

The level of (pre)determination must be over 99%, but do not forget that's the past and not the present moment when a decision is made.  

 

 

Edited April 19, 2019 by FreeWill

[dimreepr]

can you remember the last time you made a free decision?

 

[FreeWill]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

can you remember the last time you made a free decision?

 

Right now!

I can believe it (on different levels) or Not. 

[dimreepr]

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, FreeWill said:

Right now!

I can believe it (on different levels) or Not. 

Watch the last ten mins then reply. 

[Eise]

On 4/18/2019 at 4:15 PM, iNow said:

I believe so, yes, in some instances (but not all). On net, however, we're aligned that it's proven useful more often than not.

I am not sure if I understand you. You agree that consciousness at least for certain animals was advantageous (specially human animals)?

On 4/18/2019 at 4:15 PM, iNow said:

On 4/18/2019 at 7:55 AM, Eise said:

why shouldn't we call it an 'epiphenomenon'? 

I'd have no quarrel if you did. This is, IMO, broadly accurate and largely synonymous with calling it an emergent phenomenon (as I previously described it many times here and elsewhere).

You should have a quarrel with it. I think I already gave the argument against it, in one of our previous discussions (it was about an article on free will). Writing about mental phenomena would be selfcontradictory: explaining that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, i.e. consciousness is caused by the brain but in itself causes nothing, can not account for an article that explains consciousness as epiphenomenon. A philosophical zombie, an organism that works and behaves exactly like us, but really has no consciousness, would never write an article in which it tries to explain consciousness: it does not know what it is, per definition.

There is also a related huge problem with epiphenominalism: in what metaphysical domain does this consciousness exactly exist? If it is our normal material world, it cannot explain how some subsystem is causally effected by the brain, but has no causal effects in itself. The only way out is to propose a domain that is not material, but then you are back to dualism.

My viewpoint is clear: the brain does does not cause consciousness, a class of brain processes is consciousness. The capability of an organism to picture its environment, its place in that environment, and evaluate how both can change dependent on its possible actions is consciousness: it needs a form of imagination. So there is no separation between 'me' and 'my brain'. That means also there is no 'me' that can be coerced by the brain, because 'me' is exactly that brain. Both extreme forms of incompatibilism, libertarian free will and hard determinism only make sense in a dualistic world view. That is the point where a neuroscientist, saying humans have no free will, goes astray: his view is still dualistic.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Eise said:

You agree that consciousness at least for certain animals was advantageous (specially human animals)?

Sometimes it has been advantageous to evolution. Sometimes it has not. On net, I'm inclined toward "mostly" advantageous. Does this clarify?

[dimreepr]

At risk of a neg rep, I call semantics, since we can't know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

Quote

The critique against the proposition is the presupposition of an "I" doing the thinking, so that the most Descartes was entitled to say was: "thinking is occurring".

 

[Strange]

24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

At risk of a neg rep, I call semantics, since we can't know.

When people use “semantics” in a negative sense to dismiss an argument, I always wonder what they think it means....

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

When people use “semantics” in a negative sense to dismiss an argument, I always wonder what they think it means....

I'm not trying to dismiss Eise's argument, in fact, I favour it; I think it probably means I'm wrong; again...

[Eise]

58 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sometimes it has been advantageous to evolution. Sometimes it has not. On net, I'm inclined toward "mostly" advantageous. Does this clarify?

Yep. Now how is this possible if consciousness has no influence at all? If 'nature' is not able to distinguish between organisms with consciousness, and those without, how can there be selected for? (Or against)? 

And did your neurons already decided to answer on the rest of my posting? ('Epiphenomalism' is not a viable option, because it is self refuting.)

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, Eise said:

Now how is this possible if consciousness has no influence at all?

I've not argued that it has no influence. I feel no need to defend this stance.

21 minutes ago, Eise said:

If 'nature' is not able to distinguish between organisms with consciousness, and those without, how can there be selected for? (Or against)? 

Because we're humans and we place arbitrary labels and categories on to things all the time, even if they are largely indistinguishable and if nothing in nature that cleanly maps to it. See, for example, discussions about biological race. The existence of the label or category is insufficient on its own to conclude that the category or label exists in nature or is valid in any way.

There's this thing we call consciousness. When we explore and measure it, however, we're using brain scans and looking for activity in specific regions. You, however, suggest I'm wrong to get down into those operational regions and that I'm missing forests for trees by ignoring the human as a whole.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat... impasse persists.

21 minutes ago, Eise said:

And did your neurons already decided to answer on the rest of my posting?

We're just repeating ourselves. We had this same discussion last year. I appreciate your points. I come to different conclusions when considering them than you do. That's okay.

Edited April 22, 2019 by iNow

[Eise]

37 minutes ago, iNow said:

57 minutes ago, Eise said:

Now how is this possible if consciousness has no influence at all?

I've not argued that it has no influence.

Yes, you have. Implicitly. By calling consciousness a byproduct, by accepting the word 'epiphenomenon' for it. These have no causal influence per definition.

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

We're just repeating ourselves. We had this same discussion last year. I appreciate your points. I come to different conclusions when considering them than you do.

I think the important lesson at least is that there other concepts of free will, that are practicable in daily life, that fit to a naturalistic world view, and that are not effected by such neurological discoveries. So you original 'free will is an illusion' is only valid for one kind of concept, namely that presupposes that a soul rules the body, and can do this without being completely determined by previous causes. But that does not fit in a naturalistic world view anyway. 

[StringJunky]

23 minutes ago, Eise said:

Yes, you have. Implicitly. By calling consciousness a byproduct, by accepting the word 'epiphenomenon' for it. These have no causal influence per definition.

To use a television analogy: the mind is the picture that the TV hardware makes.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Yes, you have. Implicitly. By calling consciousness a byproduct, by accepting the word 'epiphenomenon' for it. These have no causal influence per definition.

I earlier used the northern lights as a similar example of an emergent phenomenon. It is a byproduct of interactions between the sun and our magnetic envelope, but they have causal influences on a great many things (like our feelings of awe, the activity of nature, etc.). They caused those things.

Contrary to your assertion, it is NOT by definition that something cannot have causal influence just because it's an epiphenomenon. Your logic is nonsequitur on this point.

4 hours ago, Eise said:

So you original 'free will is an illusion' is only valid for one kind of concept, namely that presupposes that a soul rules the body,

You lost me there. I'm the last person you'll find arguing for existence of a soul, yet you claim I'm presupposing one to justify my position. I'm not, but am sure you'll gladly explain where I don't understand my own thoughts.

[Eise]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

I earlier used the northern lights as a similar example of an emergent phenomenon.

'Emergent phenomenon' and 'epiphenomenon' are not the same. Emergent phenomena can have causal effects, epiphenomena can't, per definition. So if you see consciousness as an emergent phenomenon, then it can have causal impact, and to describe it as just a 'byproduct' does not suffice.

11 hours ago, iNow said:

15 hours ago, Eise said:

So you original 'free will is an illusion' is only valid for one kind of concept, namely that presupposes that a soul rules the body,

You lost me there. I'm the last person you'll find arguing for existence of a soul, yet you claim I'm presupposing one to justify my position.

I meant it in the negative:

On 4/13/2019 at 3:10 PM, iNow said:

On 4/13/2019 at 1:02 PM, Eise said:

you should explicitly define the kind of free will is that you deny.

The kind that implies a type of ghost in the machine; some supraconscious self or soul beyond / untethered to the underlying neural substrate and activity.

If you say 'free will is an illusion', you mean the kind of free will that needs a ghost in the machine. We agree here: that kind of free will really does not exist.

11 hours ago, iNow said:

I'm not, but am sure you'll gladly explain where I don't understand my own thoughts.

Two things: 

First, it is a misunderstanding, as explained above. Second, if people were always clear about the basic assumptions of their thinking, there would not be any need for philosophy. To give an example, from 'new age trash': people defend that body and soul are one, and at the same time believe in personal reincarnation. Obviously, they do not see that an assumption for personal reincarnation is that the soul cannot be one with the body. So they do not understand their own thoughts.

I want to point you to two things:

1. When you deny the existence of free will, you only do this in the meaning described above: that there is no soul controlling the body/brain. But there are better definitions of free will that on one side are not touched by the fact that (for all practical purposes) we are determined, and on the other side fits to the way we experience free will without its ideological, metaphysical extensions. A sweeping generalisation 'free will does not exist' is therefore wrong.
2. Consciousness has impact on what we do, but it can do it, not because it causally influences the brain, but because it is the functioning brain. (And no, this is not just semantics.)

 

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Emergent phenomenon' and 'epiphenomenon' are not the same. Emergent phenomena can have causal effects, epiphenomena can't, per definition. So if you see consciousness as an emergent phenomenon, then it can have causal impact, and to describe it as just a 'byproduct' does not suffice.

Emergent phenomenon was my original wording and is my preferred term. You introduced the term "epiphenomenon" and I said... "sure, close enough if you prefer that." Sorry for not realizing it was definitionally different in your usage. That would have been good to cover sooner. I'll stick with my original term of emergent phenomenon henceforth.

Regardless... I disagree with you that calling it a byproduct of other processes "does not suffice" because it has causal impact. This conclusion (cannot be a byproduct of something if it can also have a causal impact on other things) strikes me as nonsequitur. I used the northern lights example to illuminate why. If we remain in disagreement here, that's fine. No need to keep repeating ourselves.

4 hours ago, Eise said:

A sweeping generalisation 'free will does not exist' is therefore wrong.

So, a better statement might be: "Free will, as used commonly by the vast majority of people in our population, and as its used by essentially everyone who is not an active and practicing philosopher, does not exist."

Seems unnecessarily wordy (like so much of philosophy! /burn), but sure... let's go with that if it allows us passed the impasse.

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Consciousness has impact on what we do, but it can do it, not because it causally influences the brain, but because it is the functioning brain. (And no, this is not just semantics.)

This isn't a thread about consciousness, so want to be cautious here not to go off-topic, but do you mean to assert (even implicitly) that consciousness cannot exist without a functioning brain? That's an untenable position if I've understood you correctly, but again... also off-topic.