Current state of the debate between free will and determinism in philosophy and neuroscience

[Anirudh Dabas]

@AIkonoklazt
@iNow argues that the mind is not a tangible entity, while you argue that it is, correct? iNow's main point is that the mind is constantly changing and adapting, and that this ability to change is what allows us to learn and remember. Your main point is that the mind is a product of the brain, which is a physical organ.

The brain is constantly changing and adapting, and this ability to change is what allows us to learn and remember. If the mind were a completely separate entity from the brain, then it is unclear how it could be affected by the brain's plasticity. However, if the mind is a product of the brain, then it is possible that the brain's plasticity could also affect the mind.

The use of the pronoun "it" to refer to the mind is also a point of contention. Right, If the mind is not tangible, then it is unclear what "it" is referring to. However, it is possible to use "it" to refer to the mind in a metaphorical sense, just as we might use "it" to refer to a computer program or a piece of software.

Both of these points are valid. Ultimately, I think, the answer to this question depends on how we define the term "tangible." If we define it as something that can be seen or touched, then the mind is not tangible. However, if we define it as something that is real and has an effect on the world, then the mind could be considered tangible.

The debate over the tangibility of the mind is a whole other debate, and there is no easy answer.

Ultimately, the goal of any discussion should be to understand each other better, not to change each other's minds. If you both can keep this in mind, you may be able to have a more productive conversation.

[AIkonoklazt]

8 minutes ago, Anirudh Dabas said:

@AIkonoklazt
@iNow argues that the mind is not a tangible entity, while you argue that it is, correct? iNow's main point is that the mind is constantly changing and adapting, and that this ability to change is what allows us to learn and remember. Your main point is that the mind is a product of the brain, which is a physical organ.

My main point is that the mind is what the mind is, irrespective of how anyone conceives of it. I'm not pointing to any particular conception of the mind, physical included. If someone thinks the mind is physical, then okay; I can go with that, for the sake of the conversation. Yes, I can agree that if we define it as something that is real and has an effect on the world, then the mind could be considered tangible. This excursion was an exercise in untangling the conflation of two concepts- The reality of the mind which was my focus, and its "non-plasticity," which I never even hinted at.

47 minutes ago, geordief said:

Do you think the mind  can be said to follow any  procedures which do not vary from one mind to another  or one circumstance to another?

 

Are there things that can be aid about the concept of "mind" that apply in all circumstances?

 

Or are all minds just a mirror image of the circumstances they are  embedded in and react to?

 

Are all "rules of the mind" purely ad hoc  or might we say there are distinguishing features of the phenomenon  that  only apply to minds and so define them?

I assume that you're asking for speculation and not theory. Here is my educated guesses in order:

1. If we're just going by physical evidence, then the answer appears to be "no." This is from something I've written somewhere:

   Quote

   Repeat stimulations of identical neuron groups in the brain of a fly produce random results. This physically demonstrates the underdetermination[15]:

   “…some neuron groups could elicit multiple behaviors across animals or sometimes even in a single animal.

   Stimulating a single group of neurons in different animals occasionally resulted in different behaviors. That difference may be due to a number of things, Zlatic says: “It could be previous experience; it could be developmental differences; it could be somehow the personality of animals; different states that the animals find themselves in at the time of neuron activation.”

   Stimulating the same neurons in one animal would occasionally result in different behaviors, the team found.”

   One way this could be interpreted is that even within a single individual animal, the mind is unique at every instance of physical operative time.

2. The common denominator of a term in all of its uses is in its definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mind This is why we must be absolute sticklers for definitions, and why we should not create new meanings when few would correctly use and most would just misinterpret (esp. "technical meanings" such as "learning" in "machine learning" or even "intelligence" in "artificial intelligence"; I can go very much in depth into this as in write an entire article but maybe elsewhere)

3. I wouldn't say "mirror image." However, minds exist even if not in isolation. ("Can minds exist in isolation" is some other topic altogether)

4. Minds have a subjective character that's partially epistemically locked from externality. Here's the old question of "Do you know exactly what it is like to be me?"

(okay now I realize that the item #1 should include "it's subjective in character")

[geordief]

1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said:

My main point is that the mind is what the mind is, irrespective of how anyone conceives of it. I'm not pointing to any particular conception of the mind, physical included. If someone thinks the mind is physical, then okay; I can go with that, for the sake of the conversation. Yes, I can agree that if we define it as something that is real and has an effect on the world, then the mind could be considered tangible. This excursion was an exercise in untangling the conflation of two concepts- The reality of the mind which was my focus, and its "non-plasticity," which I never even hinted at.

I assume that you're asking for speculation and not theory. Here is my educated guesses in order:

1. If we're just going by physical evidence, then the answer appears to be "no." This is from something I've written somewhere:

   One way this could be interpreted is that even within a single individual animal, the mind is unique at every instance of physical operative time.

2. The common denominator of a term in all of its uses is in its definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mind This is why we must be absolute sticklers for definitions, and why we should not create new meanings when few would correctly use and most would just misinterpret (esp. "technical meanings" such as "learning" in "machine learning" or even "intelligence" in "artificial intelligence"; I can go very much in depth into this as in write an entire article but maybe elsewhere)

3. I wouldn't say "mirror image." However, minds exist even if not in isolation. ("Can minds exist in isolation" is some other topic altogether)

4. Minds have a subjective character that's partially epistemically locked from externality. Here's the old question of "Do you know exactly what it is like to be me?"

(okay now I realize that the item #1 should include "it's subjective in character")

Is the mind just the (shifting and responsive) "shape" of the brain?

After all,"shape"  is another word that may be as hard to define as the mind.

It is equally defined by its environment  and you cannot say that you can "touch" a shape.

[AIkonoklazt]

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

Is the mind just the (shifting and responsive) "shape" of the brain?

After all,"shape"  is another word that may be as hard to define as the mind.

It is equally defined by its environment  and you cannot say that you can "touch" a shape.

As I stated earlier in the thread, my particular pluralist metaphysical conception is completely non-useful in theorizing.

However, I'd rather people try thinking alternatively in terms of "symptomatics" in terms of metaphysics. Everything we see and conceive are the symptoms of something else. What we see as "physical" is, so are everything else such as "mental." I can't simply say this category X I'm seeing universally "causes" this category Y I'm seeing, since there are these whatever else's that I can't ever perceive or even conceive. Here's a plain language article about correlations https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/10-correlations-that-are-not-causations.htm

[iNow]

7 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

The entire "dispute" was regarding whether the mind is a tangible entity

Technically, it regarded you saying computers and robots couldn’t ever have minds because they lacked referents. I reminded you that referents weren’t prerequisite to having a mind. 

In some weird attempt to avoid updating your thinking, you then began arguing that the mind is unalterable and that thinking doesn’t change the way it functions. 

It very much does, regardless of how often you claim category errors are being made and how baffled you feel at “having to explain” this remedially false assertion. 

1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said:

my particular pluralist metaphysical conception is completely non-useful

Agreed 

1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Here's a plain language article about correlations

Yes. I understand that just bc people carry umbrellas when it rains doesn’t mean the umbrellas caused the rain.

Did you have a particular point you were trying to make when sharing this correlation <> causation article?

 

2 hours ago, geordief said:

Is the mind just the (shifting and responsive) "shape" of the brain?

Definitely not. It’s how signals conduct and propagate across that shape which seem to matter far more. 

Edited November 14, 2023 by iNow

[AIkonoklazt]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

In some weird attempt to avoid updating your thinking, you then began arguing that the mind is unalterable and that thinking doesn’t change the way it functions.

No. I didn't argue for "non-plasticity."

Quote

Did you have a particular point you were trying to make when sharing this correlation <> causation article?

I was answering another user.

Edited November 14, 2023 by AIkonoklazt

[iNow]

1 minute ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I was answering another user.

That was clear. I’m still curious to better understand your intended point, unless you are unable or unwilling, of course. 

Edited November 14, 2023 by iNow

[AIkonoklazt]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

That was clear. I’m still curious to better understanding, unless you refuse. 

Which part of my response to him would you like me to elaborate?

[geordief]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Technically, it regarded you saying computers and robots couldn’t ever have minds because they lacked referents. I reminded you that referents weren’t prerequisite to having a mind. 

In some weird attempt to avoid updating your thinking, you then began arguing that the mind is unalterable and that thinking doesn’t change the way it functions. 

It very much does, regardless of how often you claim category errors are being made and how baffled you feel at “having to explain” this remedially false assertion. 

Agreed 

Yes. I understand that just bc people carry umbrellas when it rains doesn’t mean the umbrellas caused the rain.

Did you have a particular point you were trying to make when sharing this correlation <> causation article?

 

Definitely not. It’s how signals conduct and propagate across that shape which seem to matter far more. 

The paths and correlations  could be described as having a "shape" though,couldn't they?

Obviously not some kind of a 3 dimensional or even 4 dimensional volume but  (I think I understand that Hilbert space might describe  this) a multi dimensional  set of relationships that would have a dynamic form or shape.

What we experience as the mind  appears to me to be featureless ,like a screen upon which the physical workings  of the brain are somehow projected.(sounds a bit like Socrates'  or Plato's cave)

It feels like the mind is what orchestrates the activity in the brain but when you look for the mind ,there is nothing there.

Like it is a fiction that the various parts of the brain  create to synthesise  everything.

When I think of "the mind" part of me thinks it is everything and part of me thinks there is nothing there.(no bloody moving parts)

 

Just checked ,we are in General Philosophy  so things don't have to make sense here.

;-)

 

Edited November 14, 2023 by geordief

[AIkonoklazt]

8 minutes ago, geordief said:

What we experience as the mind  appears to me to be featureless ,like a screen upon which the physical workings  of the brain are somehow projected.(sounds a bit like Socrates'  or Plato's cave)

It feels like the mind is what orchestrates the activity in the brain but when you look for the mind ,there is nothing there.

 

 

Some other things may be responsible for both, together or separately.

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, geordief said:

The paths and correlations  could be described as having a "shape" though,couldn't they?

Maybe, but consider: what is the “shape” of fresh cream mixing into coffee after being poured? 

We can describe it with Brownian motion and related equations, but saying it has a ”shape” IMO ignores the more important parts and also ignores how it’s ever changing. 

The mind is much more like that old saying that you can never walk through the same river twice than something which can be described using a metric like shape. 

18 minutes ago, geordief said:

it is a fiction that the various parts of the brain  create to synthesise  everything.

Aka: A post-dictive narrative 

Edited November 14, 2023 by iNow

[geordief]

12 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Some other things may be responsible for both, together or separately.

By "both"  do you mean (a) what we call the mind and (b) the physic activity in the brain?

[AIkonoklazt]

6 minutes ago, geordief said:

By "both"  do you mean (a) what we call the mind and (b) the physic activity in the brain?

Yes.

[geordief]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Maybe, but consider: what is the “shape” of fresh cream mixing into coffee after being poured? 

We can describe it with Brownian motion and related equations, but saying it has a ”shape” IMO ignores the more important parts and also ignores how it’s ever changing. 

The mind is much more like that old saying that you can never walk through the same river twice than something which can be described using a metric like shape. 

Aka: A post-dictive narrative 

When I said "a shape" I was  imagining a moving shape but with as many dimensions as   might be needed to  describe brain activity.

I don't think it could be visualized except mathematically and even then I am not sure how categorizing the different shapes (if it were  possible) could be used to describe different states of the mind.

How many states of the mind could there be,I wonder?

The Eskimos have dozens of words to describe "white".Could there be  a huge number of different states of the mind that we are unaware of?

3 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Yes.

And something external could be affecting both?

I don't see that. If we can separate brain activity from "the mind"  then I would  imagine the two might work together as a conjoined entity

I can see the brain activity being open to the external world but the mind ,imo only communicates with that brain activity and nothing else(unless one posits a universal mind-as some  apparently do)

That might be a kind of "back door"

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, geordief said:

I don't think it could be visualized except mathematically and even then I am not sure how categorizing the different shapes (if it were  possible) could be used to describe different states of the mind.

AI plus fMRI = Some very cool things happening in this space. Here’s just one recent study among a great many in this field (and I haven’t even mentioned how pilots can control planes with their thoughts alone, or paraplegics can move their wheelchairs without moving!):

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-can-re-create-what-you-see-from-a-brain-scan/?amp=true
 

[AIkonoklazt]

15 minutes ago, geordief said:

I don't see that. If we can separate brain activity from "the mind"  then I would  imagine the two might work together as a conjoined entity

I can see the brain activity being open to the external world but the mind ,imo only communicates with that brain activity and nothing else(unless one posits a universal mind-as some  apparently do)

That might be a kind of "back door"

The mind isn't limited to the brain or even to the body, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's universal.
https://aeon.co/ideas/the-mind-isn-t-locked-in-the-brain-but-extends-far-beyond-it
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/25/1031432/what-is-mind-brain-body-connection/

(Uh, I see that iNow has downvoted one of my replies. The link went with the entire paragraph which asked for a different way to look at causation as simply corresponding from perceived physical "symptoms"....... yeah whatever)

[Engineeer]

Free will is overrated. Although people are limited to the realities in which they can accept. 

Although some try to maintain a good spirit in the hard times and keep an open mind about things

Should they be the ones punished? Or should we flip the script? I can't decide

 

 

Edited November 14, 2023 by Engineeer

[Anirudh Dabas]

8 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

My main point is that the mind is what the mind is, irrespective of how anyone conceives of it. I'm not pointing to any particular conception of the mind, physical included. If someone thinks the mind is physical, then okay; I can go with that, for the sake of the conversation. Yes, I can agree that if we define it as something that is real and has an effect on the world, then the mind could be considered tangible. This excursion was an exercise in untangling the conflation of two concepts- The reality of the mind which was my focus, and its "non-plasticity," which I never even hinted at.

1. How would you define the mind's reality in a way that separates it from its plasticity?

2. What aspects of the mind do you consider to be inherently plastic or non-plastic?

3. How do you reconcile the mind's plasticity with its fundamental nature as a real and influential entity?

[Engineeer]

29 minutes ago, Anirudh Dabas said:

1. How would you define the mind's reality in a way that separates it from its plasticity?

2. What aspects of the mind do you consider to be inherently plastic or non-plastic?

3. How do you reconcile the mind's plasticity with its fundamental nature as a real and influential entity?

You could fabricate it with an algorithm if you know the physics beneath the physics of the chemical bonds in the dna branches

The dangers of an AI are absolute

Edited November 14, 2023 by Engineeer

[TheVat]

I think our language tends to cause a creeping in of dualism when we speak of minds and brains, as if those are separate things that interact with each other.  The implication is a false Cartesian split.  Rather than use umbrella terms like mind, it seems more useful to look at specific cognitive processes in a neutral monism stance, trying to see how that process, e.g. intending to purchase beer, plays out through neurological operations, physical movements (checking in the cellar and fridge, writing beer on a list, placing money or card in a pocket, etc.), spatial shift, vocalizations to other bodies, etc.  The parity principle (Chalmers et al) is a useful one here.  Thanks to @AIkonoklazt for bringing that.  This moves our understanding away from the mind as a thing that influences other things, and perhaps towards a truer understanding of mind as an array of dynamic processes that extend through the world.  One pitfall of having created a memory narrative we call The Self is that we tend to defend it by making it separate from the world.  This invites the fallacies of dualism, or at least aspect dualism.

Edited November 14, 2023 by TheVat
pbdnkrjffhfjieldjd

[AIkonoklazt]

13 hours ago, Anirudh Dabas said:

1. How would you define the mind's reality in a way that separates it from its plasticity?

2. What aspects of the mind do you consider to be inherently plastic or non-plastic?

3. How do you reconcile the mind's plasticity with its fundamental nature as a real and influential entity?

In no particular order, what I can do is synthesize some observations that works off of a list of definitions such as this one https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mind (following numbers/letters refer to definitions from the link being worked off of):

• The mind is sole subjective[5] element[2a] of our selves.
• As such, the workings of the mind appear actively creative in nature[1] (this may run contrary to common conception of memory; I don't see the process as some mechanical reconstruction. The so-called "recollections" to me are not reproductions but recreations i.e. we creatively construct or "think up" what we think of as "memories." I don't have the literature to back this up at this moment but I've seen some material regarding this. I suppose I can just reuse the following link since it has that dollar-bill drawing example: https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer )
• Because of its subjective nature, the mind can deal with referents[1][3][5][6], which are actually a part of itself[1][3][5][6]

As for plasticity, I don't see much of anything in the universe that remains static, except perhaps something like the cosmological constant. There are basically an unlimited number of real things with plasticity.

[geordief]

20 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

The mind isn't limited to the brain or even to the body, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's universal.
https://aeon.co/ideas/the-mind-isn-t-locked-in-the-brain-but-extends-far-beyond-it
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/25/1031432/what-is-mind-brain-body-connection/

(Uh, I see that iNow has downvoted one of my replies. The link went with the entire paragraph which asked for a different way to look at causation as simply corresponding from perceived physical "symptoms"....... yeah whatever)

Thanks.Good reads.

That is how I see it regarding extensions.(along the lines of the first link)

What if two are more people share the some mental prosthesis?

Do they share the same mind?

Suppose two people have their brain circuitry connected to the same thing(the controls of a car ,say)

They both drive the car (and crash unless they learn to establish a modus vivendi)

 

Are their minds connected or do we just have two minds trying to do the same job in two different ways?

Is that  example really  any different from the close collaboration that exists between friends and colleagues where lifetime bonds can be formed? 

9 hours ago, TheVat said:

I think our language tends to cause a creeping in of dualism when we speak of minds and brains, as if those are separate things that interact with each other.  The implication is a false Cartesian split.  Rather than use umbrella terms like mind, it seems more useful to look at specific cognitive processes in a neutral monism stance, trying to see how that process, e.g. intending to purchase beer, plays out through neurological operations, physical movements (checking in the cellar and fridge, writing beer on a list, placing money or card in a pocket, etc.), spatial shift, vocalizations to other bodies, etc.  The parity principle (Chalmers et al) is a useful one here.  Thanks to @AIkonoklazt for bringing that.  This moves our understanding away from the mind as a thing that influences other things, and perhaps towards a truer understanding of mind as an array of dynamic processes that extend through the world.  One pitfall of having created a memory narrative we call The Self is that we tend to defend it by making it separate from the world.  This invites the fallacies of dualism, or at least aspect dualism.

My approach has been to view the brain as a part of the body.

A specialized ,signal processing and channeling one but still the body.

As we seem to be saying, the "body"  can extend  outward to distances only limited by the speed of light and the concomitant  relativistic effects.

I am still left with the conundrum  of understanding  what I still want to call "my mind"

The concept seems to serve no purpose and feels like a useful fiction but I still need to understand the mechanism behind creating  this concept .

I wonder whether there are cultures who never invented the concept of the mind (cultures which don't value the individual as an element of the group?)

Or is the idea of a mind hard wired into us all  and just waits for the right description of the phenomenon to recognize it

16 hours ago, Anirudh Dabas said:

1. How would you define the mind's reality in a way that separates it from its plasticity?

2. What aspects of the mind do you consider to be inherently plastic or non-plastic?

3. How do you reconcile the mind's plasticity with its fundamental nature as a real and influential entity?

I think it is only in fairly recent times has the idea of the brain being "plastic" come to the fore**

In the sense ,I think that it deforms in a useful  way that improves or adapts its function.

 

Previously it must have been appreciated that the brain was not set in stone but that it ,on the one hand increased its abilities through use whilst on the other deteriorated through disease  etc.

 

I struggle to answer your point (1) but I feel there should surely be some characteristics of the mind that are separate from its plasticity.

The difficuly may be because it is so hard (for me) to define  the mind as dissociated from the brain activity.

 

So much that I question whether it exists at all  and is an illusion.

But what ,I ask myself creates this illusion, if it is an illusion?

 

** I can't remember the term being used when I was  much younger

 

[iNow]

53 minutes ago, geordief said:

But what ,I ask myself creates this illusion, if it is an illusion?

The same parts of your brain that write stories or make sense of the ones you’re reading. 

54 minutes ago, geordief said:

** I can't remember the term being used when I was  much younger

 Maybe bicameral 

https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/28612

[geordief]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

The same parts of your brain that write stories or make sense of the ones you’re reading. 

 

Is it accurate to think of minds as being composed of distinct actors, which may not necessarily be in direct communication with each other?

We naturally lump them all together as one  but it is more collegiate.

An ad hoc arrangement with a common interest in survival?

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Maybe bicameral

No I am not familiar with that term or theory(will take a look at the article though)

Edited November 15, 2023 by geordief

[iNow]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Is it accurate to think of minds as being composed of distinct actors, which may not necessarily be in direct communication with each other?

IMO, no. “Mind” is yet another arbitrary concept (or set of concepts) we try to force fit into the world in an attempt to explain our experiences and communicate with one another, but it’s a rough and often unuseful map/model of the what’s actually happening, AFAICT.