Since we have no free will, what purpose does/did consciousness serve?

[Bender]

Unless otherwise specified, I talk about the science in this universe.

[Thorham]

Unless otherwise specified, I talk about the science in this universe.

 

That's very clear, but I don't. To me, it's about all of reality. How much of it can you understand with your simple human mind?

[iNow]

And? Is this relevant to the point being made? How?

It's relevant because I reminded you that it depends on the calculation. Your position requires that it not. Your argument is wrong and that becomes obvious the moment you compare it against reality.

[Eise]

It's relevant because I reminded you that it depends on the calculation. Your position requires that it not. Your argument is wrong and that becomes obvious the moment you compare it against reality.

 

I do not think your argument is very relevant, but I will make mine a bit more precise to avoid loopholes for clever clogs:

 

Say one implements an algorithm for a mathematical calculation. One can write it in Basic, Algol, Cobol, Fortran, C++, C#, Java, etc. Some of these can run on Macs, others also on PCs under Windows, and others on Ubuntu.

 

If the algorithm is implemented correctly, will the outcomes of the calculations be different in the different environments? Doesn't that mean that algorithms are conceptually independent of their implementation?

 

Same for mental events: of course they must exist in some physical substrate. They must be implemented somewhere to exist. But their essence is not the actual implementation. That means that the context in which the concept of free will has a meaning, lies not in the actual implementation, in this case the chemical processes in your brain. Of course, on higher level these chemical processes are your motives, beliefs, thoughts and wishes. (they do not cause them, that would imply some form of dualism) But one makes a category error if one looks for free will by searching for 'free chemical processes' (whatever they would be).

[Argent]

 

If the algorithm is implemented correctly, will the outcomes of the calculations be different in the different environments?

The outcomes may well be different. That is the point that iNow appears to be making. That is the point that I made in my post. That is why I gave you examples. One case where it would not make a difference and one where it could. I am sorry if I did not make it clear. It seemed obvious at the time I posted it.

[Bender]

 

That's very clear, but I don't. To me, it's about all of reality. How much of it can you understand with your simple human mind?

Yet you claim some things are impossible based on your own lack of imagination, much like some people in the past lacked the imagination for a 747.

 

example 1) an omnipotent creature obviously can switch off its omnipotence:

- make large rock

- switch off omnipotence

- be unable to lift rock

 

example 2) an immortal creature killing itself

- commit suicide

- rise from the dead

 

example 3) invisible pink unicorn

- I'm willing to bet money on someone genetically engineering a unicorn in the future, and while they are at it, why not make it pink (I'll throw in another 50$ for a bioluminescent horn)? No need for bubble universes

- give it a cloaking device

- send it back in time to ridicule those smug 21st century atheists

 

Alternatively, if you're including magical alternate universes, an invisible unicorn might be able to switch off its invisibility, or some creatures might have the ability to see invisible creatures. Both scenario's would mean an invisible pink unicorn are, in fact, not impossible.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Bender

[Eise]

The outcomes may well be different. That is the point that iNow appears to be making. That is the point that I made in my post. That is why I gave you examples. One case where it would not make a difference and one where it could. I am sorry if I did not make it clear. It seemed obvious at the time I posted it.

 

It was clear. For me it is also clear that it has no relevance for the main argument: the essence of an algorithm does not lie in the way it is implemented (and if outcomes are different, then in some cases it was not implemented correctly). So the original question of iNow is answered: it is not wholly disconnected, because it must be implemented in some way. But that is not the essence of it. The essence of a work of literature is not the paper on which it is printed. But if it is not printed anywhere, nor exists in another form, nor anybody remembers it, then of course the work does not exist (anymore).

[StringJunky]

 

It was clear. For me it is also clear that it has no relevance for the main argument: the essence of an algorithm does not lie in the way it is implemented (and if outcomes are different, then in some cases it was not implemented correctly). So the original question of iNow is answered: it is not wholly disconnected, because it must be implemented in some way. But that is not the essence of it. The essence of a work of literature is not the paper on which it is printed. But if it is not printed anywhere, nor exists in another form, nor anybody remembers it, then of course the work does not exist (anymore).

This is a bit of a stretch, but if we assume a perfectly clear sky, the photons that reflected off the book's pages would travel in a configuration through space that carried the book's information for a very long time; even when the book no longer exists. So, someone in the future could read those reflected photons some vast distance away. I agree with your central premise though that if the information is not available it does not exist.

[Eise]

This is a bit of a stretch, but if we assume a perfectly clear sky, the photons that reflected off the book's pages would travel in a configuration through space that carried the book's information for a very long time; even when the book no longer exists. So, someone in the future could read those reflected photons some vast distance away.

 

A bit of a stretch? But there is also an interesting hidden assumption in your science fiction scenario: that somebody can read the book, i.e. understands the symbols and the language.

 

 

I agree with your central premise though that if the information is not available it does not exist.

 

Pf... At least one person who understands me. Thank you.

[Bender]

Let's assume you are reading a book with large 1 cm² letters, the paper reflects all of the sunlight and you are reading at noon near the equator (2000 W/m²), with your page directed orthogonal to the sun.

The letters are small with respect to the whiteness around it, so the area with the letter reflects 0,2 W of light. A photon in the visible spectrum has an energy of about 10^-19 J, so this come down to about 10^18 photons each second. Let's assume that future person can track the page for about a minute (~100 s) before you go to the next page, so 10^20 photons total.

 

I don't know how much photons are required to distinguish a letter, but let's say at least 100. The future person now has to catch at least 1 in 10^18 photons coming of the page.

 

Finally, let's assume there is no atmosphere or dust clouds to block the light, and a perfectly diffuse reflection of the light on the page. At one meter, the surface of a hemisphere catching all the photons is 2 pi r² or 1,5 m². So with a 1,5 m² telescope, you can put it at 10^9 m (surface increases quadratic with distance) and still read the book somewhat, which is only 3 lightseconds away.

 

In conclusion, you can only read the book a couple of seconds in the future in the best circumstances.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Bender

[iNow]

Pf... At least one person who understands me. Thank you.

When a position is misunderstood, fault and/or blame lies with the author/presenter, not with the audience. Edited February 27, 2017 by iNow

[Eise]

When a position is misunderstood, fault and/or blame lies with the author/presenter, not with the audience.

That's ok. But do you now understand my posting here?

 

I think I pretty clear said that mental events need a physical substrate in which they are implemented. So to answer your original question again: free will is not at all disconnected from underlying neural processes. The comparison with the same software running on different operating system, in their turn running on different hardware is quite apt.

[StringJunky]

That's ok. But do you now understand my posting here?

 

I think I pretty clear said that mental events need a physical substrate in which they are implemented. So to answer your original question again: free will is not at all disconnected from underlying neural processes. The comparison with the same software running on different operating system, in their turn running on different hardware is quite apt.

Cutting down to the essence: any aspect of mind is a bunch of signals working in a concerted manner and the substrate matters little, be it biochemical, electrical wiring, or anything else, other than it needs some thing to produce the signals and a network to carry them.

Edited February 28, 2017 by StringJunky

[delboy]

Interesting thoughts all.

 

So we are dismissing the underlying substrate as an answer to free will. But since no one has ever come up with any explanation as to how it comes about, then isn't it right to assume (for the moment anyway) that it doesn't exist. Just like assorted types of unicorn.

 

Which I think is where I was trying to go with my chemicals/free will argument. Free will doesn't exist - it's only about chemicals.

 

But I'm also open to the other possibility - it does exist but we can't explain it.

[StringJunky]

Interesting thoughts all.

 

So we are dismissing the underlying substrate as an answer to free will. But since no one has ever come up with any explanation as to how it comes about, then isn't it right to assume (for the moment anyway) that it doesn't exist. Just like assorted types of unicorn.

 

Which I think is where I was trying to go with my chemicals/free will argument. Free will doesn't exist - it's only about chemicals.

 

But I'm also open to the other possibility - it does exist but we can't explain it.

Free will is an emergent property of a whole bundle of signals; it's a specific kind of information. Do the meaning of the words I've just written exist; the meaning/content is an emergent property of the set of signals that come from the text.

Edited February 28, 2017 by StringJunky

[iNow]

I think I pretty clear said that mental events need a physical substrate in which they are implemented. [/color]

I see the chemical processes and the "physical substrate" where they occur to be inseparable. You cannot have one without the other, much like space and time. This is peripheral to the issue, though. The point is that decisions are made chemically prior to entering consciousness. At the risk of oversimplifying my stance, this suggests to me conscious choice is not involved and philosophical conceptions of freewill are misguided.

[StringJunky]

I see the chemical processes and the "physical substrate" where they occur to be inseparable. You cannot have one without the other, much like space and time. This is peripheral to the issue, though. The point is that decisions are made chemically prior to entering consciousness. At the risk of oversimplifying my stance, this suggests to me conscious choice is not involved and philosophical conceptions of freewill are misguided.

Most of the time, but there will be occasions when ambivalence occurs, then an extra conscious step is needed before engaging which action to take, I think. By ambivalence, In this context, I mean when internal demands are of conflicting but equal importance. That's part of the freewill bit.

Edited February 28, 2017 by StringJunky

[iNow]

I don't think that's correct. The decision is made before we become aware of it

[StringJunky]

I don't think that's correct. The decision is made before we become aware of it

By what process, in that circumstance, if an unconscious decision can't be made?

[iNow]

...if an unconscious decision can't be made?

Not sure I follow. When is that even possible?

[StringJunky]

Not sure I follow. When is that even possible?

Unconscious decision/process = predeterministic action. This is what I meant. I could have put it better.

[delboy]

Free will is an emergent property of a whole bundle of signals; it's a specific kind of information. Do the meaning of the words I've just written exist; the meaning/content is an emergent property of the set of signals that come from the text.

 

 

I think I get that. But it doesn't explain a mechanism. By showing what nouns, verbs, adjectives etc are and how to put them together in a sentence you can explain how words become a sentence with meaning rather than random words.

But a bunch of signals is just a bunch of signals with an outcome surely. Just a computer program, which can only do what it's programmed to do. Life is just a program doing it's thing since the first RNA molecule came into being, gradually becoming more and more complex. Free will and consciousness are just evolved illusions there to serve gene replication ???

...

 

Maybe interesting to ponder when free will evolved in animals. Or consciousness? What's the simplest thing with free will?

[Eise]

I see the chemical processes and the "physical substrate" where they occur to be inseparable.

 

Of course. But I said 'mental events':

 

I think I pretty clear said that mental events need a physical substrate in which they are implemented.

 

 

The point is that decisions are made chemically prior to entering consciousness. At the risk of oversimplifying my stance, this suggests to me conscious choice is not involved and philosophical conceptions of freewill are misguided.

 

The point here is that you assume a naive notion of free will, namely one that is based on dualism: a soul interferes with the normal causal run of events, and no events can be found that in its turn have causal influence on that soul. That such things do not exist can hardly be called a neurological discovery. Of course mental events have a causal history: they do not pop out of nowhere! Great that neurologists now slowly are getting able to measure this causal history.

 

So now this is my philosophical conception of free will:

 

A person is said to have free will if he is able to act according his own motivations.

 

Now you tell me why this somehow collides with determinism or the observations of neurologists.

 

Think about it:

• The opposite of determinism is randomness
• The opposite of free will is coercion

You are mixing up different language games.

 

Now, as this is in the Evolution forum: consciousness developed in an evolutionary process. That means consciousness must have causal impact. Natural selection can only 'work' on natural objects. The whole confusion disappears if you see that consciousness is implemented in the correct functioning brain. Brains give animals the ability to picture themselves in their environment, and evaluate consequences of their possible actions. And obviously, this capability 'feels' as consciousness.

[Strange]

I don't think that's correct. The decision is made before we become aware of it

 

 

But that doesn't man that we didn't freely make the decision. Just that our brain "hid" it from our conscious awareness temporarily.

 

I assume this is part of the mechanism that allows the brain to integrate inputs with large temporal separation to create the illusion of now. For example, when you pick up a cup of coffee, the visual stimulus (hand touching cup) is almost immediate but the feel of the cup takes hundreds of milliseconds to arrive. The brain has to make those look simultaneous. And hide the long delay between you deciding to pick up the cup and the motor signals reaching the arm.

 

So I don't think free will is an illusion, but the sense of things happening "now" is.

[dimreepr]

I don't think that's correct. The decision is made before we become aware of it

 

Is that true for my decision to reply, or to write this woogawumpthtimoth?