4 ms·

altered how? at random? randomness doesn't look 'free' to me, looks.. random. following some rules? not 'free' anymore. This "free will" thing doesn't suppor

altered how? at random? randomness doesn't look 'free' to me, looks.. random. following some rules? not 'free' anymore. This "free will" thing doesn't support well scrutiny.

haberman 11y ago
Altered according to the agency of the nonphysical entity. Not randomly or following rules.
- solipsism 11y ago
  Not randomly or following rules There is no other choice. By definition, random means "not following any rule or pattern".
  - haberman 11y ago
    I think it depends on your perspective. From the perspective of my keyboard, my input is random/unpredictable (it doesn't have perfect entropy, but it doesn't follow rules that make it completely predictable). From the perspective of my body, I have complete control over what I am typing, and there is nothing random about it.
    - solipsism 11y ago
      No it doesn't depend on your perspective. If it did the conversation would make no sense. The only perspective worth considering is the global objective perspective. Quantum events are globally, objectively random. Nothing else seems to be, which means, by definition, that everything else is deterministic.
      - haberman 11y ago
        The question I'm trying to get at is: from the perspective of the physical realm (which may be, even likely is, all that exists) is there any possible mechanism by which something nonphysical could influence events in the physical realm? For example, is there any physical property that is not "locked into place" by the laws we know and the observations we can make? Is there any fundamental impossibity (not practical impossibility) of snapshotting the state of the universe and using that snapshot to determine every past and future state of the universe?
- acqq 11y ago
  When you formulate it so, the problem is the question itself, as, except if we are religious believers, we don't have any reason to consider a "soul" (or a "consciousness") to be a "nonphysical entity." Look at the etymology of the "psyche:" it's "the breath." At the time people explained their environment unscientifically they considered that the existence of "breath" makes the difference between the dead and the living person but also between the conscious and the unconscious bodies. Animals do breathe too. But humans saw themselves as "special" in their religious setup. As a kid would ask "does my dog go to heaven too when he dies?" See, we go deeper and deeper in religious explanations which just postulate something non-existing (once you accept nonphysical soul, it's easier to believe in heaven or reincarnation or whatever). Now go back and ask, if you believe that the only thing we can "see" around us that doesn't have the "physical entity" is the "soul" of humans why do you do so? Are humans by any way "the chosen ones" in the animal world, looking at their physical bodies and the processes in them? The scientific view doesn't see them so. The human "consciousness" is, so observed, more complex than the "consciousness" of the crow on the lawn due to the more complex brain, but both of these can be explained as the function of their physical "hardware" (the body and the brain) and the interaction with the environment. The "consciousness" as a "neurological process by which the animal or the human sees it as special, the center of its attention in order to protect itself" can be seen as a product of evolution. (And now I have a weird feeling of explaining a grown up person that Santa doesn't exist). So it looks that we humans, if we don't destroy ourselves first, will be able to eventually produce a "conscious" computer. (Hal, open the door, please). (I've mentioned crows just to be able to link to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZerUbHmuY04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZerUbHmuY04 )
  - haberman 11y ago
    > Now go back and ask, if you believe that the only thing we can "see" around us that doesn't have the "physical entity" is the "soul" of humans why do you do so? I don't think this. I don't think that anything about the consciousness or agency of humans is exceptional to humans. > The "consciousness" as a "neurological process by which the animal or the human sees it as special, the center of its attention in order to protect itself" can be seen as a product of evolution. This is an interesting perspective that definitely made me think, but I think it ultimately begs the question. If you're talking about "seeing" or "attention," you're already speaking in concepts that presume the existence of consciousness. I'm not sure this gives us a useful framework to know when any computational process we have created does indeed have "consciousness," or where the line is between animals advanced enough to have it and animals (or even plants) that don't.

altered how? at random? randomness doesn't look 'free' to me, looks.. random. following some rules? not 'free' anymore. This "free will" thing doesn't support well scrutiny.

haberman 11y ago

Altered according to the agency of the nonphysical entity. Not randomly or following rules.

solipsism 11y ago
Not randomly or following rules There is no other choice. By definition, random means "not following any rule or pattern".
- haberman 11y ago
  I think it depends on your perspective. From the perspective of my keyboard, my input is random/unpredictable (it doesn't have perfect entropy, but it doesn't follow rules that make it completely predictable). From the perspective of my body, I have complete control over what I am typing, and there is nothing random about it.
  - solipsism 11y ago
    No it doesn't depend on your perspective. If it did the conversation would make no sense. The only perspective worth considering is the global objective perspective. Quantum events are globally, objectively random. Nothing else seems to be, which means, by definition, that everything else is deterministic.
    - haberman 11y ago
      The question I'm trying to get at is: from the perspective of the physical realm (which may be, even likely is, all that exists) is there any possible mechanism by which something nonphysical could influence events in the physical realm? For example, is there any physical property that is not "locked into place" by the laws we know and the observations we can make? Is there any fundamental impossibity (not practical impossibility) of snapshotting the state of the universe and using that snapshot to determine every past and future state of the universe?
acqq 11y ago
When you formulate it so, the problem is the question itself, as, except if we are religious believers, we don't have any reason to consider a "soul" (or a "consciousness") to be a "nonphysical entity." Look at the etymology of the "psyche:" it's "the breath." At the time people explained their environment unscientifically they considered that the existence of "breath" makes the difference between the dead and the living person but also between the conscious and the unconscious bodies. Animals do breathe too. But humans saw themselves as "special" in their religious setup. As a kid would ask "does my dog go to heaven too when he dies?" See, we go deeper and deeper in religious explanations which just postulate something non-existing (once you accept nonphysical soul, it's easier to believe in heaven or reincarnation or whatever). Now go back and ask, if you believe that the only thing we can "see" around us that doesn't have the "physical entity" is the "soul" of humans why do you do so? Are humans by any way "the chosen ones" in the animal world, looking at their physical bodies and the processes in them? The scientific view doesn't see them so. The human "consciousness" is, so observed, more complex than the "consciousness" of the crow on the lawn due to the more complex brain, but both of these can be explained as the function of their physical "hardware" (the body and the brain) and the interaction with the environment. The "consciousness" as a "neurological process by which the animal or the human sees it as special, the center of its attention in order to protect itself" can be seen as a product of evolution. (And now I have a weird feeling of explaining a grown up person that Santa doesn't exist). So it looks that we humans, if we don't destroy ourselves first, will be able to eventually produce a "conscious" computer. (Hal, open the door, please). (I've mentioned crows just to be able to link to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZerUbHmuY04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZerUbHmuY04 )
- haberman 11y ago
  > Now go back and ask, if you believe that the only thing we can "see" around us that doesn't have the "physical entity" is the "soul" of humans why do you do so? I don't think this. I don't think that anything about the consciousness or agency of humans is exceptional to humans. > The "consciousness" as a "neurological process by which the animal or the human sees it as special, the center of its attention in order to protect itself" can be seen as a product of evolution. This is an interesting perspective that definitely made me think, but I think it ultimately begs the question. If you're talking about "seeing" or "attention," you're already speaking in concepts that presume the existence of consciousness. I'm not sure this gives us a useful framework to know when any computational process we have created does indeed have "consciousness," or where the line is between animals advanced enough to have it and animals (or even plants) that don't.