4 ms·

For all I care humans are "just robotic, stimulus-response devices".

by Franciscouzo 9y ago

make3 9y ago
I mean I also have a physicalist materialist view of the world but that's exaggeratedly simple
- serf 9y ago
  > that's exaggeratedly simple it's simple, but I don't think that it's exaggerated. If anything I think it just speaks to the hidden power and complexity that can arise from following simple rule-sets. Although not typically used to describe such (internal) behavior, the text-book definition of 'stimulus' is just "a thing or event that evokes a specific functional reaction in an organ or tissue." -- If one were to consider that definition, 'stimulus' would also include everything your brain does; along with introspection, prediction, and everything we include as 'consciousness', and not just external forces that evoke an internal response (like sound,smell, light, touch, taste, etc.).
  - askmike 9y ago
    If you take that stance you also say there is no such thing as free will, since all your actions are some kind of response from the environment. Not saying that that means you're wrong.
    - alexmat 9y ago
      You can still experience "free will" without invalidating the materialist point of view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_model
      - jamesrcole 9y ago
        > You can still experience "free will" if you have to put quotes around it, is it really free will? I had a look at that link and I don't see anything related to free will there... what's the link you're suggesting?
        alexmat 9y ago
        The quotes are there to indicate that the free will is there but only as a convenient abstraction. "The idea of the self over time [...] is the property of phenomenal selfhood that plays the most important role in creating the fictional self and the first person perspective. Metzinger defines the first person perspective as the “existence of single coherent and temporally stable model of reality which is representationally centered around or on a single coherent and temporally stable phenomenal subject”." Free will in this sense is used to model reality in the form of subjective experience, part of which includes ownership of self. In other words we experience free will as a property of our model of reality, but it does not exist outside this abstraction. Objectively we are causally determined, subjectively we experience free will as part of the modeling process by the brain to create predictions about how it should respond to external stimuli. Self is an abstraction inside a simulation, it does not map onto reality directly. But since our subjective reality is the simulation, we will always experience ourselves as having free will barring a brain disorder, such as the ones mentioned in the wiki link: "Disorders of the self model are implicated in several disorders including schizophrenia, autism, and depersonalization."
        jamesrcole 9y ago
        I don't think there is actual free will, and I think the appearances of it is just how our minds present things to us -- that is, I basically agree with the description you give. But I object to statements like: > the free will is there but only as a convenient abstraction. Here's an analogy to illustrate my objection. It's inaccurate to say that the person Santa Claus literally exists but only as a mental concept. The accurate way to put it is that the Santa Claus person doesn't literally exist but we have mental concepts describing such a person. Free will doesn't exist but we have a mental concept of such a thing. That's the honest way to put it.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - threatofrain 9y ago
      The hard part is coming out with an interesting and discussable definition of free will that doesn't smell like the mind-brain duality, which is just a term for spirit.
    - iamnothere 9y ago
      > Not saying that that means you're wrong. Your statement presumes that the typical conception of "free will" does indeed exist and that this is a universally held position. As a counterpoint, determinism has many backers. A typical (grossly simplified) physicalist response to your claim is that the illusion of "choice" is really the result of complex processes playing out.
    - kaffeemitsahne 9y ago
      >there is no such thing as free will, since all your actions are some kind of response from the environment And why couldn't that be free will? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
  - m12k 9y ago
    I think an important distinction is whether the response to stimulus is hardcoded or not, and the degree to which it's not. Saying simply 'stimulus-response' makes it sound like a reflex like pulling back your hand when you accidentally touch a hot plate. There's a world of difference between an automaton that always reacts the same way to a given stimulus on one end and on the other end a deeply learning mind that can store memories, create internal models to predict stimuli, maybe even 'rewire' itself to change what effects future stimuli can have. Sure, you could say that the latter just reacts to stimuli over a greater period of time (e.g. experience is just old stimuli still being reacted to) but to do so would be to gloss over the enormous difference in nature and complexity of such systems. And unless you believe in a metaphysical definition of consciousness, then somewhere in that complexity gap is where consciousness arises, so it seems hardly like something to be glossed over.
    - n17r4m 9y ago
      Suppose it is hardcoded? what difference does that make? edit: I know about hardware and software, but since we are all wetware, maybe we should think about it as its own class and/or function?
    - drieddust 9y ago
      You didn't read the article I guess? This paragraph provides answer to your objection. Plants learn to modify the response based on experience. > Under poor soil conditions, the pea seems to be able to assess risk. The sensitive plant can make memories and learn to stop recoiling if you mess with it enough. The Venus fly trap appears to count when insects trigger its trap. And plants can communicate with one another and with caterpillars.
red75prime 9y ago
While it's correct, it hides peculiarities of humans' stimulus processing.

For all I care humans are "just robotic, stimulus-response devices".

make3 9y ago

I mean I also have a physicalist materialist view of the world but that's exaggeratedly simple

serf 9y ago
> that's exaggeratedly simple it's simple, but I don't think that it's exaggerated. If anything I think it just speaks to the hidden power and complexity that can arise from following simple rule-sets. Although not typically used to describe such (internal) behavior, the text-book definition of 'stimulus' is just "a thing or event that evokes a specific functional reaction in an organ or tissue." -- If one were to consider that definition, 'stimulus' would also include everything your brain does; along with introspection, prediction, and everything we include as 'consciousness', and not just external forces that evoke an internal response (like sound,smell, light, touch, taste, etc.).
- askmike 9y ago
  If you take that stance you also say there is no such thing as free will, since all your actions are some kind of response from the environment. Not saying that that means you're wrong.
  - alexmat 9y ago
    You can still experience "free will" without invalidating the materialist point of view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_model
    - jamesrcole 9y ago
      > You can still experience "free will" if you have to put quotes around it, is it really free will? I had a look at that link and I don't see anything related to free will there... what's the link you're suggesting?
      - alexmat 9y ago
        The quotes are there to indicate that the free will is there but only as a convenient abstraction. "The idea of the self over time [...] is the property of phenomenal selfhood that plays the most important role in creating the fictional self and the first person perspective. Metzinger defines the first person perspective as the “existence of single coherent and temporally stable model of reality which is representationally centered around or on a single coherent and temporally stable phenomenal subject”." Free will in this sense is used to model reality in the form of subjective experience, part of which includes ownership of self. In other words we experience free will as a property of our model of reality, but it does not exist outside this abstraction. Objectively we are causally determined, subjectively we experience free will as part of the modeling process by the brain to create predictions about how it should respond to external stimuli. Self is an abstraction inside a simulation, it does not map onto reality directly. But since our subjective reality is the simulation, we will always experience ourselves as having free will barring a brain disorder, such as the ones mentioned in the wiki link: "Disorders of the self model are implicated in several disorders including schizophrenia, autism, and depersonalization."
        jamesrcole 9y ago
        I don't think there is actual free will, and I think the appearances of it is just how our minds present things to us -- that is, I basically agree with the description you give. But I object to statements like: > the free will is there but only as a convenient abstraction. Here's an analogy to illustrate my objection. It's inaccurate to say that the person Santa Claus literally exists but only as a mental concept. The accurate way to put it is that the Santa Claus person doesn't literally exist but we have mental concepts describing such a person. Free will doesn't exist but we have a mental concept of such a thing. That's the honest way to put it.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - threatofrain 9y ago
    The hard part is coming out with an interesting and discussable definition of free will that doesn't smell like the mind-brain duality, which is just a term for spirit.
  - iamnothere 9y ago
    > Not saying that that means you're wrong. Your statement presumes that the typical conception of "free will" does indeed exist and that this is a universally held position. As a counterpoint, determinism has many backers. A typical (grossly simplified) physicalist response to your claim is that the illusion of "choice" is really the result of complex processes playing out.
  - kaffeemitsahne 9y ago
    >there is no such thing as free will, since all your actions are some kind of response from the environment And why couldn't that be free will? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
- m12k 9y ago
  I think an important distinction is whether the response to stimulus is hardcoded or not, and the degree to which it's not. Saying simply 'stimulus-response' makes it sound like a reflex like pulling back your hand when you accidentally touch a hot plate. There's a world of difference between an automaton that always reacts the same way to a given stimulus on one end and on the other end a deeply learning mind that can store memories, create internal models to predict stimuli, maybe even 'rewire' itself to change what effects future stimuli can have. Sure, you could say that the latter just reacts to stimuli over a greater period of time (e.g. experience is just old stimuli still being reacted to) but to do so would be to gloss over the enormous difference in nature and complexity of such systems. And unless you believe in a metaphysical definition of consciousness, then somewhere in that complexity gap is where consciousness arises, so it seems hardly like something to be glossed over.
  - n17r4m 9y ago
    Suppose it is hardcoded? what difference does that make? edit: I know about hardware and software, but since we are all wetware, maybe we should think about it as its own class and/or function?
  - drieddust 9y ago
    You didn't read the article I guess? This paragraph provides answer to your objection. Plants learn to modify the response based on experience. > Under poor soil conditions, the pea seems to be able to assess risk. The sensitive plant can make memories and learn to stop recoiling if you mess with it enough. The Venus fly trap appears to count when insects trigger its trap. And plants can communicate with one another and with caterpillars.

red75prime 9y ago

While it's correct, it hides peculiarities of humans' stimulus processing.