5 ms·

...quantum effects at the neuron level makes the brain a non-deterministic computing device (i.e. its outputs are not solely governed by its inputs) This kind

by narag 8y ago

...quantum effects at the neuron level makes the brain a non-deterministic computing device (i.e. its outputs are not solely governed by its inputs) This kind of definition is the root cause of what saalweachter pointed to: Do you consider a program an input? If not, you are actually willing that it works randomly. If it is, the mind seems to be an empty box that still has opinions. The free will discussion is a relic of religious thinking. And, while someone produces some new compelling argument, IMHO all the discussion about "qualia" is noise.

hliyan 8y ago
Are you suggesting that "qualia" does not exist, or that it should not be considered in the inquiry? Same for "free will" -- are you suggesting that it does not exist, or that it should not be considered in the inquiry? Is it simply because you feel the term is tainted by religion?
- 21 8y ago
  The existence of free will is still a highly controversial topic. It is by no means settled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism
- simonh 8y ago
  Not sure about Qualia, but for free will it seems like everyone with an opinion on this defines free and will differently. For example from my point of view, for a decision to be mine it absolutely has to depend on my own mental state prior to and while making it. If it doesn’t it might be free, but it isn’t mine. The less deterministic my decisions are and the less determined by my mental state (memories, opinions, etc) a decision is, the less it’s mine. So at that level I’m really not worried by determinism or theoretical predictability, in fact I embrace them, because without them there is no responsibility or agency or self. This seems fundamentally at odds with some other people’s definition of free will which to me seem perplexingly ephemeral and indistinct.
- narag 8y ago
  The "qualia" is a vague enough concept to be used as an argument ad ignorantiam. "Free will" is a totally irrelevant concept that's presented as a fundamental problem. And no, it's not that's tainted by religion, it's that it makes no sense at all without religious thinking. Dualism is the belief that there is a material body and a inmaterial soul that controls the body. As the knowledge of mind expanded, the soul retreated. That's just how things happened historically, but the logic is to ditch the soul concept altogether, not reducing it to an entelechy. The problem with doing the later is you end up inventing fake problems like "free will". Will is not free in a vacuum. People are born with things that we like and some other things that we dislike, not the same for every person. Then family, society and circumstances, including sheer luck, shape our wills to a point. There is also the possibility of changing our own likes, acquiring what we consider desirable tastes. We're not free to completely bootstrap ourselves. But that is not the same at saying we've not free will at all. Determinism is alike to saying that it's impossible that heavier than air machines can fly. You take a general concept that seems obvious, ignore all intermediate steps and reach an unwarranted conclusion. The intermediate steps in this case is the fact that our mind is in a material world, generated by a material brain and that our wills, our memories and everything else is part of the material world also. So saying that material laws prevent us from being free is absurd. We are made of matter, we are not "trapped in matter", that's a relic.
  - ci5er 8y ago
    Not to push, (but I'm gonna push...) That's a lot of declarative statements! And yet I am left uninformed as to whether you are saying that Free-Will (the 'non-problem') exists? Or not? Or that the question itself is meaningless? (I'm guessing the last?)
    - narag 8y ago
      If you need to guess, I'm afraid there weren't enough declarative statements :) Of course it's meaningless. We make decisions all the time, you can only say that free will doesn't exist if you define free will in a way that's impossible to exist, ignoring the intuitive, inmediate reality of freedom. Edit: in other words, what's a definition of free will that's possible to exist? If there's none, we're talking about nothing, aren't we? If there's one, that would be useful. Why bother with the useless ones? What I'm trying to say is there are a number of discussions that match the same pattern: We know very little about a something but still try to make general rules about it. We don't know in enoug detail how the brain works but there are a number of experts that run to assert that computers will never think because they're different. How do they know? Do they know every kind of computer that's not invented yet?

by narag 8y ago

hliyan 8y ago

Are you suggesting that "qualia" does not exist, or that it should not be considered in the inquiry? Same for "free will" -- are you suggesting that it does not exist, or that it should not be considered in the inquiry? Is it simply because you feel the term is tainted by religion?

21 8y ago
The existence of free will is still a highly controversial topic. It is by no means settled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism
simonh 8y ago
Not sure about Qualia, but for free will it seems like everyone with an opinion on this defines free and will differently. For example from my point of view, for a decision to be mine it absolutely has to depend on my own mental state prior to and while making it. If it doesn’t it might be free, but it isn’t mine. The less deterministic my decisions are and the less determined by my mental state (memories, opinions, etc) a decision is, the less it’s mine. So at that level I’m really not worried by determinism or theoretical predictability, in fact I embrace them, because without them there is no responsibility or agency or self. This seems fundamentally at odds with some other people’s definition of free will which to me seem perplexingly ephemeral and indistinct.
narag 8y ago
The "qualia" is a vague enough concept to be used as an argument ad ignorantiam. "Free will" is a totally irrelevant concept that's presented as a fundamental problem. And no, it's not that's tainted by religion, it's that it makes no sense at all without religious thinking. Dualism is the belief that there is a material body and a inmaterial soul that controls the body. As the knowledge of mind expanded, the soul retreated. That's just how things happened historically, but the logic is to ditch the soul concept altogether, not reducing it to an entelechy. The problem with doing the later is you end up inventing fake problems like "free will". Will is not free in a vacuum. People are born with things that we like and some other things that we dislike, not the same for every person. Then family, society and circumstances, including sheer luck, shape our wills to a point. There is also the possibility of changing our own likes, acquiring what we consider desirable tastes. We're not free to completely bootstrap ourselves. But that is not the same at saying we've not free will at all. Determinism is alike to saying that it's impossible that heavier than air machines can fly. You take a general concept that seems obvious, ignore all intermediate steps and reach an unwarranted conclusion. The intermediate steps in this case is the fact that our mind is in a material world, generated by a material brain and that our wills, our memories and everything else is part of the material world also. So saying that material laws prevent us from being free is absurd. We are made of matter, we are not "trapped in matter", that's a relic.
- ci5er 8y ago
  Not to push, (but I'm gonna push...) That's a lot of declarative statements! And yet I am left uninformed as to whether you are saying that Free-Will (the 'non-problem') exists? Or not? Or that the question itself is meaningless? (I'm guessing the last?)
  - narag 8y ago
    If you need to guess, I'm afraid there weren't enough declarative statements :) Of course it's meaningless. We make decisions all the time, you can only say that free will doesn't exist if you define free will in a way that's impossible to exist, ignoring the intuitive, inmediate reality of freedom. Edit: in other words, what's a definition of free will that's possible to exist? If there's none, we're talking about nothing, aren't we? If there's one, that would be useful. Why bother with the useless ones? What I'm trying to say is there are a number of discussions that match the same pattern: We know very little about a something but still try to make general rules about it. We don't know in enoug detail how the brain works but there are a number of experts that run to assert that computers will never think because they're different. How do they know? Do they know every kind of computer that's not invented yet?