6 ms·

The trouble with this argument is it applies to your thoughts about reality, not just to your will. Your argument implies your thoughts at time t are solely th

The trouble with this argument is it applies to your thoughts about reality, not just to your will. Your argument implies your thoughts at time t are solely the result of your state at time t-1 and your environment. But if that's the case, your thoughts aren't about reality; they're just a result of reality, a result of whatever state you happen to be in. But if your thoughts aren't about reality, why should your argument about free will -- or about anything else -- carry any weight? Causal processes are not the same as logical reasoning, and if you reduce the processes of the mind to the former, you remove the possibility of rational argument.

LeifCarrotson 3y ago
If you consider the processes of the mind to be acausal, that also removes the possibility of rational argument. It's possible that I'm a Boltzmann brain with nonsensical memories about environmental stimuli that mislead me about what reality is, but it's tedious to prepend every statement about reality with "the conception of reality that my state at time t-1 and my environment have lead me to believe is the most likely candidate for reality." That doesn't seem to be a particularly useful objection to the philosophy that GP espoused, instead, you have to assume his same priors - materialist, agnostic w.r.t. determinism, and some basic assumptions about senses and a shared reality.
- geye1234 3y ago
  I didn't claim the mind's processes were acausal; simply that they could not be reduced to cause, to the exclusion of anything else. If they can be so reduced, rational argument is impossible, because causal processes are not the same as rational argument. When I punch "2 + 2 =" into a calculator and the screen says "4", it's a causal process. When my kid grasps that 2 + 2 = 4, it's different. His mind has reasoned its way to this truth; it is not simply that the brain-state "2 + 2" has produced the further brain-state "4". If that were the case, he (and we) could never know that 2+2 resulted in 4; it could just as easily produce 5, or a green rabbit, or whatever else our mind had been caused to think at any given time. If reasoning has any validity, it cannot be reduced to causal processes. Therefore any argument -- any attempt at reasoning -- that claims that the mind's processes are merely causal undermines itself in the very process of being made.
  - xpe 3y ago
    > causal processes are not the same as rational argument Yes. ...I'm taking this step-by-step... But causal processes can _generate_ rational argument. Agree or disagree?
    - geye1234 3y ago
      > But causal processes can _generate_ rational argument. There is no reason for thinking this. A causal process can be associated and simultaneous with an argument, but it can't generate it, except by accident. The state of mind '2+2' may be followed by the state of mind '4', but it could just as easily be followed by the state of mind '5'. Causal processes may make us believe one or the other, but they will not make one correct and the other wrong; nor will they be sufficient to explain how one answer is correct and the other wrong.
      - xpe 3y ago
        That's why I said 'can'. I didn't say 'always'. A deterministic computer program _can_ generate rational argument; e.g. it can use logical deduction a.k.a. forward-chaining. Your claim seems to be that causality (governing the behavior of human thought and action) does not _necessarily_ result in rationality (in that human)? Of course -- this is obvious. This seems like a miscommunication. Perhaps an unavoidable one? :)
        geye1234 3y ago
        > Your claim seems to be that causality (governing the behavior of human thought and action) does not _necessarily_ result in rationality (in that human)? Of course -- this is obvious. That's not my claim. Basic observation of oneself or others make this, as you say, strikingly obvious :) My claim is rather that causality can't be a sufficient explanation for rationality. By this I mean that we can't explain rational thought by referring to the cerebral states that are associated with it. Remember your original claim that 'free will' is an illusion, because what impacts me at time T is [limited to] my state at time T-1, and my environment.[0] I take this to mean that my state at T is caused solely by my state at T-1 and envt. IF you're right about this, AND IF I'm right that causality can't be a sufficient explanation for rationality, then it implies that rationality is impossible. Why can't causality be a sufficient explanation for reality? We can't explain rational thought by referring to the cerebral states associated with it, because the question of whether a thought is rational is indepedent of its associated cerebral state. There are cerebral states associated with 2+2=4 (rational), and cerebral states associated with 2+2=5 (irrational). But neither of these cerebral states is itself right or wrong. Only the thoughts associated with them are right or wrong. I know that 2+2=4. It's not just that I have a series of successive, causal states that make me think this; it's that the content of the thought is correct. My mind has grasped a truth about reality. Similarly, someone who thinks 2+2=5 is wrong. It's not just that he has a series of successive, causal states that make him think thus; it's that the content of his thought is incorrect, and his mind has failed to grasp a truth about reality. When we say thought is correct or incorrect, rational or irrational, we refer to the content of the thought, not the brain state. Thought must be about something other than the brain state to be right or wrong. But if thought is entirely generated, and sufficiently explained, by causal processes, it can only reflect the brain state, and can't be right or wrong. Since thought can be right or wrong, it follows that rational thought is something more than the product of causal processes, and is (at least partially) independent of them. [0] I have added the words in square brackets myself, but I think that's your meaning.
xpe 3y ago
> But if that's the case, your thoughts aren't about reality; they're just a result of reality, a result of whatever state you happen to be in. According to my premises (materialism being the key one), thoughts are the result of the combination of (a) what happened before and (b) the laws of the universe. So thoughts can be both: (1) a causal result (previous paragraph) and (2) _about_ reality, from the point of view of one's consciousness. Any disagreement here?
xpe 3y ago
> Causal processes are not the same as logical reasoning, and if you reduce the processes of the mind to the former, you remove the possibility of rational argument. (I'm not sure if this applies to what I was saying or not; I'll put that aside.) I'll rephrase the comment above to help ensure I'm talking about the same thing. The claim, as I understand it, goes like this: if one believes the mind is governed by causal processes, then there is no possibility of the brain doing logical reasoning. Am I understanding the argument as you intended? I'll proceed with my understanding of it... I don't buy it. Computers are causal and can do logical reasoning just fine.
xpe 3y ago
> Your argument implies your thoughts at time t are solely the result of your state at time t-1 and your environment. The laws of physics also matter. I think we're still on the same page here. I'm trying to figure out if we disagree, and if so, where.

LeifCarrotson 3y ago

If you consider the processes of the mind to be acausal, that also removes the possibility of rational argument. It's possible that I'm a Boltzmann brain with nonsensical memories about environmental stimuli that mislead me about what reality is, but it's tedious to prepend every statement about reality with "the conception of reality that my state at time t-1 and my environment have lead me to believe is the most likely candidate for reality." That doesn't seem to be a particularly useful objection to the philosophy that GP espoused, instead, you have to assume his same priors - materialist, agnostic w.r.t. determinism, and some basic assumptions about senses and a shared reality.

geye1234 3y ago
I didn't claim the mind's processes were acausal; simply that they could not be reduced to cause, to the exclusion of anything else. If they can be so reduced, rational argument is impossible, because causal processes are not the same as rational argument. When I punch "2 + 2 =" into a calculator and the screen says "4", it's a causal process. When my kid grasps that 2 + 2 = 4, it's different. His mind has reasoned its way to this truth; it is not simply that the brain-state "2 + 2" has produced the further brain-state "4". If that were the case, he (and we) could never know that 2+2 resulted in 4; it could just as easily produce 5, or a green rabbit, or whatever else our mind had been caused to think at any given time. If reasoning has any validity, it cannot be reduced to causal processes. Therefore any argument -- any attempt at reasoning -- that claims that the mind's processes are merely causal undermines itself in the very process of being made.
- xpe 3y ago
  > causal processes are not the same as rational argument Yes. ...I'm taking this step-by-step... But causal processes can _generate_ rational argument. Agree or disagree?
  - geye1234 3y ago
    > But causal processes can _generate_ rational argument. There is no reason for thinking this. A causal process can be associated and simultaneous with an argument, but it can't generate it, except by accident. The state of mind '2+2' may be followed by the state of mind '4', but it could just as easily be followed by the state of mind '5'. Causal processes may make us believe one or the other, but they will not make one correct and the other wrong; nor will they be sufficient to explain how one answer is correct and the other wrong.
    - xpe 3y ago
      That's why I said 'can'. I didn't say 'always'. A deterministic computer program _can_ generate rational argument; e.g. it can use logical deduction a.k.a. forward-chaining. Your claim seems to be that causality (governing the behavior of human thought and action) does not _necessarily_ result in rationality (in that human)? Of course -- this is obvious. This seems like a miscommunication. Perhaps an unavoidable one? :)
      - geye1234 3y ago
        > Your claim seems to be that causality (governing the behavior of human thought and action) does not _necessarily_ result in rationality (in that human)? Of course -- this is obvious. That's not my claim. Basic observation of oneself or others make this, as you say, strikingly obvious :) My claim is rather that causality can't be a sufficient explanation for rationality. By this I mean that we can't explain rational thought by referring to the cerebral states that are associated with it. Remember your original claim that 'free will' is an illusion, because what impacts me at time T is [limited to] my state at time T-1, and my environment.[0] I take this to mean that my state at T is caused solely by my state at T-1 and envt. IF you're right about this, AND IF I'm right that causality can't be a sufficient explanation for rationality, then it implies that rationality is impossible. Why can't causality be a sufficient explanation for reality? We can't explain rational thought by referring to the cerebral states associated with it, because the question of whether a thought is rational is indepedent of its associated cerebral state. There are cerebral states associated with 2+2=4 (rational), and cerebral states associated with 2+2=5 (irrational). But neither of these cerebral states is itself right or wrong. Only the thoughts associated with them are right or wrong. I know that 2+2=4. It's not just that I have a series of successive, causal states that make me think this; it's that the content of the thought is correct. My mind has grasped a truth about reality. Similarly, someone who thinks 2+2=5 is wrong. It's not just that he has a series of successive, causal states that make him think thus; it's that the content of his thought is incorrect, and his mind has failed to grasp a truth about reality. When we say thought is correct or incorrect, rational or irrational, we refer to the content of the thought, not the brain state. Thought must be about something other than the brain state to be right or wrong. But if thought is entirely generated, and sufficiently explained, by causal processes, it can only reflect the brain state, and can't be right or wrong. Since thought can be right or wrong, it follows that rational thought is something more than the product of causal processes, and is (at least partially) independent of them. [0] I have added the words in square brackets myself, but I think that's your meaning.

xpe 3y ago

> But if that's the case, your thoughts aren't about reality; they're just a result of reality, a result of whatever state you happen to be in. According to my premises (materialism being the key one), thoughts are the result of the combination of (a) what happened before and (b) the laws of the universe. So thoughts can be both: (1) a causal result (previous paragraph) and (2) _about_ reality, from the point of view of one's consciousness. Any disagreement here?

xpe 3y ago

> Causal processes are not the same as logical reasoning, and if you reduce the processes of the mind to the former, you remove the possibility of rational argument. (I'm not sure if this applies to what I was saying or not; I'll put that aside.) I'll rephrase the comment above to help ensure I'm talking about the same thing. The claim, as I understand it, goes like this: if one believes the mind is governed by causal processes, then there is no possibility of the brain doing logical reasoning. Am I understanding the argument as you intended? I'll proceed with my understanding of it... I don't buy it. Computers are causal and can do logical reasoning just fine.

xpe 3y ago

> Your argument implies your thoughts at time t are solely the result of your state at time t-1 and your environment. The laws of physics also matter. I think we're still on the same page here. I'm trying to figure out if we disagree, and if so, where.