Free will & the Conservation Laws

[God of Mr. Hanky]

If the brain can be influenced by quantum-level events (as seems possible for what is essentially an electrical system governed by tiny quantities of psychoactive substances) then because of the uncertainty principle we cannot know - however much computing power we have - everything about it.

However, it does not follow from this that God or the soul exists. I don't know everything that's down the back of my sofa either, but I'm pretty confident Jesus isn't there.

(How embarrassing would it be for me as an atheist if I found Jesus down the back of my sofa? How much reputation on AF would I lose? Having said that, I moved house quite recently and my sofa did seem a bit heavy. Hang on I'll check.)

LOL, if Jesus can't free himself from the back of your sofa, then I doubt he's really anything worth worrying about. But do check if you're concerned with your privacy, or are concerned with the smell of rotting flesh.

[Alex K]

That is one possible definition (the "compatibilist" one?) which however, imho, does not capture the moral and metaphysical ideas that are usually at stake when people talk of "free will". Free will is often thought to be some kind of magic sauce which is supposed to render our minds autonomous and independent of worldly influences.

Mmmmm...magic sauce...just like mama used to make. [emoji478]

- Mom?
-Yes?
-Do I have free will?
-No. And now eat up!

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm differentiating between consciousness and the experience, because in my case I have an experience. I can't be sure anyone else does. I think it's called the "problem of other minds", formally. Something like that. I think it's unsolvable. Of course, I assume other people do have experiences. It's a very sensible assumption. I'd have no reason to think they don't; I just can't be sure.

Not being sure isn't, quite, assuming.  We aren't sure about -anything- we haven't controlled the definition of. I think you do more than just assume.  A sensible assumption...you have reasons?  

Coming back to rocks: they have no way to communicate their experience, at least none that we know of. That doesn't mean they don't have any. I wouldn't find it any more absurd than us having experiences. It's just ours are in your face.

But this is all mental masturbation. I find it interesting, but it's useless.

You mean rocks don't do the things we associate with consciousness, with experience, they don't do what other conscious or experiencing agents do?  That sounds like a test, that sounds like a set of falsifiable metrics. I don't personally require you to solve any philosophical problem, but i think that in the wide gulf between certainty and assumption.......you're closer to the former than you are to the latter..in this regard. You're not simply assuming that I'm conscious, or that I have an experience. I've given you good reason to consider me conscious, an experiencer. The rock hasn't. If I looked like a human, and acted like a rock.....or If you found out in meeting me that I'm actually a rock sitting on a keyboard, you might reassess, eh? You -certainly- don't have to assume that I am conscious or experiencing in order to conclude that I am either.

[vorlon13]

[Neo-Scholastic]

I am a materialist and do not believe that humans, non-human animals, plants, etc., have souls, spirits or any other "non-material" substance.  If the Conservation Laws of Nature (Energy, Momentum, Angular Momentum, etc.) are immutable and without exception, then is not human (or animal) free will an illusion?  Granted that the brain is irreducibly complex, but given enough hypothetical (infinite?) computing power, is not the entire Universe deterministic?  Hence, free will is an illusion?

If the physical universe is causally closed, then you are most likely correct. There is, however, no scientific way to determine whether it is or is not causally closed.

Hard determinism is a lot like solipsism. The logic seems irrefutable but no one truly believes in it for themselves.

[robvalue]

Rhythm: of course, I have good reasons to think other people do experience things and no good reason to think rocks do. That's why I'm very happy to make those assumptions.

But no, I can't ever test if a rock is having an experience. Some sort of experience could emerge from any properties of physical matter, as far as I know, not just consciousness. I only have literally one concrete example, and that is me, even after dealing with solipsism.

I have good reason to think experiences only come out of consciousness, so I have no problem assuming that is the case, given that I can't investigate this further. As a scientist, I just take these assumptions for granted. But by my fundamental philosophy, which is of no practical use except as mental exercise, I can't rule out me being the only conscious being.

Of course, there are an infinite number of other things I can't rule out, it doesn't mean I take them seriously. That's exactly why falsifiability is so important, and why this doesn't matter or influence my decisions/scientific method in any way.

The mystery for me is the experience. I can accept, as a scientist, that "consciousness being the experience" is a very sensible and consistent explanation. All the evidence supports it, yet I'm trapped in one frame of reference. If I could somehow "be" someone else for a few minutes, or even "be" a rock, that would give be some data. Did I experience anything, or not, while I was them? Otherwise, all I can test for is consciousness and assume that is same as the experience. Which I'm perfectly happy to do, as I say.

[Alex K]

I am a materialist and do not believe that humans, non-human animals, plants, etc., have souls, spirits or any other "non-material" substance.  If the Conservation Laws of Nature (Energy, Momentum, Angular Momentum, etc.) are immutable and without exception, then is not human (or animal) free will an illusion?  Granted that the brain is irreducibly complex, but given enough hypothetical (infinite?) computing power, is not the entire Universe deterministic?  Hence, free will is an illusion?

If the physical universe is causally closed, then you are most likely correct. There is, however, no scientific way to determine whether it is or is not causally closed.

Hard determinism is a lot like solipsism. The logic seems irrefutable but no one truly believes in it for themselves.

The conclusion may be correct, but the argument from conservation laws isn't. Nature can in principle have a undetermined "choice" between two possiblities which both conserve energy etc.

[robvalue]

I will fuck a rock then hit myself with it.

The difference between a twat like WLC and a fuck-bunion like me is (a) I'm sexier and (b) I acknoweldge that my philosophy without evidence/testability is of no practical use. I don't claim that anyone should take it seriously beyond mental exercise.

That makes me even more sexy, probably. Now, where's that rock. You love it, rock.

[The Grand Nudger]

Rhythm: of course, I have good reasons to think other people do experience things and no good reason to think rocks do. That's why I'm very happy to make those assumptions.

Conclusions are reached by reference to good reason, not assumptions.  

But no, I can't ever test if a rock is having an experience. Some sort of experience could emerge from any properties of physical matter, as far as I know, not just consciousness. I only have literally one concrete example, and that is me, even after dealing with solipsism.

I think you can.  You may have some doubt about the test...I'm not sure what that doubt would be, but to claim that we cannot test for consciousness or experience is a gross misrepresentation of our limits.  

I have good reason to think experiences only come out of consciousness, so I have no problem assuming that is the case, given that I can't investigate this further. As a scientist, I just take these assumptions for granted. But by my fundamental philosophy, which is of no practical use except as mental exercise, I can't rule out me being the only conscious being.

Determining out of what experience or consciousness arises is not the same question as whether or not objects a, b, or c possess them.  You may not have an answer or a test for that first question..but that's not the question whose answer you stated could only be assumed, and only proven by assuming the conclusion itself.  You may not know, or be able to determine, the precise square inch of the sky where a drop of rain comes from.....but you are able to determine that rain is falling on your head.

Of course, there are an infinite number of other things I can't rule out, it doesn't mean I take them seriously. That's exactly why falsifiability is so important, and why this doesn't matter or influence my decisions/scientific method in any way.

-and again I suggest that whether or not an object is conscious -or- experiencing is a question that -can- be put to a test.  We do put it to a test.  We test machines, we test human beings.  

The mystery for me is the experience. I can accept, as a scientist, that "consciousness being the experience" is a very sensible and consistent explanation. All the evidence supports it, yet I'm trapped in one frame of reference. If I could somehow "be" someone else for a few minutes, or even "be" a rock, that would give be some data. Did I experience anything, or not, while I was them? Otherwise, all I can test for is consciousness and assume that is same as the experience. Which I'm perfectly happy to do, as I say.

Being someone else would give you no more data than you currently possess in that regard.  You would only know whether or not you, already taken by yourself to be conscious, would still be conscious if transported to another shell.  You would not then...know, if those shells were conscious when you were -not- there, -not- being them, any more than you know now.  I don't think that it can't be tested, but I do think this would be a poor test..if what you want to learn about is -other- minds. Is there something wrong with the test - "did you see anything just now, what did you see?". Will this not answer the question of whether a person is conscious or experiencing - regardless of their answer? Obviously it won't work for a rock, we'd have to get more creative, but lets take it one step at a time.

[robvalue]

OK, well I think we'll have to agree to disagree there. I can't possibly see how you can test for "experience". Consciousness, sure. It's whether the two are one and the same that is the question. But you're right, that doesn't mean it's impossible. That was an overstatement. It would still have to convince me though, and that would remain to be seen. I'm really having trouble with setting up criteria.

I'm happy to accept consciousness is the experience. But like solipsism, there's a gap I can't seem to plug. It's only admitting the limits of my scientific investigation. It's of no importance. I have enough indirect evidence to be convinced.

A mimic who isn't having an experience "like me" would appear just the same as a real person who was actually having one, and would return the same answers and physical properties under testing.

You're right, my "being put in their body" idea wasn't so great either and wouldn't settle it.