Free will & the Conservation Laws

[robvalue]

Well, that's one of the problems. I don't even know how to properly phrase the question. Anything I write seems ludicrous and unscientific.

Even writing "I" is unscientific, really. What the fuck am I? I've not established this.

[Angrboda]

That if others behave as I would behave under the test, then they are experiencing the same things that I would be.  

That subtle shift in the question, again.  I;m not interested in whether or not their experience is uniform to my own.  I'm interested in whether or not they experience.  I -am- limited in my reference set...but we can only work with what we've got, and to demand otherwise or refuse to accept a conclusion on those grounds would be unreasonable.  

Ah yes, the olde 'if you don't agree with me you're being unreasonable' gambit. What I am saying is that you are externalizing your reference set. You're making the artifact of your reference set be the proxy that stands in for your reference set of phenomena. That's an unsound step. We can't assume that just because for you a certain behavior would be indicative of being aware that for another the same behavior is indicative of the same thing. That's projecting, and it's an assumption that isn't warranted.

But there's no way to know that this equivalence holds.  It in a way is claiming that there aren't alternative methods (besides experience) by which such behavior can be realized.

I think that there -are- ways to do that (I offered artifact of a conscious designer as an example)....my test doesn't claim any such thing, it's merely -one way- to get at an answer to a question by working with what we've got where it might apply.

And I'm claiming there are no such ways. If you have a counter-example, now is the time to pony up with a method other than assuming this equivalence. What have you got?

What if there are zombies who can pass the greater test without actually being aware?  Your test gives us no good reason to rule them out.

Then we have no good reason to rule them out....and every reason to consider them as aware as we are..and we'll have to confront that, rather than creating an imaginary partition which we cannot demonstrate, considering them "mimics" and ourselves something else.  

This is ridiculous! We'll have to consider them aware even though we know that, by definition, they are not aware? Surely there is something wrong with your procedure if it yields a false positive like this? Perhaps you aren't probing the correct indicator in plumbing the depths of behavior.

[robvalue]

Defining "aware" is probably tricky too!

[vorlon13]

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah yes, the olde 'if you don't agree with me you're being unreasonable' gambit.  What I am saying is that you are externalizing your reference set.  You're making the artifact of your reference set be the proxy that stands in for your reference set of phenomena.  That's an unsound step.  We can't assume that just because for you a certain behavior would be indicative of being aware that for another the same behavior is indicative of the same thing.  That's projecting, and it's an assumption that isn't warranted.

Kindly point out where I claimed that anyone who -disagreed with me- was unreasonable?  To demand what neither of us does or even could possess, in the formation of a test whose purpose is to collect evidence...not a deductive proof, would be unreasonable.  To object by leveraging an impossible standard, would be unreasonable.  You and I both have limited, not full knowledge.  We have limited reference sets and limited abilities.  Can a test for experience, or -anything- for that matter,  be based upon reference sets we do not possess, or be run by reliance upon abilities we do not have?  No and no...and there is a formal logical fallacy to describe any demand for or objection based upon either.  

Again...... the test I offered was for a -human being-......I'm still not sure that projection is applicable as an objection, nor am I simply assuming that my behavior, indicative of x..is also indicative of x.....in another human being...and I do acknowledge that even our own experiences are not strictly uniform.  However, even if I were.......whats the problem.....do you have some other reference set?  Some other metrics to use?  

And I'm claiming there are no such ways.  If you have a counter-example, now is the time to pony up with a method other than assuming this equivalence.  What have you got?

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.  I was correcting you, by stating that I -did not- think or claim that there were no ways that such behavior could be realized, in the absence of experience.   My test can be gamed, like any test..and we can get a false positive.  I mentioned one such example, explicitly.  

This is ridiculous!  We'll have to consider them aware even though we know that, by definition, they are not aware?  Surely there is something wrong with your procedure if it yields a false positive like this?  Perhaps you aren't probing the correct indicator in plumbing the depths of behavior.

You got your criticism ever so slightly wrong..read what you quoted again.

You proposed a scenario in which a philosophical zombie passed a test that satisfies us in the case of human beings.  I responded with the only logically consistent answer available in that event.  We would be forced to consider philosophical zombies to be -as aware as human beings are-, if they met the criteria we used to determine or accept awareness in each other. To state otherwise would be special pleading.

[Jehanne]

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.

Indeterminism versus determinism, however, even if such is true at the non-quantum level, how does it lead one to have "free will"?

[Jehanne]

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.

Agreed, but as far as my senses can tell, I am completely motionless in my chair right now, notwithstanding the fact that I have spent my entire life going around in a circle at 600+ mph.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your senses actually -do- perceive that motion, and compensate for it......they just don't pass the info along to the "you" that's talking to us right now. Stranger than fiction, eh?

[FebruaryOfReason]

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.

I have checked. Jesus is not down the back of my sofa.

So that's yet another place the xtians can stop looking for him.

[The Grand Nudger]

It was worth a shot.