Free will Argument against Divine Providence

[genkaus]

Now you're starting to understand me.

A. I am capable of actual experience, and have a brain which functions in certain ways.
B. Everything with a brain which functions in certain ways is actually experiencing.

B here is clearly invalid.

Except, I never implied B. In fact, IIRC, my argument makes the opposite point.

A. I am capable of actual experience and that capacity comes from a specific brain function (sentience).

B. Not everything with a functioning brain necessarily has that capacity. Therefore, not everything with a brain is necessarily sentient.

C. Other brain functions do not necessarily imply sentience either.

You just listed all the aspects of brain function which are considered defining features of awareness, and yet you're not willing to concede that any OTHER system which has those features is necessarily aware. This means that looking at brain function and finding the ability to identify, or to process, or to interect, or any level of complexity of these things is NOT sufficient to prove awareness.

Now, your fMRI isn't looking like the be-all end-all that it was a couple of posts ago.

On the contrary, I'm saying that any other system where all those aspects are present would be considered as "aware". If we look at a complex brain function capable of identifying, processing, interacting etc. we would consider it to be aware. What we have not identified yet is which of these features are the definitive aspects of awareness and which are incidental. Its a question similar to asking "how many grains of sand does it take to make a heap?". We know that too few grains do not make a heap and that too many do - but we do not know at what number should be draw the line. Similarly, we know that a system with all the features would be aware and one with one or two combinations would not be - but we do not know where to draw the line.

With this, I categorically disagree. First of all, you've just said that none of these abilities necessarily constitute awareness. You'll have to explain how it both CAN and also CANNOT.

What I said was none of these abilities on their own can be considered to necessarily constitute awareness. As of now, we simply do not know which combination of the given abilities are required for awareness and which are the optional extras.

Second, I define experience as my ability to really feel feelings, really see colors, not just for my brain to process them. I know this special ability exists, because I happen to have it. I assume people have it, because they behave much as I behave, and so I believe they are like me in other ways, as well.

You should also be aware of the difference between "experience" and "awareness". Experience is a specialized form of internal awareness, i.e. you being aware of the working of your own mind. When an apple is put in front of you, your eyes receive the visual data and transfer it to the brain where it is processed. All the while, you are aware of this process occurring and you refer to it as the experience of seeing the color red. When your stomach is empty, it leads to a biological reaction resulting in the desire for food and your awareness of this process is regarded as feeling hungry.

For a machine to pass the Turing test, I believe it'd need to have a certain level self-awareness, if it is to talk intelligibly about its internal state. Thus, I believe it to be capable of experience as well.

This is a problem, because if you want to prove that awareness is a particular kind of data processing, you'll have to show that there is no fundamental awareness in rocks, or in the sun, or in every particle in the universe. Having evidence for a theory for which contrary evidence cannot, even hypothetically, be produced is not to have a workable theory-- it's a very good signal that question-begging is accompanying philosophical assumptions.

This is not a problem for me because the very nature of a data-processing system rules out the possibility of fundamental awareness in the rocks or sun or particles of the universe. Secondly, identifying the definitive features of awareness would require justification - which means that any such theory would have to be falsifiable.

Any collection. A drop of water might land on my head; a gust of wind blows it off course; the drop therefore has no free will. My dog might go to his food bowl; he can see that my wife has not put food in the bowl; my dog therefore has no free will.

If we use the phrase to refer to just any collection, then there is no point in defining the term at all. The whole point of starting with a generalization is to determine, form that point onwards, which particular specifics would be sensible - not to exclude specifics altogether.

And again, we're down to operational definitions. Don't believe me? Define beauty, and say how it can be "verified independently."

Beauty is a characteristic of a person, animal, place, object, or idea that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure or satisfaction.

Such a perceptual experience would take a specific form within your brain and - should the means of observation be developed - it'd be verifiable.