Free will & the Conservation Laws

[I_am_not_mafia]

You two don't fool me. I know you're the matrix trying to convince me that other people exist.

[Alex K]

It's also worth pointing out that conscious isn't irreducible either. Some people are more conscious about why they act than others for example.

After I down two or three bottles of wine, I am definitely less conscious than I'd ordinarily be.

[bennyboy]

Free will is the unfettered ability to act according to one's nature in a given circumstance.

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.

I think by my definition you COULD be.  You could, for example, be a particularly fearful person by nature.  You would then express this fearfulness generally rather than specifically, and this tendency would be perceived by others as lacking will.

[Jehanne]

The brain is irreducibly complex in that it is much more than 0s & 1s; after all, has anyone simulated a human or mammalian brain?  The answer, of course, is, "Yes," but such have all been very poor to poor simulations.  So far, consciousness exists only in brains and not in computers, and in my opinion, computers will never have consciousness.  For one, most of the human brain is fat, or myelin, which acts as an insulator but also as a messenger, but, I am not expert.  So, whatever makes up consciousness is likely to be found in wetware and not inorganic materials, which make-up computers.

That's not what is meant by irreducibly complex. The term is only used by theists as part of a fallacious argument that if you take any part of it away then it ceases to function. This is

Consider my comments with respect to "irreducibly complex" to have been withdrawn; as I said earlier, I meant "irreducible and complex".  As for the rest of your comments, if you consider free will to be in violation of the Conservation Laws (the topic of my OP), please state that.

[robvalue]

Alex:

To me, the fundamentals of solipsism is that I am the only thing I can be certain is "real". I may not be what I think I am, but I know I'm conscious. What I don't know is whether what I appear to experience represents something "real" or just some data being plugged into me somehow.

I assume the former, for pragmatic purposes. So now, everything I "see" is real; at least it's a representation of something real.

This is as far as solipsism goes, unless I'm not using the definition correctly.

The one thing I can't ever possibly test, under any circumstances, is whether or not another entity is having an "experience" like I am. Things appearing to have experiences, even if they are "real things" would look exactly like the same entity that really is having an experience. I can't tell the difference. Even though the "people" around me are real, I can't ever demonstrate they are like me. Not to my own satisfaction. Not even one of them, ever. I can only argue by analogy. The fact that I am experiencing something may be a one-off.

So I make the further assumption that other humans (and animals) do have experiences, if they act roughly like me, and appear to be having them. I'm quite happy making that assumption, of course. I can just never have any data on it, even if I assume solipsism is false. I can't discount the philosophical zombies, as you put it, any more than I can discount solipsism; and I don't see them as the same. They can be real zombies.

The problem, in both steps, is the lack of peers. I have no independent observers with which to consult. I can only make them independent by assuming my conclusions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Generally...when there's no way to determine a difference between two things or potential states....it's because there isn't one.  

I think that you make a mistake in considering consciousness to be something which you can only assume.  Do you simply assume that a rock -isn't- conscious, and what conclusion must you first assume when trying to determine the conscious status of a rock (for or against), exactly?  Additionally, why is the choice between "philosophical zombies" and experience...are you sure that they're opposing states?  When I watch a movie I;m experiencing it, but I'm not in control of how it plays out for the simple fact of being conscious myself.  

Personally, I think that people silently attach thing to consciousness and then formulate objections to those things -as- consciousness.  It's probably not intentional.......zombies after all, lol. 

[robvalue]

I assume a rock isn't conscious, yeah. I don't know that is definitely true.

I know I'm being "viewed", somehow. I don't know if anyone else is; I can't know that.

I'm not suggesting this is of any practical importance, it's not. It's just musings.

[The Grand Nudger]

You assume that..there's nothing else, only the assumption?

[I_am_not_mafia]

I assume a rock isn't conscious, yeah. I don't know that is definitely true.

Rocks are inanimate objects therefore cannot be conscious.

You cannot have intelligence or consciousness without sensory stimuli.

[I_am_not_mafia]

As for the rest of your comments, if you consider free will to be in violation of the Conservation Laws (the topic of my OP), please state that.

I don't think free will can even be defined. It's a useless nebulous concept unless used in relation to something else. As I said, free from what?

You'd first have to define free will before stating whether or not it violates any physical laws.