Human Intelligence is an Illusion

[Alan V]

Imagine a master painter creating a masterpiece one brush stroke at a time. Each movement of his hand meticulously chosen to create the desired effect. Yet, what if each of those motions was chosen for him before he was consciously aware of the choice and only took credit for it upon the moment of that awareness? Experiments by Libet, Soon, Fried, Haynes and others suggest exactly that.

Suggestions are not demonstrations, and plenty of people disagree with the unwarranted over-extrapolations of determinists based on such studies.

When I was over at TTA, I posted a book review which discussed in some detail why those studies do not demonstrate what determinists think they do. Unfortunately I didn't save that post before the forum was deleted. So I guess I will have to read the book again and post a new report.

Further, I even posted a rebuttal to the initial argument (post 18) which was ignored by The Chameleon. Someone who does not address reasonable objections is not arguing in good faith, IMO.

---

Just a question to everyone When you use the word "I" precisely what are you identifying as you? Particularly in the context of making choices? There's a lot of ways a person can identify their perceived nature of self.

Since I changed from being a theist to being an atheist, my self-concept changed from being my consciousness to being my body, which is what is conscious. Not everything my body does is a matter of choice, so my self-concept is not altogether relevant to your question. However, I do take responsibility for what my body does, because I consciously monitor and control it within certain boundaries. I even apologize when I belch out loud, for instance.

When arguing in favor of free will, I typically start at the high end and work my way down from there, if possible. That's why I usually say that a reason is not the same thing as a determined caused, and there are plenty of times in which we operate by reasons rather than merely react. If you are not preserving the difference between a reason and a cause, you don't recognize the function of that discrimination which the concept of free will makes. You are effectively trying to undermine the useful function of a concept, to blur certain boundaries.

I take it you are also trying to undermine the useful concept of intelligence.

[brewer]

Yep, there has only been a philosophical position argued (they didn't actually demonstrate a damn thing), one that I don't hold.

Imagine a master painter creating a masterpiece one brush stroke at a time. Each movement of his hand meticulously chosen to create the desired effect. Yet, what if each of those motions was chosen for him before he was consciously aware of the choice and only took credit for it upon the moment of that awareness? Experiments by Libet, Soon, Fried, Haynes and others suggest exactly that.

What are you saying Jor? Or saying that the Chameleon is saying? I don't agree with that interpretation of the experimental data (Libet).

[Angrboda]

What are you saying Jor? Or saying that the Chameleon is saying? I don't agree with that interpretation of the experimental data (Libet).

I was simply pointing out that he was not arguing solely from a philosophical argument but using empirical support for his argument, so your claim that his presentation only consisted of philosophical argument was wrong. You can argue about the proper interpretation of those empirical results, but they are not merely philosophical argument.

[brewer]

What are you saying Jor? Or saying that the Chameleon is saying? I don't agree with that interpretation of the experimental data (Libet).

I was simply pointing out that he was not arguing solely from a philosophical argument but using empirical support for his argument, so your claim that his presentation only consisted of philosophical argument was wrong.  You can argue about the proper interpretation of those empirical results, but they are not merely philosophical argument.

A philosophical based interpretation of experimental data is not a demonstration of "all decisions are arrived at outside the realm of conscious awareness". At least not in my book.

[Angrboda]

I was simply pointing out that he was not arguing solely from a philosophical argument but using empirical support for his argument, so your claim that his presentation only consisted of philosophical argument was wrong.  You can argue about the proper interpretation of those empirical results, but they are not merely philosophical argument.

A philosophical based interpretation of experimental data is not a demonstration of "all decisions are arrived at outside the realm of conscious awareness". At least not in my book.

Fair enough. I interpreted your statement as saying that his conclusion was based solely on a priori reasoning. If that was not your meaning, then that was my mistake.

[brewer]

A philosophical based interpretation of experimental data is not a demonstration of "all decisions are arrived at outside the realm of conscious awareness". At least not in my book.

Fair enough.  I interpreted your statement as saying that his conclusion was based solely on a priori reasoning.  If that was not your meaning, then that was my mistake.

So............. not going to lead to a cage match, damn. You might have liked me in my unitard.  

[The__Chameleon]

I've come up with what I believe is the perfect analogy to the idea I'm trying to convey. I'm surprised this didn't occur to me before since I commonly use computer principles to explain ideas.

Imagine a computer that is programmed with a rudimentary sense of it's own being and operation. It doesn't for example have the ability to see or interact with it's own source code, but through retrospective analysis of it's own choices and the conditions in which they were made, has developed some understanding that it is, at least in part, driven by deterministic factors. This computer however has an interesting idiosyncrasy. It has either developed or been directly programmed with the perception of itself as possessing the ability to make choices independent of deterministic factors (including it's own programming).  So this computer in a sense has two identities. It's cognitive  sense or impression of self, and it's actual self (the whole of it's components and programming, including background processes of which it is cognitively unaware). If, for the sake of argument,  the computer was right with respect to it possessing free will, then that free agency can neither be sourced by the computers cognitive self, nor it's actual self, since the computer is a machine and therefore bound to it's own mechanical nature and programming.  The only other logical conclusion is that the computer was wrong about possessing the capacity for free will.


We are no different in essence than the computer described above. If we possess free will it cannot not be sourced from within as we, physically, are biological machines bound to deterministic factors. We could then still claim this external source for our capacity for free agency as part of our identity, but really how can we if we are unaware of the decision making processes initiated by that source until after they've been initiated, communicated to our subconscious, processed,, and finally driven past our cognitive awareness to our motor cortex to be executed? Free will, if it exists in any form, is by definition, miraculous. Either this miracle exists, but is not sourced within us, or it does not exist and never has. Either the non-deterministic nature of your decision making exists outside of your physical being, or you are entirely a slave to deterministic factors and really have no `free`agency.

[brewer]

[Angrboda]

It's an open question whether we are in fact only biological machines. How does your new analogy acquit your prior arguments about intelligence. Are you conceding the point that will has little or nothing to do with intelligence?

[The__Chameleon]

It's an open question whether we are in fact only biological machines.  How does your new analogy acquit your prior arguments about intelligence.  Are you conceding the point that will has little or nothing to do with intelligence?

I was using the word intelligence in a context synonymous with free will. As for the ability to solve problems, I was never referring to that to begin with. I have since corrected my word choice. When you hear the someone ask Is there intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe? `They are generally referring to the capacity for free agency, not the ability to solve problems. Animals can do that.