Another free will discussion

[~kitty~]

I've argued this point with my dad before and recently. How is the mind separate from the brain if changing parts of the brain can change a person, and also make predictable changes? If it were separate, this wouldn't make much sense.
He's kind of closed-minded though, so I kind of gave up once I gave him a scenario where there we created proof of the mind and brain being the same thing, and he still thought the same thing.
Just like in this case, Reincarnate, I think Cavernio might be like my dad. Some people will be stubborn due to possibly a fear that comes with being wrong about something like this.
Honestly, I feel weird thinking there's no free will, but I realize that it really shouldn't mean anything to me whether or not I do. If I do things and I can live with myself, why bother pondering it if it may ruin how I feel? What will it change?

[Reincarnate]

There's nothing wrong with free will since we're so unaware of most of the mechanisms. It feels free to us.

One interesting thing I like to ponder when it comes to the free will debate is actually having access to future data. Imagine a supercomputer that had access to, somehow, every measurable value in the universe. Every atom, every force, every interactive property, every law, etc.

From this you could dictate, effectively, a macroscopic-scale event list of every possible thing you will do in your life from that point forward (according to high correlations as dictated by quantum mechanics on macro scales, pretty much nonrandom).

Imagine, then, the notion that you could read your fate and try to avoid it.

Under determinism, the point here is that even the notion of you reading the list and having access to future data *is taken into the data itself*.

So it wouldn't even be possible for me to see a list of my future events, see that I take the left hallway, and then decide in reality to take the right. If I actually wind up taking the right hallway, it will say I take the right.

The fun part about all this: Realizing that any paradox you try to think up to disprove this thought experiment won't actually result in a paradox, lol.

[Cavernio]

"Let's define the "mind" as the manifestations of processes as performed by the "brain." You're implying there that the mind is something somehow separate from the brain or body, which is bogus."

I said that the mind can control the brain, (and I furthermore say that in evolutionary terms, the mind would not exist if it did not have some control.) That is not quite the same thing. The brain creates a mind whose purpose is to alter the brain. The mind needs the brain, the brain needs the mind. What I am arguing is what controls what, and in those regards, yes, I must use dualism, or else that discussion is moot. I am saying that to use such a dualism, or break-down of the parts of humans, at least follows ideas of cause and effect. To break down things into separate parts and figure out how something effects something else is what science does. To merely say that there are no parts to break down is a statement that I of course cannot refute. But that's bogus; mind is intangible, brain is tangible.

And now I am mixing up the arguments I've had with you and with Reach, because Reach seemed to be saying that brain changes mind, somehow while saying they are the same thing. One cannot change the other if they are the same.

My question about processors was specifically said in retaliation to what Reach said about me not knowing the mechanism behind mind controlling brain, as if his arguments have more proof than mine. You addressed only one aspect I was getting at. You discarded it as foolish to think that a processor has an associated mind, but the only 'proof' is that there is no real reason beyond the fact that it does not clearly show us that it has a mind. (This is related to my final paragraph.) Sure, that's fine. I can totally see that. I don't think my processor has a mind either.
The second aspect is that you cannot show at what point a complex system begins to have a mind. We have yet to even create a system even close to something, like, Data from star trek, where we are unclear as to the existence of a mind. Yet you still take your stand as if that's the only reasonable possibility, completely ignoring that you are making a theory, not giving proof of it. You pretend to know more than you possibly can.

As to the sentence you still don't understand, of course you wouldn't understand it if you think the mind and brain are the same thing. Consider the idea that a complex brain could exist without a mind though, and it should make sense to you. You already think that a computer has no mind, its not like it's a logical leap to assume something as complex as a brain could exist without a mind. Of course, I already said that Reach wouldn't agree with the sentence, and you clearly don't either, because you just say that a complex brain necessarily has a mind. Of course, if you bothered to read and think about what I said instead of simply responding, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

I have no fear that I have no free will...my arguing right now is a total aside to free will, and is only tangentially related to the topic of free will. I cannot say that I know your dad's stance Kitty, but I obviously have not made mine clear. Or how about you judge what I say from what I say, not from what someone else says I say. Oh that's right, everything I write is tldr, so you must infer what I say.

I have never said nor implied that the mind is such that, when my body dies, my mind goes on living, or something like that.

[Reincarnate]

What Reach was saying earlier was that the changes in the brain ARE the mind. The mind IS the brain in action -- the cumulative effect of all those chemical/electrical changes going on at once.

You said earlier that just because we can show that manipulating the brain results in thought-change, that doesn't mean thought-change can't result in brain manipulation. You're right but for the wrong reason, which is what Reach was addressing.

Yes, thoughts can change the brain. But when you consider that thoughts are processes derived from the brain, what we're really discussing here is the brain changing itself. It's an object changing from one form to another based on determistic variables. One CAN change the other if they're the same *because they're the same and it's changing itself*. We have no problem saying that a piece of paper on fire "changes itself" into ash -- but you have a problem with the notion that a brain can't change based on the effects of the inputs it receives and the way it processes those inputs and reflects those chemical changes in a very physical way? You'd have to be insane to deny that.

It's not foolish to think of a CPU as a mind. But it's foolish to think that because it's not like a human's, that means we're special and somehow we have a mind-body duality going on. The CPU doesn't have a mind because we know how a CPU works. We know what it does and what it doesn't do. And what it does is not in line with what would be needed for a sentient mind.

We actually have a lot of headway into recreating the brain with computer technology. It probably won't happen for another half-century, but we've already simulated the neural network of basic brain functions. There are billions and billions of neurons with untold trillions of connections, and so the raw computing power itself needed to simulate such a thing is gargantuan, and we haven't quite gotten there yet.

"Of course, if you bothered to read and think about what I said instead of simply responding, I wouldn't have to repeat myself." I don't know how much clearer I can say this: I fully and utterly understand your argument 100%, and I am here telling you, right now, that it's BS.

Think about what your brain actually does. Whatever your answer to that is, apply it to any other object you want. You'll see real quick how unique the brain is.

[Reach]

If my brain directly controls all my mind, then a mind is totally unnecessary, because all of me could be controlled by my brain without a mind. And if my mind is not necessary, it would never have evolved, it would just never exist. There would be no purpose for it to have ever formed. Sure, evolution allows for by-products to exist, it is the process of evolution, but we both agree that minds are most definitely not mere by-products.

Well, in a way the mind is a by-product of the brain; it's arises from neural circuits as they begin to process sensory information and form and reflect on a construction of reality.

I would like to reiterate one thing. I consider the mind the same thing as the brain, so what you're addressing here is a nil point; a mind is necessary in that is it inexorably manifests itself from neural circuits of sufficient complexity and access to sensory information.

You disagree with that first sentence, right? You say that a mind is irrevocably tied to a brain. If that is the case, you are now expecting me to support the theory that minds just exist, because that's what they do, that complexity in a system just...has a mind(s). How is thinking that my mind has some control over my body more unbelievable than that? I mean, religious people say they know God exists, just because he does. You are saying minds exist because they just do. I'm the person questioning/theorizing why and how.

The fundamental foundation of modern neuroscience is that your brain IS your mind. It is not tied to the brain or born from the brain, but literally is the brain, manifested in the form of the senses and processes that it computes.

I see what you're saying here, but the evidence I have is the entire body of neuroscience today. There is no support for the idea that a non-physical mind can interact and affect physical reality.

You offer support for this, which I am not disputing, because I also see it as support for what I believe. But you don't even come close to proving your point. You end up falling back to say that science supports that theory, because it makes sense to you. But in the end it is still just you saying 'that's the way it is'.

My belief is that my brain made my mind to help control my brain and my body. I fully believe my thoughts can control parts of my brain (or else they would not exist) and ergo my body. I fully believe my brain can also control my thoughts. I believe there is a mechanism for this that we don't understand. I also believe in determinism, but I am so complex that it doesn't matter.

If mind just arises from complexity, show me that my computer's processor has a mind.

I'm not saying 'that's the way it is'. I'm saying the concept of the mind being equivalent to the brain is central to our understanding of neuroscience, and there isn't any evidence that this is wrong.

I see that you disagree with me because you are basically embracing cartesian dualism here (i.e. that the mind is physically separate from the brain and can exert control over it therefrom).

Obviously I don't believe in this, and neither do any neuroscientists, in part because there's no evidence suggesting this is the case, and plenty of good reasons why the mind is equal to the brain, but if that's your choice, so be it. There isn't much else to discuss here though, since Mind/Body duality is another debate entirely.

However, to quickly address this, what you're suggesting here is essentially interactionism, which is a subset of dualism. This is a relatively common philosophy littered with logical holes. For example, there is currently no explanation as to how immaterial and material things interact (not even philosophically plausible explanations), so why introduce this variable unnecessarily? Doing so causes serious problems in terms of causality and basic physics (where is this interaction happening and how are they not violating the laws of physics?). This only scratches the surface of the problems here; there are more, such as directionality problems (why is it that scans and other tests can detect decisions in the brain before you consciously make them, consistently? If you were correct, some decisions would necessarily need to come before their associated changes in the brain).




As for showing you that computers have minds, the analogy I used earlier relating brains to computers did not in any way suggest that current computers are the same as brains. This is a vast oversimplification that was made to make a point.

There are a couple problems here.

Firstly, computers don't have minds in the traditional sense because simple computers, in their current stage of development, only literally compute binary information that they are given in a linear fashion according to rules constructed by scientists. Computers do not yet compute, in parallel, complex sensory information taken from various sources in order form some reflective construction of reality.

Secondly, you have to define mind very carefully. Certainly, this is a sticky area where we don't have all of the answers. I see you mentioned this in a later post; I don't disagree, but I certainly don't think this is an argument against what I'm saying at all. Where some organism first beings to experience cognizance is a separate issue from whether or not the mind is equal to the brain.



And for the love of god, let's keep this to the point. No personal jabs...

I have nothing against anyone on this forum. I'll disagree with you all day, but don't take it personally

[Cavernio]

"Where some organism first beings to experience cognizance is a separate issue from whether or not the mind is equal to the brain."

I think looking at how a mind develops is very important in discerning how it relates to the brain, because if either one exists without the other, then clearly we cannot say that the mind is equal to the brain. Not that this helps much, since it is hard to separate them, but the computer was an example of a brain of sorts that most people assume has no mind. (This is still an aside to the evolutionary argument I still back, but that's getting old, and no one seems to like it/get it.)
Cognizance is a mind. (If you don't think that, then I'm sure all this next stuff is likely moot, and there's a whole bunch of other stuff to talk about), but going on anyways... Something like earthworms certainly act like they have more of a mind than a computer (just because they move, show reactions to being poked, etc), yet the overall complexity of their brain is certainly less than my computer. As to the amount of inputs it has, yes it has many, seeing as it responds to chemicals, but I'm also not sure if inputs matter if there's enough information passing within a brain (or computer) for it to work. Any computer running AI software for a game shows the computer is making decisions based on the 'input' of its own sofware and a human's outside inputs of an opponent, say. And clearly a human mind does not need input for it to function once it is developed. An earthworm is most definitely alive, whereas even a computer that is turned on isn't thought to be alive. But does an earthworm have a mind? Does it feel basic things like pain, or hunger? If it does, then of course it has a mind, it experiences qualia. Yet most people don't think a computer experiences qualia from, say, the mouse I move. How close to a human brain must something be in order for us to think it has a mind, that it experiences qualia? Must it be alive?

"why is it that scans and other tests can detect decisions in the brain before you consciously make them, consistently?"

You keep saying this, but you don't give an example, and so I don't believe this statement. Is it because you are assuming? Or is it because you know that we don't have a method of measuring when the mind knows something?
I'm open to data!

[Reincarnate]

We don't say a computer experiences qualia because it has no way to process anything in a remotely similar way to the neural network of our brain. A computer doesn't experience qualia because it doesn't have the hardware necessary to do so. "Qualia" is a pretty loaded term to begin with, but in terms of "qualia in the same way a human experiences," no.

An earthworm, on the other hand, does experience qualia because the hardware is present. It's very basic hardware, but it's enough to provide a very rudimentary framework for interacting with the environment around it.

Consciousness is not a sudden "on/off" type of thing. There are various states of consciousness depending on what hardware is present in the brain.

[Cavernio]

So what is this magical hardware then? Keeping in mind that AI's, too, can interact with their 'environment'.

I use qualia because it seems like the most basic experience a mind can have.

"Consciousness is not a sudden "on/off" type of thing. There are various states of consciousness depending on what hardware is present in the brain."

I too think that.

[Reincarnate]

AI operates on a completely type of hardware from the biological hardware of the brain. It's completely different. So it doesn't make sense to even ask if, say, an AI brain "experiences qualia" because what we're seeing in a brain simulation is really, on a physical level, a bunch of electrons moving around in some metal in a very different way from the way electrical/chemical signals power through a biological neural network.

And so if you want to ask if it "experiences qualia," then sure -- but it's "computer qualia" to our "human qualia." By this note you could have "scissors qualia." Qualia is just a result of physical processes. Just a label.

[Cavernio]

AI hardware isn't all that different from brains. Especially in terms of what people study in neuroscience when they tie it into behaviour and say 'this causes the mind to do x'.
A neuron ultimately acts like an on-off switch, which, when it signals, then affects other neurons connected to it. The fact that the medium for the signal is a fluid-filled tube versus a single layer of silicon, or that the nature of the signal between one neuron and another is chemically based, is irrelevant for the larger picture of the simple action of a neuron firing; either a signal is sent, or it is not.
A gate in a computer either closes or opens, allowing an electrical signal or not.
The main difference is that a neuron reaches it's firing threshold based on a myriad of different chemical inputs which can either push the cell towards firing or not firing, whereas a computer gate simply takes 2 inputs to sort out whether it will connect or not. But when 'reading minds', we get measures that represent the activity of neuron's firing, not that measure all the other stuff involved in the firing of a cell.
Certainly more data is parsed via the biological mechanism, but that's irrelevant when, trying to figure out the brain/mind connection, the researchers don't use that data.

[Patashu]

So far, AI is infact very unlike the human brain.

Human brains are designed to be incredibly modular and plastic, a neural network that can take its inputs and be wired to produce any result given enough feedback. No AI has nearly this level of development available to it - it's programmed imperatively, using fixed guidelines that will never change. The first AI will program itself.

[Reincarnate]

One of the most important aspects of the brain, imo, is its ability to generate abstractions. That in itself is huge.

[stargroup100]

I would like to point out that I agree with Rubix and Reach. Not that anyone cares or that it matters but I'm just saying.

Personally I think this is a pretty clear-cut argument. We think we have free will because our brains can consider the different possible decisions we can make, but the fact of the matter is no matter how many times you "go back in time and redo the decision-making process" you're going to pick the same decision.

However, this does not mean the future is predetermined or determinable. I'm simply stating that free will doesn't exist.

[Reincarnate]

Actually the future is pretty much predetermined -- even if you get into random quantum weirdness, the wave function itself is deterministic

[Reach]

I would agree with that statement as well; the universe makes sense in the context of it being deterministic.

With that said, it is probably impossible to ever be able to measure that determinism exactly to the point where all future outcomes could be predicted. We will probably always have to rely on statistical models.

[Reincarnate]

Yeah, a big problem is that things fall out of sync with your model if you reach too far into the future because a small lack of precision early on turns into a huge threshold of uncertainty later. And this assumes you're even taking into account variables that explain most of the variance to begin with.

[Attractive]

I am moved by deep currents, the likes of which I scarcely understand. These currents guide me and are manifest as mere surface ripples. Looking at the surface, one does not see the tumultuous violence that guides beneath.
I am but a medium through which the forces of life are expressed.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by Patashu

So far, AI is infact very unlike the human brain.

Human brains are designed to be incredibly modular and plastic, a neural network that can take its inputs and be wired to produce any result given enough feedback. No AI has nearly this level of development available to it - it's programmed imperatively, using fixed guidelines that will never change. The first AI will program itself.

Oh there totally exists games where the AI's in them change depending on what you do. True they follow strict guidelines, but our physiology does too. There also exist games where you can pit one AI to another AI, and they will change the way they play depending on what the program does, a program which may incorporate randomness as part of its input. The game does change itself.
But as for determining things like qualia and what a mind experiences, I don't exactly need a hugely plastic brain in order to see light, it has to simply be plastic enough to have a difference for 'light' and 'no light'.