Consciousness and free will.

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

The Inglorious One
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:25 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by The Inglorious One » Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:18 am

Obvious Leo wrote: "Space and time are modes in which we think, not conditions in which we exist".....Albert Einstein.
Yet, you insist that the conditions in which we actually exist are not real because they transcend space and time (are non-local).

The Inglorious One
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:25 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by The Inglorious One » Sun Nov 29, 2015 6:26 am

Physicist and Nobel Prize winner Prince Louis de Broglie (who happened to be a real prince) said, “The mechanism demands a mysticism.” Another physicist, Thomas Broph wrote a book by he same title.

If life and mind are real and the actual conditions in which we live are non local, then of necessity it follows that life and mind are integral to the nature of reality itself and what we perceive as our “self” is a localized region of dominant characteristics. “Evolution is, therefore, a transition from the potential to the actual, wherein the new powers and qualities constantly acquired are derived, not from the potential, but from a superior type of life which already possesses them.”

Those are your arguments, Leo. I just took it a step further, and it is a step logic dictates.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by Obvious Leo » Sun Nov 29, 2015 6:34 am

Inglorious. Those are not my arguments but I have no interest in following you down another Platonist cul-de-sac.

The Inglorious One
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:25 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by The Inglorious One » Sun Nov 29, 2015 7:03 am

Obvious Leo wrote:Inglorious. Those are not my arguments but I have no interest in following you down another Platonist cul-de-sac.
Yes, they are your arguments. You're the one who quoted Einstein: You're the mental contortionist here.

Is non-locality a fact of nature? "Yes" or "no" -- no ambiguity.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by Obvious Leo » Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:25 am

Naturally you are free to interpret my arguments as you see fit, just as I am free to to insist that you are interpreting them incorrectly. When I see the word "transcend" applied to my words I feel inclined to reach for my gun because I have been insisting all along that reality is self-causal, which defines causation as immanent, not as transcendent. The notion of transcendent cause and immanent cause are mutually exclusive constructs.
The Inglorious One wrote:Is non-locality a fact of nature? "Yes" or "no" -- no ambiguity.
Yes. Our notions of locality can only to be applied to phenomena and are thus purely observer-defined constructs, but I can't see how this conclusion leads to your assumption of transcendent cause. Perhaps you could flesh out the logic steps which lead you there.

User avatar
alpha
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by alpha » Sun Nov 29, 2015 9:33 am

i'm tired of stupid people calling something both unpredictable and deterministic simultaneously. leo keeps bringing up chaos theory to supposedly demonstrate how something can be deterministic yet unpredictable at the same time. even though i keep pointing out to these intellectually challenged individuals that logical possibility has nothing to do with practical possibility, they keep insisting on things like physics and other empirical sciences. in order to make those who are ill-equipped to understand simple theoretical concepts, i'll use their beloved sciences to make my point;
Chaos is not randomness, it is insufficient knowledge about the initial conditions. Admittedly, you'd need perfect knowledge of initial conditions, but leaving aside QM this is possible in principle if not in practice.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... ness-exist

and just in case some idiot wants to make a claim about qm being universally accepted as indeterministic (random), i'd point out that it just so happens that there exist some deterministic (which make it predictable in principle) interpretations of qm as well;
My understanding is that the Copenhagen intepretation of quantum mechanics (ie. that particles have no definite position/momentum until they are observed) is just one of many interpretations, any one of which could be correct, and that we have no real reason for preferring one to another - they all produce the same results experimentally.

There is, in fact, a semi-popular deterministic interpretation called the De Broglie–Bohm theory. Unfortunately, it relies on an assumption that is even more unintuitive and terrifying (to physicists) than the Copenhagen intepretation: that all particles, everywhere in the universe, are connected by an invisible wave which acts at a distance instantaneously, no matter how large the distance. For obvious reasons, this is called a non-local theory.

Unfortunately, according to Bell's theorem, there can be no explanation of quantum-mechanics which is both local and deterministic. So we must accept that, if there is an underlying explanation for the weirdness of Quantum Mechanics, it must be either non-deterministic (like the Copenhagen Interpretation surmises) or non-local (like the De Broglie-Bohm theory).
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... nics#18598

needless to say, i don't really need any theories or interpretations, considering that i can comprehend what is and isn't logically possible, without resorting to any experiments whatsoever.

logically, randomness at any level is impossible due to the principle of sufficient reason. this means that whenever science thinks it has discovered something random, it better think again, because, one day it will be proven wrong scientifically. without randomness, there can only be determinism, and determinism, by definition, entails (at least in principle) absolute predictability.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by Obvious Leo » Sun Nov 29, 2015 10:06 am

alpha wrote:i'm tired of stupid people calling something both unpredictable and deterministic simultaneously
And I'm tired of stupid people questioning basic facts which any science or philosophy undergraduate would be expected to understand. Self-determining systems are both completely deterministic and utterly unpredictable. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts and this is a completely uncontroversial and well-established FACT.

User avatar
alpha
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by alpha » Sun Nov 29, 2015 11:27 am

alpha wrote:i'm tired of stupid people calling something both unpredictable and deterministic simultaneously
Obvious Leo wrote:And I'm tired of stupid people questioning basic facts which any science or philosophy undergraduate would be expected to understand. Self-determining systems are both completely deterministic and utterly unpredictable. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts and this is a completely uncontroversial and well-established FACT.
yes, it's a completely uncontroversial and well-established FACT that self-determining systems are both completely deterministic and indeterministic (unpredictable) at the same time. you need help my friend.

also, again, you conveniently decided to not address the rest of my post.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by Obvious Leo » Sun Nov 29, 2015 12:40 pm

Get a fucking dictionary and look up the meanings of the two words. Indeterminate and unpredictable are not synonymous terms.

User avatar
alpha
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by alpha » Sun Nov 29, 2015 1:04 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:Get a fucking dictionary and look up the meanings of the two words. Indeterminate and unpredictable are not synonymous terms.
ok, if you insist on being embarrassed, again; enjoy:
in·de·ter·min·ism
(ĭn′dĭ-tûr′mə-nĭz′əm)
n.
1. Unpredictability.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/indeterminism
un·pre·dict·a·ble
(ŭn′prĭ-dĭk′tə-bəl)
adj.
2. unpredictable - unknown in advance; "an unpredictable (or indeterminable) future"
indeterminable, undeterminable - not capable of being definitely decided or ascertained
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unpredictable
Obvious Leo wrote:And I'm tired of stupid people questioning basic facts which any science or philosophy undergraduate would be expected to understand. Self-determining systems are both completely deterministic and utterly unpredictable.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Nov 29, 2015 1:20 pm

alpha wrote:
alpha wrote:i wasn't talking about your thought experiment. i was making a general claim; that if someone knew all the variables of any situation (even some pissant many light years away, that might affect the outcome in the least bit), he/she/it would be able to predict the outcome absolutely.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:This is a circular argument. The big question here is how could you ever know you had all the variable, and knew how they applied to the event? My example avoids needing to know.
alpha wrote:i don't wanna upset you hobbes, so i won't mention that it's literally impossible to truly predict anything with absolute 100% certainty without knowing all the variables. no matter the example, saying it's 100% reliable is inaccurate. i might accept 99.9999999999%, but unless all the variables are accounted for, 100% is impossible.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:You can't know that, so you can't say it.
hobbes!!!!! examples usually discuss practical things, while philosophy and logic mostly address concepts, abstracts, and theoretical scenarios. it's unimportant how one would know something, or if one would ever know; as long as it's theoretically possible to know all the variables, and theoretically possible to know that you know all the variables, the argument is theoretically sound (no circular logic or otherwise); i.e., logically possible. again, unless a logical principle is being violated, no statement is logically impossible.
Inserting the adjective THEORETICALLY in front of possible, is meaningless bullshit.
How about this sentence; "It is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE to know all the variables." It hols as much veracity as your sentence.
ALL experiments every conducted are at the mercy of experimental error. This is due to two things; either or both,measuring the variables with 100% accuracy is impossible, or two there are other causal factors at play that are unrecognised or unknown.
Stop using "logical" inappropriately.

Here's the circular argument;" if someone knew all the variables of ... he would be able to predict the outcome absolutely."
This is the same as "if all the men in the room were unmarried; they would all be bachelors."

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Nov 29, 2015 1:29 pm

alpha wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:Get a fucking dictionary and look up the meanings of the two words. Indeterminate and unpredictable are not synonymous terms.
ok, if you insist on being embarrassed, again; enjoy:
They can be used interchangeably, but the choice of one or the other can imply an underlying philosophy that no ordinary dictionary is capable of distinguishing between.
Dictionaries tend to offer common place usage not the more subtle use that academics require to talk about things with more nuance and detail.
For example the Oxford English now contains the wrong meaning of the word "literally". This literally makes my blood boil.

So unpredictable, to a determinist, means that you don't know what's going to happen for lack of information.
Whereas when 'indeterminate' is used, implies that you don't know what is going to happen next because the universe does not support determinism.

User avatar
alpha
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by alpha » Sun Nov 29, 2015 1:44 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Inserting the adjective THEORETICALLY in front of possible, is meaningless bullshit.
How about this sentence; "It is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE to know all the variables." It hols as much veracity as your sentence.
i'm afraid not, hobbes. for it to be logically (deal with it) impossible, it must violate at least one logical principle. does it violate any logical principles? if so, which one, and how?

ALL experiments every conducted are at the mercy of experimental error. This is due to two things; either or both,measuring the variables with 100% accuracy is impossible, or two there are other causal factors at play that are unrecognised or unknown.
Stop using "logical" inappropriately.

Here's the circular argument;" if someone knew all the variables of ... he would be able to predict the outcome absolutely."
This is the same as "if all the men in the room were unmarried; they would all be bachelors."
yes, if they were all unmarried, then they would indeed be bachelors. this isn't called a circular argument. perhaps you meant "redundant"? well, it isn't redundant either, otherwise, leo (and possibly you) wouldn't have disagreed with it so insistently.
Obvious Leo wrote:Get a fucking dictionary and look up the meanings of the two words. Indeterminate and unpredictable are not synonymous terms.
alpha wrote:ok, if you insist on being embarrassed, again; enjoy:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:They can be used interchangeably, but the choice of one or the other can imply an underlying philosophy that no ordinary dictionary is capable of distinguishing between.
Dictionaries tend to offer common place usage not the more subtle use that academics require to talk about things with more nuance and detail.
For example the Oxford English now contains the wrong meaning of the word "literally". This literally makes my blood boil.

So unpredictable, to a determinist, means that you don't know what's going to happen for lack of information.
Whereas when 'indeterminate' is used, implies that you don't know what is going to happen next because the universe does not support determinism.
nice try, hobbes; but, i'm afraid i can't let either of you off the hook that easily. determinism literally (pun intended) entails predictability (at least in principle). leo (and possibly you) has been using "unpredictable" to mean: "that you don't know what is going to happen next because the universe does not support determinism.". otherwise he would accept that it's possible in principle, which he has continually rejected absolutely. rejecting that it's possible in principle means that the universe doesn't support it.

gentlemen, i suggest you both stick to science, and leave logic and philosophy to those more qualified, such as myself.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Nov 29, 2015 4:54 pm

alpha wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Inserting the adjective THEORETICALLY in front of possible, is meaningless bullshit.
How about this sentence; "It is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE to know all the variables." It hols as much veracity as your sentence.
i'm afraid not, hobbes. for it to be logically (deal with it) impossible, it must violate at least one logical principle. does it violate any logical principles? if so, which one, and how?

ALL experiments every conducted are at the mercy of experimental error. This is due to two things; either or both,measuring the variables with 100% accuracy is impossible, or two there are other causal factors at play that are unrecognised or unknown.
Stop using "logical" inappropriately.

Here's the circular argument;" if someone knew all the variables of ... he would be able to predict the outcome absolutely."
This is the same as "if all the men in the room were unmarried; they would all be bachelors."
yes, if they were all unmarried, then they would indeed be bachelors. this isn't called a circular argument. perhaps you meant "redundant"? well, it isn't redundant either, otherwise, leo (and possibly you) wouldn't have disagreed with it so insistently.
Obvious Leo wrote:Get a fucking dictionary and look up the meanings of the two words. Indeterminate and unpredictable are not synonymous terms.
alpha wrote:ok, if you insist on being embarrassed, again; enjoy:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:They can be used interchangeably, but the choice of one or the other can imply an underlying philosophy that no ordinary dictionary is capable of distinguishing between.
Dictionaries tend to offer common place usage not the more subtle use that academics require to talk about things with more nuance and detail.
For example the Oxford English now contains the wrong meaning of the word "literally". This literally makes my blood boil.

So unpredictable, to a determinist, means that you don't know what's going to happen for lack of information.
Whereas when 'indeterminate' is used, implies that you don't know what is going to happen next because the universe does not support determinism.
nice try, hobbes; but, i'm afraid i can't let either of you off the hook that easily. determinism literally (pun intended) entails predictability (at least in principle). leo (and possibly you) has been using "unpredictable" to mean: "that you don't know what is going to happen next because the universe does not support determinism.". otherwise he would accept that it's possible in principle, which he has continually rejected absolutely. rejecting that it's possible in principle means that the universe doesn't support it.

gentlemen, i suggest you both stick to science, and leave logic and philosophy to those more qualified, such as myself.
"It is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE to know all the variables." Epistemologically you simply cannot know what you do not know.

To test your claimed expertise in Logic I state the quote as True - now show me why you think it is logically false.

There are good examples where all possible data is available, yet the outcomes are unknown. In materials science you can know exactly the molecular structure of new materials but are unable to exactly predict the properties of the material. And since a single example refutes your position this fact shows you are wrong.

Second point.

" determinism literally (pun intended) entails predictability (at least in principle)" Yes, but ONLY in principle if all possible factors could be know, but they cannot. SO you have no leg to stand on and predictable is not the same as determinable.


[edited by iMod]

User avatar
alpha
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by alpha » Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:42 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I'm beginning to lose patience with you.
i'm shaking in my boots.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:"It is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE to know all the variables." Epistemologically you simply cannot know what you do not know.

To test your claimed expertise in Logic I state the quote as True - now show me why you think it is logically false.
it is false because it contradicts this rule:
Logical Possibility is built upon the law of non-contradiction. Any proposition whose opposite does not imply a contradiction is logically possible. Any description of a state of affairs that does not contain and implicit or explicit logical contradiction is logically possible. That is, if the sentence does not include a contradiction like, "Mike is a married bachelor." then the state of affairs that the sentence describes is logically possible. So it is logically possible that Mike is a bachelor. And it is logically possible that he is married. And it is logically possible that Mike (an unaided human) could fly. But it is not logically possible that 2 + 2 = 5, or that circles have sides, or that the Pythagorean Theorem is wrong, etc. Philosophers sometimes talk about logical possibilities in terms of possible worlds; there is a possible world where Arnold Schwarzenegger is the president of the United States. There is a possible world where you have super powers and can run faster than the speed of light. There are no colorless red balls, however, and no presidents who hold no political office, and no four sided triangles.
https://sites.google.com/site/mccormick ... l-thinking

who's stupid now?
Hobbes' Choice wrote:There are good examples where all possible data is available, yet the outcomes are unknown. In materials science you can know exactly the molecular structure of new materials but are unable to exactly predict the properties of the material. And since a single example refutes your position this fact shows you are wrong.
another highly ignorant statement that contradicts this fact:
Natural Possibility The laws of nature confine the behavior of matter in our world to a subset of the logically possible worlds. The laws of nature such as the universal law of gravitation, F = MA, and e=mc2 determine the range of what states of affairs are naturally possible. So it is not naturally possible for an unaided human body to fly—the musculature, bone structure, and other physiological traits prevent it. But it is naturally possible (we think) to cure cancer. The laws of nature, which are different from the laws of logic, could have been different without logical contradiction. All natural possibilities are a subset of logical possibilities. That is, anything that is naturally possible is also logically possible, but not everything that is logically possible is naturally possible. Being able to move objects with your thoughts alone through telekinesis is ruled out by physics and not naturally possible, but there is no logical contradiction in the scenario.
https://sites.google.com/site/mccormick ... l-thinking
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Second point.

" determinism literally (pun intended) entails predictability (at least in principle)" Yes, but ONLY in principle if all possible factors could be know, but they cannot. SO you have no leg to stand on
again, a stupid statement because it contradicts the rules i quoted.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:and predictable is not the same as determinable.
in essence they are the same thing. absolute predictability can only come from absolute determinism, and something absolutely deterministic is absolutely predictable in principle. don't force me to make you look even more foolish.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:As for 'sticking to science" and letting you deal with Logic- fuck that you have shown again and again a woeful ignorance of basic logic.
i stand by my statement; so don't make me take off my gloves.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests