Boony's Room - a contemplation of Free Will & Determinism

[Flannel Jesus]

I think our conscious mind is the result of the arrangement of our brain and the chemical and electrical and other physical processes happening in our brain, most likely.

[attofishpi]

I think our conscious mind is the result of the arrangement of our brain and the chemical and electrical and other physical processes happening in our brain, most likely.

Sure, but does compatibilism permit the concept of "free will" within a "determined" universe?

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, that's the idea.

[attofishpi]

Yes, that's the idea.

Well, that's dandy, since that where I was sitting in my compatilbilist head.

So, the question remains, how do you permit a conscious brain (mind) making choices 'freely' within a determined universe?

How do you comprehend the will of a conscious mind, the brain matter where the universe is determined. In such a scenario one cannot be 100% determined universe and 100% random.

You may have read myself and Sculptor discussing this in another thread RE Boony's Room, so you might have more to offer than where my Brian brain is at.

[Flannel Jesus]

Making choices freely means being in control. Being in control relies on determinism, control is lessened by randomness.

You can only have free will because of determinism.

[attofishpi]

Well. Ok then.

So what would you expect to happen regarding my questions pertaining to the two Boonys?

Two identical copies of cricketer David Boon were made unbeknownst to him. The two copies of Boony, instantly appear facing each other from opposite corners of a white room that is 3 metres cubed, identical in all directions.

There are no causal effects differing in each of the Boony's slightly differing positions in spacetime. Nothing in this thought experiment regarding each version of David Boon once instantiated within the room is different in any way.

What happens next?
Do they both, at the same time, ask the exact same question of each other?
Do they end up arguing because they both keep attempting to interject at precisely the same time with precisely the same dialogue?

After five minutes, the pair hear a voice asking them to draw a picture of their favourite fruit on the wall and are told there is a pencil in their left pocket.

Do they both turn and draw on the same symmetrically opposite part of the wall?
Do they both draw identical images of the fruit?

[Flannel Jesus]

Well, if pure determinism is true, which it probably isn't, they'll do exactly the same thing.

If there's quantum randomness, which there probably is, they'll do something different (probably, eventually).

But they don't have more free will in the second case than they do in the first case.

[attofishpi]

Well, if pure determinism is true, which it probably isn't, they'll do exactly the same thing.

If there's quantum randomness, which there probably is, they'll do something different (probably, eventually).

But they don't have more free will in the second case than they do in the first case.

I love that.

It's Australia/Invasion Day, so gonna have another beer and contemplate that *: )

[Flannel Jesus]

Cheers

[Flannel Jesus]

Btw, there's also a form of meta determinism which includes randomness, and which a not insignificant number of physicists actually think is probable, or at least likely enough to consider.

[attofishpi]

1 .Well, if pure determinism is true, which it probably isn't, they'll do exactly the same thing.

2. If there's quantum randomness, which there probably is, they'll do something different (probably, eventually).

But they don't have more free will in the second case than they do in the first case.

I also discount point 1. that in effect Boony & Boony would be 'mirrored' until they drop dead from starvation or attempt to kill themselves *at precisely the same time, probably with their pencils to their jugular veins.

Ok. So our goal here is an attempt at least to prove to the hard-determinists that we have a degree of free-will within a determined universe.

Our consciousness is not computable - (therefore not programmable) according to Sir Roger Penrose.

For example:- If I was to punch down hard with a hammer onto someones hand, everything about the action within each mind's consciousness is not computable. Although, personally I think qualia sensation is the non-computable part. Likely within the brain, there is much going on that IS computable, however certainly our senses, how we feel which is a key driver of our WILL, I would agree with Penrose is not computable, cannot be broken down to logic of mathematics, computer algorithms.

So, our consciousness has a will that is based on something which is non-deterministic. For something to be plausibly determined would require to be at least computable, conscious qualia sensation is not.

How so far we go?

Btw, there's also a form of meta determinism which includes randomness, and which a not insignificant number of physicists actually think is probable, or at least likely enough to consider.

Well, that's where I'm 'headed' - within the material brain, we have fluctuations, brain waves are known, and quantum indeterminacy is at play at the heart of consciousness (*although there are phycists that disagree - just synapses - atom level required!!)

So with this quantum indeterminacy within our conscious mind, obviously there is a degree of randomness ...for me, from this our conscious WILL, reduces the parameters of the 'noise' until it wittles down, coupled with our qualia feelings, as we will that pattern of randomness down...to a decision.

[Flannel Jesus]

Our consciousness is not computable - (therefore not programmable) according to Sir Roger Penrose.

For example:- If I was to punch down hard with a hammer onto someones hand, everything about the action within each mind's consciousness is not computable. Although, personally I think qualia sensation is the non-computable part. Likely within the brain, there is much going on that IS computable, however certainly our senses, how we feel which is a key driver of our WILL, I would agree with Penrose is not computable, cannot be broken down to logic of mathematics, computer algorithms.

So, our consciousness has a will that is based on something which is non-deterministic. For something to be plausibly determined would require to be at least computable, conscious qualia sensation is not.

I don't think I have any reason to agree with any bit of that. Consciousness is not computable - I don't know that to be the case. Because it's not computable it's non deterministic - I don't know that to be the case.

I think there's some very liberal leaps in thought being taken there, I wouldn't be remotely confident agreeing to any of those things.

[Flannel Jesus]

Consciousness is still, and has always been, the "hard problem", there's no denying that. But I don't think it's any less hard once it's declared "non computable", I don't think that solves any of the hard problem compared to people who think consciousness is emergent from the processes in our brains, or any other similar view of consciousness.

It's the hard problem. I don't have the answer to the hard problem, because it's hard. Nobody right now seems to have the answer, because it's really really hard.

[Sculptor]

Two identical copies of cricketer David Boon were made unbeknownst to him. The two copies of Boony, instantly appear facing each other from opposite corners of a white room that is 3 metres cubed, identical in all directions.

There are no causal effects differing in each of the Boony's slightly differing positions in spacetime. Nothing in this thought experiment regarding each version of David Boon once instantiated within the room is different in any way.

What happens next?
Do they both, at the same time, ask the exact same question of each other?
Do they end up arguing because they both keep attempting to interject at precisely the same time with precisely the same dialogue?

After five minutes, the pair hear a voice asking them to draw a picture of their favourite fruit on the wall and are told there is a pencil in their left pocket.

Do they both turn and draw on the same symmetrically opposite part of the wall?
Do they both draw identical images of the fruit?

They keep mirroring each other and want to break free..

They have an idea.

Throw a dice and who ever gets the best score has to lie still for a five minutes whilst the other jumps on the spot for 5 minutes. They argue that this will place them on different deterministic trajectories.

THey both throw a 4. They laugh.
They throw again: 6 and 6
They say let's try again....
They both throw a 1.
No matter how many times they throw they always throw the same number because their muscles and the amount of effort they throw into each throw is identical, because they are identical.

It does not matter if they have free will, or think they have free will, or are perfectly determined by cause and effect.
Because their will is based on what they want to do, and that has to be something to do with who and what you are at any given moment.

[Age]

Two identical copies of cricketer David Boon were made unbeknownst to him. The two copies of Boony, instantly appear facing each other from opposite corners of a white room that is 3 metres cubed, identical in all directions.

There are no causal effects differing in each of the Boony's slightly differing positions in spacetime. Nothing in this thought experiment regarding each version of David Boon once instantiated within the room is different in any way.

What happens next?
Do they both, at the same time, ask the exact same question of each other?

No. Unless, of course, they were BOTH programmed to speak the EXACT SAME words at the EXACT SAME time.

Do they end up arguing because they both keep attempting to interject at precisely the same time with precisely the same dialogue?

If they BOTH did say the EXACT SAME 'thing', at the EXACT SAME 'time', then they could NOT so-call 'argue'.

But considering that they BOTH could NOT and thus would NOT say the EXACT SAME 'things', this is moot anyway.

After five minutes, the pair hear a voice asking them to draw a picture of their favourite fruit on the wall and are told there is a pencil in their left pocket.

Do they both turn and draw on the same symmetrically opposite part of the wall?

WHY would they do that, or WHY would you PRESUME they would?

Do they both draw identical images of the fruit?

We will have to WAIT, to SEE.