Abolitionist:

ideal:

Abolitionist:

If free will exists - we should be able to verify it's existance. In fact, how can we say that it exists until we can provide evidence? To do so would be unscientific and irrational, IMO.

Does the opposite not also apply?

What do you consider the opposite?

I consider the negative of your statement the opposite.  We have no evidence that the theory you espouse is true.  All we really have in either direction is a lack of evidence and feelings and assumption we think equate to such. 

ideal:

I'd say the ability to overrule conditioned autoresponses provides evidence, yet you seem to be saying that's all we function on.

Do we have that ability?

Judging from my own experience, yes.

Is not our learning process also the result of genes interacting with environment?

To a degree.

Who or what is the power you're referring to [that has an ability to over-rule the effects of genes interacting with environment?]

People.  You, me, the other six billion out there(aside from those in vegetative states).

Show me evidence for an aspect of consciousness that exists freely and independently of other processes. Do you think it's necessarily invisible to humans?

I don't believe any aspect of consciousness is completed free of other processes, I simply believe these other processes have less than total influence. 

Chironian:

EschewObfuscation:

Chironian:

The brain only serves mind.

The mind is more than a process within the brain? Are you saying there's a nonmaterial part? Show us the evidence. 

What material property does the experience of self-awareness resemble? Is love just a chemical?

Gotcha

Chironian:

What material property does the experience of self-awareness resemble? Is love just a chemical?

Love is a set of neurological processes in the brain, so yes, love is ultimately quadrillions of operations in chemical machines within your skull.

Doesn't make it any less interesting, fun or frustrating though.

The experience of self-awareness is a process. As I keep repeating, the embodiment of processes is interchangable but the processes must be embodied. If more people understood this, there'd be less time wasted on the fantasms of vitalism or souls.

But I have a strong suspicion that none of this will convince you so, I'm bowing out. 

jazzmongoose:

We have no "free will": everything we think reflects the biochemistry of
our nervous system

The concept of human free will is a Christian legacy which is no longer in adequation with scientific knowledge.

Introspective psychopharmacology and the study of different states of consciousness clearly demonstrate that what we think, what we do, or what we say is merely a reflection of the particular biochemistry going on, at a certain time, in our central nervous system (CNS). This is why, for instance, mankind is so irrational.

Experiments of mine have shown that by slightly modifying brain neurochemistry we can think in completely opposing ways and argue, for instance, with pseudo-logical arguments to justify this brain neurochemistry unconsciously.

For instance if I modify my brain biochemistry in a more dopaminergic way, or more serotoninergic way or if I experiment with a sociabilising molecule such as gamma-hydroxybutyrate or even ingest female hormones, then I will see very clearly in myself how my thoughts only reflect my CNS biochemistry.

This can be quite spectacular sometimes as you may find yourself arguing "logically" in opposing ways, depending on the induced biochemical modifications!

 
(So where is the 'free will' . If you replicated the above experiment 100% of humans would have the same result

 Where is this mans 'free will':

  The flip side of joy is pain. The next film shows a patient having his "aversive system" stimulated. His face twists suddenly into a terrible grimace. One eye turns out and his features contort as though in the spasm of a horrible science-fiction metamorphosis. "It's knocking me out ... I just want to claw..., " he says, gasping like a tortured beast. "I'll kill you...I'll kill you, Dr. Lawrence."

 from: http://www.paradise-engineering.com/brain/

 

 

For a psychopharmacologist there is no such thing as "free will", etc. This belief is only a prejudiced judeochristian cultural belief and a delusion. There are only states of consciousness expressing a particular CNS biochemistry.This is an extremely important scientific and philosophical observation as it teaches us that any human discourse is always suspect as someone will always just express, verbally, his particular CNS biochemistry.

When you become aware of this crucial fact you no longer feel an urgency to communicate with others in a pseudo "communication", as words are merely a way of altering the brain neurochemistry of someone else so he may share the same delusions as yours! Words are thus similar to psychotropic drugs and such words as "love" or "hate", "freedom", etc, are particularly hallucinogenic.

 

Politicians are experts in using hallucinogenic words in order to manipulate the mental states of others. So are playboys with their victims! And the media!All these things are sources of places to let the humans self hallucinate!

All great dictators, such as Hitler, etc, have always been very keen at manipulating the biochemistry of others through word-induced emotional hallucinations, which are called corticolimbic hallucinations.

These hallucinations are far worse than cortical hallucinations induced by molecules like psilocine(magic mushrooms) or other "hallucinogens". Corticolimbic hallucinations mostly go unrecognised in nature as people are not aware that they are, very often, hallucinating corticolimbically. This is why I also call these everyday hallucinations "unidentified hallucinations".

These hallucinations are the most dangerous forms of hallucination for the human species and have been and are at the root of man's aggressive and violent behaviour intra-specifically. All wars, all conflicts start with corticolimbic hallucinations. . .

A human being can never have perfect objectivity, and the examples in Science are numerous: to discourage us from trying to attain an authentic objectivity, as scientists, like everybody, mostly express their own frustrations or delusions in their discourses. Science is not objective even though it tries to reach objectivity. Science is the expression of the human mind and we can conceive that very advanced intelligences could be completely at odds with what we believe they should do as their "science" will also reflect the organisation of their "central nervous system" or equivalent.

A New Philosophy of Reality:Psychopharmacophilosophy


Traditional philosophy is outdated and should now be replaced by a new philosophy termed "psychopharmacophilosophy" .

 

Psychopharmacophilosophy has an extraordinary importance as it shatters completely many deep-seated beliefs of human beings. For instance, it clearly demonstrates that all religions are human creations and not "divine". We have to become used to that! There is no other choice. If all the mystics of history had been subjected to haloperidol or risperidone they would have never persuaded other human animals that they were in contact with the essence of reality... Religion is a consequence of the architecture and functioning of our memory which leads us to create imaginary structures with no counterpart in actual reality. Psychopharmacophilosophy also clearly demonstrates that all human thoughts and emotions are the consequences of underlying neurochemical events.

 
This, in turn, makes human "logic" highly suspect of continuous bias and distortion... When a person tries to have a "logical" discourse is she purely logical, like a machine, or is she intrinsically biased because of her particular brain functions? The answer is that she is always biased!

Some dopamine here and, say, Robert will say discourse "A". Some more serotonine there and Robert will have discourse "B"! Some tyrosine hydroxylase activation and Robert may very well give rise to discourse "C", etc, etc, etc, and bla, bla! So no logical discourse is really "logical" as it contains suspicious subjectivity, a subjectivity which cannot be erased at all. Our CNS works like that, not like a purely logical computer!

 

In this subjectivity we nearly always find dominance as Henri Laborit has well demonstrated...

 

All human beings seek dominance, consciously or not.

 

When you are aware of that you do not converse any more with others unless you are sure that their "logical" arguments are not based on a desire for dominance... This is the reason why Laborit hated to talk with people and much preferred writing.

 

True communication will be achieved only when the human desire of dominance has been complety eradicated in the future CNS remodelled through Neuromorphogenetics.

 

This desire of dominance is commonly seen in the "fonctionnaires" scientists!! It is a primitive behaviour that they share with monkeys and wolves...

 

Claude Rifat
"

http://www.shaman-australis.com/%7Eclaude/dreams.html

The perfect answer from someone who considers himself only a brain, and and not an actual personality, individual.

Mr. Farlops:

Chironian:

What material property does the experience of self-awareness resemble? Is love just a chemical?

Love is a set of neurological processes in the brain, so yes, love is ultimately quadrillions of operations in chemical machines within your skull.

Doesn't make it any less interesting, fun or frustrating though.

The experience of self-awareness is a process. As I keep repeating, the embodiment of processes is interchangable but the processes must be embodied. If more people understood this, there'd be less time wasted on the fantasms of vitalism or souls.

But I have a strong suspicion that none of this will convince you so, I'm bowing out. 

But the embodiment, the physical instance, of the process is not its sum; why is it impossible for an actual bit to appear on your computer monitor; or for information to only exist implicitly anwhere in the hardware of your system?

Brain only serves mind; there are weak corelates, but brain is not mind.

Okay, I guess I'm not bowing out. Let me break this down piece by piece and then bow out.

Chironian:

But the embodiment, the physical instance, of the process is not its sum;

I quite agree. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This is a very basic premise of emergence.

Chironian:

why is it impossible for an actual bit to appear on your computer monitor

It isn't impossible. That bit does appear on the monitor. It's a tiny backlit LCD cell or electronically stimulated phosphor cell. That bit is embodied but, note that I can embody this bit in a nearly infinite number of ways. It could be bit of ink on a page or air vibrations carrying my voice or emulsions on film, etc. etc. etc. In information theory, the bit, in abstract, remains unchanged, even if its embodiment changes.

Chironian:

or for information to only exist implicitly anwhere in the hardware of your system?

As I said it does. The system itself can change radically. It could be made out of Legos, for example. But the storage, parsing and editing of that information have certain logical and functional aspects that remain unchanged even as the embodiment changes.

This philosophical position I take is called functionalism. Basically it says the brain is a machine that could be made out of nearly any material as long as the process it preforms, the mind,  is functionally the same. Birds and jets both fly even though they are radically different. Submarines and fish both swim.

Functionalism basically says mind is a verb; just like run is a verb. 

Chironian:

Brain only serves mind

This is overlooks something. The first thing, the brain, is a physical machine. The  second thing, the mind, is a process done by a class of machines we call brains. To say this is no more meaningful than to say a steam engine (a physical machine) only serves to incinerate fuel (a process that machine does.).

Chironian:

there are weak corelates, but brain is not mind.

It is true that the machine is not the same as the processes it performs but it is not true that they can be separated. Processes must be embodied.

Only certain objects can perform certain processes. The class of objects that can perform those processes can be infinitely large (There is a nearly infinite number of variations on the heat engine idea--Diesel, Otto Cycle, Sterling, Carnot, etc etc.) but the process itself is the same--converting fuel into work.

Your position is based on a flawed understanding of what a process is and what embodiment of a process means.

Now I bow out.

ideal:

We have no evidence that the theory you espouse is true.  All we really have in either direction is a lack of evidence and feelings and assumption we think equate to such.

Until free-will is proven - it is theory. There is already much evidence that what we observe to be will-power is inherently dependent on observable variables.

Do you make a distinction between 'free-will' and 'observed will-power'?

ideal:

I don't believe any aspect of consciousness is completed free of other processes, I simply believe these other processes have less than total influence.

Then you don't believe in free-will. But what do you think accounts for that which you believe is beyond 'total influence' of observable processes? Do you believe in an irreducible soul or consciousness?

 

will scientists eventually be able to fully predict thoughts and behavior?

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050319_brain_study.html

we're a long ways off now, but the potential is there given that our subjective experiences and behavior are the result of potentially observable processes. 

Can we say that these processes are inherently unobservable (that there is an ineffable free-will floating around)? - There is no evidence to support that theory.

and what are the implications for the theory of 'free-will' if all our actions and subjective experiences can be predicted?

Abolitionist:

will scientists eventually be able to fully predict thoughts and behavior?

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050319_brain_study.html

I wouldn't worry too much. The technology detailed in this article observes real-time activity in the brain via fMRI. This makes them good at predicting what a subject will do in very limited circumstances--for example, where they'll push a cursor on a screen next. This will be great for neuroprothesis and for people who are paralysed.

The brain, being a dynamic, nonlinear system, like the weather or an ecosystem, is predictable insofar as each snapshot of the system state is accurate. If the snapshot is accurate to an infinite degree of precision, the next brain state can predicted completely accurately. Anything less than that is only a good guess--just like the weather or a chaotic pendulum. We also have to remember that this tool only views the brain in isolation within a very restricted environment. If we were to similarly observe the brain in the interactivity of the real world, things get staggeringly more complex because we now have to predict how the outside world will stimulate the the brain we are measuring.

But again, if we could specify everything to infinite degree of precision, it's totally deterministic. 

Like I said, using dynamic chaos or quantum indetermincy as the basis of free will is not as satisfying as some would hope. Hari Seldon's psychohistory may be remotely possible though. Social sciences (economics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc.) have much further to go however.

Mr. Farlops:

Okay, I guess I'm not bowing out. Let me break this down piece by piece and then bow out.

Chironian:

But the embodiment, the physical instance, of the process is not its sum;

I quite agree. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This is a very basic premise of emergence.

Chironian:

why is it impossible for an actual bit to appear on your computer monitor

It isn't impossible. That bit does appear on the monitor. It's a tiny backlit LCD cell or electronically stimulated phosphor cell. That bit is embodied but, note that I can embody this bit in a nearly infinite number of ways. It could be bit of ink on a page or air vibrations carrying my voice or emulsions on film, etc. etc. etc. In information theory, the bit, in abstract, remains unchanged, even if its embodiment changes.

Chironian:

or for information to only exist implicitly anwhere in the hardware of your system?

As I said it does. The system itself can change radically. It could be made out of Legos, for example. But the storage, parsing and editing of that information have certain logical and functional aspects that remain unchanged even as the embodiment changes.

This philosophical position I take is called functionalism. Basically it says the brain is a machine that could be made out of nearly any material as long as the process it preforms, the mind,  is functionally the same. Birds and jets both fly even though they are radically different. Submarines and fish both swim.

Functionalism basically says mind is a verb; just like run is a verb. 

Chironian:

Brain only serves mind

This is overlooks something. The first thing, the brain, is a physical machine. The  second thing, the mind, is a process done by a class of machines we call brains. To say this is no more meaningful than to say a steam engine (a physical machine) only serves to incinerate fuel (a process that machine does.).

Chironian:

there are weak corelates, but brain is not mind.

It is true that the machine is not the same as the processes it performs but it is not true that they can be separated. Processes must be embodied.

Only certain objects can perform certain processes. The class of objects that can perform those processes can be infinitely large (There is a nearly infinite number of variations on the heat engine idea--Diesel, Otto Cycle, Sterling, Carnot, etc etc.) but the process itself is the same--converting fuel into work.

Your position is based on a flawed understanding of what a process is and what embodiment of a process means.

Now I bow out.

You still do not draw the meaning of my statements here. The reason why the physical instance of an information event is so materially malleable is that it is ultimately non-material. Intelligence, concepts, information have no physical attributes themselves. You are confounding the backend operations of wet-ware processes with the mind itself, and saying they are equal, that the physical component is all that signifies. I really doubt if any part (or whole) of purely material, human physiology really knows that the mind exists at all.

Every physical event also has a computational, informational "abstract" side implicit and non-material to the physical instance itself. In certain environments, these implicate attributes render themselves... interesting.
 

Chironian:

You still do not draw the meaning of my statements here.

I understand them fine. It's just, as a materialist, I mostly disagree with them.

Mr. Farlops:

Abolitionist:

will scientists eventually be able to fully predict thoughts and behavior?

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050319_brain_study.html

I wouldn't worry too much. The technology detailed in this article observes real-time activity in the brain via fMRI. This makes them good at predicting what a subject will do in very limited circumstances--for example, where they'll push a cursor on a screen next. This will be great for neuroprothesis and for people who are paralysed.

The brain, being a dynamic, nonlinear system, like the weather or an ecosystem, is predictable insofar as each snapshot of the system state is accurate. If the snapshot is accurate to an infinite degree of precision, the next brain state can predicted completely accurately. Anything less than that is only a good guess--just like the weather or a chaotic pendulum. We also have to remember that this tool only views the brain in isolation within a very restricted environment. If we were to similarly observe the brain in the interactivity of the real world, things get staggeringly more complex because we now have to predict how the outside world will stimulate the the brain we are measuring.

But again, if we could specify everything to infinite degree of precision, it's totally deterministic. 

Like I said, using dynamic chaos or quantum indetermincy as the basis of free will is not as satisfying as some would hope. Hari Seldon's psychohistory may be remotely possible though. Social sciences (economics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc.) have much further to go however.

An 'uploaded' system could be completely predictable theoretically - we would have to control the input stimulus.

But yes, the point is not that we need to worry about the CIA predicting all our thoughts and behaviors (though there are good indicators that they rely on in their work) - but that all aspects of consciousness can be identified distinctly. To say that it is impossible to do so is belief in the supernatural.

Mr. Farlops:

Abolitionist:

will scientists eventually be able to fully predict thoughts and behavior?

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050319_brain_study.html

I wouldn't worry too much. The technology detailed in this article observes real-time activity in the brain via fMRI. This makes them good at predicting what a subject will do in very limited circumstances--for example, where they'll push a cursor on a screen next. This will be great for neuroprothesis and for people who are paralysed.

The brain, being a dynamic, nonlinear system, like the weather or an ecosystem, is predictable insofar as each snapshot of the system state is accurate. If the snapshot is accurate to an infinite degree of precision, the next brain state can predicted completely accurately. Anything less than that is only a good guess--just like the weather or a chaotic pendulum. We also have to remember that this tool only views the brain in isolation within a very restricted environment. If we were to similarly observe the brain in the interactivity of the real world, things get staggeringly more complex because we now have to predict how the outside world will stimulate the the brain we are measuring.

But again, if we could specify everything to infinite degree of precision, it's totally deterministic. 

Like I said, using dynamic chaos or quantum indetermincy as the basis of free will is not as satisfying as some would hope. Hari Seldon's psychohistory may be remotely possible though. Social sciences (economics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc.) have much further to go however.

An 'uploaded' system could be completely predictable theoretically - we would have to control the input stimulus.

Yeah, the point is not that we need to worry about the CIA predicting all our thoughts and behaviors (though there are good indicators that they rely on in their work) - but that all aspects of consciousness can be identified distinctly. To say that it is impossible to do so is belief in the supernatural.

Abolitionist:

An 'uploaded' system could be completely predictable theoretically

That's not true. It will only be highly accurate. How accurate it will be becomes an issue of how much computing power we can throw at it. Remember chaotic dynamic systems, and models made of them, are only completely predictable if we know each state with infinite accuracy. Brain taped personalities, just like real people, will occasionally surprise us. Chao dynamics and quantum theory place fundamental limitations on our accuracy. Ironically, at the same time, they help us to understand better what accuracy is.

Now obviously there is a point where the accuracy of our models and copies is good enough* but, I just want to make it plain that it will never be perfect. You can't banish surprise. (Hey, how's that for an aphorism on a tee-shirt?)

* A brain taped version of me for example might zig when I would have zagged due to some tiny difference between the two of us but, that's good enough. My physical form undergoes countless tiny changes continously yet I'm still able to maintain the illusion of continuity of identity.

Abolitionist:

But yes, the point is not that we need to worry about the CIA predicting all our thoughts and behaviors (though there are good indicators that they rely on in their work) - but that all aspects of consciousness can be identified distinctly. To say that it is impossible to do so is belief in the supernatural.

As someone with a belief in the supernatural, I don't understand how the two correlate.  Why do spontaneous decisions equal supernatural?