What part of my definition excludes free will?I just wanted a definition of the self consistent with the possibility of free will. Chris is me and Vonfielder seem okay with a definition of the self that can't possibly have free will.
So, were you just not paying attention in the time time travel thread? I thought my views on free will were quite clear.I just wanted a definition of the self consistent with the possibility of free will. Chris is me and Vonfielder seem okay with a definition of the self that can't possibly have free will.
Eh, not really. I feel that the mind, sentience, or consciousness, refer more to implementation than they do to functionality. That is, there are many different machines that would behave exactly like a human would, but only a subset of them could be said to have a "mind", because whether they have one or not does not depend on what they do, but on how they do it.I would contend that such an entity cannot exist. For something to be indistinguishable from a person both physically and in behaviour, it must have the brain processes of a person, and therefore must have a mind.
Essentially, the idea of the philosophical zombie assumes that the mind is not the result of the physical and chemical processes in the brain.
It makes no sense whatsoever for something to originate itself. X cannot cause X no matter what X is. A self that is the cause of itself is complete nonsense. In any case, a thought experiment might show you how the "cause" of yourself is completely irrelevant.Your definition of the self is reductible to physical phenomenon. As all physical phenomenon have a cause found in the laws of physics, your self is not cause of itself and your actions have a cause anterior to your self (the cause of your self).
All definitions have a scope, and you have to be careful when you cross the boundary of that scope. Dictionary definitions are perfectly fine for casual, everyday usage, but when you start to actually argue about abstract concepts like free will or consciousness, they're pretty much completely useless, if not outright circular. The more high level a concept is, the harder it is to ground. For a single dictionary definition, there might be a thousand different ways to ground it, each being roughly equivalent most of the time, but divergent on corner cases. Thus, the more abstract a concept is, the more likely it is that different people will not understand it the same way. An example could be that the dictionary will tell you what small is, what big is, but it won't tell you where the boundary lies (nor will it tell you the boundary from big to medium, and so on). To discuss free will is to discuss boundaries and corner cases, and that's tricky. Or sentience - I've seen you emit opinions on what sentience is that are not in any way implied by any of its definitions, because you were talking within their grey zones.Anyone who says "Well, you can't really define some things" is a pseudo-intellectual. End of story. Definition is the cornerstone of language and argument. Definitions change oh so rarely and only when new things are discovered. If you can't define murder, check a dictionary or ask a lawyer. My middle school PE teacher was able to define life in the scientific sense pretty damn well, and only learning more about viruses is going change that definition any time soon.
The dictionary definition of "free will" is not worded as "I could have done it differently", but it strongly suggests it:In my definition of sentience, I included ways that sentience is commonly characterized in addition to the dictionary definition. If I hadn't, 10 to 1 I would have been asked to anyway, or you would have said my definition was "too broad", but either way my definition was the dictionary definition. As is my definition of free will. You said most people define free will as "I could have done it differently". Well then I can see how they'd be internally inconsistent, because that isn't the definition of free will. Know that I'll always, always use the proper dictionary definition in anything (and sometimes I even double check) and will accept no less, high concept or not. I've never explored a high concept where I had to redefine things.
All of our existence and conscience is generated by the brain. There isn't anything more than a "physical phenomenon", and despite your constant attempts to sound intellectual and philosophical, all consciousness eventually can be explained by "physics"Your definition of the self is reductible to physical phenomenon. As all physical phenomenon have a cause found in the laws of physics, your self is not cause of itself and your actions have a cause anterior to your self (the cause of your self).
For the self to be compatible with free will, it would be necessary to not be reductible to a physical phenomenon. Of course, when you do that, chances are good that what you are not calling a self does not exist, as physicalism as a good claim to reality.
But you're expanding the definition now. You are taking the definition and incorporating the past tense. The definition of free will simply doesn't involve time. "I could have done it differently" isn't a definition of anything, it sounds more like an expression of regret than free will, seeing as regret does deal with what has already come to pass. "I could have done it differently" isn't straightforward at all, it's entirely backwards.I mean, I could probably browse more, starting with the second definition of "free will", the concepts of freedom, liberty, constraint, and so forth, but it seems like "I could have done it differently" is a really direct and straightforward interpretation.
Poor argument. I've missed quite a few busses in my lifetime.Von Fielder : "I could have done differently" is not the definition of free will, but a necessary consequence of free will. Of course free will does not involve time. But if I was free in the past, then in the past, I could have done differently. If I am free in the present, I could do things differently. Like continuing to write instead of going catch my bus. But I am not free, so I'm going to go catch my bus. Later.
Hence why I emphasised that the philosophical zombie is supposed to be physically from a human. A machine like you describe might act the same, but put them in a scanner and you'll be able to tell the difference.Eh, not really. I feel that the mind, sentience, or consciousness, refer more to implementation than they do to functionality. That is, there are many different machines that would behave exactly like a human would
Actually, an event can cause itself if time is circular. Circular time isn't observed in our Universe but it "makes sense".It makes no sense whatsoever for something to originate itself. X cannot cause X no matter what X is.
Rules by ourselves? Rules by others?Either there are rules to our behavior, either there are none.
Not having a set of rules mandated by others doesn't make my behavior random. Right now, for example, I'm hitting a very specific set of keys on my keyboard in a particular order, yet I'm not bound by any rules while doing so. I could hit any set that I want to. I just choose to hit the ones that produce English words that I happen to be thinking. No rules by me or anyone mandates I don't type words with no meaning fdsufila, safuleakf dsioenrnke ,s eiuwthlkdsf erohnoiaser.If there are no rules that dictate our behavior, then our behavior is random.
If our behavior is random, we are not free. End of that branch.
If I'm speaking of my free will regarding a past action, I will use the past, what other tense could I possibly use? In the present, this gives: "it is possible that I do any of the options I am evaluating". If the universe's laws are deterministic, then only one of these options can happen, and the others are not possible.But you're expanding the definition now. You are taking the definition and incorporating the past tense. The definition of free will simply doesn't involve time. "I could have done it differently" isn't a definition of anything, it sounds more like an expression of regret than free will, seeing as regret does deal with what has already come to pass. "I could have done it differently" isn't straightforward at all, it's entirely backwards.
It is conceivable that you exist, and it is conceivable that you don't exist. If you exist, then you can't cause yourself to exist, because you already do. If you don't exist, then you can't cause yourself to exist, because you don't exist. Your argument essentially boils down to somehow having a say in whether you exist or not, in a situation where your existence is clearly not logically necessary.Brain, If my body appeared out of nowhere because I whished it to be so, then I am free because the causality of everything I'll do afterward will stop at the moment I was created, and that was my whish to be created in that fashion. If my body appeared out of nowhere, randomly, then all my future actions can be traced back to the randomness of my birth, I am not free. If I was born "normally" then all my actions can be traced back to the state of the Universe in the Very Beginning, I am not free.
Oh, okay, my bad. I was talking about philosophical zombies in a wider sense. Otherwise, I fully agree with you.Hence why I emphasised that the philosophical zombie is supposed to be physically from a human. A machine like you describe might act the same, but put them in a scanner and you'll be able to tell the difference.
As far as I can tell, circular time is obfuscated speak for global cycles in the application of rules to data. In other words, this is "circular time". In this case, it's a bit clearer to say that the event is "periodic", like the oscillation of a pendulum, than to say that it causes itself.Actually, an event can cause itself if time is circular. Circular time isn't observed in our Universe but it "makes sense".
That's confusing, I don't really see what you mean :(As for how X could even happen or exist in the first place, how about the following:
X and Y can both be either long-lasting objects or brief events, it works either way.
If X exists, it causes Y to not exist.
If X exists, X causes itself to exist.
If X does not exist, Y causes X to exist.
The only non-paradoxical solution is for X to exist. What caused it to exist? Y? But Y doesn't exist!
And this isn't necessarily just words. You could probably put physical calculations on this, most likely using things like moving and colliding balls.
The laws of physics, combined with the exact configuration of your body and brain, however, do "mandate" you to type what you typed, and if they don't, that's because randomness is involved at some stage in the process. That is what he meant.Not having a set of rules mandated by others doesn't make my behavior random. Right now, for example, I'm hitting a very specific set of keys on my keyboard in a particular order, yet I'm not bound by any rules while doing so. I could hit any set that I want to. I just choose to hit the ones that produce English words that I happen to be thinking. No rules by me or anyone mandates I don't type words with no meaning fdsufila, safuleakf dsioenrnke ,s eiuwthlkdsf erohnoiaser.
What if my future self has the power to travel back in time to make my present self exist, creating a stable time loop ?It is conceivable that you exist, and it is conceivable that you don't exist. If you exist, then you can't cause yourself to exist, because you already do. If you don't exist, then you can't cause yourself to exist, because you don't exist. Your argument essentially boils down to somehow having a say in whether you exist or not, in a situation where your existence is clearly not logically necessary.
I fully agree with this. I'll restate again that I don't believe free will exist, I don't think that individuality* exist. I just want to give them a chance. Because both are incompatible with any physicalist interpretation of the world.Look, all causal chains trace back to randomness. All of them. Even if you suppose that the universe has always existed, as long as it could conceivably have been different, randomness is implicated in picking one infinite sequence among others. Even if all possible universes exist, it's not logically necessary for them to, so randomness is implicated in deciding whether all possible universes exist, or only a finite number does.
Rules that govern the behaviour of the Universe I assume, AKA the "laws of physics".Rules by ourselves? Rules by others
Presumably difference in location and surroundings "doesn't count" for this purpose.*Individuality is the state where two physically identical beings are somehow different.
Well, It does. However, it would cause different stimuli and therefore change the homeostasis state, creating slight physical differences. Over the course of years, these differences add up, creating two physically very different persons. Also, presumably, they don't eat exactly identical food. And they don't keep an identical bacterian flora for long...Presumably difference in location and surroundings "doesn't count" for this purpose.
However, it's the state of the rock (and the surroundings) who decide where it's a good idea to throw it. So in practice, the rock has control over your brain. =P. Can two things have control over one another? I don't think that is inconsistent with your definition. However, it does undermine it's usefullness.Somewhat tricky to define formally, but essentially X controls Y if the behavior of Y is conditioned on X, and X's behavior is conditioned on its own internal state. The more tightly X's internal state is correlated with X and Y's actions, the greater control X has over Y. For instance, if you throw a rock, you control the rock, because its trajectory depends on what is going on in your brain, not so much on the rock itself (note that you will use the rock's weight in order to correct your aim, so the weight data that determines trajectory is also found in your brain, making the correlation even greater).
Assuming the drugs were forced on you, is it the guy who did the murder or the guy who is responsible for it who should be charged?Any behavior inducing drug doesn't change that you are the one doing it. Just because your normal self may not have done the same thing doesn't change that you did it. Responsibility for actions and ownership of them are not synonymous (e.g. "I" murdered a guy when forced on drugs, but that doesn't mean I was responsible for it). So none of those questions really change how I defined I earlier.
No, a word is what it is. Don't try to circumvent an entire language by being "philosophical".On the genus and specie part : Maybe anglophone philosophy class use a different word for a philosophical definition. Anyway, it's far from unheard of to have concept defined this way by great authors.
firstly, your concept is pretty silly. I thought that was clear from the outset. Secondly, "up its own ass" is a term in the "anglophone philosophy", not a bash at all.Maybe Genus and specific difference would be more appropriate? Try to give me a more appropriate word instead of bashing on an idea that does not deserve it.
Absolutely not. When you say "I am typing", it refers to your body, not your 'self', because your 'self' is not typing- your bloody hand is.Don't you think that if the body is but a vessel, it cannot qualify to be the substance of the self ?
So at the point where that body is no longer a vessel for a mind it becomes a zombie and is not an I. Basically what I was getting at that they are connected and there isn't a way around it.How about a philosophical zombie. For the purpose of this argument, a body of flesh that is behaves like a normal person but is "inhabited" by nobody?
That does make sense, because any sentient form that says "I" means the same damn thing. What did I say?Does it not makes sense to imagine a humanshaped lump of flesh acting exactly like every a human being except for the part that no one considers this body to be "his"?
Incorrect analogy. You are comparing anatomy to anatomy to justify anatomy to metaphysical baloney.The body is to the self what the skull is to the brain : without it the protection of the former, the latter dies, but the former is not the latter.
So you're pleading the case that there are supernatural forces involved?As for the brain, I have trouble seeing how the brain can be aware
Until consciousness manifestation is understood, your rhetoric is useless.I have difficulty how we can physically observe self-awareness in a brain.
Then you think incorrectly. You are literally trying to plead a case where supernatural powers exist parallel and independently of a brain and body but then saying that's where they reside? How about instead of some metaphysics you give us some observation besides saying that you don't know therefore it must be something inexplicable but not beyond definition.We can observe manifestations of it, but I don't think anything physical can be aware of it's own existence.
pretty insistent on an idea about an organ you clearly know little about (and admit to it too!)I'm no neurologist, but what I know about psychology and biology seems to show me that a brain is not willed. From what I know, the brain act in a certain way because the impulses, chemicals and ions are set in a certain way.
incorrect (ie. Apatite) and not all at once.If you are still not convinced your self cannot be any physical entity, think about this. In about ten years, approximately every single atom of your body will have been replaced.
You're putting an age cap on this, now? I didn't realize your definition was so finite for such an infinite idea.Your cells die all the time and your body takes a couple of year to regenerate itself down to every single cell. And yet, after all these changes you are still the same, provided you were older than 30 YO. (Crystallising personality, by the age of 30, development psychology class told me your personality stops changing significantly.)