A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

RogerSH
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:30 am
Contact:

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by RogerSH »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:52 pm Is there more than one subsequent state of B from the same antecedent state?
Yes, B is not fully determined for choice to be possible. For example, the world is (ex hypothesi) fully determined, but the mind (A) is part of the world, so B is the world with A excluded, which is not necessarily fully determined just because [A+B] is.
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:52 pm And are we talking about states that immediately follow each other?

I'm not sure, does it make a difference?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Terrapin Station »

RogerSH wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 9:16 pm Yes, B is not fully determined for choice to be possible. For example, the world is (ex hypothesi) fully determined, but the mind (A) is part of the world, so B is the world with A excluded, which is not necessarily fully determined just because [A+B] is.
Huh?? It seems like you're equivocating what "the world" refers to there--like it keeps shifting.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Terrapin Station »

RogerSH wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 9:16 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:52 pm Is there more than one subsequent state of B from the same antecedent state?
Yes, B is not fully determined for choice to be possible. For example, the world is (ex hypothesi) fully determined, but the mind (A) is part of the world, so B is the world with A excluded, which is not necessarily fully determined just because [A+B] is.
Rereadinng this I think maybe I've got it--you're just saying that you see minds as the only things that are not "fully determined"? Are you suggesting that you're not a physicalist--that you see minds as something other than properties/functions of particular types of matter?

There's a concept of ontological freedom that's about physicalist freedom--so that matter is not fully determined, where we can remove minds from the scenario entirely (in order to just focus on ontological freedom under the simplest scenario in order to grasp the concept).
Skepdick
Posts: 16022
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 7:33 pm time is IDENTICAL to change. If there are no changes, there is no time.
This claim is empirically falsifiable. A quantum system under frequent enough measurement fails to evolve/change while time passes for the observer.

Quantum Xeno effect a.k.a Turing's paradox.
RogerSH
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:30 am
Contact:

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by RogerSH »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 12:13 pm
RogerSH wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 9:16 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:52 pm Is there more than one subsequent state of B from the same antecedent state?
Yes, B is not fully determined for choice to be possible. For example, the world is (ex hypothesi) fully determined, but the mind (A) is part of the world, so B is the world with A excluded, which is not necessarily fully determined just because [A+B] is.
Rereading this I think maybe I've got it--you're just saying that you see minds as the only things that are not "fully determined"? Are you suggesting that you're not a physicalist--that you see minds as something other than properties/functions of particular types of matter?

No, I'm strictly a physicalist. The world is unambiguously A+B. A+B is fully determined (in the case imagined), but it doesn't follow that B on its own is. Choice by A requires only that B is underdetermined. As discussed way back, A cannot contemporaneously choose itself. It would be like an algorithm choosing the data it used to make the choice - a logical impossibility, irrespective of determinism. Choice cannot mean anything other than that whatever A is (however it is arrived at) is what determines B.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Terrapin Station »

RogerSH wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 11:40 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 12:13 pm
RogerSH wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 9:16 pm

Yes, B is not fully determined for choice to be possible. For example, the world is (ex hypothesi) fully determined, but the mind (A) is part of the world, so B is the world with A excluded, which is not necessarily fully determined just because [A+B] is.
Rereading this I think maybe I've got it--you're just saying that you see minds as the only things that are not "fully determined"? Are you suggesting that you're not a physicalist--that you see minds as something other than properties/functions of particular types of matter?

No, I'm strictly a physicalist. The world is unambiguously A+B. A+B is fully determined (in the case imagined), but it doesn't follow that B on its own is. Choice by A requires only that B is underdetermined. As discussed way back, A cannot contemporaneously choose itself. It would be like an algorithm choosing the data it used to make the choice - a logical impossibility, irrespective of determinism. Choice cannot mean anything other than that whatever A is (however it is arrived at) is what determines B.
What about two possible states following an antecedent state not being determined by anything? By there being random occurrences?

(By the way, I don't quite understand how you're using "underdetermined." That's normally a term only used with respect to theories.)
RogerSH
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:30 am
Contact:

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by RogerSH »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 12:29 am
What about two possible states following an antecedent state not being determined by anything? By there being random occurrences?
You have to ask whether the two possible states are interchangeable from the point of view of the intentions of A. If they are not, then the state that actually occurs cannot have been chosen: choice is the state of A, which is part of the world state, so if the world state doesn't determine the outcome, it can't be the state of A that determines it. "Choice by A" can only mean that it is A that determines B, or at least restricts B to those outcomes consistent with the intentions of A.
(By the way, I don't quite understand how you're using "underdetermined." That's normally a term only used with respect to theories.
I'm afraid I use the jargon of mechanical science, my background. An underdetermined mechanical system has some degrees of freedom but not as many as it had before its elements were assembled. Bolting four Meccano strips together in a rhombus partly determines their configuration but not fully, so it is still underdetermined.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Terrapin Station »

RogerSH wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 11:02 am You have to ask whether the two possible states are interchangeable from the point of view of the intentions of A.
Now, your loose usage of "choice" was maybe okay, but you can't claim a similar loose usage of "intention." Again, the idea here is to REMOVE consciousness from the discussion for a moment (that is, to remove living creatures altogether) in order to focus on the simplest of physical events in the world, just to clarify what (ontological) freedom is.
I'm afraid I use the jargon of mechanical science, my background. An underdetermined mechanical system . . .
Okay, but can you point to a scientific usage of "underdetermined" in the way you're using it? I'm not familiar with it being used in the context of anything but theorizing in the sciences, either.
Last edited by Terrapin Station on Sat May 29, 2021 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RogerSH
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:30 am
Contact:

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by RogerSH »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 1:25 pm
RogerSH wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 11:02 am You have to ask whether the two possible states are interchangeable from the point of view of the intentions of A.
Now, your loose usage of "choice" was maybe okay, but you can't claim a similar loose usage of "intention." Again, the idea here is to REMOVE consciousness from the discussion for a moment (that is, to remove living creatures altogether) in order to focus on the simplest of physical events in the world, just to clarify what (ontological) freedom is.
You might like to think of "intention" as metaphorical, but to be more literal, if the unconscious choosing system A has a model of the world in which the difference between two subsequent states of B does not appear, then the output we are calling its choice would be indifferent to that distinction, hence, metaphorically they are
interchangeable from the point of view of the intentions of A.
I'm afraid I use the jargon of mechanical science, my background. An underdetermined mechanical system . . .
Okay, but can you point to a scientific usage of "underdeteremined" in the way you're using it? I'm not familiar with it being used in the context of anything but theorizing in the sciences, either.

Sorry, it's ~40 years since I was contributing to Mechanism & Machine Theory so I can't validate my usage. Maybe it's just a colloquial shorthand usage by people in that field. Just replace it by "less than fully determined", if that makes sense.
RogerSH
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:30 am
Contact:

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by RogerSH »

Skepdick wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 1:36 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 7:33 pm time is IDENTICAL to change. If there are no changes, there is no time.
This claim is empirically falsifiable. A quantum system under frequent enough measurement fails to evolve/change while time passes for the observer.

Quantum Xeno effect a.k.a Turing's paradox.
Doesn't repeated observation mean change is occurring, just not for the system under measurement? This looks like treating the observer as part of the world but not part of the world in the same breath. Which is reminiscent of incompatibilists, by my analysis, treating the chooser as part of the world but not part of the world in the same breath...
Skepdick
Posts: 16022
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Skepdick »

RogerSH wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 2:25 pm Doesn't repeated observation mean change is occurring, just not for the system under measurement?
Precisely that. Time is passing but change is not happening. Therefore time and change are not identical.
RogerSH wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 2:25 pm This looks like treating the observer as part of the world but not part of the world in the same breath. Which is reminiscent of incompatibilists, by my analysis, treating the chooser as part of the world but not part of the world in the same breath...
I am treating the observer separate from the system under observation. Both the observer and the system under observation are part of the world.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by RCSaunders »

RogerSH wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 1:30 pm “Incompatibilism” is the claim that free will is incompatible with a deterministic world.
The issue is not some concept of, "free will," a notion derived from religion, but, "volition," which means human behavior is determined by conscious choice.

In a determined universe there is no volition. Physical existence is determined. If physical existence is not determined, if every event that can be described by the physical sciences could possibly be anything other than what it is, the whole of the physical sciences is mistaken and miracles and magic must be allowed, because in an undetermined physical world just anything could happen.

But this discussion is absurd if there is no volition. If everything is determined, every bit of this discussion is nothing more than a string of predetermined physical events with no more meaning or purpose than a dead tree falling in the woods or the eruption of a volcano.

But no one here believes that. No one believes that what they are doing here is meaningless physical events, but being done by choice and with a purpose and a goal in mind. If everything is determined, however, that is not possible.

The mistake is in assuming the physical describes everything there is, but there is no basis for that assumption, and honest intellectual inquiry demands that all evidence be included in that inquiry. The evidence left out of the view that everything can be explained by the physical is life, particularly that kind of life that has discussions that it knows have meaning. The certainty of choice cannot be denied, because to deny it is a choice. It is self-contradictory.

The physicalist knows this is true, but in an attempt to explain everything in terms of the physical, corrupts the fundamental fact of the physical, that it must be determined or it cannot be known at all. There are various attempts by physicalists to find some escape from the ruthless determination of physical reality by resorting to quantum mechanics or other supposed undetermined aspects of the physical.

The irony is that volition is not possible if there is not a determined physical reality. Volition means choice which requires that the consequences of choice must be determined. Choice A must be known to result in consequence B else there is no basis for any choice. If there is no reliable way of knowing what the result of a chosen action will be, there is no way of choosing which action is preferable.

The physical behavior of every physical entity in the universe is determined by principles discovered by the physical sciences called the laws of physics and chemistry. A tiny number of physical entities have another natural property called life. All the physical aspects of those entities are determined by the laws of physics and chemistry, but that behavior of those enitities (called organisms), that maintains them as the kind of entities they are (called life), is not determined by the laws of physics and chemistry. An even tinier number of organisms have conscious minds which are also not determined by the laws of physics and chemistry, and those organisms are required by their nature to maintain their existence (survive) by conscious choice.

One must either assume that the physical aspects of the universe are absolutely determined or reject the possibility of any true knowledge of the universe and must either assume the universe includes some properties beyond the mere physical or reject the possibility of any true knowledge. Any other position is just a flat-out rejection of undeniable evidence.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Terrapin Station »

RogerSH wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 2:17 pm You might like to think of "intention" as metaphorical, but to be more literal, if the unconscious choosing system A has a model of the world
What would it mean to say that something unconscious "has a model of the world"?
in which the difference between two subsequent states of B does not appear, then the output we are calling its choice would be indifferent to that distinction, hence, metaphorically they are
interchangeable from the point of view of the intentions of A.
And what is this saying? Intention is not indifferent. It's the opposite.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Terrapin Station »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 4:30 pm if every event that can be described by the physical sciences could possibly be anything other than what it is . . .
Determinism isn't the case if just SOME events have SOME degree of non-0/non-1 probability for multiple outcomes, even if we're only talking about two outcomes, and even if they're only very slightly different from each other.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies

Post by Terrapin Station »

RogerSH wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 2:25 pm
Skepdick wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 1:36 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 7:33 pm time is IDENTICAL to change. If there are no changes, there is no time.
This claim is empirically falsifiable. A quantum system under frequent enough measurement fails to evolve/change while time passes for the observer.

Quantum Xeno effect a.k.a Turing's paradox.
Doesn't repeated observation mean change is occurring, just not for the system under measurement? This looks like treating the observer as part of the world but not part of the world in the same breath. Which is reminiscent of incompatibilists, by my analysis, treating the chooser as part of the world but not part of the world in the same breath...
I have him on ignore, and his response here is typical of why. It's a nonsensical response that evidences not at all understanding what I was saying (which is an evergreen move for him--almost every response he ever made to me was from a perspective, whether feigned or genuine, of not understanding my comments). If the quantum system doesn't change, then insofar as that quantum system goes, there is no time. "Time passing for the observer" is changes occurring in some way relative to the observer (and whatever the observer is using as a time basis). And we can say that time passes a la the quantum + observation "system." So nothing there falsifies that time is identical to change.

He'd have to be appealing to a notion that "the quantum system isn't changing, yet the quantum system considered in isolation, or the quantum system qua the quantum system ONLY persists through time"--but that idea is incoherent.
Post Reply