compatibilism

[phyllo]

Right, like any of us here can pinpoint precisely where and when and how and why the human brain ends and the human mind -- "I" -- begins.

Start here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

Then, after reading that, Google "dualism in philosophy" -- https://www.google.com/search?q=dualism ... s-wiz-serp

Read a whole bunch more about it and then get back to us on what philosophers have definitively concluded here.

Are you admitting that you are a dualist?

Does your mind think different thoughts than your brain? Does it make different decisions?

[Iwannaplato]

In practical terms I am not sure what difference this makes, I am questioning rational being applied to one machine that spits out wrong answers as opposed to one that spits out correct ones. Rationality seems to me includes some sense of agency.

Why should 'rational', as a category, be different than, say, categorizing chess algorithms. Some chess algorithms are categorically better than others, some chess algorithms apply one strategy or "thought pattern" and others apply other stragies and thought patterns.

I wouldn't have a problem with in a determinist model categorizing some humans as 'running on better algorithms'.

I'm a pretty good chess player, was at an even better statistical category when I was a kid. Anyway, I can be beaten by programs I would not refer to as rational. That's not a negative judgment of them. I wouldn't call them irrational. I just think it's a category error.

Perhaps someday there will be AIs that I will consider rational - though God I hope not.

But right now there are programs that have better algorithms (and combination testing ability speeds) that are better than mine. But I don't think they are rational.

And note this is not an argument saying that really I have free will. Or that determinism or indeterminism is not the case. I just realized, reading whatever posts set me going on this that I found 'rational' problematic. I'm exploring that right now.

I think determinism undermines the idea of rationality. But it doesn't undermine considering something functioning better due to better algorithms.

Evolution then could be consider rational, could it not?

What a wonderful set of algorithms it has for creating complex life forms. Natural selection combined with random variance.

The problem here is that evolution is not teleological. It has no goal. Well, the computer programs don't have a goal either. They just do what they do.

And humans just do what they do, part of that being spewing out goals.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think determinism undermines the idea of rationality. But it doesn't undermine considering something functioning better due to better algorithms.

I guess I don't know what rationality could be, if it's not at least in some abstract sense something like an algorithm, or a class of algorithms.

[Iwannaplato]

I think determinism undermines the idea of rationality. But it doesn't undermine considering something functioning better due to better algorithms.

I guess I don't know what rationality could be, if it's not at least in some abstract sense something like an algorithm, or a class of algorithms.

OK, but can you interact with some of what I wrote.
Like for example, would you say that the stockfish program that can beat you is rational? And note, it's not a multiple choice nor is does saying no mean something negative about it. It's whether that's an appropriate adjective for that computer program.

[popeye1945]

There are just acts, or reactions. Stuff happens. A boulder dislodging and rolling downhill is no more or less moral than anyone doing anything.

The idea of "actions and reactions" is often referred to as Newton's Third Law of Motion and states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This law is a fundamental concept in physics and is considered to be scientifically valid. However, in recent years, the term "interactions" has become more widely used to describe the transfer of momentum, energy, or other physical quantities between objects. This is because the term "interactions" is more general and can encompass a wider range of physical phenomena, including those that are not easily described by the idea of "actions and reactions."

I am familiar with Newton's Law and like all things the rock reacts to the earth, in this case the earth's gravity. It is not surprising that the boulder has not made a moral decision before rolling on, for is it not acting out of free will, it is obeying the physical laws of the earth, the opposite of free will must be obeying. I agree that a Linner understanding is in most cases inadequate but this does not mean that things in general do not obey the physical laws of nature, a better term might be interreactions or interrelations this is more fitting to the idea that there is no such thing as independent existence. All things/objects owe their existence to their reactive natures in their relations to a greater whole.

In the field of psychology and human behavior, the idea of "actions and reactions" can be misleading because human behavior is often more complex than a simple cause-and-effect relationship. Human behavior is influenced by a variety of factors, including personality, emotions, motivations, social context, and cognitive processes. The structure and function of the human brain's neuronal network play a crucial role in shaping human personality, emotions, motivations, social context, and cognitive processes by influencing the way different regions of the brain communicate with one another. Therefore, it may be more accurate to view human behavior as a result of "interactions" rather than "reactions." For example, instead of saying that a person reacted to a situation in a certain way, it might be more accurate to say that the person interacted with the situation in a certain way, taking into account the various factors that influenced their behavior. This view recognizes that human behavior is not simply the result of a single cause, but is shaped by the complex interplay of many factors.

"This view recognizes that human behavior is not simply the result of a single cause, but is shaped by the complex interplay of many factors." [/quote]

This reminds me of the Hindu net of gems where every gem within the net receives and reflects the light of all the other gems. Here all gems are both cause and reaction and contribute to the overall brilliance of the net of gems in influencing the whole. I placed no limitations on the complexity of the processes of cause or reaction, they are indeed mind-bogglingly complex reactions. Two informative examples are evolutionary adaptations and your own body's life processes. All illnesses that are not the result of old age, meaning a lack of repair, are caused by biological reactions to the invasion of either chemical or organic invaders, the reaction of your immune system is life-sustaining.

[iambiguous]

Here is an interesting article about the [at times] complex, problematic relationship between the human brain and the human mind. A mind that, among our own species, is able to generate a self-conscious "I" that thinks, feels and behaves in any number of different ways.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness ... -symptoms/

By Richard Sima, Kelyn Soong, Caitlin Gilbert and Marlene Cimons in the Washington Post

Actor Bruce Willis has been diagnosed with frontotemporal dementia (FTD), a rare type of dementia, his family announced Thursday. The disease, also known as frontotemporal lobar degeneration, has no treatment or cure.

Willis’s family said in March that he had been diagnosed with aphasia, a communication disorder, and was retiring. In their announcement Thursday, Willis’s family said his “condition has progressed and we now have a more specific diagnosis: frontotemporal dementia.”

“While this is painful, it is a relief to finally have a clear diagnosis,” said their statement posted on the website for the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration. “FTD is a cruel disease that many of us have never heard of and can strike anyone.”

.........................

Symptoms can vary and depend on where the abnormal proteins begin to accumulate — in the frontal or temporal lobe. It can take a few years for a patient to be diagnosed with FTD since the symptoms are varied and also may be seen in people with other diseases, the physicians said.

A patient with frontal lobe-focused abnormality would show behavioral issues of impulsivity and disinhibition. That’s called behavioral variant activity, which is the more common subvariant of FTD.

“For example, a polite person may become rude and a kind person may become self-centered,” said Andrew Budson, chief of cognitive and behavioral neurology, associate chief of staff for education, and director of the Center for Translational Cognitive Neuroscience at the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System. “There may also be a lack of self-control that sometimes causes overeating of foods, such as an entire jar of mayonnaise, which one of my patients ate.”

Social disinhibition is one symptom, said Ryan Darby, assistant professor of neurology and director of the Frontotemporal Dementia Clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “They may even commit crimes because of their disinhibition and socially inappropriate behaviors,” he said. “They lose empathy and compassion toward others.”

I often come back to "I" in dreams. We think, feel, say and do things in dreams such that while dreaming it is as though we are not dreaming at all. Instead, we wake up often amazed that the "reality" we had just "experienced" -- as we might have experienced it in the waking world -- was totally manufactured chemically and neurologically by our brains.

But for Bruce Willis and others with this affliction it is the waking world brain as well that can, through this condition, compel them to behave in ways that they never would have freely chosen themselves had they not been stricken. Assuming of course that we do live in a free will universe.

And, as noted, this can happen to any of us. The autonomous self is taken over more and more by a brain that is simply doing it's thing biologically.

Some determinists merely suggest that everything that we think we are doing of our own volition is just a psychological illusion that "somehow" evolved along with consciousness once biological life itself "somehow" happened.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think determinism undermines the idea of rationality. But it doesn't undermine considering something functioning better due to better algorithms.

I guess I don't know what rationality could be, if it's not at least in some abstract sense something like an algorithm, or a class of algorithms.

OK, but can you interact with some of what I wrote.
Like for example, would you say that the stockfish program that can beat you is rational?

No, because I'm describing rational as a class of algorithms, loosely speaking, and stock fish is most likely not in that class of algorithms. I mean... it might be, but I don't think so. I don't have the full details of how stock fish works, and I also don't have a complete picture of exactly how I'd classify "rational", I just have loose ideas about both.

[Iwannaplato]

I guess I don't know what rationality could be, if it's not at least in some abstract sense something like an algorithm, or a class of algorithms.

OK, but can you interact with some of what I wrote.
Like for example, would you say that the stockfish program that can beat you is rational?

No, because I'm describing rational as a class of algorithms, loosely speaking, and stock fish is most likely not in that class of algorithms. I mean... it might be, but I don't think so. I don't have the full details of how stock fish works, and I also don't have a complete picture of exactly how I'd classify "rational", I just have loose ideas about both.

Mine are loose also. I suppose I can imagine an AI that I would class as rational or Turing rational - managing to act like a rational human mind. I don't think Chatpdg or whatever it's name is has reached that level for me, but it's closer than some posters online.

I have trouble with the idea of labeling something mechanical 'rational', even if it runs many algorithms and has meta algorithms for the use of the first level ones. I don't think it is reasoning.

To me this raises the issue of whether we are in a determined or determined with dashes of indeterminism or fundamental indeterminism universe. (which doesn't mean we would be in one with free will. I can't make any claims about that because I don't know what that is).

[Flannel Jesus]

I have trouble with the idea of labeling something mechanical 'rational', even if it runs many algorithms and has meta algorithms for the use of the first level ones. I don't think it is reasoning.

I can't see any alternative. I can only see algorithmic processes as being the things capable of reasoning

To me this raises the issue of whether we are in a determined or determined with dashes of indeterminism or fundamental indeterminism universe. (which doesn't mean we would be in one with free will. I can't make any claims about that because I don't know what that is).

Why does it raise that question? What difference would dashes of indeterminism make?

[Iwannaplato]

I can't see any alternative. I can only see algorithmic processes as being the things capable of reasoning

I think you need a mind that uses them...for me to call it reasoning. I can't, at this point, call stockfish a mind or something (someone?) that reasons. And it has levels that simply kick my ass in chess.

Why does it raise that question? What difference would dashes of indeterminism make?

Oh, sorry, I left out a key word. It should have read...

To me this raises the issue of whether we are RATIONAL in a determined or determined with dashes of indeterminism or fundamental indeterminism universe. (which doesn't mean we would be in one with free will. I can't make any claims about that because I don't know what that is).

Indeterminism changes nothing. I just wanted to say that I still wonder if we can be considered rational in a determined universe or in one that has ideterminism involved.

I do think we have minds, whatever that means, and I do not think stockfish has one, so I am more open about us, than I am about a device. But then we are just extremely complicated devices in such a universe. With a kind of epiphenomenal witness aspect.

I'm not sure I have much more to add, though perhaps your response will set something in motion. I can't demonstrate that that stockfish isn't rational. I just think it's a weird thing to call it. I would expect at least a mind was present, and while I have panpsychist tendencies, I don't think that the chess program leads to a mind thinking aobut chess, that the interconnection don't lead to a whole mind with functions. Of course this is all speculative. (iow words whatever matter involved in stockfish doesn't contruct a high level interconnected whole that is a mind, there would be scattered dull awareness at best. And for non-panpsychists I can't see how they'd, at least most of them, think there was a mind in stockfish an aware mind considering. And I suppose I consider that a necessary quality for rationality. An aware mind that considers things. Nor do I think my computer is a mind, even when running a few programs that can do a number of things better than me.

But then, if not them, why me?

Yeah, just repeating myself.

[Flannel Jesus]

With a kind of epiphenomenal witness aspect.

No matter what the case is, the witness can't be purely epiphenomenal, because we're talking about it.

[Flannel Jesus]

I can't see any alternative. I can only see algorithmic processes as being the things capable of reasoning

I think you need a mind that uses them...for me to call it reasoning. I can't, at this point, call stockfish a mind or something (someone?) that reasons. And it has levels that simply kick my ass in chess.

I wouldn't call stockfish a mind either. Do you think minds can exist just in physical reality? Or do they need something extra, outside of physics and chemistry?

[Iwannaplato]

I can't see any alternative. I can only see algorithmic processes as being the things capable of reasoning

I think you need a mind that uses them...for me to call it reasoning. I can't, at this point, call stockfish a mind or something (someone?) that reasons. And it has levels that simply kick my ass in chess.

I wouldn't call stockfish a mind either. Do you think minds can exist just in physical reality? Or do they need something extra, outside of physics and chemistry?

Certainly known physics and chemistry. (though not necessarily known matter.) But I have no assumptions/conclusions about that?

as far as physicl reality: what we consider physical is an expanding set of 'things/processes', not just expanding in terms of members, but also in terms of qualities and lacks of qualities. I think it merely means verified as real, but we cling to it as a claim to substance ontology because of old battles with dualism and other monisms. 150 years ago scientists would not have considered something massless to be physical. Now they do. For example. And there are weirder things than that considered physical. So, I don't think it is a category that I can know the limits of.

[Iwannaplato]

With a kind of epiphenomenal witness aspect.

No matter what the case is, the witness can't be purely epiphenomenal, because we're talking about it.

Touche, though I say proudly I have used the same argument myself. A witness that is not an agent - whatever that means - I guess.
I suppose reasoning/rationality includes an experience of exploring or working out. There is an ongoing assessing of what I am thinking. If you ask me what 7x6= I am not sure my coming up with the answer is being rational. It's mechanical. I memorized that as a kid. There are some muscular activities that are like this. Yes, to catch a ball in some way I am calculating trajectories, but it's automatic.

If however I'm dealing with the farmer, chicken, fox, sack of corn problem for the first time, I am being rational. There's a probing, checking, guessing then seeing process, yeah that works conclusion thing. It's not automatic. Even though to actually successfully get that stuff across a river is just a bunch of movements like catching a ball, finding out what works is not automatic. Reasoning has an experienced finding out process.

I used to play a 'game' with a friend of mine. We had three frisbees of descending sizes. We'd embed them in the next largest and throw all three. To catch all three you had to often catch two at once and then the third or vice versa. To some extent I had to use reason to find a way to do this. I had to ignore my dominant hand. This took conscious effort and observation and guesswork. And then effort to overcome the urge to try to stay conscoius of both hands, which did not work as well.

I found that my dominant hand generally caught fine if I didn't pay attention to it. So, I'd put all my effort on my left hand and find that the right caught it on its own. Then I had space to just grab number three with whatever hand could manage it or both. That was the most common pattern. Sometimes I'd get three in sequence, but often there needed to be this two at once moment.
That involved reasoning. I was rational in the process of coming up with the answer.

Obviously this wasn't fancy ass philosophical reasoning, but reasoning nonetheless.

And perhaps related, perhaps not: I consider reasoning and rationality (here conflating) as types of processes. They may be correct in their conclusions, they may be false, but they have passed some kind of quality threshold as processes not necessarily in conclusions. Why? Because I think it would be off to retroactively decide that a competent process that seemed to reach a correct conclusion, and so called rational, later has that lable taken away when advances in technology or whatever reveals that the conclusion is false.

[phyllo]

Here is an interesting article about the [at times] complex, problematic relationship between the human brain and the human mind. A mind that, among our own species, is able to generate a self-conscious "I" that thinks, feels and behaves in any number of different ways.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness ... -symptoms/

By Richard Sima, Kelyn Soong, Caitlin Gilbert and Marlene Cimons in the Washington Post

Actor Bruce Willis has been diagnosed with frontotemporal dementia (FTD), a rare type of dementia, his family announced Thursday. The disease, also known as frontotemporal lobar degeneration, has no treatment or cure.

Willis’s family said in March that he had been diagnosed with aphasia, a communication disorder, and was retiring. In their announcement Thursday, Willis’s family said his “condition has progressed and we now have a more specific diagnosis: frontotemporal dementia.”

“While this is painful, it is a relief to finally have a clear diagnosis,” said their statement posted on the website for the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration. “FTD is a cruel disease that many of us have never heard of and can strike anyone.”

.........................

Symptoms can vary and depend on where the abnormal proteins begin to accumulate — in the frontal or temporal lobe. It can take a few years for a patient to be diagnosed with FTD since the symptoms are varied and also may be seen in people with other diseases, the physicians said.

A patient with frontal lobe-focused abnormality would show behavioral issues of impulsivity and disinhibition. That’s called behavioral variant activity, which is the more common subvariant of FTD.

“For example, a polite person may become rude and a kind person may become self-centered,” said Andrew Budson, chief of cognitive and behavioral neurology, associate chief of staff for education, and director of the Center for Translational Cognitive Neuroscience at the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System. “There may also be a lack of self-control that sometimes causes overeating of foods, such as an entire jar of mayonnaise, which one of my patients ate.”

Social disinhibition is one symptom, said Ryan Darby, assistant professor of neurology and director of the Frontotemporal Dementia Clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “They may even commit crimes because of their disinhibition and socially inappropriate behaviors,” he said. “They lose empathy and compassion toward others.”

I often come back to "I" in dreams. We think, feel, say and do things in dreams such that while dreaming it is as though we are not dreaming at all. Instead, we wake up often amazed that the "reality" we had just "experienced" -- as we might have experienced it in the waking world -- was totally manufactured chemically and neurologically by our brains.

But for Bruce Willis and others with this affliction it is the waking world brain as well that can, through this condition, compel them to behave in ways that they never would have freely chosen themselves had they not been stricken. Assuming of course that we do live in a free will universe.

And, as noted, this can happen to any of us. The autonomous self is taken over more and more by a brain that is simply doing it's thing biologically.

Some determinists merely suggest that everything that we think we are doing of our own volition is just a psychological illusion that "somehow" evolved along with consciousness once biological life itself "somehow" happened.

Before Bruce Willis had dementia, his personality, his abilities, his charisma, his acting were the product of how his brain functioned.

The difference is that now his brain functions are considered negative while before they were considered positive. People remember the pre-dementia Willis and probably in his better moments he also remembers.

There was a chemical/physical "soup" there at all times making him what he was/is.

If we had complete control over everything, then we would no doubt choose to have something better than what we do have.

I would certainly choose to have skills that I didn't have. I would choose to have perfect eyesight. I would choose not to have osteoarthritis.

It's a long list.

But ultimately I am what I am. Warts and all.