compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

By removing "me" from the equation, I mean to consider only the purely physical processes in the brain. You appear to assert that this is insufficient; something else, a "me," is required for it to function.

Not that it's insufficient - that "me" will be there as long as the process itself is there. There's no extra thing required, that's just "me". If you had only the physical processes in the brain, imo most probably you have "me". "Me" will emerge from that

[Iwannaplato]

they think they do. Or think they would if they changed their minds, but they are incorrect. That it would change them. (and this holds for me too. I might also radically change if I was forced to admit one of them was true, period.)

There's been psychological experiments that show this happens at least at a small scale.

I've also spoken with thinkers who had panic attacks when they started considering determinism as a likely reality.

Again, I can't relate to it, but some people are affected by the concept

I can believe it. But let's think for a second. Does that make it important?
Possibly. But might these effects also pass away fairly quickly?
And people get on about their days in the same way anyway?

Now, it might be that it would lead to some larger changes, but I am not convinced, yet.

We've all faced some unpleasant truth at some point and then gotten back up on the horse of everyday choices (even if they aren't choices).

And Big Mike for example is convinced the changes would be good, unless I'm remembering incorrectly.

How could we possibly know that?

[BigMike]

By removing "me" from the equation, I mean to consider only the purely physical processes in the brain. You appear to assert that this is insufficient; something else, a "me," is required for it to function.

Not that it's insufficient - that "me" will be there as long as the process itself is there. There's no extra thing required, that's just "me". If you had only the physical processes in the brain, imo most probably you have "me". "Me" will emerge from that

So what you are saying is that your (or my) "me" doesn't change a thing, it is basically sidelined somehow. Hence, there is no free will.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm not saying that, but if that's what you think that's okay.

[BigMike]

I'm not saying that, but if that's what you think that's okay.

It is difficult for me to interpret your words in any other way.

[phyllo]

they think they do. Or think they would if they changed their minds, but they are incorrect. That it would change them. (and this holds for me too. I might also radically change if I was forced to admit one of them was true, period.)

There's been psychological experiments that show this happens at least at a small scale.

I've also spoken with thinkers who had panic attacks when they started considering determinism as a likely reality.

Again, I can't relate to it, but some people are affected by the concept

Do these "thinkers" realize that if determinism is the case, they are already living it and always have?

Their panic comes from their thoughts about determinism rather than the reality of determinism.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm not saying that, but if that's what you think that's okay.

It is difficult for me to interpret your words in any other way.

Well, I said me IS the processes of the brain. Which means, to remove me you have to remove the processes of my brain.

I'm sure some people would disagree, but I think there would be measurable differences between how my body behaves with my brain processing, compared to how my body would behave if my brain no longer processed

[phyllo]

The optimal is always the maximal or the minimal of something. It is presented to us, and we cannot make it maximal nor minimal. It simply is as it is.

But you and I will have different processes and values in deciding what we think is maximal or minimal, and we will make different choices given approximately the same circumstances. Those processes, that take my values and my wants, both current and long term, and weigh them up and output the best option for me at a given moment - those processes are a fundamental part of the definition of who I am. It's not something deciding for me, that's me!

That's it.

There is no one 'optimal'. It's entirely dependent on our choice of goals.

[BigMike]

I'm not saying that, but if that's what you think that's okay.

It is difficult for me to interpret your words in any other way.

Well, I said me IS the processes of the brain. Which means, to remove me you have to remove the processes of my brain.

By brain processes, I refer to the transmission of neuronal signals via neurotransmitters, the opening and closing of ion gates, action potentials, etc. Surely you're not suggesting that is "you"?

I'm sure some people would disagree, but I think there would be measurable differences between how my body behaves with my brain processing, compared to how my body would behave if my brain no longer processed

Nice sense of humor.

[BigMike]

The optimal is always the maximal or the minimal of something. It is presented to us, and we cannot make it maximal nor minimal. It simply is as it is.

But you and I will have different processes and values in deciding what we think is maximal or minimal, and we will make different choices given approximately the same circumstances. Those processes, that take my values and my wants, both current and long term, and weigh them up and output the best option for me at a given moment - those processes are a fundamental part of the definition of who I am. It's not something deciding for me, that's me!

That's it.

There is no one 'optimal'. It's entirely dependent on our choice of goals.

Mind you, the thing that is optimal is the objective function, and it is normally constrained to a feasibility domain. Technically, "optimal" refers to the solution to the problem, i.e., the values of the variables required to obtain the optimal result when applying the objective function.

[Flannel Jesus]

By brain processes, I refer to the transmission of neuronal signals via neurotransmitters, the opening and closing of ion gates, action potentials, etc. Surely you're not suggesting that is "you"?

I'm talking about "me" as an emergent property of my brain, so it might help to make a far simpler analogy.

Gliders, in Conway's game of life. Look it up if you're unfamiliar, it's fascinating.

Gliders are nowhere to be found in the source code of the game - I know, I've coded the universe up myself once. And yet they're there, as a direct consequence of the code of the game. They are an emergent property of the behaviour of the system.

Imagine we have a Conway universe that wraps on itself, and we start with just 5 pixels arranged like a glider. We press play and we see the glider change and move and change back and continue on, indefinitely

Asking me to remove "me" from the world, but keep my brain processes, is like asking me to remove the glider from Conway's universe without changing any pixels. I can't. As long as those pixels are there, the glider is there.

As long as my brain processes are there, I am there

[BigMike]

By brain processes, I refer to the transmission of neuronal signals via neurotransmitters, the opening and closing of ion gates, action potentials, etc. Surely you're not suggesting that is "you"?

I'm talking about "me" as an emergent property of my brain, so it might help to make a far simpler analogy.

Gliders, in Conway's game of life. Look it up if you're unfamiliar, it's fascinating.

Gliders are nowhere to be found in the source code of the game - I know, I've coded the universe up myself once. And yet they're there, as a direct consequence of the code of the game. They are an emergent property of the behaviour of the system.

Imagine we have a Conway universe that wraps on itself, and we start with just 5 pixels arranged like a glider. We press play and we see the glider change and move and change back and continue on, indefinitely

Asking me to remove "me" from the world, but keep my brain processes, is like asking me to remove the glider from Conway's universe without changing any pixels. I can't. As long as those pixels are there, the glider is there.

As long as my brain processes are there, I am there

I am very familiar with Gliders and other automatons. But you are evading the topic here. Are the physical processes of the brain sufficient for all human behavior, or is something else required?

[Flannel Jesus]

I am very familiar with Gliders and other automatons. But you are evading the topic here. Are the physical processes of the brain sufficient for all human behavior, or is something else required?

I don't think I'm evading, I'm trying to be as clear as possible.

They're sufficient. They're also sufficient for what I call "me" to exist. You can't have my brain and all its processes without having me, most likely. Me isn't something extra, that's what "me" is.

Like a glider. A glider isn't something extra, it's the processes of that pattern of pixels. You can't remove the glider without removing the pixels

[phyllo]

But you and I will have different processes and values in deciding what we think is maximal or minimal, and we will make different choices given approximately the same circumstances. Those processes, that take my values and my wants, both current and long term, and weigh them up and output the best option for me at a given moment - those processes are a fundamental part of the definition of who I am. It's not something deciding for me, that's me!

That's it.

There is no one 'optimal'. It's entirely dependent on our choice of goals.

Mind you, the thing that is optimal is the objective function, and it is normally constrained to a feasibility domain. Technically, "optimal" refers to the solution to the problem, i.e., the values of the variables required to obtain the optimal result when applying the objective function.

Mathematician on the job

[Iwannaplato]

By removing "me" from the equation, I mean to consider only the purely physical processes in the brain. You appear to assert that this is insufficient; something else, a "me," is required for it to function.

You said earlier...

Yes, "those processes" are different in my brain and yours, because we are different. But that doesn't mean that we (my "me" and your "me") intervene in those processes. The processes operate independently of "us"; they are entirely governed by the architecture and general state of our brains, which have been shaped throughout our lives.

What is it that the processes are independent of?