I actually edited out that same reference in my draft. I’m not sure if you caught my argument from before, essentially, you can’t pop the lid off of randomity either. You can’t do it for an initial state of the universe. You can’t do that for any event causation except infinite regress of causes, and the thing about that is that there are infinite lids, like a never-ending Matryoshka doll.
So, uh, I’ll wait for some other criticism aside from “how does it work”.
~Max
Conscience is the portion of the brain that interprets and stores sensory input in the memory neurons. You are familiar with the process because you experience it. The conscience retrieves information by stimulating the memory with associated information then interprets the resulting waveform. That was illustrated by the example I gave up thread with the stimulant “Twas brillig” which I assume you experienced as the waveform which you interpreted as “and the tlithy toves”.
When the conscience stimulates the memory with multiple associations the neurons generate a waveform that is a generalization that can be interpreted by the part of the brain that provides what we call consciousness or awareness. That is what I did with the square root algorithm.
This process is observed by EEGs. but, is also at hand to observe in yourself.
But there’s something special about free will - we can actually get a pretty good look at it. Remember, the free will we’re talking about here is the decision-making process used by humans.
Not exactly a black box.
You don’t really need to know about free will until you want an explanation for human behavior that neurophysics can’t explain. It may well be that human behavior is 100% predictable, given enough details and future tech. That makes my philosophy vulnerable to science - a selling point, IMO.
~Max
Alright, so addressing the free will argument. Are you familiar with the studies of consciousness in people whose right and left brain lobes were surgically separated (usually as a treatment for epilepsy)?
Only at a psych 100 level, probably misremembered. The lobes were separated, and there were measurable changes… I think almost like two people, where they would be able to write totally different things with both hands at the same time or something?
~Max
This seems like a straight-up disproof of souls - if the whole brain was controlled by one soul, did splitting the physical brain split the soul too?
I don’t think it follows. The brain is like an interface for dualism, so it makes sense that messing with the brain would mess with behavior.
~Max
MAX,
“I don’t understand how a state machine can operate over multiple “prior states” in one step.”
Because the brain is an analog system and the inputs and outputs are waveforms not numbers and the process is a continual flow not steps.
Steps would be time steps according to the system’s frame of reference. If you have something against discrete steps just think of it a continuous function with time+inputs as the domain and the set of all possible states as the range. Still a state machine, infinitesimal steps.
~Max
The notion that you can get two minds by splitting one brain (if, indeed, that is a correct recollection of what was happening) raises numerous questions, obviously.
Notably, it raises the question of where the ‘seat of conscious’ resides. If it resides in the brain halves, then each brain half would be separately conscious and unaware of the other’s thoughts. If it resides in the theorized soul, then your consciousness would be aware that it is connected to two brain halves, and that they are separate external entities that it is controlling at the same time - say these words with this brain half, say these words with that brain half, like making two hand puppets talk to one another.
I dunno about you, but my consciousness has no awareness of controlling my brain like a sock puppet.
No I haven’t answered my own question, I’ve illustrated the problem. This “free agency” only seems to solve the problem by definition, there are no details whatsoever about how (and note that, no, asking how does not entail necessarily talking about prior causes. As an example, if I wanted to discuss how a piece of architecture is standing, there is no need to describe it as a sequential story. We can just describe it in terms of instantaneous physics. While this might be a simplification in some sense, I’d be perfectly happy with such a simplified description of decision-making)
In fact, free will doesn’t just solve the problem by definition, that’s its only definition. “It solves the problem of how our actions are neither determined nor random” is the only definition anyone has alluded to here.
Such a (lack of) definition certainly doesn’t fly in science or even philosophy, but free will has been the topic of debate for so long, and it’s so crucial to apologetics and wider culture, that it’s achieved immortality now. The one thing that you cannot say about the Emperor’s clothes is that there are none.
That was not the takeaway and I would be surprised to learn that was the result. I’m leaning towards the operation impeding consciousness like I might impede a cable connection (thus impeding your view of a television program by messing with your interface - the television system), rather than assume it bisects the mind into two.
~Max
If you can provide me a definition of random that lives up to your expectations, I will provide a likewise definition of free will, or eat my hat.
~Max
I await someone who’s not me citing further data on the subject.
OK, so the brain is summing complex waveforms and interpreting the result.
But the function itself that does the summation - that’s not changing over time, is it?
~Max
When you solve a problem it is. The conscience tosses associations (known data) into memory and analyzes what comes back then tries again. The process I described with square root.
Memory is an input, so changes in memory don’t count as a change to the actual function.
Here is a state machine where the entire state is a number, and at every step the machine’s state is the square root of the previous state.
let f(x) be sqrt(x)
let statet be f(statet-1) if t>0
let statet=0 be f(43,046,721)
statet=0 = f(43,046,721) = sqrt(43,046,721) = 6,561
statet=1 = f(statet=0) = f(6,561) = sqrt(6,561) = 81
statet=2 = f(statet=1) = f(81) = sqrt(81) = 9
statet=3 = f(statet=2) = f(9) = sqrt(9) = 3
~Max
I believe you guys are now talking about how computational processes work. As I am a computer programmer this is in my wheelhouse - algorithms are followed step-by-step over a span of time. Even with massively concurrent processes (like neurons in a brain), each individual electron and chemical is moving along from point A to B at its own leisurely pace.