Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBucket]

Consciousness and free will are illusions.

I don't understand what this means. Would you care to elaborate? I've never seen this used in a way other than as a catchphrase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Current understanding of neuroscience suggests the brain arrives to a decision before you are consciously aware that you have made a decision. Consider that if someone throws pocket-sand at you, your eyes will close before you actively thought to do so. Same thing with every other decision you've ever made in life, your brain makes a decision, then 'you' are aware of it and you think you made the decision, There is a non-trivial time-gap. This suggests free-will and consciousness are just illusions or by-products of how the brain functions or how it evolved to to function, for humans at least.

 It's all theory, but nothing else around besides philosophical schools to debunk it.

That's an argument against free will, not consciousness.

Analogy: Just because you don't get to decide what happens in a movie doesn't mean you're not watching it.

[HAMMERMILL]

That's an argument against free will, not consciousness.

Analogy: Just because you don't get to decide what happens in a movie doesn't mean you're not watching it.

That's a bit of a stretch, if the consciousness is defined by as a passive observer to the functions of a deterministic computer (made out of meat) it doesn't really follow any philosophical or scientific literature I've ever read. It doesn't say much about us as human beings either.

But still, the idea that everything we know of ourselves and everything we are... is some empty parallax where the brain meets it's emotional, rational, instincts and science into one wiring harness and sends it to an empty resistor.

Which is kinda weird, since we're all typing and dragging our eyes across text to say we have no free-will and no consciousness, but Im not sayng we do not have consciousness, but only that consciousness is an unreality, an illusion. A professor of mine said something to the effect of 'Consciousness is the consolatory prize for the defeat of having no free will".

So the brain in this model is a mechanism, with a deterministic outcome when it functions. It's deterministic but malleable, it's programmed by it's environment.

I think this topic or concept is interesting because it's science, philosophy and of enorumous importance! Nobody can really say if someone is right or wrong then just post a wikipedia link, either.

[Descan]

Well, for one, there already ARE (primitive) technologies to enable (partial, mostly light-sensing only) sight for the blind. Literally sticks a circuit board into your brain, actually.

And more recently, cochlear implants are a big thing. Sticks a machine into your brain to communicate information to it, in this case sound/hearing.

And we also have technology to allow a brain to control a robotic arm. Usually you see it being proof-of-concept on chimps, and I don't know if they're implants yet or if it's brain-scanning caps, but still.

Granted, none of this is what most people would call "thinking," though all of it requires a computer to process the information being sent and being received. It's a step, though not much of one, to go from these technologies to expanded mental capacity. I'm betting it's less of a technological hurdle and more of a will/funding thing; it's one thing to give sight back to the blind or let a double-amputee open a door on their own, and another to make someone smarter, you invite a lot of nay-sayers and doomsday preachers with that kind of thing, so people are less apt to fund it, at least publicly.

[LordBucket]

There is no technology that directly connects a person's brain to any artificial computer right now.

I don't believe such a connection is actually possible, until someone shows me otherwise.

...erm, ok.

 * Braingate video from 2008
 * Experiments from 1999 where they extracted video from a cat brain
 * Video of monkeys controlling robotic arms via brain implant
 * Here's a guy playing World of Warcraft via a brain control interface

Do you want more, or is this sufficient? Here's a wikipedia article: Brain computer interface

to go from these technologies to expanded mental capacity. I'm betting it's less of a technological hurdle and more of a will/funding thing; it's one thing to give sight back to the blind or let a double-amputee open a door on their own, and another to make someone smarter, you invite a lot of nay-sayers and doomsday preachers with that kind of thing, so people are less apt to fund it, at least publicly.

http://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2015-01-19

http://www.darpa.mil/program/our-research/darpa-and-the-brain-initiative

[HAMMERMILL]

There is no technology that directly connects a person's brain to any artificial computer right now.

I don't believe such a connection is actually possible, until someone shows me otherwise.

...erm, ok.

 * Braingate video from 2008
 * Experiments from 1999 where they extracted video from a cat brain
 * Video of monkeys controlling robotic arms via brain implant
 * Here's a guy playing World of Warcraft via a brain control interface

Do you want more, or is this sufficient? Here's a wikipedia article: Brain computer interface

to go from these technologies to expanded mental capacity. I'm betting it's less of a technological hurdle and more of a will/funding thing; it's one thing to give sight back to the blind or let a double-amputee open a door on their own, and another to make someone smarter, you invite a lot of nay-sayers and doomsday preachers with that kind of thing, so people are less apt to fund it, at least publicly.

http://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2015-01-19

http://www.darpa.mil/program/our-research/darpa-and-the-brain-initiative

I do not mean devices controlled by the brain. Everything from a fork to a pistol, to a cyborg robot arm is the brain acting as an output. Output from the brain is well established. Nobody is arguing that the brain does or does not controls things. It obviously does. We are arguing if the consciousness is autonomous or if it is a product of the reception of input into the brain. If the assumption is that the brain is indeed a meat-based computer, does any medium have the capacity to deliver information to the brain? No? Okay.

Anyways, I'm not aware of technology that treats the brain as input. Link me a thing saying somebody learned how to speak yiddish after they plugged their USB drive into their skull-socket or something. There isn't. A device controlled by the brain has absolutely nothing to do with the argument of the neurological theory of free-will.

[LordBucket]

if the consciousness is defined by as a passive observer to the functions of a deterministic computer (made out of meat) it doesn't really follow any philosophical or scientific literature I've ever read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

"Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

"Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action."

They're different things.

Im not sayng we do not have consciousness, but only that consciousness is an unreality, an illusion.

That doesn't make sense though. If it's an illusion...who is viewing the illusion? if you have an observer, there is consciousness.

Which is kinda weird, since we're all typing and dragging our eyes across text to say we have no free-will and no consciousness, but

Well, personally I dispute the "no free will" interpretation. I suspect that "free will" is a bit more fluid than yes/no. I don't typically choose when I blink, for example. When I see a kitten I don't "choose" to find it adorable. Certainly this device that is my body and brain is capable of running functions on autopilot. And some people probably spend a larger portion of their overall behavior on autopilot than others. But the demonstration that non-volition functions do occur doesn't mean than volition-functions don't occur.

But free will isn't necessary for consciousness, so I didn't particularly feel the need to dispute the point very hard.

[HAMMERMILL]

if the consciousness is defined by as a passive observer to the functions of a deterministic computer (made out of meat) it doesn't really follow any philosophical or scientific literature I've ever read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

"Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

"Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action."

They're different things.

Im not sayng we do not have consciousness, but only that consciousness is an unreality, an illusion.

That doesn't make sense though. If it's an illusion...who is viewing the illusion? if you have an observer, there is consciousness.

Which is kinda weird, since we're all typing and dragging our eyes across text to say we have no free-will and no consciousness, but

Well, personally I dispute the "no free will" interpretation. I suspect that "free will" is a bit more fluid than yes/no. I don't typically choose when I blink, for example. When I see a kitten I don't "choose" to find it adorable. Certainly this device that is my body and brain is capable of running functions on autopilot. And some people probably spend a larger portion of their overall behavior on autopilot than others. But the demonstration that non-volition functions do occur doesn't mean than volition-functions don't occur.

But free will isn't necessary for consciousness, so I didn't particularly feel the need to dispute the point very hard.

I guess what I mean is that while the definition terms or the concepts me and you have for 'consciousness' and 'free-will' are really the same thing.

You can't have the same idea about life and how you experience if you didn't at least have the illusion of free-will. That you are doing things because you want them to happen. It is hard to think that you are merely 'witnessing' your hands type something in a box in response to the dumb arguments of an internet stranger.

If your consciousness was one where you you could truly perceive and understand that you had no control over your actions, that were a passive observer of everything you did in your body, you would really challenge traditional arguments over the nature of free-will.

The fact that it is impossible for you to perceive yourself as a brain, or a thinking meat-computer is already a sort of unworking of the idea of consciousness as a discrete metaphysical concept with any root in reality.

At least to me this makes sense. I hope you are not just quibbling over definitions and talking about some hypothetical reality thing where reality describes and defines word and not the other way around.

[Descan]

The point of mine (and LB's) post was that there is technology to take information from the brain and use it as input, as in the robotic limb, and also technology to take information from the world and use IT as input, as in the cochlear implant.

You're using current technological limitations (language is a LOT more complicated than sound, for one thing) to argue a philosophical point. There's no insurmountable barrier to us actually creating language-learning implant, or an automatic in-brain translator, at least as far as we (or I, at least) can tell. We've only just started applying technology and software to the brain so we're not there yet, but the barriers are engineering, not philosophical. We've already achieved the principle matter of the problem, inputting information to the brain (sight and sound) and outputting information from the brain (robotic limb).

[Bauglir]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Current understanding of neuroscience suggests the brain arrives to a decision before you are consciously aware that you have made a decision. Consider that if someone throws pocket-sand at you, your eyes will close before you actively thought to do so. Same thing with every other decision you've ever made in life, your brain makes a decision, then 'you' are aware of it and you think you made the decision, There is a non-trivial time-gap.

Agreed.

This suggests free-will and consciousness are just illusions or by-products of how the brain functions or how it evolved to to function, for humans at least.

This is the part I don't understand. How do you get from A to B? Surely it just means that those words don't mean what a naive philosopher might say they mean? That some time delay needs to exist between some decision-making parts of your mind and your awareness, and that the system that can be described as being free-willed encompasses your consciousness as well as those other decision-making doohickii?

It just sounds to me like you've become enslaved to the words you're using, when the language ought to be serving you. You're getting hung up on these weird, magical definitions you have of the words, and, when faced with a reality they don't describe, just throwing away the entire concept instead of trying to figure out why you intuitively have those ideas in the first place.

[LordBucket]

I guess what I mean is that while the definition terms or the concepts me and you have for 'consciousness' and 'free-will' are really the same thing.

You can't have the same idea about life and how you experience if you didn't at least have the illusion of free-will. That you are doing things because you want them to happen. It is hard to think that you are merely 'witnessing' your hands type something in a box in response to the dumb arguments of an internet stranger.

If your consciousness was one where you you could truly perceive and understand that you had no control over your actions, that were a passive observer of everything you did in your body, you would really challenge traditional arguments over the nature of free-will.

The fact that it is impossible for you to perceive yourself as a brain, or a thinking meat-computer is already a sort of unworking of the idea of consciousness as a discrete metaphysical concept with any root in reality.

At least to me this makes sense. I hope you are not just quibbling over definitions and talking about some hypothetical reality thing where reality describes and defines word and not the other way around.

Sorry, but would you clean up the grammar in your post? There are several sentences in there that I don't understand what you're trying to say.

The point of mine (and LB's) post was that

To be clear, my position is that while "uploading" is a thing that might be possible in the sense of "running" "you" on a silicon computer instead of a meat computer, I dispute that the method of duplicating your brain in software will accomplish that. For a couple reasons, which if I recall correctly were discussed at great length previously in the thread.

[Tiruin]

I can agree with Descan and LordBucket on the limitations of technology as compared to the application from a human mind--the progress does follow pretty much in Cognitive Psychology, even if it has roots within philosophical undertones.

[Descan]

I didn't mean to imply that you agreed with me about everything, just that you agreed with the idea that us being unable to bridge the mind-machine gap is incorrect. Apologies. (Though to ALSO be clear, I don't think duplicating your brain in software will do it either, and I'm rather saddened that you think that's what I meant.)

Also, not sure what you're agreeing with, Tir? You mean *current* technology, right? And I don't even know what you mean by "as compared to the application from a human mind."

[Tiruin]

Also, not sure what you're agreeing with, Tir? You mean *current* technology, right? And I don't even know what you mean by "as compared to the application from a human mind."

I was skimming the last pages in this thread ._. (And the thread topic reminds me of a discussion our psych professor brought up as she's into neurology on Immortality via Technology, and yes I mean current technology )

So by skimming, I meant 'I assumed y'all were talking about how technology is being applied as an extension of a person' and then based off a tangent from:
 

You're using current technological limitations (language is a LOT more complicated than sound, for one thing) to argue a philosophical point.[...]

Oops to me if that was rather out of place!

[LordBucket]

I didn't mean to imply that you agreed with me about everything, just that you agreed with the idea that us being unable to bridge the mind-machine gap is incorrect. Apologies. (Though to ALSO be clear, I don't think duplicating your brain in software will do it either, and I'm rather saddened that you think that's what I meant.)

No, no worries. I just wanted to be clear. There are certain positions people take on this topic that I think may eventually lead to perhaps millions of human beings suiciding to create electronic zombies that superficially resemble them, so it's an important topic to be clear on. Some of the statements I made happen to overlap on a venn diagram with statements that might conceivably also be made by somebody in the philosophical camp that I believe will result in millions of deaths...so, again...it was very important to me to be clear.

peace/namaste/no worries

[HAMMERMILL]

The point of mine (and LB's) post was that there is technology to take information from the brain and use it as input, as in the robotic limb, and also technology to take information from the world and use IT as input, as in the cochlear implant.

You're using current technological limitations (language is a LOT more complicated than sound, for one thing) to argue a philosophical point. There's no insurmountable barrier to us actually creating language-learning implant, or an automatic in-brain translator, at least as far as we (or I, at least) can tell. We've only just started applying technology and software to the brain so we're not there yet, but the barriers are engineering, not philosophical. We've already achieved the principle matter of the problem, inputting information to the brain (sight and sound) and outputting information from the brain (robotic limb).

You can't argue 'technological limitations' If the technology is not even practically possible. The brain isn't something that can be rewritten with a software program, you can't write arguments about reality based on something that isn't real. Yet?

Anyways, the idea of the brain as a computer is rough analogy. Our understanding of the brain is limited, but we know it is deterministic, like a computer and I think consciousness, what makes you aware, is 'output' from the brain, not a source of input. The illusion is that we think consciousness is determining our actions, when it is likely the other way around.

Thus, it makes me think 'digital uploading' of one's mind is impossible. Since your mind is a sort of unique reflection or shadow of the functioning of a brain, it is not reproducible, it's not just information that can be replicated endlessly like digital information can be.

Okay I guess this is a philosophical discussion after all. I think the answer to if a consciousness could be moved from brain to machine is possible is to upload a mind, then replicate it and see if the consciousness has any connection between the copies.

Well, then you could argue you created a new consciousness each time you copied the mind. Like that time you made a baby from inanimate, unconscious material you and your girlfriend exchanged.

This suggests free-will and consciousness are just illusions or by-products of how the brain functions or how it evolved to to function, for humans at least.

This is the part I don't understand. How do you get from A to B? Surely it just means that those words don't mean what a naive philosopher might say they mean? That some time delay needs to exist between some decision-making parts of your mind and your awareness, and that the system that can be described as being free-willed encompasses your consciousness as well as those other decision-making doohickii?

It just sounds to me like you've become enslaved to the words you're using, when the language ought to be serving you. You're getting hung up on these weird, magical definitions you have of the words, and, when faced with a reality they don't describe, just throwing away the entire concept instead of trying to figure out why you intuitively have those ideas in the first place.

I hope I'm making sense. Communication is kinda easy to do wrong, especially when talking about impossible abstract concepts and you're kinda drunk.

Yeah, the implications of your brain completely arriving to a decision before your consciousness is aware of a decision surely says something about the legitimacy of free-will. I think if free-will is this illusion, where you 'think' you made a decision, but the decision was already made several seconds ago, it means consciousness must be an illusion as well, since your own awareness is directly tied into you making decisions, that you are controlling your own actions. I think I already said that, I don't know how to better articulate it. Language,
yeah has it's limitations.