Is The Mind Deterministic?

[StarBuck]

It may help if the terms on the Free Will side were defined. The good doctor spent at least ten pages defining his terms.

[DrBaltar]

If your argument is to be dismissed at its root, then ...

If free will is axiomatic, then ...

If all human knowledge depends on the existence of free will to exist, then ...

That's a lot of ifs, and you still haven't shown any of them to be true. I've got an IF for you... If you're going to ignore my argument, then you don't need me in the debate do you? Go write a blog.

[DrBaltar]

If consciousness possesses the ability of true free will, and is non-deterministic, then what you are suggesting is that our consciousness operates outside the bounds of physics and is therefore, by definition, supernatural.

But when men claim to possess supernatural means of knowledge, no persuasion, communication or understanding are possible.

I think she summed it up pretty well Inspector.

ForInspector.wav

Edited February 5, 2006 by DrBaltar

[B. Royce]

That's a lot of ifs, and you still haven't shown any of them to be true. I've got an IF for you... If you're going to ignore my argument, then you don't need me in the debate do you? Go write a blog.

The "if's" that you refer to mean "since", but, since you have been programmed to disregard context, you have no choice, and if you should now respond that you do understand context, you will have been programmed to respond to assertions of your lack of understanding with denials. Unless, of course, You have been programmed to not respond at all. So, we will now see how you have been programmed; then we can judge if it is an interesting form of programming or not. You cannot judge; all you can do is manifest your programming, which your are doing right now as you read this. Hmm, I wonder if he is programmed to read this post?

[DrBaltar]

Royce, because of your brain's initial state, your interaction with your environment, the things you've read, etc, you are predetermined to take the stance you take. You cannot genuinely think otherwise. But go ahead and try. "Choose" to take the opposite argument. And I don't mean just as devil's advocate.

[StarBuck]

Royce, because of your brain's initial state, your interaction with your environment, the things you've read, etc, you are predetermined to take the stance you take. You cannot genuinely think otherwise. But go ahead and try. "Choose" to take the opposite argument. And I don't mean just as devil's advocate.

The way I see it, a Free Will supporter has three choices -

1. The brain does not supply and regulate all behavioural phenomenon. There is some aspect of behaviour that does not come from the brain, what this aspect is can be determined through a 'God of the Gaps" type method.

2. That the brain does supply and regulate all behavioural phenomenon but that the brain is not part of the deterministic system that the rest of nature seems to fall into. This makes it possible for the brain to choose freely.

3. That the brain is determined but occasionally has the ability to alter its state outside of the laws of science. This allows the brain to instantly break its biochemical systems and alter itself Deus Ex Machina.

[DavidOdden]

Royce, because of your brain's initial state, your interaction with your environment, the things you've read, etc, you are predetermined to take the stance you take. You cannot genuinely think otherwise. But go ahead and try. "Choose" to take the opposite argument. And I don't mean just as devil's advocate.

How would you scientifically test the claim that all "choices" are automatically predetermined by the initial state of the universe? If you're saying that this is a religious belief of yours which is outside of the scope of science, and that you are simply declaring predetermination to be axiomatic and beyond rational scrutiny, then your position cannot be debated. If you do think that determinist is a scientific question, then you ought to be able to describe the kind of experimental event that would show your claim to be false, were that outcome to be shown to exist. The claim of predetermination is an unscientific claim, because no fact can possibly disprove it.

[StarBuck]

How would you scientifically test the claim that all "choices" are automatically predetermined by the initial state of the universe? If you're saying that this is a religious belief of yours which is outside of the scope of science, and that you are simply declaring predetermination to be axiomatic and beyond rational scrutiny, then your position cannot be debated. If you do think that determinist is a scientific question, then you ought to be able to describe the kind of experimental event that would show your claim to be false, were that outcome to be shown to exist. The claim of predetermination is an unscientific claim, because no fact can possibly disprove it.

Just like an two experiments are needed to test tree growth:

1. To examine the cause/effect relation between water intake and growth.

2. To examine if the cause/effect relations actually exist.

DavidOdden - Please explain how you can claim any cause can exist if it is "beyond rational scrutiny" in the case of human behaviour.

Also, it was a very good rhetorical point to bring religion into the conversation. DrBaltar has, after all, not brought religion into the conversation. As a matter of fact so far this conversation has demonstrated the use of science and logic eleiminating the greek rational/mystical idea of "axioms" trumping observed reality.

Edited February 5, 2006 by StarBuck

[Inspector]

That's a lot of ifs, and you still haven't shown any of them to be true.

Try addressing AisA's post, instead of presenting yet another argument for determinism. By "addressing his post" I mean you need to address where he shows that it is axiomatic; that all knowledge depends on its truth. By "yet another argument for determinism" I mean a series of attempts to use the laws of physics to "prove" its truth.

As I said, all of your attempts to use "science" to "prove" determinism are null and void if free will is axiomatic, so please address AisA's proof that it is.

I've got an IF for you... If you're going to ignore my argument, then you don't need me in the debate do you? Go write a blog.

Do you think we take a deep analysis of every argument for the existence of "God" here? No, since all such arguments violate identity, causality, and other axioms, then they are dismissed without consideration. If such a being existed, it would contradict all logic; therefore anyone attempting to use logic to "prove" it is necessarily wrong.

Are you reversing your previous position that an argument can be dismissed at its roots, if proven necessarily false (by an axiom)? (such as we spoke of in our PM's) If not, then why are you complaining that your arguments might be ignored?

Once again: if free will is axiomatic, then logic demands that your argument be ignored as necessarily false. You need to be addressing the argument for its axiomatic status, not repeating an argument that will be dismissed at its root.

If you can prove the argument for its axiomatic status wrong, then - and only then - will your argument for determinism be even considered. Until then, you will be ignored, so stop wasting your time.

[B. Royce]

Royce, because of your brain's initial state, your interaction with your environment, the things you've read, etc, you are predetermined to take the stance you take. You cannot genuinely think otherwise. But go ahead and try. "Choose" to take the opposite argument. And I don't mean just as devil's advocate.

Hmm, just as I thought---programming which goes in aimless circles. If anyone else on this forum wishes to express their thoughts regarding the programming, I hope that you will remember that you are not debating any thing or any one. I am now going to look for an interesting way to spend my time. Adios.

[DrBaltar]

How would you scientifically test the claim that all "choices" are automatically predetermined by the initial state of the universe? If you're saying that this is a religious belief of yours which is outside of the scope of science, and that you are simply declaring predetermination to be axiomatic and beyond rational scrutiny, then your position cannot be debated.

It's absolutely not religious. It's based on Lagrange's equation. This is the whole basis of determinism in physics. Every physics experiment confirms it. The exceptions related to quantum mechanics are covered in my physics argument in the 2nd post. To say that all 57 billion cubic light years of the universe is deterministic except for the regions in our skulls sounds like a religious belief.

If you do think that determinist is a scientific question, then you ought to be able to describe the kind of experimental event that would show your claim to be false, were that outcome to be shown to exist. The claim of predetermination is an unscientific claim, because no fact can possibly disprove it.

If free-will is the choice to think about something or not to think about something, you can disprove determinism of the mind by decreasing the level of serotonin in a subject's brain and seeing if they are able to avoid obsessing over certain thoughts. It has already been shown experimentally that lowering the amounts of serotonin in the brain leads to obsessive behaviour. The subject no longer is able to "freely" decide whether to think about something or not to.

I honestly don't know how you come to the conclusion that I have religious beliefs about this. There is a ton of evidence if you take the time to consider the evidence. Galileo hypothesized that heavy and light objects fall at the same rate (absent air resistance). This was considered blasphemy, and there was no reason to even consider testing this rediculous claim. But he did the experiment and found that it was true.

Is it concievable that an axiom could be made that if you rotate an object 360 degrees it would look the same. However you'd have to rotate an electron 720 degrees before it looked the same. Experimental evidence must always win out over pre-concieved notions if we want to understand reality.

[DavidOdden]

If free-will is the choice to think about something or not to think about something, you can disprove determinism of the mind by decreasing the level of serotonin in a subject's brain and seeing if they are able to avoid obsessing over certain thoughts. It has already been shown experimentally that lowering the amounts of serotonin in the brain leads to obsessive behaviour. The subject no longer is able to "freely" decide whether to think about something or not to.

I don't understand how this would disprove predetermination. Without inhibiting serotonin you get one pattern of predetermined behavior; with serotonin inhibited certain other obsessive patterns of predetermined behavior result. In addition, whether or not serotonin is inhibited is predetermined by whether the experimenter has injected you with anti-SSRI, and that is itself a pre-determined "choice". Under the predetermination hypothesis, finding a correlation between physical states and mental actions doesn't refute predetermination.

I honestly don't know how you come to the conclusion that I have religious beliefs about this.

Because from the evidence that I've seen -- your statements -- you don't seem to grasp the fact that predetermination is not a scientific, falsifiable hypothesis. Your answer above is a fragment of a start towards thinking about the question as a testable hypothesis, but it falls short. If you can describe an experiment that proves the existence of free will -- and can show why such an experiment does prove the existence of free will -- then you will have succeeded in movinf predeterminism out of the realm of the religious and into the realm of the scientific.

There is a vast amount of evidence that refutes predetermination, and that is the entirety of human mental activity. Whatever the merits of a particular fancy mathematical model of physics, there has to be a reconciliation of physical law and scientific observation. Even if we wish to unify the fact of free will and a particular theoretical model, we cannot do what byt changing the facts -- the facts simply are. What you should instead be focusing on is finding out what the factual nature of free will is, and modifying the physical model so that it is consistent with reality. That's a tall order, and I don't expect you to make much progress with that this week, or year. You might start by finding a theoretical means of experimentally refuting predetermination, to see if it isn't just a waste of your time to be treating this as a scientific matter.

[AisA]

AisA, if any fact from A-L did not occur, would you have posted this post from yesterday? If any of the facts A-G did not occur, this debate thread would not exist. If any of the facts I-L did not occur, you probably wouldn't have any reason to write that post yesterday.

And how is it you know facts A - L? Because you perceive them? But you have denounced your own power of perception by declaring it susceptible to illusion. You cannot now invoke a set of facts, that you acquired by perception, to support a theory that depends on an attack on perception. You cannot have it both ways. You do not get to arbitrarily decide to use your perceptions in one case and dismiss them in another -- not if you want to remain within the bounds of logic. This contradiction invalidates every argument you offer.

Beyond that, the fact that I may take different actions under different circumstances, and the fact that men respond to what other men say and do, merely proves that we are conscious and capable of initiating a response. It is a non sequitur to argue that this means men are determined by what other men say and do. That simply does not follow, because the alternative is not, as you suggest, that the mind is either random or determined. That is a false alternative that evades the possibility of volition.

The basis of my argument is posted as the second post of this debate. If anyone wishes to debate me based on those arguments, or can show why certain axioms render my arguments mute, then I will debate them.

Your argument is an invalid induction; it is a fallacious attempt to reason from specific observations to general principle. It is invalid because it violates a basic principle of induction.

The principle is this: to be valid, an induction (or hypothesis) must explain and account for all of the observations it purports to cover. A hypothesis that is contradicted by some of the observations must be rejected and revised.

On the one hand, you have many observations of determinism in the physical world. But you also possess many observations of volition in your own consciousness.

Indeed, in virtually every waking moment of your life from the time your mind reached the level of percepts, you have been aware of ability to choose to think or not to think, to focus or not to focus, and everything which that implies. In fact, the ability to control the actions of your consciousness is your basic sense of self-awareness; you are aware that you are conscious because you are aware of what consciousness can do. It can perceive introspectively and extrospectively. It can differentiate and integrate. It can form concepts and conceive propositions, which is cognition, and it can estimate the importance of things, which is evaluation. And it does all of this at your command. As an adult, you have many thousands of first-hand observations of your power to choose and control the processes of your consciousness, i. e. of volition.

This means that your conclusion that the mind is deterministic consists of including all of the observations that support your hypothesis, while denying the reality of all those observations that contradict your hypothesis. This is inexcusable; it is a bad enough error to merely evade data that does not conform to one’s hypothesis. It is especially egregious to acknowledge the observations exist, but dismiss them as mere illusions.

You cannot simply dismiss inconvenient observations. You cannot exclude them on the grounds that no one can explain their origin or identify how the observed phenomena works. The observations exist, and their existence is not somehow diminished or negated by such questions.

Induction done in this fashion does not yield knowledge of reality; it yields wholly arbitrary assertions constructed by the whim of the inducer. For instance, it would be just as reasonable, and just as valid, for me to declare that the observation of determinism in physics is an illusion, that all entities are actually acting volitionally, and my proof of this is the tens of thousands of observations I have of my own volition in my own consciousness.

You would never accept such a wholesale, arbitrary exclusion of observations for purposes of supporting a theory. Do not ask us to do the same.

[DavidOdden]

DavidOdden - Please explain how you can claim any cause can exist if it is "beyond rational scrutiny" in the case of human behaviour.

I think you should re-read what I posted and try to actually understand the point. If the claim is not a religious one then it is a scientific one; if it is a scientific one, then it is subject to testing, and it is possible that the outcome of some experiment would show the claim to be wrong, were it to turn out one way vs. another. All of the evidence shows that the predeterminists (including Dr. Baltar) are actually begging the question -- I've put out a standing invitation to him, you, or anyone else who can to show that I am wrong and that this is a scientific claim.

BTW to clarify, I am not suggesting that Dr. Baltar is an adherent of some well-known organised religious faith such as Islam, Buddhism or Christianity. Rather, the claim of determininst is based entirely on faith, which is the defining characteristic of religion, and which is the antithesis of reason. I have no idea whether Dr. Baltar subscribes to a traditional religion, or to a modern neo-religion such as logical positivism. That isn't the point: the point is that predeterminism is a faith-based claim, something that is beyond rational discussion just as the existence of god is beyond rational discussion.

[DrBaltar]

But you have denounced your own power of perception by declaring it susceptible to illusion. You cannot now invoke a set of facts, that you acquired by perception, to support a theory that depends on an attack on perception. You cannot have it both ways. You do not get to arbitrarily decide to use your perceptions in one case and dismiss them in another -- not if you want to remain within the bounds of logic. This contradiction invalidates every argument you offer.

To repeat... The perception of free-will is an illusion because the mind is unable to sense itself in the way that it can sense its body or the outside world. Free-will is something that supposedly happens within. Our senses do fine most of the time when sensing the world outside ourselves (if they didn't we wouldn't get very far in natural selection). I say most of the time because our senses are susceptible to vertigo.

Edited February 5, 2006 by DrBaltar

[DrBaltar]

BTW to clarify, I am not suggesting that Dr. Baltar is an adherent of some well-known organised religious faith such as Islam, Buddhism or Christianity. Rather, the claim of determininst is based entirely on faith, which is the defining characteristic of religion, and which is the antithesis of reason. I have no idea whether Dr. Baltar subscribes to a traditional religion, or to a modern neo-religion such as logical positivism. That isn't the point: the point is that predeterminism is a faith-based claim, something that is beyond rational discussion just as the existence of god is beyond rational discussion.

It's absolutely not religious. It's based on Lagrange's equation. This is the whole basis of determinism in physics. Every physics experiment confirms it. The exceptions related to quantum mechanics are covered in my physics argument in the 2nd post. To say that all 57 billion cubic light years of the universe is deterministic except for the regions in our skulls sounds like a religious belief.

Allow me to spell this out explicitly. Every physics experiment confirms the deterministic nature of the universe! (except for the QM exceptions I referred to). It is therefore you and the other non-determinists who are proposing otherwise. You are proposing an hypothesis which is counter to the way the rest of the universe functions. It is up to you to prove this.

But then I went ahead and described an experiment which would prove my point. And you replied "Without inhibiting serotonin you get one pattern of predetermined behavior". Did you really mean to say that? If you leave serotonin levels in the subject's brain alone (in other words they are just a person off the street), their behavior is predetermined? That is what I am saying as well.

[dondigitalia]

Every physics experiment confirms the deterministic nature of the universe! (except for the QM exceptions I referred to).

Every physics experiment confirms the deterministic nature of the physical universe. Consciousness is not subject to the laws of physics, but the brain is. While there is a relationship between the two, they are not the same thing.

Also, I don't think you will find any Objectivist who thinks that every human action is volitional. The vast majority of them aren't. Do you even understand what the Objectivist theory of free-will is?

Edited February 5, 2006 by dondigitalia

[DavidOdden]

You are proposing an hypothesis which is counter to the way the rest of the universe functions. It is up to you to prove this.

I am actually not proposing a hypothesis: I am correcting an error on your part, which is the belief that man does not have free will. I am open to at least two outcomes: that free will prove to be fully compatible with deterministic physics, and that physical law is not a function in the technical sense. I'm not open the the option that god makes choices for us.

We have amply shouldered the burden of proof that man does have free will. It does not matter that we have a physical model which has been tested in certain domains and has fared well enough to be accepted (that's not a certification of the theory, rather that's a statement that this isn't a technical thread about physics so I'll just stipulate for now that the equations work in certain tested domains, because you are getting distracted by an irrelevant fact of physics). We also have vast amounts of data that show that there is free will, and now the puzzle is how to reconcile the facts with the model. Until and unless you come up with some means of definitively testing this predeterminism principle of yours, it isn't proper to discuss it in the context of a philosophy based on reason and fact.

But then I went ahead and described an experiment which would prove my point. And you replied "Without inhibiting serotonin you get one pattern of predetermined behavior". Did you really mean to say that? If you leave serotonin levels in the subject's brain alone (in other words they are just a person off the street), their behavior is predetermined? That is what I am saying as well.

To be more explicit, your attempt to describe an experimental outcome which is inconsistent with predetermination was a failure: what I did was point out that all possible outcomes would be consistent with the claim that the entire nature and course of the universe is predetermined. This kind of unfalsifiability is what it means to say that it is an unscientific claim. Although I am loathe to mention the name of that nihilist weasel Karl Popper, even Popper understood that such questions are unscientific. Again, if you can describe an experiment which, were it to have outcome X would prove that predeterminism is a false claim, then the claim is a scientific one. You have simply reinforced the conclusion that it is an unscientific, untestable claim.

[DrBaltar]

Every physics experiment confirms the deterministic nature of the physical universe. Consciousness is not subject to the laws of physics, but the brain is. While there is a relationship between the two, they are not the same thing.

I guess that's where our differences are. I am not a duelist. In the evolution of the universe and our species, how is it that our consciousness suddenly parted ways with the rest of the universe?

I am open to at least two outcomes: that free will prove to be fully compatible with deterministic physics,

That is interesting because that's kind of how I see it. That we do have free will which is somehow compatible with deterministic physics. The only problem is that I can't see how they can both be true. Can you?

[AisA]

To repeat... The perception of free-will is an illusion because the mind is unable to sense itself in the way that it can sense its body or the outside world.

Aside from being an unsupported assertion, this is the same contradiction as before with different packaging in an effort at damage control.

A consciousness that cannot be conscious of itself would be a consciousness that cannot make use of any of the information that it has accumulated. A consciousness that can only be conscious of itself in some inherently distorted , incomplete or otherwise flawed manner, that makes it susceptible to illusions, is in no better shape. Neither consciousness could claim any knowledge about its content or processess, including the claim to know that it is experiencing an illusion.

If you cannot trust your perception of what is going on in your consciousness, then you literally do not know what is going on in your consciousness. Perception is the only means of knowing it. There are no grounds for declaring that some of your perceptions about your consciousness are valid while others are not; either you are perceiving your consciousness or you are not. If your perception of your volition is an illusion, then your perception that you are being logical might also be an illusion. Your perception that you are conscious might be an illusion. How could you tell the difference? If you can be fooled about one, then you can be fooled about the other.

You position is still a contradiction: it is a claim to knowledge based on an attack on perception, the very thing that makes knowledge possible. It is an attempt to have your perception and eat it, too.

[dondigitalia]

I guess that's where our differences are. I am not a duelist. In the evolution of the universe and our species, how is it that our consciousness suddenly parted ways with the rest of the universe?

I'm not a dualist either. I don't hold say that there is a split between the material and the spiritual (and I don't mean spiritual in the supernatural sense), but an integration. Our consciousness hasn't parted ways with the rest of the universe, it's part of the universe. It's just that the laws of physics don't apply to it, because it is non-physical.

That is interesting because that's kind of how I see it. That we do have free will which is somehow compatible with deterministic physics. The only problem is that I can't see how they can both be true. Can you?

Both can be true because the context is different. The only acontextual truths are the fundamental axioms. The deterministic laws of physics are only true in the context of physical existents, free-will is only true when the context is a conceptual consciousness.

[DavidOdden]

That we do have free will which is somehow compatible with deterministic physics. The only problem is that I can't see how they can both be true. Can you?

No, but I've been doing "I can't see how" type things for long enough -- where it may take 10-20 years or vastly longer to see, and we do end up seeing some of the answers -- that I'm not swayed by the fact that I don't see the path out of the woods on this issue. I don't expect this issue to be even marginally resolved in the lifetime of my granddaughter. I address the questions that I can meaningfuly address, and ignore the questions that are presently beyond scientific investigation, except between noon and one on Saturdays, when I allow a bit of fantasizing. I still encourage people to get seriously involved in cognitive research, even though I think that The Big Answer is quite out of reach.

The first step which I recommend is understanding the nature of an algorithm: consider it from the perspective of various specific kinds of non-volatile storage devices, different kinds of CPUs that implement the same opsets and different architectures (Intel, Motorola, Vax, 370...) and varying harware versions of Intel instructions. Now what is the physical nature of Newton's Method for finding roots of a function? There is none.

[DrBaltar]

A consciousness that cannot be conscious of itself would be a consciousness that cannot make use of any of the information that it has accumulated. A consciousness that can only be conscious of itself in some inherently distorted , incomplete or otherwise flawed manner, that makes it susceptible to illusions, is in no better shape. Neither consciousness could claim any knowledge about its content or processess, including the claim to know that it is experiencing an illusion.

When you drink a cool glass of water, you can feel it going down your esophagus. When you think about things, are you aware of different parts of your brain becoming active to work on the problem as MRIs show? No. When you are in love, are you aware of the interactions between dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine? I doubt it. You raise the point about a consciousness that is only conscious of itself in a flawed manner yet you expend 0 thought on asking yourself if this is true. I'm getting tired of constantly pointing out the obvious to you.

If you cannot trust your perception of what is going on in your consciousness, then you literally do not know what is going on in your consciousness.

And you know what's going on in your consciousness? Tell me in detail what is going on in your consciousness. Sense all that is coming in to play and tell me about it in detail.

If your perception of your volition is an illusion, then your perception that you are being logical might also be an illusion.

We both think we're being logical, yet we're coming up with opposite conclusions. Think about that.

It is an attempt to have your perception and eat it, too.

Do you have free-will? Or is everything you say pre-determined by what you have read from Rand?

[DrBaltar]

I'm not a dualist either. I don't hold say that there is a split between the material and the spiritual (and I don't mean spiritual in the supernatural sense), but an integration. Our consciousness hasn't parted ways with the rest of the universe, it's part of the universe. It's just that the laws of physics don't apply to it, because it is non-physical.

Property Dualism: "claims that there may not be a distinction in substance, but that mental and physical properties are still categorically distinct, and not reducible to each other. This type of dualism is sometimes referred to as "mind and body". This is in contrast to monism, which views mind and matter as being ultimately the same kind of thing."

In the same way that the laws of physics ultimately apply to programs running on a computer, they apply to thoughts in our brains. And if the laws of physics do not apply to consciousness, then it is by definition "supernatural".

[DrBaltar]

Perhaps you and I can leave it at that then: That we have free-will which is somehow compatible with deterministic physics. Then you would agree that the mind (not necessarily free-will) is deterministic?

The first step which I recommend is understanding the nature of an algorithm: consider it from the perspective of various specific kinds of non-volatile storage devices, different kinds of CPUs that implement the same opsets and different architectures (Intel, Motorola, Vax, 370...) and varying harware versions of Intel instructions. Now what is the physical nature of Newton's Method for finding roots of a function? There is none.

Newton's method is mathematics, which is based in logic. But the implementation of that logic on a computer then subjects to the laws of physics, because microchips all operate according to physics. Logical operators such as AND, OR, XOR, NOT are implemented by arranging physical processes to emulate those operators. After implementation, Newton's Method is no longer purely conceptual.