What is a decision in phoodoo world?

This is a thread to allow discussions about how those lucky enough to have free will make decisions.

As materialism doesn’t explain squat, this thread is a place for explanations from those that presumably have them.

And if they can’t provide them, well, this will be a short thread.

So do phoodoo, mung, WJM et al care to provide your explanations of how decisions are actually made?

2,199 thoughts on “What is a decision in phoodoo world?

  1. fifthmonarchyman:
    . . .
    I would argue that all IC systems are inaccessible by step by step algorithmic means (like darwinian evolution)but that is another topic.
    . . . .

    Create an OP on it. I suggest looking up “exaptation” first, though.

  2. Patrick: Create an OP on it.

    Again, I have found that it is unproductive for me to create OP’s here.

    Threads that I’m associated with quickly devolve into nothing but opportunities for childish mockery of Christianity and nothing of value results

    peace

  3. Patrick: The definitions we’ve been using do not include the concept of “conscious thought”.

    Of course they do it’s what the words mean in plain common English.

    Patrick: Even if we switch to discussing “ffm-decisions”, that doesn’t support your claim that material processes can’t decide. Humans are conscious and there is no evidence that anything but material processes are involved in that behavior.

    Again if you would have been paying attention you would realize KN and I have already had an interesting discussion about this.

    To cut to the chase and avoid excessive repetition , there is plenty of evidence that the immaterial is involved in human consciousness just not empirical evidence.

    There can be no empirical evidence one way or the other on this topic. Because it is not an empirical question.

    check this out to see why

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/

    peace

  4. Mung,

    Fair enough, except that FMM is pretty clearly committed to Cartesian substance dualism, and not to Aristotelian hylomorphism. If he were an Aristotelian or Aristotelian-Thomist, he wouldn’t be saying — as he does say — that the material brain has its own functional unity and characteristic properties, except that consciousness and will are not among them.

    I find it helpful to think of the relation between morphe and hule as one between “structure” and “stuff”. To be a thing is to be a structured stuff. Or, better put — to capture the on-going element that Aristotle captures by his neologism entelecheia — we should say: to be a thing is to be a structuring stuff. Things are what they are insofar as there is a constantly ongoing structuring of the stuff that comprises them.

    But this means, importantly, that stuff — hule — has no determinate properties of its own. All determinate properties are a result of structuring. Unstructured hule (and in fact the concept of completely unstructured stuff, completely “formless” “matter”, does not appear explicitly anywhere in Aristotle’s texts) would be pure potency, hence would have nothing actual about it, hence would have no properties of any kind.

    In other words, Aristotle’s concept of hule is actually nothing at all like the concept of matter that arises from the tradition of Democritus, Epicurus, and Lucretius. The atomists understood macro-organization as compositional: you’ve got a lot of little things put together into one big thing. And the concept of ‘matter’ that comes out of quantum mechanics is arguably closer to Heraclitus than it is to either Aristotle or Epicurus!

  5. fifthmonarchyman: To cut to the chase and avoid excessive repetition , there is plenty of evidence that the immaterial in involved in human consciousness just not empirical evidence.

    Arrant nonsense! 🙂

  6. “Non-empirical evidence”.

    I look forward to hearing all about what’s supposed to mean.

  7. Patrick: Create an OP on it. I suggest looking up “exaptation” first, though.

    I’d suggest fmm looks up ‘argue’ first of all however, as stating an opinion is not actually an argument.

  8. Kantian Naturalist: I look forward to hearing all about what’s supposed to mean.

    Did you miss the ‘decisions in phoodoo world’ thread? 🙂 I suspect you already have heard all about it…

  9. fifthmonarchyman: Instead give an argument in your own words as to how the unconscious is capable of doing things that are exclusive to consciousness .

    Hahaha–that would be tough. As you are familiar with this literature, you know that the claim is that they are NOT exclusive to consciousness.

  10. fifthmonarchyman: walto: b) it ignores the fact that IC systems can evolve by the removal of parts from non-irreducibly complex systems.

    This is way off topic but the evolution of IC systems is not the issue their origin is.

    If an IC system with a unique function exists it did not arise by the removal of parts from a non-irreducibly complex system. That is because the function (being unique) could not exist in a non-irreducibly complex system.

    Remember we are discussing the conscious mind

    Are you arguing that consciousness awareness arose from non- consciousnesses because the brain lost some of it’s parts?

    FWIW, I don’t think I ever wrote the stuff that’s attributed to me in this post. Maybe you meant to direct this comment to someone else?

  11. Neil Rickert: Kantian Naturalist:
    “Non-empirical evidence”.

    I look forward to hearing all about what’s supposed to mean.

    The shorter term is “woo”.

    I take it that our local “real skeptic” makes this distinction when s/he distinguishes the stuff s/he believes s/he really knows from the stuff s/he thinks s/he merely knows*.

    Anyhow, FWIW, I don’t see a problem with the concept of non-empirical evidence myself. I’d think that anybody who thinks the idea of conceptual analysis makes sense would have to concede the existence of such material. Certainly a Kantian ought to as well.

  12. walto: As you are familiar with this literature, you know that the claim is that they are NOT exclusive to consciousness.

    What I would like to see is a coherent argument as to why this is supposedly the case. Are you game?

    peace

  13. walto: I don’t think I ever wrote the stuff that’s attributed to me in this post. Maybe you meant to direct this comment to someone else?

    no, You quoted the relevant text and said that you agreed with it.

    As I have had zero luck with having an actual conversation with the person who originally pend the comment I was hoping that you would take up the mantel since you affirmed it.

    peace

  14. walto: Anyhow, FWIW, I don’t see a problem with the concept of non-empirical evidence myself. I’d think that anybody who thinks the idea of conceptual analysis makes sense would have to concede the existence of such material. Certainly a Kantian ought to as well.

    I do think that conceptual explication — articulating the inferential relations between concepts and the appropriate circumstances of their use i nperception and action — is somewhat independent of whatever the sciences tell us. Explication is one thing, explanation another.

    But I wouldn’t be happy using the term “evidence” here, since I want to keep that notion in the relatively well-specified sense of what we appeal to in adjudicating between competing explanations.

  15. fifthmonarchyman: no, You quoted the relevant text and said that you agreed with it.

    As I have had zero luck with having an actual conversation with the person who originally pend the comment I was hoping that you would take up the mantel since you affirmed it.

    peace

    I see. I don’t have much background in that stuff, I’m afraid. Re the unconscious thought stuff, it’s an area I was quite interested in at one time. It was a while ago, but maybe I’ll post an OP on it at some point as it’s a topic that would likely generate a bunch of responses here.

    ETA: Until then, I’d be curious to hear whether people here think they can decide what they believe.

  16. GlenDavidson: Any kind of evidence would be a welcome change.

    Ok

    consider this barely science fiction scenario.

    The year is 2026 and a infant named Jack is implanted with a chip at birth that records every thing that happens to him 24 hours a day 365 days a year for his entire life .

    At the age of 21 Jack is directed to report to the department of singularity where he finds that an exact clone of his body is waiting in a vat to have the memories in the chip downloaded into it’s fully functioning brain.

    After the procedure a nameless bureaucrat informs the old jack that he is to be eliminated as an unnecessary use of resources since the activated clone is now exactly Jack

    Is the bureaucrat correct that the clone is Jack?
    Does the obsolete Jack have the right to protest?
    Is his elimination murder?

    Peace

  17. fifthmonarchyman: Ok

    consider this barely science fiction scenario.

    The year is 2026 and a infant named Jack is implanted with a chip at birth that records every thing that happens to him 24 hours a day 365 days a year for his entire life .

    At the age of 21 Jack is directed to report to the department of singularity where he finds thatan exact cloneof his body is waiting in a vat to have the memories in the chip downloaded into it’s fully functioning brain.

    After the procedure a nameless bureaucrat informs the old jackthat he is to be eliminated as an unnecessary use of resources since the activated clone is now exactly Jack

    Does the obsolete Jack have the right to protest?
    Is his elimination murder?

    Peace

    This is an interesting hypothetical regarding personal identity. I’m just wondering what it has to do with free will and decision-making.

  18. walto: This is an interesting hypothetical regarding personal identity. I’m just wondering what it has to do with free will and decision-making.

    personal identity is what makes decision making and free will possible.

    Persons have freewill and persons decide not brains

    peace

  19. fifthmonarchyman: personal identity is what makes decision making and free will possible.

    Even if that is true (and it’s not obvious to me as I sit here), why it it relevant whether personal identity is constituted by, e.g., memories or something else matter?

    That is, so what if only persons can make decisions? That just shifts the question to whether physical entities can be persons, doesn’t it?

  20. Now imagine that instead of a human an advanced AI is supplied with a chip that records every thing that happens to it.

    after a 20 years the AI is replaced with an exact copy and the “memories” from version 1 are downloaded into it and the original unit is shut off

    Is the bureaucrat correct that the new AI is the same as the old one?
    Does the old AI have the right to protest?
    Is it’s deactivation murder?

    peace

  21. fifthmonarchyman: persons decide not brains

    I think that, e.g., KN and Neil would agree with you that the entire human being might be involved. But even if true, nothing follows from it about either immateriality or whether machines might be able to make decisions.

  22. walto: That just shifts the question to whether physical entities can be persons, doesn’t it?

    Exactly, Like I always say this will eventually come down to the question of other minds.

    I know walto is a mind and I know my television is not.

    peace

  23. fifthmonarchyman:
    Now imagine that instead of a human an advanced AI is supplied with a chip that records every thing that happens to it.

    after a 20 years the AI is replaced with an exact copy and the “memories” from version 1 are downloaded into it and the original unit is shut off

    Is the bureaucrat correct that the new AI is the same as the old one?
    Does the old AI have the right to protest?
    Is it’s deactivation murder?

    peace

    The (no doubt evil) “bureaucrat” (right, patrick?) will need to know how good the alleged AI is.

  24. walto: I think that, e.g., KN and Neil would agree with you that the entire human being might be involved. But even if true, nothing follows from it about either immateriality or whether machines might be able to make decisions.

    what is materially different between the old Jack and the new one?

    peace

  25. walto: The (no doubt evil) “bureaucrat” (right, patrick?) will need to know how good the alleged AI is.

    Define “Good” empirically

    peace

  26. walto: Define “empirically” empirically.

    Actually, I don’t care if you define it “empirically” (whatever that means). Just define it anyhow you want.

  27. walto: There are more things in this universe than me and your television, Horatio.

    Every materiel thing is simply a variation on the “television” theme.
    There is no ontological difference between a television and a working brain is there?

    peace

  28. walto: Actually, I don’t care if you define it “empirically” (whatever that means). Just define it anyhow you want.

    but that is the question before the house isn’t it?

    What empirical evidence can be offered that the AI is a person?

    peace

  29. fifthmonarchyman: Every materiel thing is simply a variation on the “television” theme.
    There is no ontological difference between a television and a working brain is there?

    peace

    Depends who you ask. I take it that Searle would say there is.

    I take it that what you’re trying to convey here is the idea that some things can think or have feelings or generate qualia or have intentionality and some things can’t. I agree with that (though Spinoza and Strawson fils don’t). The thing is, you insist, without support, that those that can have an “immaterial” part. Many disagree with you about that. They’d say that the thinking is either identical to some array of physical events or is, in any case, generated by that array.

  30. fifthmonarchyman: but that is the question before the house isn’t it?

    What empirical evidence can be offered that the AI is a person?

    peace

    I guess we’d use the standard stuff–Turing Test, apparent exhibitions of pain, pleasure, etc. There’s no proofs though–just more or less evidence.

  31. walto: I guess we’d use the standard stuff–Turing Test, apparent exhibitions of pain, pleasure, etc. There’s no proofs though–just more or less evidence.

    The Turing test is not empirical it’s based on the subjective and very fallible opinions of the judges.

    Everyone has been fooled by a chat bot for at least a little while. And we all have occasionally mistaken a random natural occurrence for the intentional actions of a person

    Peace

    Just a side note:
    it’s interesting that what is happen in a Turning test is the AI is “REVEALING” to you that he is a person

  32. walto: The thing is, you insist, without support, that those that can have an “immaterial” part. Many disagree with you about that.

    I’ll Grant that. The thing is that there is no empirical way to determine which of us is correct.

    We have lots of material things that are not minds and a few things that are minds most of those claim to be more than just matter in motion.

    There is something that separates the first group from the second that much is clear. I think the burden of proof is on those that would a priori exclude the immaterial from being that distinguishing feature.

    walto: They’d say that the thinking is either identical to some array of physical events or is, in any case, generated by that array.

    The burden of proof is on those who would claim this. It’s simply an assumption that is brought into the conversation.

    There is no empirical evidence that any thing like that can happen, nor can there be AFAICT

    peace

  33. walto: Of course it’s empirical.

    How to you empirically measure the subjective opinion of a judge. What is the objective standard for correctness?

    If the majority of folks in my community think that the trees are conscious does that make it so? empirically?

    peace

  34. OMagain: We’ll circle back round to revelation soon I’m quite sure

    You can bet we will if there is knowledge involved rather than just opinion 😉

    peace

  35. fifthmonarchyman: Again, I have found that it is unproductive for me to create OP’s here.

    Threads that I’m associated with quickly devolve into nothing but opportunities for childish mockery of Christianity and nothing of value results

    This would be an interesting experiment, then. You are making a claim about reality, namely that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve. There’s nothing in that claim that appears to be related to religion (aside, possibly, from your motivation for holding it). If you make your case based on non-religious logic and evidence, there will be no reason for anyone else to bring religion into it.

    Can you do it?

  36. walto: Define “empirically” empirically.

    That sounds like something I’d say 😉 .
    Everyone is a presuppositionalist now.
    I like it

    peace

  37. fifthmonarchyman:
    . . .
    To cut to the chase and avoid excessive repetition , there is plenty of evidence that the immaterial is involved in human consciousness just not empirical evidence.
    . . . .

    If there is so much evidence, please present it. Not hypotheticals about AI or brain chips, not attempts at pseudo-Socratic dialog, just the evidence you claim exists. Make your case straight and let’s see what you’ve got.

  38. Patrick: This would be an interesting experiment

    I’ve already conducted it and have the data to support my position check out the threads about my game if you are curious

    peace

  39. Patrick: If there is so much evidence, please present it.

    ha ha. You are always good for a chuckle 😉

    Patrick: Not hypotheticals about AI or brain chips, not attempts at pseudo-Socratic dialog, just the evidence you claim exists.

    now that is funny I don’t care who you are

    peace

  40. fifthmonarchyman:

    If there is so much evidence, please present it.

    ha ha. You are always good for a chuckle 😉

    Not hypotheticals about AI or brain chips, not attempts at pseudo-Socratic dialog, just the evidence you claim exists.

    now that is funny I don’t care who you are

    Present the evidence or retract your claim. Failure to do one or the other demonstrates intellectual dishonesty and lack of integrity.

  41. Patrick: You are making a claim about reality, namely that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve.

    I never said that I said that IC systems are inaccessible by step by step algorithmic processes.

    Are you saying that you think any evolution must be a step by step algorithmic processes?

    peace

  42. Patrick: Present the evidence or retract your claim.

    do you have trouble with reading comprehension or do you just have a peculiar standard for what qualifies as evidence?

    peace

Leave a Reply