Is dualism true?

[harvey1]

Here's a paradox that seems that with today's brain scanning technologies one can envision how this paradox implies free will as well as dualism.

Imagine that you are the owner of a fantastic brain scanning machine that has recently been invented and is now harmlessly connected to your brain. The system is such that it can analyze the electro-chemical state of your brain, and based on that state can predict exactly what you will and must do next. Now, let's say that while sitting at the controls of this machine that it scans your brain upon pressing the green button and it comes back with, "you will press the purple button next." Now, upon hearing that you will press the purple button you decide to be a wise guy and you push the yellow button instead. The machine is wrong. But, how could it be wrong since it must know what your brain circuits would do upon hearing that you will press the purple button, and therefore the machine should be able to consider what your brain circuits would do even in that special case of knowing what you will do? If hearing that you would push the purple button, the machine must know that you would press the yellow button. However, if the machine told you that you would press the yellow button, then you would have surely not have pressed the yellow button. The machine must lie to you in order to predict your behavior. However, if it must lie to you, that means that it cannot predict your behavior by predicting your behavior. This suggests that there is no algorithm or scanning technology that the machine can use that predicts behavior when it has the task of reporting to you what your behavior will be. Therefore, the only way this could be true is if human behavior is indeterministic.

If human behavior is indeterministic, then wouldn't this mean that some form of dualism is true? That is, if no bridge laws exist that allow the machine to absolutely determine a human decision in all situations (as shown above), then the mental is not fully reducible to the physical. Dualism is the view that both the mental and physical exist, and existence is confirmed if the thing that is purported to exist cannot be explained in terms of other phenomena. Since the hypothetical machine cannot reduce every decision to a brain process that is scannable, wouldn't this suggest that there exists some non-physical component to the brain called the mind (i.e., dualism)?

[George S]

I understand what you are saying. The mind's "I". I'm not sure what this has to do with dualism.

Goedel argued that axioms are not provable in themselves and he was right. Nonetheless we insist on them anyways. Infinite recursive thinking does not falsify the axioms. It's just chasing your tail in a circle.

Dualism is the idea that the Mystic, metaphysical, spiritual realm is as real as the physical and is distinct from physical. Right?

If there are multiple selves, multiple experiencers, multiple cases of first-person "I" occupying the same body... surely this has an impact on dualist thinking.

[jjg]

Dualism is the idea of two substance mind and matter.

The only things needed for hylomorphism (form and matter) is that universals, form exist in the objective world and the potentiality of matter which physics is verifying.

Infinte recursive thinking is not multiple "I's".

Goedel was a metamathematician that tried to verify some of Platos stances.

[George S]

Dualism is the idea of two substance mind and matter.

The only things needed for hylomorphism (form and matter) is that universals, form exist in the objective world and the potentiality of matter which physics is verifying.

Infinte recursive thinking is not multiple "I's".

Goedel was a metamathematician that tried to verify some of Platos stances.

My question is not about infinite recursion.

It is about the first-person experiences that are common.

Have you ever "surprised yourself" by what you just did? How on earth is that possible?

Have you ever found yourself of two minds? How on earth is that possible?

The acknowledgment of unconscious thought -- like that part of you that takes over control of your hands as you play the guitar. Once upon a time you had to think about it. Now it is unconscious. But is that unconscious part of you an experiencer? Or is it simply reflex now. No true conscious decision being made by an experiencer, a self, an I.

Have you ever experienced "danger mode?" As I avoided the multiple car crash that had occurred on the icy road in front of me and my family, I entered a state where I made decisions -- correct ones -- without any conscious thought or reasoning. I was proud of what I am when danger threatens. No panic, but an altered state of hyper vigilance and clear thinking. When the engine of the airplane I was flying stopped -- I entered that mode and was engulfed by a cold calm in which I could and did identify a safe landing spot in the mountains below as my co-pilot went through the engine failure checklist. When that failed, he tried things not in the book. One of them worked and is now in the book (as a placard on all airplanes of that design).

The question of how many experiencers are maintained by a brain can also come up when the two hemispheres are separated. In one experiment (simplified here) a person whose left and right brains did not communicate felt a sphere in one hand and a cube in the other. When asked to write down what was felt (in ambidextrous patients) the hand that held the sphere wrote "sphere." The hand that held the cube wrote "cube." Were there two experiencers? One that actually experienced only a sphere and the other only a cube? The experiencers in one body? Why not many?

Do you buy any of the psychologies that separate? Ego, superego, id? Parental, adult and child? Split personality?

Is one totally mentally ill when so afflicted? Or is only one of the parts ill.

Are we a One or a Many has, it seems to me, a direct application to the question of dualism. Consciousness (unless emergent) must be part of the supernatural, right?

(Gödel is about the incompleteness of finite rule-sets. Rule-sets, formal systems, that are at least as powerful as Peano arithmetic are either incomplete or inconsistent. This is proved by the Gödel sentence which has embedded in it the semantics (meaning) that show that there is a statement about whole numbers that is true but not able to be produced by the finite rule-set.)

Rucker, Infinity and the Mind

The proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate. His basic procedure is as follows:

1. Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all.
2. Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine.
3. Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: "UTM will never say G is true."
4. Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not.
5. If UTM says G is true, then "UTM will never say G is true" is false. If "UTM will never say G is true" is false, then G is false (since G = "UTM will never say G is true"). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements.
6. We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So "UTM will never say G is true" is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = "UTM will never say G is true").
7. "I know a truth that UTM can never utter," Gödel says. "I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal."

Think about it - it grows on you ...

With his great mathematical and logical genius, Gödel was able to find a way (for any given P(UTM)) actually to write down a complicated polynomial equation that has a solution if and only if G is true. So G is not at all some vague or non-mathematical sentence. G is a specific mathematical problem that we know the answer to, even though UTM does not! So UTM does not, and cannot, embody a best and final theory of mathematics ...

Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel's name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it.

The equivalent for people is the Lucas sentence: Lucas cannot consistently assert this sentence to be true.

Mine is: George S cannot consistently assert this sentence to be true.

If I assert its truth, I cannot (as the sentence says) assert its truth.

If I deny its truth, then I could (in which case, see step 1 when I did.)

And yet, I know that the Lucas sentence is true. Can I know that mine is? Not consistently!

But if I am parts, then the other part of me (George S - logician) can know while the entity that is (or is not) making the assertion (George S) cannot. Now... do I know it is true? Can I really make that claim? Which of I knows the truth? Which of I is restricted? You know a truth that George S cannot. And I know you know this. And George S still cannot consistently proclaim its truth. But didn't I do so indirectly two or three sentences ago? Did I not claim its truth for you? What happened? Who did the asserting of that which is impossible for I to assert? And worse, was I right, wrong or something else -- inconsistent perhaps?

[jjg]

George, I think we both agree that there is a spiritual and physical so we'll leave it at that.

[George S]

George, I think we both agree that there is a spiritual and physical so we'll leave it at that.

I can only agree that physical reality is a sure thing.

Consciousness could be an emergent property of reality. Veins, arteries, stomachs and consciousness all built by DNA.

Spirituality and metaphysics could be totally imaginary.

[FinalEnigma]

ok, ive only read through page 5 but i cant hold my tongue any longer: im getting the uncontrollabel urge to smack someone.

1)If the machine were not to disclose its prediction to the human or the device its prediction would be correct.

i assume we all agree with that.

2) if the machine discloses its prediction to the human, and he changes his answer, then the machine's prediction will be incorrect.

The machine still correctly anticipated the humans answer. untill it disclosed the answer and the human changed it. That doesnt mean the machine was wrong. that means the human cheated.

Scenario 1(machine tell someone other than the one playing the answer)

if the machine had 2 outputs. 1 of them is to the human(call him a man) who is playing, the other is to a human(call her a woman) standing behind the machine where the one playing with the machine cant see/hear.

Machine(to man): youre going to pick 1
Machine (to woman): Since i told him hes gonna pick 1 he will actually pick 2
man (to machine): 2, Hah! i win you thought id pick 1!
Woman: actually no, the machine thought yould pick 2, because it told you you would pick 1. so it was right.

Scenario 2(human and machine give simultaneous answers)

Man is thinking...ill pick 1
Machine is thinking...man will pick 1
Man and Machine simultaneously: 1!

Scenario 3(machine must give answer to human, then human chooses)

Machine realizes that whatver number it picks the man will change his answer as a result of it, so it refuses to give a prediction because the framework of this experiment makes it impossible to be correct.


That the man can change his answer when given knowledge of the machines choice it doesn't prove that the machine cant read the humans brain structure. it only proves that the human is being obstinant

you are letting the human change his answer, but not the machine.

[Curious]

Dualism is the idea of two substance mind and matter.


The proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate. His basic procedure is as follows:

1. Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all.
2. Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine.
3. Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: "UTM will never say G is true."
4. Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not.
5. If UTM says G is true, then "UTM will never say G is true" is false. If "UTM will never say G is true" is false, then G is false (since G = "UTM will never say G is true"). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements.
6. We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So "UTM will never say G is true" is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = "UTM will never say G is true").
7. "I know a truth that UTM can never utter," Gödel says. "I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal."

Think about it - it grows on you ...

With his great mathematical and logical genius, Gödel was able to find a way (for any given P(UTM)) actually to write down a complicated polynomial equation that has a solution if and only if G is true. So G is not at all some vague or non-mathematical sentence. G is a specific mathematical problem that we know the answer to, even though UTM does not! So UTM does not, and cannot, embody a best and final theory of mathematics ...

Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel's name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it.

The equivalent for people is the Lucas sentence: Lucas cannot consistently assert this sentence to be true.

What a load of crap! Imagine that I am the machine.
"The next sentence is false".
"The following sentence is true".
"The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true".

Logically, Godel seems to be a bit of a dick as this is a basically a logical NOT statement. Mathematically poor as this is a simple case of positive and negative multiplication.

The proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate.

Almost embarrassing? Tell me about it!

[George S]

Dualism is the idea of two substance mind and matter.


The proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate. His basic procedure is as follows:

1. Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all.
2. Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine.
3. Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: "UTM will never say G is true."
4. Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not.
5. If UTM says G is true, then "UTM will never say G is true" is false. If "UTM will never say G is true" is false, then G is false (since G = "UTM will never say G is true"). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements.
6. We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So "UTM will never say G is true" is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = "UTM will never say G is true").
7. "I know a truth that UTM can never utter," Gödel says. "I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal."

Think about it - it grows on you ...

With his great mathematical and logical genius, Gödel was able to find a way (for any given P(UTM)) actually to write down a complicated polynomial equation that has a solution if and only if G is true. So G is not at all some vague or non-mathematical sentence. G is a specific mathematical problem that we know the answer to, even though UTM does not! So UTM does not, and cannot, embody a best and final theory of mathematics ...

Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel's name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it.

The equivalent for people is the Lucas sentence: Lucas cannot consistently assert this sentence to be true.

What a load of crap! Imagine that I am the machine.
"The next sentence is false".
"The following sentence is true".
"The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true".

Logically, Godel seems to be a bit of a dick as this is a basically a logical NOT statement. Mathematically poor as this is a simple case of positive and negative multiplication.

The proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate.

Almost embarrassing? Tell me about it!

I guess you will just have to write your mathematical proof that Goedel and Rudy Rucker (whose proof that is) are wrong. Go ahead and ignore the fact that it has been known for decades and been judged by competent mathematicians.

[Curious]

I guess you will just have to write your mathematical proof that Goedel and Rudy Rucker (whose proof that is) are wrong. Go ahead and ignore the fact that it has been known for decades and been judged by competent mathematicians.

Tell me why you think my answer is flawed.
"The next sentence is false".
"The following sentence is true".
"The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true".

The above statements prove the final sentence is false. Although the machine stated that the final sentence was true, it stated that the statement that it says is true, is false.

The machine has done what the statement says it cannot do. The machine has not made the sentence true by saying this, nor has it made it false.
The original argument is basically saying (NOT) answer. To remedy this apparent paradox, the machine would simply have to say

NOT (NOT) answer...answer is true
rather than
(NOT) answer ...answer is false
Simple logic, no maths required.
If you really want maths though, I will give it simply
(-1)*1 = -1 (false)
-1((-1)*1)= 1 (true)

[Curious]

Am I to assume that George S. has no counter argument. I really don't like to single people out but it really gets my goat when people espouse the virtues of a particular philosophy/idea without weighing it in advance. I can't see how anyone could seriously look at Godel's argument for more than a couple of seconds and agree with it. Then, when I have the effrontery to disagree with the aforementioned, I am not even afforded the courtesy of a personal rebuttal but am directed to disprove it. This is nothing personal George, but it really winds me up when a debater refers me to someone else. Debate only works when you posit an argument.