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)?

[harvey1]

What's even more discouraging is that even an omniscient Machine wouldn't necessarily be able to predict the time of death of the Device. If we made the Device out of solid-state components, and launched it into space (as we do with our satellite now), it will eventually die because of an impact with some elementary particle; i.e., a cosmic ray. Cosmic rays are truly random.

It doesn't have to predict the exact demise of the Device. It only has to know what the Device would have predicted at its next calculation if it could have continued to make one.

[Bugmaster]

I am still kind of hazy on what the counterfactual table is. Recall my Device from the previous post:

Code: Select all

Prediction (input) | Output
          0        |   1
          1        |   2
          2        |   0

The Device will patiently wait for the Machine's prediction before pressing a button; in the meantime, it will just sit there. Once the prediction arrives, the Device will look it up in the Input column, and press the corresponding button in the Output column. Then it will go to sleep again, waiting for the next prediction. In fact, here's a very simple circuit diagram for such a Device:

Code: Select all

   .------------------------. 
   |                        |
  ___                       |
   -                        |
   |                        |
   |       P0    B1         |
   |        .----(X)--------.   
   |      /   P1      B2    |
   .----./     .------(X)---.
       P                    |
            .----(X)--------.   
           P2    B0 

P is a multi-position switch with three positions; P0, P1, P2 are the possible contact points for the switch; and B0, B1, B2 are light bulbs that indicate which button the Device would press if it had arms to press them with. Put P in the desired position (P0, P1 or P2) to indicate the Machine's prediction, and the corresponding light bulb would light up, indicating the Device's response. You can build this circuit yourself, out of some Radio Shack parts.

There's no "arms race" involved here. The Machine is always wrong, regardless of which prediction it voices to the Device. If it doesn't predict anything, the Device won't press anything.

If you think I missed something, can you show me a counterfactual table for my Device, as described in this post ?

[Bugmaster]

It doesn't have to predict the exact demise of the Device. It only has to know what the Device would have predicted at its next calculation if it could have continued to make one.

This is impossible without knowing the exact time of death of the Device. Let's say we have a Device that presses one button per second, and it dies in 4 seconds. In this case, if the Device had lived 5 seconds instead of 4, it would've pressed a different button right before it expired.

[harvey1]

Okay, you want to get really specific. So, I'll provide you with how this can happen in real time.

The Device will patiently wait for the Machine's prediction before pressing a button; in the meantime, it will just sit there. Once the prediction arrives, the Device will look it up in the Input column, and press the corresponding button in the Output column. Then it will go to sleep again, waiting for the next prediction.

It doesn't need to go to sleep after reading the (N) record of the CF table since the Device has access to the next record, and the counterfactual table already has the match in the (N+1) record. So, for example:

Code: Select all

Row N (CF table)   | Output | Row N+1 (CF table)          |Increment N
1   Value:  0      |   1    | 1 (Match)                   |+N
2   Value:  1      |   2    | 2 (Match)                   |+N
3   Value:  2      |   0    | 0 (Match)                   |+N

The Device will patiently wait for the Machine's prediction before pressing a button; in the meantime, it will just sit there.

It doesn't just sit there, it keeps downloading the sequential file. When the Device calculates based on the value in the (N)th record, it will at the same time be downloading the (N+1)th record showing the same value as the Device had just finished calculating (the output column). The calculation is put in the Final Answer register (using flash memory that lasts forever--let's just say). The Device has two seconds to either change that answer in flash memory (i.e., it can request another try and download another record), or the Device's flash memory contents and the Machine's answer will be shown on the screen. Obviously, it must request another chance or it loses the game. However, eventually a finite Device will lose since it is a finite Device. The contents of its flash memory will always be a value that is predicted by the Machine.

There's no "arms race" involved here. The Machine is always wrong, regardless of which prediction it voices to the Device. If it doesn't predict anything, the Device won't press anything.

As you can see, the Device puts an answer in its flash memory that is always predicted by the Machine. If it fails to respond in two seconds, the answer is displayed showing that the Device has lost. It's only hope is to keep calculating until it finally gives out, in which case the flash memory is displayed with the Machine winning.

[McCulloch]

Very true. However, as you somewhat alluded, this only pushes the issue up a notch. Instead of the Machine giving us a prediction of what button we will press, the Machine gives us a complete table of what button we will push if the Machine says press button X (e.g., purple button, red button, etc). So, for example, the table (provided to us by the Machine) shows that if the Machine says we will press "purple" then the table shows that we will actually press "yellow," if it says we will press "red," then the table shows that we will actually press "orange," and so on. In that particular case, once we have this table provided to us by the Machine, we can again foil the Machine even knowing what button we will press. For simplicity, let's call this a counterfactual decision table.

Back to the situation with the Human and the Machine. The Machine provides a counterfactual decision table to the Human. This table is a complete list of what the Human would do, if the Machine were to predict various buttons.
The fact that if the Human has access to this decision table, then the Human could easily show that he had free will by simply choosing to press a button different from the button predicted by the Machine.
But wait, the Machine knows or can calculate the effect of the counterfactual decision table would have on the Human and can adjust or extend the counterfactual appropriately. But then the adjusted table would also have an effect on the Human's response. Thus the only time when the Machine's counterfactual decision table would be correct would be before it could affect the decision of the Human. The Human will always outwit the machine if the Human can see this table. Thus Humans have free will.

Now let's replace the Human with a mechanical or electronic Device. Like the Human the device has access to the Machine's counterfactual decision table. The Device is programmed to alter its behaviour with a simple deterministic algorithm in such a way that its behaviour does not match the counterfactual decision table.
But wait, the Machine knows or can calculate the effect of the counterfactual decision table would have on the Device and can adjust or extend the counterfactual appropriately. But then the adjusted table would also have an effect on the Device's response. Thus the only time when the Machine's counterfactual decision table would be correct would be before it could affect the decision of the Device. The Device will always outwit the machine if the Device can see this table. Thus such a Device has free will.

[harvey1]

The Human will always outwit the machine if the Human can see this table. Thus Humans have free will.... The Device will always outwit the machine if the Device can see this table. Thus such a Device has free will.

But, as I pointed out, the counterfactual table for the Device is different for the Device than it is for a human. In the case of the Device, the Machine knows that the Device is algorithmically designed to outwit the Machine, and the Machine knows how the Device is algorithmically designed to do this. So, the Machine knows everything that a Device will do, and will have anticipated every calculation.

With humans this isn't the case. The Machine knows that the human knows that the human is free to make their decision, and therefore the Machine knows that the human prediction is uncomputable.

Let me give you an example:

Machine: You have two seconds to respond to this: I predict that both of you will select button 3.
------------
Human: No I won't. I'm free to select a different button. I understand that to be true.
Device: I just put in my flash memory the number 1 which is different than number 3.
------------
Machine:

Device, I just passed to you that you'll pick 1, you have two seconds to change your number in your flash memory or else this test will show that I predicted what you will predict.

Human, I predicted that you would have picked 3, but your response is not based on 3 being counterfactually correct it is based on an algorithm that you know that I cannot predict what you will do if I tell you what you will do. I have computed this algorithm that you are using and am unable to produce a counterfactual table. The number 3 is my final answer.
---------------
Device: I have been programmed to play this game until I am disabled. So, I now pick 5.

Human: If 3 is your final answer then I pick 2.
-------------
Machine:

Device: I have computed that you will lose after 50 years. If you wish to move at exponential speed, then you will burn your circuits in 20 seconds. Either way, I win.

Human: You won.

[McCulloch]

But, as I pointed out, the counterfactual table for the Device is different for the Device than it is for a human. In the case of the Device, the Machine knows that the Device is algorithmically designed to outwit the Machine, and the Machine knows how the Device is algorithmically designed to do this. So, the Machine knows everything that a Device will do, and will have anticipated every calculation.

Is this not begging the question?

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.

So, of course the conterfactual tables will be different for the Device and for the Human if you start by assuming that which you set out to prove.

[harvey1]

Is this not begging the question?

I don't think so. It could have been the case that humans do not know they are free, and therefore they engage in an arms race of wit against the Machine. However, as it turns out, humans have the ability to understand their situation and therefore know that they do not have to participate in an arms race to be the victor. To win all they must do is understand that it is necessarily the case that they are free to choose.

So, of course the conterfactual tables will be different for the Device and for the Human if you start by assuming that which you set out to prove.

It certainly doesn't have to be that way. For example, severe autistic people might not know that they are free, and therefore they might be unable to comprehend that the Machine cannot win. (I'm not sure if this is true of severe autistics or not, but it seems from what I read that they might be susceptible to engaging in an arms race with this kind of Machine.)

[Bugmaster]

Wait a minute, harvey, I think you're re-designing my Device in mid-stream. My Device will sit there and do nothing until the Machine voices its prediction to it, at which point the Device will push a different button than the Machine predicted.

The Device is very, very simple. It does not download multiple predictions in a row; it doesn't press buttons on its own. And yet, it will always outwit the omniscient Machine -- assuming that the Machine is truthful.

Your CF table, on the other hand, represents a Machine that actually lies to the Device. The Machine says, essentially, "here's my prediction of what you'll press... just kidding ! I was actually going to predict something else. Ha ! Tricked you again ! I am going predict something else again !", etc.

This is especially apparent in your sample dialogue (which I'll abbreviate below):

1: Machine: You have two seconds to respond to this: I predict that both of you will select button 3.
2: Device: I just put in my flash memory the number 1 which is different than number 3.
3: Machine: Device, I just passed to you that you'll pick button 1, you have two seconds to change your number in your flash memory or else this test will show that I predicted what you will predict.

The Machine actually changes its prediction during those two seconds that the Device is processing. Its prediction in Line 1 is a feint, just to get the Device talking. The Machine lies.

Anyway, I find it really odd that you keep adding all kinds of functionality to my Device: flash memory, registers, etc. Why don't you want to use the very simple Device I have shown above -- especially since you can build one yourself, using a battery, some wires, three light bulbs, and a $5 switch ?

[Bugmaster]

But, as I pointed out, the counterfactual table for the Device is different for the Device than it is for a human. In the case of the Device, the Machine knows that the Device is algorithmically designed to outwit the Machine, and the Machine knows how the Device is algorithmically designed to do this...

Hang on. Wasn't the whole objective of your argument to prove that humans are not "algorithmically designed" ? You can't assume what you're trying to prove. Well, you technically can, but it doesn't make for a very convincing argument.