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'm new to this board and topic, but all this discussion of a future-predicting machine I don't quite get. That is, I don't understand why there is any discussion. Gödel proved that such a machine is impossible to construct. As impossible as a truth-detector.

There is an oracle. It consists of a statue with a mouth into which one can put one's hand. The oracle will verify any future statement as follows: if the asker frames a true future, the asker will be able to remove his hand, and if the asker frames a false future he will not be able to remove his hand (for 15 minutes). The skeptic then puts his hand in the oracle and announces "I will not be able to remove my hand (for 15 minutes)."

But the topic question is interesting in taking apart the "I AM" into two parts. The "I" -- consciousness, ego -- and the "IS" -- reality.

As far as I know there is no scientific theory of consciousness. One experiment in consciousness blows my mind (is that a pun or a self-reference?). It is known that the non-reactive, noble gas, Xenon, acts as an anesthetic. Uh, what? There can be no chemistry involved! The affect must be one of a very few other choices. One postulate is that the Xenon molecule is shaped just right to affect a receptor. This one fails quickly since the Xenon gas molecule is very small.

It has been proposed that consciousness is a quantum mechanical process that originates in the microtubules in karyotes. The microtubules are small enough to have QM states.

But is Mind separate from physical? I suspect not. But no one can really know.

[harvey1]

Gödel proved that such a machine is impossible to construct. As impossible as a truth-detector.

I don't think that's what Gödel's proofs show. The proofs deal only with formal systems.

[George S]

Gödel proved that such a machine is impossible to construct. As impossible as a truth-detector.

I don't think that's what Gödel's proofs show. The proofs deal only with formal systems.

Yes, and any "machine" must be a formal system.

All finite system for accessing truth must fail according to Gödel. Truth is necessarily infinite.

If you have a machine with a finite description you Gödel-ize this sentence: There is a truth that (given a machine of this finite description) cannot be decided as True within the system. Yet we can see the fact that the Gödel sentence cannot be produced by the system and so true.

Any finite system must be incomplete. Any machine must be a finite system. No machine can detect all Truth.

[harvey1]

No, this was not my point. I am that in your thought experiment your machine is infallible in its ability to reduce such complexity. My point here is that if one may say that there exists an inherent indeterminacy in the prediction of one component of a system. For example predicting the exact time that an electron will move up an energy quantum. Then the more complex the system the greater the inaccuracy of determining the macroscopic level behaviour of the system.

According to Schrodinger's time-evolution equation, quantum-mechanical evolution is linear and not non-linear (e.g., deterministic chaos). So, although there might be (and actually there is) chaos in a brain or electronic computer, that doesn't necessarily mean that brains and electronic computers are chaotic in the sense of unpredictable in principle. This is an assumption that would need quantum chaos. So far, quantum chaos has been shown in only limited and very exotic experiments.

But the Hameroff-Penrose Hypothesis does allow for such indeterminacy via quantum processes. I agree that this does also give rise to:

It must also mean that there exists some kind of holistic issue where the sum cannot be reduced to its parts because parts aren't all that the whole is made up of.

But, isn't this what is needed in order to show that a Machine cannot succeed in its predictions?

So in your thought experiment you are saying that such a machine would be able to bypass any possible quantum mechanical anomalies, which may in fact exist in reality?

Not necessarily. It might not be able to do so over millions of years. However that's far beyond the lifetime of any electronic computer or human brain. Even if quantum chaos does rear its ugly head as an obstacle to the Machine and prevent its computational accuracy, I can evade that conclusion by simply having multiple tests with the Machine showing its ability to predict based on a high probability. So, perhaps 9999 times out of 10,000 trials the Machine predicts exactly what the Device will do. However, in 10,000 times out of 10,000 trials the Machine never predicts what the human will do. That shows there's an asymmetry between human and Device which substantiates a difference between the way the two of them exemplify freedom of choice.

[harvey1]

Yes, and any "machine" must be a formal system. All finite system for accessing truth must fail according to Gödel. Truth is necessarily infinite.

At what point does the Machine fail? Are you saying it cannot predict what an algorithm will calculate even in principle? What if the algorithm is calculating 2+2, can't the Machine predict that the algorithm will produce 4?

No machine can detect all Truth.

Well, that's a little beyond the capabilities of this Machine (even the ETI civilization has a budget). The Machine can only scan our Devices and our brains. It can't determine all truth.

[George S]

Yes, and any "machine" must be a formal system. All finite system for accessing truth must fail according to Gödel. Truth is necessarily infinite.

At what point does the Machine fail? Are you saying it cannot predict what an algorithm will calculate even in principle? What if the algorithm is calculating 2+2, can't the Machine predict that the algorithm will produce 4?

No machine can detect all Truth.

Well, that's a little beyond the capabilities of this Machine (even the ETI civilization has a budget). The Machine can only scan our Devices and our brains. It can't determine all truth.

At what point does the Machine fail? When it attempts the Gödel sentence. Such a sentence exists for all formal systems at least powerful enough to do addition and multiplication. There is a mathematical equation about natural numbers that has no solution in the formal system, guaranteed. In order to solve the Gödel sentence, the machine must understand itself completely (like God) and gets caught in an infinite regress.

[harvey1]

At what point does the Machine fail? When it attempts the Gödel sentence. Such a sentence exists for all formal systems at least powerful enough to do addition and multiplication. There is a mathematical equation about natural numbers that has no solution in the formal system, guaranteed. In order to solve the Gödel sentence, the machine must understand itself completely (like God) and gets caught in an infinite regress.

Okay, let's suppose the Device is calculating the digits of pi. At what point will the Machine try to compute a Gödel sentence such that it gets caught up in an infinite regress?

[George S]

At what point does the Machine fail? When it attempts the Gödel sentence. Such a sentence exists for all formal systems at least powerful enough to do addition and multiplication. There is a mathematical equation about natural numbers that has no solution in the formal system, guaranteed. In order to solve the Gödel sentence, the machine must understand itself completely (like God) and gets caught in an infinite regress.

Okay, let's suppose the Device is calculating the digits of pi. At what point will the Machine try to compute a Gödel sentence such that it gets caught up in an infinite regress?

I can make a machine to calculate all the digits of pi in order. No biggie here. The value of pi can be known to any desired degree of numerical accuracy.

I thought we were talking about a truth machine here.

It could decide, accurately, the truth of the proposition (The 300,000th digit of pi is 8.) But it cannot decide the truth of the proposition (Given a machine of this finite description [describe the machine here] there is a Truth that this machine cannot decide.)

[harvey1]

I can make a machine to calculate all the digits of pi in order. No biggie here. The value of pi can be known to any desired degree of numerical accuracy. I thought we were talking about a truth machine here.

No. The Machine I'm referring to scans, duplicates the algorithm that was on the Device or brain, executes these algorithms on the Machine hardware from the initial conditions obtained at the scan, and produces a table of all the responses that will deterministically be produced by the algorithm (whether that algorithm is "running" on a Device or brain). The Machine is not a truth machine that is deducing all possible truths.

[George S]

I can make a machine to calculate all the digits of pi in order. No biggie here. The value of pi can be known to any desired degree of numerical accuracy. I thought we were talking about a truth machine here.

No. The Machine I'm referring to scans, duplicates the algorithm that was on the Device or brain, executes these algorithms on the Machine hardware from the initial conditions obtained at the scan, and produces a table of all the responses that will deterministically be produced by the algorithm (whether that algorithm is "running" on a Device or brain). The Machine is not a truth machine that is deducing all possible truths.

Let us imagine an algorithm, a state-machine, if you will. If we know the state of that machine, then its next-state is determined by the next input.

Similarly any machine "image" of the state of a brain. If the mind is totally reflected in the physical brain, and the algorithm has no probabilistic aspects, it can be predicted what will happen in response to a given input. However, there is nothing to say that the finite state machine known as mind does not, in part, determine next state by quantum mechanical probabilities. It need not be a deterministic state machine. We "make up our mind." We choose to make one of the possibilities our belief. The scenario is impossible (that the single state could be predictive of single future states).

How does thought become action. We do it so naturally that the wonder of that is lost. By a decision to do so, I can cause my fingers to go in a particular pattern that is meaningful -- I can type this. I paused here to ponder what to type next. What happened during that interim. What actually happened when my fingers again found the keyboard and did their thing. How did this ephemeral mind decide and yet a real-world physical action took place. Mind must be physical else it could not affect brain which in turn affects muscles that type. But mind is not deterministic in any sense. Finding ourselves in an exact duplicate of a prior state (impossible except as a mind experiment) we would still not necessarily do precisely what we did before in that state.