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)?
Is dualism true?
Moderator: Moderators
-
harvey1
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Is dualism true?
Post #1People say of the last day, that God shall give judgment. This is true. But it is not true as people imagine. Every man pronounces his own sentence; as he shows himself here in his essence, so will he remain everlastingly -- Meister Eckhart
Post #101
jjg wrote: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.
Post #102
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.
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.
Post #105
I can only agree that physical reality is a sure thing.jjg wrote:George, I think we both agree that there is a spiritual and physical so we'll leave it at that.
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
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 2329
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Bryant, AR
Post #106
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.
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.
Post #109
Tell me why you think my answer is flawed.George S wrote: 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.
"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)
Post #110
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.
