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]

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.

No counter-argument needed.

The proof of Gödel's argument is well-accepted by mathematicians. That _you_ don't understand it is immaterial. It stands on its own and is logically sound. There is no debate about the mathematics.

[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.

No counter-argument needed.

The proof of Gödel's argument is well-accepted by mathematicians. That _you_ don't understand it is immaterial. It stands on its own and is logically sound. There is no debate about the mathematics.

I am arguing about the logic of the argument primarily. I gave a mathematical abstraction purely as a courtesy because you requested it. If you don't like the maths side of it then please feel free to avoid it as the argument is easily proven or disproven by non-mathematical means. To say that an argument is well accepted by a group of people is about the most pathetic excuse for agreeing with it that I have ever heard.
BTW, your answer shows clearly that you don't understand the argument otherwise you would have proffered more than this feeble effort.

I will repost my argument to save you the trouble of searching for it again. This time try to think for yourself.

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.

Sorry if my post seems provocative but you really shouldn't, so arrogantly, dismiss an argument out of hand.
Perhaps I misjudged you and you are just a philosophical "script kiddie".

[George S]

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.

No counter-argument needed.

The proof of Gödel's argument is well-accepted by mathematicians. That _you_ don't understand it is immaterial. It stands on its own and is logically sound. There is no debate about the mathematics.

I am arguing about the logic of the argument primarily. I gave a mathematical abstraction purely as a courtesy because you requested it. If you don't like the maths side of it then please feel free to avoid it as the argument is easily proven or disproven by non-mathematical means. To say that an argument is well accepted by a group of people is about the most pathetic excuse for agreeing with it that I have ever heard.
BTW, your answer shows clearly that you don't understand the argument otherwise you would have proffered more than this feeble effort.

I will repost my argument to save you the trouble of searching for it again. This time try to think for yourself.

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.

Sorry if my post seems provocative but you really shouldn't, so arrogantly, dismiss an argument out of hand.
Perhaps I misjudged you and you are just a philosophical "script kiddie".

"The next sentence is false (or true)." is an assertion of a different kind than "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." This latter assertion is a statement about theorems that a program based on the UTM can prove and thus 'say' anything at all. It relies only on the assumption that there is a Universal Truth Machine that can "know" whether or not any given statement is true. And a program based on that UTM must fail. In particular it must fail to produce the truth of the sentence quoted above even though it is, in fact, true. There is a truth UTM cannot and does not 'know.'

It is not the self reference that is any part of the proof. It is the mere assumption that there exists a UTM that leads to the existence of a truth that UTM cannot know.

We are, of course, talking about mathematical truth here. Mathematical truth is about abstract unreality. It is about an if-then paradigm. If certain axioms are true then certain theorems may be deduced. I have studied the math of Gödel extensively during, for example, my doctorate work at Brown. I also took a course that covered Post's work as well as Gödel's at Princeton. I mention this as background to my assertion that the proof given (Rucker's) is mathematically sound. Take the courses and get back to me when your disproof of Gödel is published. Until then I'll believe what has mathematical validity.

If we are concerned with Philosophical truth our discussion takes a whole different trail. The one and only philosophical truth that anyone may know is simple: I am.

Beyond that we are sort of stuck. Solipsism may be true. It may be that George S is God Himself who decided to forget about that and pretend that reality is the way it seems. Permit me to doubt that I am God Himself and assume that you exist as well.

Progress can be made if we make the assumption: You are, too. This leads to all of philosophical ethics, for example.

We have gotten a bit far from the issue of whether dualism is true.

[Curious]

"The next sentence is false (or true)." is an assertion of a different kind than "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." This latter assertion is a statement about theorems that a program based on the UTM can prove and thus 'say' anything at all. It relies only on the assumption that there is a Universal Truth Machine that can "know" whether or not any given statement is true. And a program based on that UTM must fail. In particular it must fail to produce the truth of the sentence quoted above even though it is, in fact, true. There is a truth UTM cannot and does not 'know.'

The statement you gave as proof is flawed. The machine could state that the sentence is true and still cause no paradox. The assumption Godel makes is that the statement alters the veracity of itself. This is clearly not the case. I am not arguing that truth is absolute. I am arguing that the argument given by Godel is flawed. I have explained how such a machine could state that the sentence is true while avoiding Godel's intended paradox. It is meaningless to argue "past the point".

It is not the self reference that is any part of the proof. It is the mere assumption that there exists a UTM that leads to the existence of a truth that UTM cannot know.

I make no assumption that any such machine does, or could, exist. The argument given is not a truth that the machine cannot know though, because it is actually false.

We are, of course, talking about mathematical truth here. Mathematical truth is about abstract unreality. It is about an if-then paradigm. If certain axioms are true then certain theorems may be deduced. I have studied the math of Gödel extensively during, for example, my doctorate work at Brown. I also took a course that covered Post's work as well as Gödel's at Princeton. I mention this as background to my assertion that the proof given (Rucker's) is mathematically sound. Take the courses and get back to me when your disproof of Gödel is published. Until then I'll believe what has mathematical validity.

What we are talking about is actually a statement of logic. Obfuscation really doesn't help much. Deal with the question at hand. I fail to see why you believe that your educational history is relevant to a mathematical proof. My argument says more about my understanding of the subject than the vulgar listing of my credentials ever could.

If we are concerned with Philosophical truth our discussion takes a whole different trail. The one and only philosophical truth that anyone may know is simple: I am.

First Godel, then non specific mathematicians and now Descartes. There really is no beginning to your originality is there?( This probably sounds sarcastic as hell but it is meant as a joke. My excuse is that I am a cantankerous old Englishman).

[QED]

First Godel, then non specific mathematicians and now Descartes. There really is no beginning to your originality is there?( This probably sounds sarcastic as hell but it is meant as a joke. My excuse is that I am a cantankerous old Englishman).

I think we all guessed that, but please remain within the intended spirit of these forums and avoid deliberate provocation.

[George S]

"The next sentence is false (or true)." is an assertion of a different kind than "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." This latter assertion is a statement about theorems that a program based on the UTM can prove and thus 'say' anything at all. It relies only on the assumption that there is a Universal Truth Machine that can "know" whether or not any given statement is true. And a program based on that UTM must fail. In particular it must fail to produce the truth of the sentence quoted above even though it is, in fact, true. There is a truth UTM cannot and does not 'know.'

The statement you gave as proof is flawed. The machine could state that the sentence is true and still cause no paradox. The assumption Godel makes is that the statement alters the veracity of itself. This is clearly not the case. I am not arguing that truth is absolute. I am arguing that the argument given by Godel is flawed. I have explained how such a machine could state that the sentence is true while avoiding Godel's intended paradox. It is meaningless to argue "past the point".

It is not the self reference that is any part of the proof. It is the mere assumption that there exists a UTM that leads to the existence of a truth that UTM cannot know.

I make no assumption that any such machine does, or could, exist. The argument given is not a truth that the machine cannot know though, because it is actually false.

We are, of course, talking about mathematical truth here. Mathematical truth is about abstract unreality. It is about an if-then paradigm. If certain axioms are true then certain theorems may be deduced. I have studied the math of Gödel extensively during, for example, my doctorate work at Brown. I also took a course that covered Post's work as well as Gödel's at Princeton. I mention this as background to my assertion that the proof given (Rucker's) is mathematically sound. Take the courses and get back to me when your disproof of Gödel is published. Until then I'll believe what has mathematical validity.

What we are talking about is actually a statement of logic. Obfuscation really doesn't help much. Deal with the question at hand. I fail to see why you believe that your educational history is relevant to a mathematical proof. My argument says more about my understanding of the subject than the vulgar listing of my credentials ever could.

If we are concerned with Philosophical truth our discussion takes a whole different trail. The one and only philosophical truth that anyone may know is simple: I am.

First Godel, then non specific mathematicians and now Descartes. There really is no beginning to your originality is there?( This probably sounds sarcastic as hell but it is meant as a joke. My excuse is that I am a cantankerous old Englishman).

And I am a curmudgeon myself. *shrug*

What good is learning from the experts if you don't quote them? Truth is still Truth even when not original.

I will dismiss any claim to Gödel being wrong. I could waste the mental effort and possibly find the hole in your logic that must be there. However, please submit your disproof, instead, to a refereed mathematics journal. If it proves Gödel wrong you can claim your prize the following year. I won't hold my breath.

[Curious]

First Godel, then non specific mathematicians and now Descartes. There really is no beginning to your originality is there?( This probably sounds sarcastic as hell but it is meant as a joke. My excuse is that I am a cantankerous old Englishman).

I think we all guessed that, but please remain within the intended spirit of these forums and avoid deliberate provocation.

I do try. I did think that the intended spirit was that of civil DEBATE though. Seriously, have you seen what I have to work with? Am I just wasting my time here?

[Enrique]

Every action is being seen as athomical. But when
-I see what the machine predicts
-i think of doing something different and then
-do it
every step is made of few to near infinite proccesses of the matter in a portion of time according to which is my chriteria of observation.
Those "macro-steps" are arbitrary abstractions from where we can find paradoxes, but a machine which predicts which the next position of a portion of matter in a particular lapse of time will be would be like mirror to us.
Therefore, from this kind of accuracy, you can construct a machine like the one above mentioned, but you'll do exactly what the machine predicts as it has access to the information beneath your mind perception.
Sorry for my poor English.

[OccamsRazor]

Every action is being seen as athomical. But when
-I see what the machine predicts
-i think of doing something different and then
-do it
every step is made of few to near infinite proccesses of the matter in a portion of time according to which is my chriteria of observation.
Those "macro-steps" are arbitrary abstractions from where we can find paradoxes, but a machine which predicts which the next position of a portion of matter in a particular lapse of time will be would be like mirror to us.
Therefore, from this kind of accuracy, you can construct a machine like the one above mentioned, but you'll do exactly what the machine predicts as it has access to the information beneath your mind perception.

The problem here is that the machine will follow the process:
1. I know that the human will pick red.
2. I know that if I tell the human that I predict red then they will pick blue.
3. I know that if I tell the human that I predict blue then they will pick red.
4. I know that if I tell the human that I predict red then they will pick blue.
5. I know that if I tell the human that I predict blue then they will pick red.
6.... ad infinitum.

As has been proposed earlier in this thred the machine would therefore be unable to make a prediction and would never answer. This however does not endorse dualism because the machine is still able to accurately predict the workings of the human mind.

[Enrique]

The problem here is that the machine will follow the process:
1. I know that the human will pick red.
2. I know that if I tell the human that I predict red then they will pick blue.
3. I know that if I tell the human that I predict blue then they will pick red.
4. I know that if I tell the human that I predict red then they will pick blue.
5. I know that if I tell the human that I predict blue then they will pick red.
6.... ad infinitum.

As has been proposed earlier in this thred the machine would therefore be unable to make a prediction and would never answer. This however does not endorse dualism because the machine is still able to accurately predict the workings of the human mind.

Thanks for the clearing, I was missing the point.

We can make a division between the events that can be predicted and those that can't.
If the machine says a chinese called Lee will die the next second in China I can't do nothing to prevent it.
If the machine knows that you are going to have a heart attack and predicts you'll press no button, then you'll see the prediction and say 'mmm..., we'll see if i can't press any button', and before you can press the button you've got the heart attack and curse the machine.
We can, by common sense, think that there are actions that can not be predicted, like a best escenario for the botton example.
But our decision depends on the event of the prediction release which can be: looking at a papper, the word of a oracle or a telepathic transmission. This event, as it happens in the real world, can affect us in infinite ways and because the machine has access to a lot of more information (the behaivour of matter in a particular space and time) can generate a prediction we can't prevent from happening.
For dumb example, the machine knows neurons of our brain will react unexpectdly at the word 'red' and will generate an unconditional reflex of pressing the red button.
Then, the question is: Can the machine be unable of generating an event (the transmission of information to us of the prediction) in the reality that can't prevent us from do it different?
As we don't have the infinite knowledge of how the world works, we can't affirm or deny.