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)?

[Curious]

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.

For the sake of argument, let's say the UTM is always right. What exactly does this say about the duality of spirit and matter?

[OccamsRazor]

For the sake of argument, let's say the UTM is always right. What exactly does this say about the duality of spirit and matter?

Absolutely, it does not directly deny the existence of a non-material realm. The question here is however that the human mind and its inherent emotion and free-will are the product of a non-material entity.
The initial proposition is this; if the machine is unable to predict the human's decision or that the human can deliberately oppose the machine, then this suggests the the human mind is, in part, non-material. This is because the machine, being only material in construction can only make predictions based on the material realm. If we are saying that the machine can make 100% accurate material predictions then the machine can only fail in foreseeing the human's response if the human's mind is partly non-material.

The point that I am making here is that the very fact that the human can oppose the prediction does not make the prediction false. The machine has altered the course of its own predicted future by telling the human its prediction.
If the machine then accounts for the fact that it is altering its predicted future then it sets intself on an unending causality loop.

This question, however, does not solve the problem of dualism however because, in a purely materialist world we can say that the machine is unable to make such predictions of the future. We only need to look to Quantum Mechanics to provide a reason why such a machine could never work.

[QED]

This issue seems to be the one raised by Roger Penrose when he talks about computability. If the human mind operates on non-computable lines does this imply dualism or simply demonstrate that conventional computability falls short of what can be achieved in this universe? We already know that the logic of the Quantum world differs to that in the classical when it comes to counterfactuals. AFAIK what computational advantages this may bestow are only just being investigated.

[Enrique]

I just finnish reading all the posts (i had tried to avoid it) to try to not foresee anything. It appears to me that at some point the thread change from the initial posted paradox to some related Goedel argument which really mess my mind up.
I'll point out somethings about the original debate, though it seems the original debaters don't find it interesting anymore.
If I want a prediction of what i'm gonna do, the machine can't pass me a 'counterfact-table' describing my possible behaivour, because what it's important it's the verification of the prediction. The counterfact-table is not a statement to be proven as true or false.
I think that the whole problem reduces to: Does exist a prediction given by the machine that I can prevent it from happening ?
If the answer is negative there's no dualism, because there's nothing else than matter.
If the answer is affirmative, i read that a possible cause can be randomness which doesn't prove dualism do exist.
By analyzing randomness existence or its nature we can then prove if dualism is either true or false

[OccamsRazor]

I think that the whole problem reduces to: Does exist a prediction given by the machine that I can prevent it from happening ?
If the answer is negative there's no dualism, because there's nothing else than matter.
If the answer is affirmative, i read that a possible cause can be randomness which doesn't prove dualism do exist.
By analyzing randomness existence or its nature we can then prove if dualism is either true or false

I don't think that we can ever prove dualism false. No matter what material predictions we can make or analysis we may undertake we cannot prove the non-existence of a non-material realm.

Furthermore if we analyze randomness or complexity we may never prove dualism true. If we were to find a system that no material process can explain, this by no means proves that it is defined by a non-material process. It may simple be that our analytical abilities or understanding of material reality fails to describe the system. Most scientific advancement is triggered by people finding systems that their current process fail to explain and require a rethink of their understanding.

[Enrique]

I don't think that we can ever prove dualism false. No matter what material predictions we can make or analysis we may undertake we cannot prove the non-existence of a non-material realm.

We can't prove the non-existence of a dragon either. Neither the non-existence of anything as long as we can't by some weird way know which is the whole creation.
I'm not academic, but i have the notion that a principle is something supposed to be true because there's nothing that proves the opposite. Everything changes, but we can prudently, as we usually do, with the amount of information so far assume the dualism doesn't exist as we can't known what the whole creation is.

Furthermore if we analyze randomness or complexity we may never prove dualism true. If we were to find a system that no material process can explain, this by no means proves that it is defined by a non-material process.

You are missing the point of this thread. The machine is supposed to have plenty knowledge unless randomness exist. If we prove randomness doesn't exist, then the the unability of the machine to predict future means dualism existence, and its ability the the non existence.
If randomness exist, by analizing its nature we can know if there's place for dualism existence verification.

It may simple be that our analytical abilities or understanding of material reality fails to describe the system. Most scientific advancement is triggered by people finding systems that their current process fail to explain and require a rethink of their understanding.

You are right. Religion and methaphysics were born as a human psichological reaction at being unable to explain the world (Supposing there's no spiritual world)
I don't know or can't remember if it was stated the difference between spiritual and material world. We can't prove dualism if we don't first define that difference. Can anyone give one?
I think that randomness or complexity or chaos has a very big implication. His non-existence means the possibility of full-control or answers to every question while his existence and nature may give us the idea that there exist problems without solution and others with a particular unreductible certainity.