tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4166268588579831806.post2370506480228709654..comments2024-03-04T23:05:17.834-05:00Comments on Brain in a Vat: The Physics of Free WillAndrew F. Knight, J.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/12731018050469679896noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4166268588579831806.post-20058617807772882722023-02-20T10:30:38.689-05:002023-02-20T10:30:38.689-05:00"I never raise my hand and then say, “I didn’..."I never raise my hand and then say, “I didn’t do that!” " Have you read about split brain patients experiments ? You make a freaking lot of assumptions based on your own perceptions, how scientific is that ? Have you ever looked at cognitive biases ? <br /><br />"Why would I ever perceive as possible an event that is actually impossible ?" <br />Because our brain are very limited at guessing correctly the outcome of events ! If pressing button A was predetermined, maybe I just don't have enough knowledge about the environment to predict it ?<br /><br />"What is the advantage of making a prediction if awareness of the predicted outcome will not affect anything that will happen in the future ?"<br />This is not the right question to ask on many levels, first of all we already know our predictions are affecting our environment, the useful question is: do we predict and choose out of freewill or randomness, or do we have a predictable consciousness (and we already know our mind is partially predictable at least !) ?<br /><br />"What is the advantage of perceiving free will when I am actually making a prediction ?<br />Do you have the choice of perceiving it or not ? Indeed, what difference does it make ? Getting to improve the probability of success of our predictions is a mean to become more relevant, powerful and effective. What's more ?<br /><br />Were you raised in a religious or spiritual family ? Why do you even research all this stuff ? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4166268588579831806.post-8018838346746113712019-09-18T15:28:40.060-04:002019-09-18T15:28:40.060-04:00Firstly, the universe is not under any obligation ...Firstly, the universe is not under any obligation to avoid fooling us. Because the Earth looks flat does not mean it is flat.<br /><br />Secondly, I don’t think we are fooled in thinking we could do otherwise when we make our choice. We COULD do otherwise under different conditions, such as if we want to do otherwise. If we could do otherwise under the SAME conditions that would mean our choice is random. Random choices might be OK if we are choosing a flavour of ice cream but in general we could not survive if this is how our brains worked.Stathishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02641726316344926101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4166268588579831806.post-23971675250115685522019-09-18T13:24:12.189-04:002019-09-18T13:24:12.189-04:00Interesting point. My point in option (c) is that...Interesting point. My point in option (c) is that my free will IS the cause. Of course, if you want to argue all my free choices are caused by other things, then you've just argued for Compatibilism, which (as I stated in the posting) I regard as the philosopher's non-answer. You are right -- if free will is itself not a cause, then option (c) simplifies to option (a)… in which case there is no branching and the world is deterministic. But that still doesn't answer the questions I posed... e.g., why would the universe fool me into believing that I have free will (or, if you like, that my free will is a cause and that I could have chosen otherwise) when I don't? Andrew F. Knight, J.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12731018050469679896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4166268588579831806.post-30925612189331985862019-09-17T20:59:17.273-04:002019-09-17T20:59:17.273-04:00It's not clear what you mean by option (c), &q...It's not clear what you mean by option (c), "There is a branching event, and my free will caused the outcome." If an outcome has a sufficient cause it means that if the cause occurs the outcome necessarily occurs, so there is no branching. It doesn't matter to the logic of the argument if the cause is natural or supernatural: either the outcome is caused or it is not caused.Stathishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02641726316344926101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4166268588579831806.post-72155997211638657592019-09-12T14:13:48.225-04:002019-09-12T14:13:48.225-04:00Thanks for your comments! Physicists felt much fr...Thanks for your comments! Physicists felt much freer to discuss the deep issues a century ago, but because there really isn't any funding for these questions (outside of philosophy), few if any physicists are seriously working on these problems. But they're big and important problems, so it's just a matter of time before the winds change.Andrew F. Knight, J.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12731018050469679896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4166268588579831806.post-51381706329253096082019-09-11T01:40:02.457-04:002019-09-11T01:40:02.457-04:00I was blown away by your papers on Arxiv this year...I was blown away by your papers on Arxiv this year and just found your blog. Like you, I also wonder why everyone isn’t discussing this more seriously, although I am sure they will eventually. I also subscribe to Penrose’s theory (and yours) that consciousness must be related to the quantum realm. To me, that is the only way “free” will could ever exist and I don’t see why the universe would trick us or any lifeform either. That said, that idea of the universe tricking us makes my mind go down some very strange paths about the nature of reality. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426368875244858175noreply@blogger.com