Dude, just copy and paste from a text editor.
A ridiculously complex unconscious, uncontrollable, automatic process in the brain, recieving input, adding it to dynamic databases, and referring to them in order to calculate an ever-growing algorythm, results in action. Your concscious ego is blocked by design from percieving that process. Just because your conscious ego percieves the result, and fails to percieve the cause of that result, doesn’t mean it is the cause.
To say a person’s ego, his personality, is responsible that which output his personality, is to disregard the vast majority of brain activity which is automatic, uncontrollable, and unconscious. Like statism or other religions, such a theory refuses to address the root cause in favor of a comfortable myth. It’s popular, and ancient; cavemen probably believed it. So it’s probably also wrong and I think science is helping to reveal that.
@hashem: Naw. This is why we employ methodological dualism. While we know for sure there are lots of gears and levers in our brains - the operation of which we are not aware and do not yet even have a first inkling of what they do or how they contribute to conscious experience - it does not follow that the mechanism is comprehensible to human beings, even in principle. And even if the overall operation of the mechanism is comprehensible, the specific conditions which give rise to specific actions are too numerous to be controlled and studied in a systematic way. The majority of human behavior is, for human intelligence, beyond scientific study, now or ever.
There are actually theoretical arguments to back this up (deriving from the limits of computation established by Algorithmic Information Theory, a branch of computability theory).
The correct answer is to acknowledge, simultaneously, the two following conditions:
a) Human experience is an undivided whole… it is monistic
b) Yet human experience cannot be analyzed as an undivided whole… we cannot treat all aspects of human experience causally. We can apply scientific methods to the study of those aspects of human experience that are clearly causal. For the rest of human experience, we have no choice but to shrug our shoulders and admit that - at least for now - it is a mystery.
The hubris of the modernist dogma - that one day, we will have a completely scientific map of human nature - is leading us down a wrong path. Human beings have free will in any sense that matters to actual science. Whether we have free will in some “ultimate” sense is an open question whose correct resolution is irrelevant to the practice of science on the basis of methodological dualism.
Clayton -
I disagree that we will never know fully how the brain works. It’s not magic, and therefore science will eventually explain it.
Really though if you’re saying we do or don’t have free will, a few things must be clarified. If someone says, “a person has free will” what is meant?
His whole brain, or just a tiny portion of it like his conscious ego?
What is meant by free will? That the conscious ego within a massive structure called the brain can violate laws of physics?
Free will to what extent? Free to alter the uncontrollable, automatic, unconscious functionality of the brain?
In my understanding, the brain is an automatic machine. Just because a part of it, say, the conscious ego, experiences a tiny fraction of its functions, say, a portion of its output in the form of action, that doesn’t mean that brain’s conscious ego caused the automatic unconscious processes which resulted in that output.
You’re missing the obvious point. Whatever we mean by free will we mean within the context of what we are, whether that be gears-and-levers-all-the-way-down or something more subtle. Hence, human responsibility and liability are enforced within the framework of the human sense of free-will, however much of an “illusion” it is. In other words, liability is a category of human action.
Also, even if we are gears and levers all the way down (no magic), that doesn’t mean the human brain is comprehensible to the human brain*. Another way to say it is the way Arthur C. Clarke put it: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Or as Leibniz put it, “But when a rule is extremely complex, that which conforms to it passes for randomness.” Our brain is the most advanced technology, the most complex thing we know of or likely will ever encounter and is strictly more advanced than any technology we devise (because any spinoff technology is itself a creation of the human brain).
So, yet again, we’re back to methodological dualism. You can assert “no magic” and “incomprehensible” at the same time. The human brain has a lot more in common with a Rube Goldberg machine than it has with a supercomputer.
Clayton -
*In fact, it is provably the case that the human brain is not comprehensible to the human brain on mild assumptions about the nature of consciousenss (namely, that the brain is a Turing machine).
Whatever [the flying spaggheti monster] means by [dancing faries], [he] means within the context of what [he is], whether that be gears-and-levers-all-the-way-down or something more subtle. Hence, [monster] responsibility and liability are enforced within the framework of the [monster] sense of [dancing fairies], however much of an “illusion” it is.
Seems legit…
But I beg to differ. If you want to claim the flying spaghetti monster controls dancing fairies, then it makes no sense whatsoever unless it’s clear what you mean by ‘the flying spaghetti monster’ and by ‘dancing fairies’, and then to what varying extents he excersises control, and when, and so forth. At the very least, it doesn’t make sense to say “people have free will” as a blanket statement with no qualifications or explanation. We might as well all agree that we have invisible spiders on our heads, because whatever we mean by that, we mean within the context of whatever we want it to mean.
What we do know is that the brain uncontrollably, unconsciously, and automatically, processes input, and outputs, among other things, conscious perception, and action. Just giving up and invoking some all-encompasing magic answer under the banner of undefined so-called “free will” or “dancing fairies” simply because it’s all too complex is the mindset of statists and other religious cranks.
I don’t see any reason why we won’t eventually completely understand the brain and even be able to control and even enhance it. Surely, pharmacology is already involved in understanding the brain and controlling it.
In any event, it isn’t clear why it should follow from the fact of humans having human brains that they therefore can’t produce things more advanced than the human brain. Why should there be any limit to what we can do with technology, other than the limits of physics? And what if a human produces something on accident, couldn’t it then be more advanced than his brain since he didn’t rely on his brain for the development of it?
Solipsism beats every argument. It’s like noting that zero times anything is zero. So what?
Clayton -
So you can’t just invoke some magic and say we all use it because “it means whatever we want it to mean”.
Do you think that the brain is a computer? (Note: I do)
Clayton -
But that’s exactly what language is. Please tell me where the absolute, formal, rigorous definition of the English language (or any language or better yet, every human language) resides?
Clayton -
Please tell me where the [definition of the english language] resides?
It has no meaning except to the extent we are aware of and agree on what is meant by it. So please tell me, what do you mean by “free will” and by “a person” when you say “a person has free will”.
Do you think that the brain is a computer?
I think the brain automatically, unconsciously, and uncontrollably stores and processes input, develops algorithms, and produces output. Does that mean I think it’s a Dell? No. But a Dell is certainly capable of some of the functions of a brain, by some very similar means (i.e. sending information as electricity through media, storing that information, processing it, producing an output, and so forth).
I also think the brain has a conscious aspect, which is a tiny fraction of its overall activity, and which is a resulting product, not the primary cause, of its function.
So, basically, language comes about by magic. What, really, is the difference between emergence and any other kind of order? When we say “emergent order”, this is in contrast to what? What is non-emergent order??
You know exactly what these mean and it would be an offense to common sense for me to explain it any further. What do we mean by “a good back-rub” or “he has heart”? These phrases are no less definite in their meaning than the definition of the International Prototype Kilogram. Our consciousness is no less a part of the Universe than anything else that exists, whether protons, quarks or electro-magnetic waves.
Relative to what?? I would not describe any of my conscious decisions as “automatic” “unconscious” or “uncontrollable” because, well, they’re not. My heartbeat is automatic, my reflexes are uncontrollable. I understand as a matter of theory that there are many, intricate automatic and unconscious circuits and responses that go into making up my conscious action.
But the end result is unaltered by the character of the things that make it up - just like the video in the Low Content thread on Spontaneous Order and Anarchy. Just because my body is made up of cells doesn’t mean it is a cell or should be thought of as a cell. Just because my brain is made up of automatic circuits doesn’t mean my consciousness is an automatic circuit or should be thought of as an automatic circuit. Please read Mises on methodological dualism, it will clear up a lot of issues for you.
Let’s bring it down to brass tacks. Jimmy steals my TV. I take Jimmy to court. He hires you as his defense lawyer. “Mr. Baker, my client is made up of cells that respond automatically to inputs like the operation of any automatic device. You cannot hold him accountable for things which he cannot help. Because he stole your TV, we know that his inputs have led - automatically - to the result of television theft. Hence, Jimmy is not responsible for his actions. This case should be dismissed.”
This is obviously gibberish. Metaphysical speculation about whether the Universe is clockwork all the way down is absolutely irrelevant and immaterial to the case at hand. What matters is that we all have “choice” in the sense in which the word is commonly used so that - no matter what “bad circumstances” went into making Jimmy the monster he is - he can be reasonably held accountable for his actions and forced to make amends for torts he commits.
It is possible to prove that the human brain will never fully comprehend the human brain, nor will it ever supersede itself with its own creations, on the mild assumption that consciousness is Turing computable (which I would argue is an eminently reasonable assumption). But I’m not going to get into details with you because you always just play difficult. Note that there is a distinction between “the Universe” and “the human brain” when discussing the possibility that the human brain could be surpassed - do you think that ape brains created the human brain? By the same token, the human brain will never create a superhuman intelligence. Again, this isn’t just supposition, it’s provable on the mild assumption that the brain is Turing computable.
Clayton -
So, basically, language comes about by magic.
Sure, if you refuse to define ‘magic’ and refuse to explain the cause through science. Then yes, everything is ‘magic’ or ‘flying spaghetti monsters’ or whatever anyone wants to say, and people will continue to have no clue what you’re talking about. The actual pattern of symbols is meaningless. The pattern begins to have value for communicating information to the extent people are aware of and agree on what is meant. If you say “a person” has “free will”, what do you mean?
You know exactly what these mean and it would be an offense to common sense for me to explain it any further.
It is completely undefined. Nobody knows what you’re talking about. People may think they know what you’re talking about, in their comfortable undefined myth. So why not give us a little explanation to make sure we’re all on the same page.
You’re caught in a vicious circle… please, define for us… what is definition? Oh wait, you can’t, since any answer you give would depend on some prior definition of definition…
Come on!
Clayton -
These proclamations sound like sophistry, and I think they are reckless.
As “I, Pencil” explains, no one knows how to create a pencil, yet pencils are created. It just takes an organization of lots of small know-hows and capital.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project
I think it’s only a matter of time before our electronic progeny surpasses us.
But understanding the inner workings of the brain will never dislodge the significance of the mind. As von Mises explains in Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science,
You’re caught in a vicious circle…
No…no I’m not…I’m not the one saying anyone has some meaningless “free will”, or suggesting that, if I did say that, anyone would understand what I meant.
Maybe stop trying to dodge the question: When you say “a person has free will”, what do you mean?
Note there is a difference between building something that goes on to surpass us and building something which - as built - surpasses us. The Universe is responsible for the former, we for the latter. It is the latter that I deny is possible. I cannot write a program which is smarter than I am.
As for the sophistry accusation, please read this as a jumping off point. In particular, I would like to draw your attention to his statement, “So if you have N bits of axioms, then no program larger than N +c bits in size can be proven to be elegant.” Given that you believe the brain can be simulated by a computer (so do I!), you admit that the brain is Turing computable. Hence, there is some shortest program which represents “the human brain”. The length of this program is what Chaitin is referring to when he says “N bits of axioms” - a shortest computer program of length N is incompressible and constitutes N bits of axioms (pure information).
When he says “no program larger than N+c bits in size can be proven to be elegant”, this means that, in general, a program of length N cannot prove that a program of length N (let us take c=0 for convenience) is elegant. Proving that a program X is elegant is basically “discovering the ultimate theory of X”, that is, the most parsimonious possible expression of X. The shortest form of a program that proves other programs elegant (finds their shortest form) must, generally, itself be much larger than the shortest length of the programs it operates upon.
In other words, the brain - looking at itself in the mirror of a computational simulation of itself or any other form of reflection - is provably unable to find its own ultimate theory. This is not sophistry, it’s the purest form of logic, the same logic that has given us the modern miracle of computers. Every step is provable.
Before you start pooh-poohing and looking for ways to weasel out of the conclusion, I strongly recommend you read as much of Gregory Chaitin, Cristian Calude, Marcus Hutter and Ray Solomonoff as you can, at least, if you have an interest in this topic. Try to understand why Algorithmic Information Theory leads directly to the conclusion that the human brain - if it can be simulated by a computer - is provably unable to comprehend itself. If you think deeply enough, you might even realize that this provides a reasonable basis for compatibilism (ahem hashem). 
Clayton -