Neuroscience and free will

There is no acurate analogy I can give you, but it’s assuming the spacetime result state is just a result of an enormous calculation, and is a representation of an information state that transcends/underlies relativity and quantum mechanics.

Choices would happen outside of this spacetime result, for the reasons I gave previously.

If I try an inaccurate analogy, to attempt to illustrate, then you could think of some trading system where trades are conducted during the working day. These trades are necessarily conducted outside of spacetime for the purposes of my analogy. At the end of the day all the transactions conducted need to be cleared down and settled, ready for the next day, the results of this settlement process could be thought of as being a bit like the spacetime result I’m talking about.

The choice of trades which were made (underlying information) does not exist at the end of day trade settlement (spacetime).

Based on my previous assumptions, it might be irrational to think that choice itself, would ever appear/manifest itself in the spacetime (result of an enormous calculation), which is only an individuals frame of reference upon shared & matching underlying information.

The trade analogy did help me understand a bit...I think.

Can you go deeper into what exactly our layperson observations of Space & Time are? Thanks.

I’m fine with the wiki entry. Clearly physicalists don’t deny that mental processes and conscious experiences happen, so...

But Panpsychism is usually held as distinct from Physicalism, which is usually synonymous with Materialism, which is usually the suggestion that there no mental characteristics (proto or otherwise) once everything is cashed out and we are left with fundamental constituents of reality?

I'm admittedly loathe to go against the grain of the commonly accepted definitions, while acknowledging the flaws inherent to the naming scheme - one can be a Panpsychic and Idealist all at once for example.

If we have a set of terms exclusive to this forum - especially if they are overlaps of the common terms - it just makes things harder. That said I can try to reference, as much as is reasonable, this notion of what matters (pun somewhat intended) is what remains when we cash out the non-fundamental aspects of any worldview.


So maybe, "Non Mental Basics of Physics" or something like that...

I would have suggested differently although Sciborg is far better read in philosophy than I am. I thought that panpsychism puts consciousness alongside matter and energy/forces as fundamental whereas physicalism denies any physical reality for mind.

I guess there could be variations here, as my reading is dipping a toe into an ocean of argumentation.

Panpsychic is certainly a huge category, extending from Koch's little bits of proto-consciousness in particles to the idea of the Godhead as Unity of Will & Force.

This is post 640 for me...something is happening with the numberings - I don't have anyone on ignore so it doesn't make sense for my numbers to be different...

This is one of the quirks of this forum for which I'm not sure of a simple solution.

Posts can appear with different numbers at any point after an earlier post has been deleted (whether by the originator or by a moderator). The problem shows itself as different numbers depending on whether or not you are logged in when viewing the forum. I think it can also appear different for admins/mods versus ordinary members.

I wonder whether it would work if rather than talking about post numbers, instead the complete URL linking to that post is given. Right-click on any post number and copy the link, then paste that link into your post. Maybe...


Example, this post is itself either #672 (logged out) or #684 (logged in) for me. Its URL is: https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-n...0#pid26720

I guess there could be variations here, as my reading is dipping a toe into an ocean of argumentation.

Panpsychic is certainly a huge category, extending from Koch's little bits of proto-consciousness in particles to the idea of the Godhead as Unity of Will & Force.

Anyone still doubting the death of philosophy?

Anyone still doubting the death of philosophy?

I'd think philosophy is alive and well given Sci-Am is now publishing articles about Hard Problem, even articles in favor of Idealism as a legitimate view.

And if the trends discussed here hold we can probably expect more sophisticated philosophy to enter into the picture.

not quite sure what you mean?

I guess I am not sure how information and calculation fit into my daily observation of there being Space along with Time passing.

I'm not the cause of all of my actions. The court still has to make determinations.

That is a question for legal scholars. They already worry about it. Perhaps it will become more difficult.

Even if I had an answer, most people would ignore it. No hardened criminal is going to be convinced by a philosophy talk, regardless of the "correct" metaphysic. But it is interesting to wonder whether people actually believe they have free will. One of those papers I posted above is about this question.

There is free will in the legal context, which is not necessarily about indeterminism. There are many philosophers who talk about compatibilist free will, but I don't know much about that.

~~ Paul

Sorry, are you saying you agree with me that Physicalism has no way to rescue human achievement & moral responsibility?

Thus all moral people should oppose Physicalism correct?

All the stuff about Final/Inner Cause was discussed in the thread? Which is not to say it was exhaustively discussed, as said before we can dig into it. Imagine a brick going through a window...

You've repeated this multiple times, so I'm guessing it is relevant/crucial in understanding what you mean?

Can you describe more fully in what way Inner Cause is involved with a brick going through a window?

A singular free discussion (decision?) is non-composite, just as the selection of outcomes in any causal event has to be at the base level. Otherwise there has to be something to the possibility selection of any event, mental or not, which then is a process with its own need to select outcomes.

But that is [a] path to an infinite regress of a single moment - like a stack of infinite simulations within simulations with no actually [non-simulated] processor to advance time - and then nothing would ever happen. Since we observe change, that cannot be the case.

So we have a singular decision/selection which is non-composite. What about that makes it "free"?

And [selection of outcomes] cannot be due to a Physical Law, as per Talbott:

Now if someone is asking, "Why should human decisions be of this fundamental kind?" that would be a big point - or so I've assumed - of this forum entire.

(That said Tallis gets into this as well, in Of Time and Lamentation. As does Gregg Rosenberg in A Place for Consciousness: Probing the Deep Structure of the Natural World. As does Feser in Aquinas for Beginners.)

This is a very strange perception of physical law. I don't think anything is beholden to our poor attempts at modeling the breaking of symmetry.

Linda