This completely fails to acknowledge the point of the entire post. What does it mean to ask whether we have free will in the first place? What’s actually going on when someone asks it?
Yes, I failed to acknowledged the post because in 4 dimensional time-space the stack trace for considering Free Will is same as figuring how to get food or planets moving around a star. They are all physical results from an initial Cause.
And as long as you’re just as indifferent to the state of mind of the individual who is executing those physical results as you would be to the putative state of mind of an orbiting planet, then there is no particular reason to engage with the two differently.
And that hypothetical indifference is itself the physical result of earlier causes, and the consequences of expressing that indifference (for example, engaging with people the same way you engage with planets in their orbits, and people being upset at that, and etc.) are just further physical results, and on and on.
Conversely, if I am not indifferent to individual states of mind (because my prior causes are hypothetically different than yours), then I may engage with people differently, and they may respond differently, and that is also a physical result emerging from prior causes.
It seems you propose a property of matter in a mind different from a rock and the physical laws for a mind are more than a rock. If we agree on that, discussion of Free Will exists, otherwise rocks are just as capable of discussing Free Will.
I would not have problems with not defining the property of mind matter or additional physical laws. Proposing something exists is the beginning of scientific process.
I wasn’t proposing any such thing, but yes, I do believe that the material properties of minds and rocks are different… for example, I’m 99+% confident that all minds are able to perform computations as a consequence of their material properties (and as a consequence of the physical laws that relate to those properties), and that most rocks are not able to do so as a consequence of their different material properties.
I find it unlikely that most rocks can discuss anything at all.
I was wrong to assume Mind has a physical existence. It’s an invalid to assert properties of minds and rocks together. Rocks are material, and Mind is not. Mind does not have any physical property. It is a property we sometimes ascribe to some matter. A human brain at birth contains matter, at death contains different matter. Both times contain the same mind. Human brain contains the same matter before death and right after death, brain before has mind property and does not have the mind property after.
What is the logic to say rocks do not have a mind? Just because we can not perceive the mind does not prove it does not exist. A tree falling in the forest always makes noise (air vibrations) with out a mind to hear the sound.
A human brain at birth contains matter, at death contains different matter. Both times contain the same mind.
So if you simulated the thoughts of a newborn and the same person at death, you wouldn’t be able to tell them apart?
What does it mean to say that they contain the same mind despite being composed of different matter?
It seems like you’ve assigned some definitions to a set of terms, become invested in a position based on those definitions, and now frame any sort of dispute in which those terms come up as a conflict over that position. You’re using the same words as everyone else here, but you’re discussing an entirely different subject, and a confused one at that.
Yes, I make the point that these discussions include a presumption of something beyond Science as we know it. The only way to discuss life, mind, Will and the like needs to look at the Universe from outside, but the Universe is everything.
If we accept the premise of something beyond the Universe, sentience exists here and must extend there. Please continue the train of thought yourself. You may reject the logical inference anytime your beliefs are troubled but understand your rejection does not invalidate the conclusion.
Thanks for the feedback. I will be stopping this now.
This completely fails to acknowledge the point of the entire post. What does it mean to ask whether we have free will in the first place? What’s actually going on when someone asks it?
Yes, I failed to acknowledged the post because in 4 dimensional time-space the stack trace for considering Free Will is same as figuring how to get food or planets moving around a star. They are all physical results from an initial Cause.
Sure.
And as long as you’re just as indifferent to the state of mind of the individual who is executing those physical results as you would be to the putative state of mind of an orbiting planet, then there is no particular reason to engage with the two differently.
And that hypothetical indifference is itself the physical result of earlier causes, and the consequences of expressing that indifference (for example, engaging with people the same way you engage with planets in their orbits, and people being upset at that, and etc.) are just further physical results, and on and on.
Conversely, if I am not indifferent to individual states of mind (because my prior causes are hypothetically different than yours), then I may engage with people differently, and they may respond differently, and that is also a physical result emerging from prior causes.
It seems you propose a property of matter in a mind different from a rock and the physical laws for a mind are more than a rock. If we agree on that, discussion of Free Will exists, otherwise rocks are just as capable of discussing Free Will.
I would not have problems with not defining the property of mind matter or additional physical laws. Proposing something exists is the beginning of scientific process.
I wasn’t proposing any such thing, but yes, I do believe that the material properties of minds and rocks are different… for example, I’m 99+% confident that all minds are able to perform computations as a consequence of their material properties (and as a consequence of the physical laws that relate to those properties), and that most rocks are not able to do so as a consequence of their different material properties.
I find it unlikely that most rocks can discuss anything at all.
I was wrong to assume Mind has a physical existence. It’s an invalid to assert properties of minds and rocks together. Rocks are material, and Mind is not. Mind does not have any physical property. It is a property we sometimes ascribe to some matter. A human brain at birth contains matter, at death contains different matter. Both times contain the same mind. Human brain contains the same matter before death and right after death, brain before has mind property and does not have the mind property after.
What is the logic to say rocks do not have a mind? Just because we can not perceive the mind does not prove it does not exist. A tree falling in the forest always makes noise (air vibrations) with out a mind to hear the sound.
So if you simulated the thoughts of a newborn and the same person at death, you wouldn’t be able to tell them apart?
What does it mean to say that they contain the same mind despite being composed of different matter?
It seems like you’ve assigned some definitions to a set of terms, become invested in a position based on those definitions, and now frame any sort of dispute in which those terms come up as a conflict over that position. You’re using the same words as everyone else here, but you’re discussing an entirely different subject, and a confused one at that.
Yes, I make the point that these discussions include a presumption of something beyond Science as we know it. The only way to discuss life, mind, Will and the like needs to look at the Universe from outside, but the Universe is everything.
If we accept the premise of something beyond the Universe, sentience exists here and must extend there. Please continue the train of thought yourself. You may reject the logical inference anytime your beliefs are troubled but understand your rejection does not invalidate the conclusion.
Thanks for the feedback. I will be stopping this now.