I deem this the crucial premise in the OP that needs to be questioned.

IFF a world of causal determinism, then sure: “neural processes are deterministic” (just as much as a Roomba). However, if the world is not one of causal determinism, then on what grounds, rational or empirical, can this affirmation be concluded? — javra

In this thread, I really didn't want to get into a debate about whether the world at the microscopic level is deterministic or not. There is one interpretation of quantum mechanics, namely the De Broglie–Bohm interpretation that is paradox-free and it is deterministic. Accepting this interpretation then it follows that a neuron also is a deterministic entity. What happens when we have a set of neurons may be different though. Could a set of neurons work together in such a way that the result of this collaboration results in the existence of options? We know by fact that this is the case in the human brain. But what about when we have a few or some neurons? To answer that, let's put the real world aside and look at artificial neural networks (ANN) for a moment. Could the ANN realize and count different objects? It seems that is the case. So options are also realizable even to the ANN while the neurons in such a system function in a purely deterministic way.

A living brain is after all living, itself composed of individual, interacting living cells, of which neurons are likely best known via empirical studies. As individual living cells, neurons too can be deemed to hold some sort of sentience – this in parallel to that sentience (else mind) that can be affirmed of single-celled eukaryotic organisms, such as ameba. — javra

An ameba is a living organism and can function on its own. A neuron, although is a living entity, its function depends on the function of other neurons. For example, the strengthening and weakening of a synapse is the result of whether the neurons that are connected by the synapse fire in synchrony or not, so-called Hebbian theory. So there is a mechanism for the behavior of a few neurons, and it seems that is the basic principle for memory, and I would say for other complex phenomena even such as thinking.

Other that personal biases, there's no rational grounds to deny sentience (mind) to one and not the other. And, outside a stringent conviction in our world being one of causal determinism, there is no reason to conclude that an ameba, for example, behaves in fully deterministic manners. Likewise then applies to the behaviors of any individual neuron. Each neuron seeks both sustenance and stimulation via its synaptic connections so as to optimally live. — javra

I would say that an ameba has a mind, can learn, etc. but I highly doubt that a single neuron has a mind and can freely decide as it seems that the functioning of a neuron is not independent of other neurons. Please see the previous comment.

It’s by now overwhelmingly evidenced that neuroplasticity in fact occurs. Such that it is more than plausible that both synaptic reinforcement and synaptic decay (as well as the creation of new synaptic connections) will occur based on the (granted, very minimal) volition of individual neurons’ attempts to best garner sustenance and stimulations so as to optimize its own individual life as a living cell. — javra

Neuroplasticity, to the best of our knowledge, is the result of neurons firing together. Please see my comment on the Hebbian theory.

To this effect, linked here is an article regarding the empirically evidenced intelligence, or else sentience, of individual cohorts of neurons grown in a petri dish which learned how to play Pong (which can be argued to require a good deal of forethought (prediction) to successfully play). — javra

That was an interesting article to read. But there are almost 800,000 cells in the DishBrain. I don't understand the relevance of this study to the behavior of one neuron and whether a neuron is not a deterministic entity.

Madonna - Frozen



Madonna - You'll See

I think that pretty much matches the wording I gave. It works great for the Roomba too. — noAxioms

The difference between a human and a Roomba is that a human has a conscious mind that makes the decisions whereas, in the case of a Roomba, all decisions related to different situations are preprogrammed.

Your definition (OM): the available paths up for choice. There are usually hundreds of options, but in a simplified model, you come to a T intersection in a maze. [Left, right, back the way you came, just sit there, pause and make a mark] summarize most of the main categories. Going straight is not an option because there's a wall there. — noAxioms

By options, I mean things that are real and accessible to us and we can choose one or more of them depending on the situation.

OK, said hard determinist with the alternate definition OD: The possible subsequent states that lead from a given initial state. If determinism is true, there is indeed only one of those, both for the Roomba and for you. There is no distinction. — noAxioms

Sure, I disagree. This thread's whole purpose is to understand how options can exist and be real for entities such as humans with brains. I was just looking to understand how we could realize options as a result of neural processes in the brain. I did an extensive search on the internet and found many methods for object recognition. I also found a thesis that deals with a neural network that can realize the number of objects presented to it. So the existence of options is well established even in the domain of artificial neural networks.

OK. Then it's going to at some point need to make a physical effect from it's choice. If you choose to punch your wife in the face, your choice needs to at some point cause your arm to move, something that cannot happen if the subsequent state is solely a function of the prior physical state. — noAxioms

The mind can only intervene when options are available to it. Once the decision is made, it becomes an observer and follows the chain of causality until the next point where options become available again.

Fine. Work out the problem I identified just above. If you can't do that, then you haven't thought things through. Do you deny known natural law? — noAxioms

Sure, I agree with the existence of physical laws.

If not, your beliefs fail right out of the gate. — noAxioms

Not at all. The Mind is in constant charge of keeping things in motion, in this motion, the intrinsic properties of particles are preserved for example. The physical laws are manifestations of particles having certain intrinsic properties.

:100: :up:

How can a determinist deny that some physical process is determisitic? You have a reference for this denial by 'hard determinists'? — noAxioms

I wanted to say that determinists deny the existence of options rather than determinism.

Ah, so you think that this 'mind' is separate from neural processes. — noAxioms

Sure, I think that the mind is separate from neural processes. To me, physical processes in general are not possible without an entity that I call the Mind. I have two threads on this topic. In one of the threads entitled "Physical cannot be the cause of its own change" I provide two main arguments against the physicalist worldview. In another thread entitled "The Mind is the Uncaused Cause", I discuss the nature of causality as vertical rather than horizontal. So no Mind, no physical processes, no neural processes.

You should probably state assumptions of magic up front, especially when discussing how neural processes do something that you deny are done by the neural processes. — noAxioms

I am not denying the role of neural processes at all. It is due to neural processes that we can experience things all the time. The existence of options also is due to the existence of neural processes. The neural processes however cannot lead to direct experience through so-called the Hard Problem of Consciousness. So, to have a coherent view we need to include the mind as an entity that experiences. The Mind experiences and causes/creates physical whereas the mind, such as the conscious mind, experiences ideas, ideas such as the simulation of reality, generated by the subconscious mind. The conscious mind only intervenes when it is necessary, for example when there is a conflict of interests in a situation.

Or maybe the brain actually has a function after all besides just keeping the heart beating and such. — noAxioms

Sure. No brain, no neural processes, no experience in general, whether the experience is a feeling, the simulation of reality, thoughts, etc.

Tell that to Roomba or the maze runner, neither of which halts at all. — noAxioms

That is because Roomba acts based on the instruction that a human wrote it. We don't act based on a preprogrammed instruction. We are constantly faced with options, these options have different features that we have never experienced before. We normally go through a very complex process of giving weights to options. Once the process of giving weights to options is performed we are faced with two situations, either options do not have the same weight or they have the same weight. We normally choose the option that has higher weight most of the time but we can always choose otherwise. When the option has the same weight we can still decide freely choose the option we please. In both cases, that is the conscious mind that makes the final decision freely by choosing one of the options.

No, it makes a choice between them. Determinism helps with that, not hinders it. Choosing to halt is a decision as well, but rarely made. You make a lot of strawman assumptions about deterministic systems, don't you? — noAxioms

Not at all. Please see above.

The maze options are also 'mental' objects, where 'mental; is defined as the state of the information processing portion of the system. A difference in how the choice comes to be known is not a fundamental difference to the choice existing. — noAxioms

The maze options become mental objects if you think about them otherwise they are just something in your visual field.

Santana - Corazon Espinado



Santana - Smooth

Right. I'm thinking this specific thing is less about working memory than what the ability to recognize numbers of randomly arranged objects is called. No? — Patterner

I think it is related. You can realize a few objects in your visual field immediately without counting. These objects are registered in your working memory. If the number of objects surpasses your the size of working memory then you cannot immediately report the number of objects and you have to count them. You might find this study interesting.

Working memory is the memory of the conscious mind which is temporary.

I would think there's a limit to this. We might recognize the number of dots on a die because of the specific arrangements that we've seen so many times. Would we do as well with five or six randomly arranged objects? Or ten or fifteen? — Patterner

I think it depends on the working memory of the person which is at most 5 to 6 items.

When can indeed perceive a set of distinct objects as falling under the concept of a number without there being the need to engage in a sequential counting procedure. Direct pattern recognition plays a role in our recognising pairs, trios, quadruples, quintuples of objects, etc., just like we recognise numbers of dots on the faces of a die without counting them each time. We perceive them as distinctive Gestalten. — Pierre-Normand

Correct. There is however a limit on the number of things that we can realize without counting. I think it is related to working memory and it is at most five to six items.

But I'm more interested in the connection that you are making between recognising objects that are actually present visually to us and the prima facie unrelated topic of facing open (not yet actual) alternatives for future actions in a deterministic world. — Pierre-Normand

I was interested in a neural network that can realize the number of objects. I found this thesis which exactly deals with the problem of realizing the number of objects that I was interested to. The author does not explain what exactly happens at the neural level when the neural network is presented with many objects and it can realize the number of objects as I think it is a complex phenomenon. I think we are dealing with the same phenomenon when we face two options in the example of the maze, left and right path. So, although the neural processes whether in our brain or an artificial neural network are deterministic they can lead to the realization of options. By options, I mean things that are real and accessible to us and we can choose one or more of them depending on the situation.

I know you're talking about mental processing of visual data, but that's far more complex than anybody here is qualified to answer, so I am instead picking statements that seem to be falsified by a simple, understandable model. — noAxioms

I found this useful thesis about counting objects by a convolutional neural network.

We were considering a fork in the path of a maze. Are they not a pair of options? — noAxioms

Sure they are.

Sure, one cannot choose to first go down both. Of the options, only one can be chosen, and once done, choosing otherwise cannot be done without some sort of retrocausality. They show this in time travel fictions where you go back to correct some choice that had unforeseen bad consequences. — noAxioms

The point is that both paths are real and accessible, as we can recognize them. However, the process of recognizing paths is deterministic. This is something that hard determinists deny. The decision is a separate topic though. I don't think that the decision results from the brain's neural process. The decision is due to the mind. That is true since any deterministic system halts when you present it with options. A deterministic system always goes from one state to another unique state. If a deterministic system reaches a situation where there are two states available for it it cannot choose between two states therefore it halts. When we are walking in a maze, our conscious mind is aware of different situations always. If there is one path available then we simply proceed. If we reach a fork we realize the options available to us, namely the left and right path. That is when the conscious mind comes into play, realizes the paths in its experience, and chooses one of the paths. The subconscious mind then becomes aware of the decision and acts accordingly.

I guess I don't know what you consider to be options. — noAxioms

By options, I mean a set of things that are real and accessible and we can choose from.

So you do grant the existence of multiple options before choosing one of them. What part of the maze example then is different than the crime example? — noAxioms

In the example of the maze, the options are presented to the person's visual fields. In the case of rubbery the options are mental objects.

I am unsure whether we first realize two objects and then distinguish/resolve them from each other upon further investigations or first distinguish/resolve them from each other and then count them and realize that there are two objects. The counting convolutional neural network works based on later.

Yes, the bibliography also lists the references which could be useful. I will go through them after I finish the thesis.

@Relativist Ok, after a long search, I found an interesting thesis that deals with a neural network that can count. I read up to chapter 3. It is late now and time to go to bed! :wink:

It seems to me you are talking about the Hard Problem of Consciousness. — Patterner

No, here I am interested in understanding how we realize objects/options in our vision fields. Please read the previous post if you are interested.

I imagine it entails pattern recognition: seeing the same image pattern against a relatively constant background. Artificial neural networks learn patterns, and they are considerably simpler that biological neural networks because they lack neuroplasticity (the growing of new neurons and synapses). — Relativist

I did an extensive search and I found many methods for object recognition. Here, you can find two main methods, namely CNN, and YOLO. Granted that objects are recognized I am interested to know methods for counting objects. I did an extensive search on the net and got lost since it seems that the literature is very very rich on this topic! The current focus of research is to find the best method for counting the very high dense number of objects where objects could overlap for example. Here is a review article that discusses the CNN method for crowd counting. I am interested in a simple neural network that can count a limited number of isolated objects though. I will continue the search and let you know if I find anything useful.

Options that are before us lead us to mentally deliberate to develop a choice. If we could wind the clock back, could we actually have made a different choice? Clearly, if determinism is true, then we could not. But if determinism is false- why think our deliberation would have led to a different outcome? The same mental factors would have been in place. — Relativist

I am not interested in discussing the decision here. I am interested in understanding how we realize two objects so swiftly. If I show you two objects, you without any counting realize that there are two objects in your vision field. The same applies when you are in a maze. You realize that there are two paths available to you without counting as well. The mechanism is completely deterministic though. Two objects, two paths in a maze, etc. we are dealing with the same topic, and although the mechanism is fully deterministic we could recognize two options. So that part of the puzzle is solved for me.

I was showing the counting of options, not objects. — noAxioms

We don't count options if a few are presented to us. We just realize the number of options right away as a result of neural processes in the brain. I am interested in understanding what is happening in the brain when we are performing such a simple task.

You are complicating a simple matter. I made no mention of the fairly complex task of interpreting a visual field. The average maze runner doesn't even have a visual field at all, but some do.
All I am doing is showing the utterly trivial task of counting options, which is a task easily performed by a determinsitic entity, answering your seeming inability to realize this when you state "So I am wondering how can deterministic processes lead to the realization of options".

The solution is to count the options (in the maze example, paths away from current location) and if there is more than one, options have been realized. If there is but one, it isn't optional. The means by which these options are counted is a needless complication that is besides the point. — noAxioms

No, you consider the existence of options granted and then offer a code that is supposed to work and counts options. Thanks, but that is not what I am looking for.

Stealing and not stealing are physical actions, not mental objects. Bearing moral responsibility for one's mental objects is a rare thing, but they did it to Jimmy Carter, about a moral person as they come. — noAxioms

I am talking about available options to a thief before committing the crime.

Eric Clapton - I Shot The Sheriff

B.B. King - The Thrill Is Gone



B.B. King, Jeff Beck, Eric Clapton, Buddy Guy, Albert Collins - Sweet Little Angel - Live 1993



BB KING Best Solo Guitar King of Blues

Disturbed - The Sound Of Silence

Seal - Crazy

Limp Bizkit - My Way



Limp Bizkit - Rollin'

I assume what you are driving at when you ponder over the ability to distinguish qualitatively similar objects in the visual field is the way in which those objects are proxies for alternative affordances for action, as your initial example of two alternative paths in a maze suggests. You may be suggesting (correct me if I'm wrong) that those two "objects" are being discriminated as signifying or indicating alternative opportunities for action and you wonder how this is possible in view of the fact that, in a deterministic universe, only one of those possibilities will be realized. Is that your worry? — Pierre-Normand

Yes. I am wondering how we can realize two objects which look the same as a result of neural processes in the brain accepting that the neural processes are deterministic.

I think @Banno and @noAxioms both proposed compatibilist responses to your worry — Pierre-Normand

@noAxioms suggests that we are counting objects. I don't think that is the case when we are presented with two objects. We immediately realize two objects as a result of neural processes in the brain. We however need to count when we are presented with many objects.

@Banno suggests that an infant's brain is pre-wired. That could be true. But that does not answer how an infant could possibly realize two objects since it does not address how the brain is pre-wired.

but maybe you have incompatibilist intuitions that make you inclined to endorse something like Frankfurt's principle of alternate possibilities. Might that be the case? — Pierre-Normand

Yes. We are morally responsible if we could do otherwise. That means that we at least have two options to choose from. The options are however mental objects, like to steal or not to steal, which are slightly harder to discuss but I think that we are dealing with the same category when we realize two objects in our visual field or when we realize two mental objects. So I think we can resolve all the discussions related to the reality of options if we can understand how the brain can distinguish two objects in its visual field first.

Not quite. That realisation is neural processes in the brain. It is not seperate from yet caused by those neural processes. — Banno

We have a slight difference here. I am a substance dualist and it seems to me that you are a physicalist. But please let's focus on the topic of the thread and put this difference in view aside.

And a babe's brain is pre-wired to recognise faces and areola. — Banno

Do you have any argument or know any study to support this claim? I am asking how an infant can distinguish between one object or two objects. I would be interested to know how an infant's brain is pre-wired then. So saying that an infant's brain is just pre-wired does not help to have a better understanding of what is happening in her/his brain when she/he realizes one object or two objects.

This is trivially illustrated with the most simple code. — noAxioms

I agree that one can write code to help a robot count the number of unmoving dots in its visual field. But I don't think a person can write code to help a robot count the number of objects or moving dots.

As for the infant process of neural development, that's an insanely complex issue that likely requires a doctorate in the right field to discuss the current view of how all that works. — noAxioms

I searched the internet to death but I didn't find anything useful.

It seems irrelevant to the topic of determinism and options. — noAxioms

It is relevant.

All the interpretations are paradox free. — noAxioms

Copenhagen interpretation for example suffers from the Schrodinger's cat paradox. It cannot explain John Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. etc. Anyway, I am not interested in going to a debate on quantum mechanics in this thread since it is off-topic. All I wanted to say is that for this thread the motion of particles in a brain is deterministic.

He was unfortunately banned.

Sheryl Crow - Tomorrow Never Dies



Garbage - The World Is Not Enough

We couldn't possibly reason if what we perceive was random. So, let's focus on perception. Why things that you perceive is coherent?

Do you mean you cannot understand your own perception? — Corvus

I am not talking about perception but coherence in perception.

Why do you think it is the case? — Corvus

Show me how idealism can explain coherence in perception.

That is an interesting article. I however think that the conclusion, assigning free will to neural process, is wrong. The main reason for this is that the conscious mind is absent during anesthesia. The subconscious mind is however active always. Stimulating the parietal cortex produces a pulse. This pulse then propagates to different parts of the brain depending on the exact point of the electrodes. When the subconscious mind receives a pulse coming from that center it acts accordingly and also registers the command in its memory. The person can only report the activities during anesthesia after she/he is conscious again. A conscious person however only has access to the subconscious memory therefore what he reports is not what he freely performed but only a memory that was registered in the subconscious mind during anesthesia.

Please don't confuse ideas and coherence of the reality. — Corvus

I am not confusing two. Please see the above post.

Idealism is not for coherent thoughts. — Corvus

I asked whether idealism can explain the coherence in reality. Yes, or no? If yes, then how? If not, then it is not the proper metaphysical theory of reality!

First, you experience a situation that requires decision-making. Once you're in such a situation, only then do you start examining options. Before that, everything was clear and certain (I was just going forward on this single path), and now I'm weighing my options at the crossroads, hence the uncertainty. — Zebeden

I am interested to know what happens at the neural level when we realize that there are two paths.

I'd like to comment but I'm a bit unclear on the nature of the connection that you wish to make between the two issues that you are raising in your OP. — Pierre-Normand

Ok, I will try to make things more clearer for you.

There is the issue of reconciling the idea of there being a plurality of options available to an agent in a deterministic world, — Pierre-Normand

First, I have to say that De Broglie–Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct since it is paradox-free. The motion of particles in this theory is deterministic though. By deterministic I mean given the state of the system at a given point in time the state of the system at a later time is uniquely defined by the former state. So, the motions of particles in the brain are deterministic as well accepting De Broglie–Bohm's theory. What bothers me is that we for sure know that options are real. We also know for sure that the existence of options is due to neural processes in the brain. Neural processes are however deterministic so I am wondering how options can possibly result from neural processes in the brain. I think we can resolve the big problem in the philosophy of mind, the problem is that hard determinists claim that options cannot be real. Of course, the hard determinists cannot be right in this case since we can obviously distinguish between a situation in which there is only one object and another situation in which there are two objects. I studied neural networks in good depth in the past. My memory on neural networks is very rusty now but I would be happy to have your understanding of this topic if you can explain it in terms of neural networks as well. Can we train a neural network to realize between one and two objects and give outputs 1 and 2 respectively? If yes, what does happen at the neural level when it is trained to recognize two objects?

and the issue of the cognitive development (and the maturation of their visual system) of an infant whereby they come to discriminate two separate objects from the background and from each other. — Pierre-Normand

Please let's focus on one object first. If we accept the Hebbian theory is the correct theory for learning then we can explain how an infant realizes one object. Once the infant is presented with two objects, she/he can recognize each object very quickly since she/he already memorized the object. How she/he realizes that there are two separate objects is however very tricky and is the part that I don't understand well. I have seen that smartphones can recognize faces when I try to take a photo. I however don't think they can recognize that there are two or more faces though.

Can you make your understanding of this connection more explicit? — Pierre-Normand

I tried to elaborate the best I could. Please let me know what you think and ask questions if you have any.

Can't comment on neurological development, but from how I understand what the option is, I would say that an option always requires another option for it to be an option. Only if I know that I can also take the left path, does the right path become an option. Otherwise, it's just a path. Or rather, the path, I should say. — Zebeden

I say that you have only one option available when there is only one path available to you.

So my answer would be that the fork always precedes the options. To understand an option, one first experiences a moment of unclarity. — Zebeden

Could you please elaborate here?

I'm sorry, but I can't follow you. Could you please write your opinion in plain English so I can understand what you're discussing?

Same meaning as yours, different words. Both of our words leave 'mind/mental' fairly undefined, leaving open a natural or supernatural interpretation of it. — noAxioms

Ok, I see.

I am sorry that he was banned. He is a knowledge person and I learned a few things from him. He will be missed.

You are connecting reasoning process to ideas as if they are necessary, but they are not. — Corvus

Reasoning is an analysis of ideas.

You see drink in a cup, and think it is coffee. The idea of drink in a cup itself doesn't tell you truth or falsity on your thought. You must drink and taste it to be able to tell it is coffee or tea. Truth or falsity is only possible by your judgement on sense perception (in empirical cases) or thought process (in analytic cases).
Images and concepts themselves don't tell you about coherence of reality. — Corvus

I asked, how is coherent thought possible in idealism?