The plain proof of Free Will is the feeling of choices made, ... — Ash Abadear

That is the only sentence to be said on this subject.

The feeling of having wanted something is the only criterion. It does not depend on det or indet.

The idea that something we are aware of, such as being conscious, could be an epiphenomenon is a contradiction in terms. Our being aware of it means that it cannot be an epiphenonemon, which is defined as a phenomenon having no effect, because it has the effect of making us aware of it. — Janus

Qualia, for example, is not a pure epiphenomenon, but a mixture. You cannot explain the color "yellow" to a color blind person, but you can say that it is a bright color.

That makes no sense to me. I don't feel the feelings of some Chinese in far away China and if I don't meet him he is as present for me as life on a distant planet.

Whereby the question arises, why you still accept other consciousnesses than the own one and these should also have a boss (God).

I'm not saying it's in *your* imagination. It's in God's Mind. The Infinite All-Pervading Unoriginate Consciousness. It's partially in your mind, because your mind forms certain qualia of reality, sure, but it's in God's Mind. — Dharmi

Actually, I wanted to present a world view without a God. Why do so many people need an almighty boss? Aren't the paradoxes of an omnipotent God enough to refrain from it?

What is a person? What defines a person? This, I believe, is where we should begin in order to resolve the problem that has you and me in its grips. — TheMadFool

Take That!

The last question seems to be self-refuting. The "you" refers to mind and not the body. Ergo, it's ok within this framework of identity to have two bodies with the same mind. — TheMadFool

You picked one out of three points and answered it with a counter question. You don't have to answer the counter question to realize that it is nonsense to have two separate bodies. One body is in NY and the other in LA. Can they then communicate telepathically as the same mind?

What makes identical twins different persons? — TheMadFool

1) They have different locations.
2) They change on a molecular level within seconds.
3) Can you imagine having two bodies?

"Of course this is wrong. If the 3D printing process created two persons, both believing being original, which one would you be after awaking?"
— SolarWind

Yes, there will be two bodies and two minds presumably but both would be the same person. If you disagree you have a heavy burden on your shoulders which is, to be blunt, to inform us, possibly prove, what you mean by person i.e. what makes you you? — TheMadFool

I cannot answer what makes me me, but I am sure that it is not possible to fall asleep and wake up in two bodies.

If you would have two bodies being a double agent would be an easy game. :)

In both cases what decides the identity of the person is memory. — TheMadFool

Of course this is wrong. If the 3D printing process created two persons, both believing being original, which one would you be after awaking?

That is certainly correct, only it is of little use to me to only imagine my food, I will still remain hungry. Sure, the world could exist only in my imagination, but why should I imagine such a tedious world? In my imagination, I would just be happy forever.

Somewhere the quantity of the qualia must come from. Either it is hidden in a soul or in the matter. If one assumes, it is in the matter and in addition in every particle, then every particle must possess the quantity of the qualia. It depends now on where this particle is. If it is in a stone, then it will feel little to nothing. If it is in a living being, then it can feel the state of him.

Wait for a while, then drop it at a time determined only by your mind without any other influence. If you are capable of doing this, then you know that you have free will. — Metaphysician Undercover

Free will is a feeling, nothing more. It can be predetermined or coincidence. Actions cannot come from free will. Free will is not a force.

Exactly right. Det or indet do not play a role in the question about the freedom of will. In general, everything mentioned does not play a role, because the question is wrongly put. From WHAT is the will free? Certainly not from the laws of nature.

Well, the
Teletransportation Paradox is solved with the "crazy idea". You are the one with YOUR particle in your body. If you are beamed it depends where YOUR particle remains. Every particle has its own qualia and is also a "soul".

It is logical that I do not only choose work based on wages, because it is an exchange of labor for money. If I'm supposed to wipe out acid tanks for ten times the money, it might not be a good choice. But I have to earn a minimum amount to cover my costs.

What would your pizza delivery company say if you explained to them that money is not important and that you want the pizza for free. The matter is a lie.

What I would do if I had an "infinite" amount of money, I cannot answer that, it is too far removed from my situation, but certainly not working all day.

A value is a quantity. When I order things, it is an order. On the question "enemy or family" I will probably prefer family most of the time. :)

And the thing about the unvalue of money is hypocritical. What else do people work for?

That question is based on values. I value my kid more than I value rats, therefore the rats die. — Book273

What you are saying about the comparison is of course correct. But a "value" suggests something that can be expressed in dollars.

Sure, I can say that my child's life is worth more than the life of a rat, but I can't give an absolute value, but maybe a relative one.

If one considers a virus as a life, that would be correct. However, as I understand it, a virus is not a living entity, therefore your example is inaccurate. — Book273

OK, let's better take an example with rats. If we don't kill them, they will eventually attack our children. Who would say that the life of a rat is worth as much as that of his child?

The whole question is wrong. The question is not about value, but: What should we do?

But really, ending a life is ending a life. People=bunnies=whales=cats=bugs — Book273

Then it would be unethical to save a C-patient, because you would be killing a large number of C-viruses.

I think quantum mechanics will eventually prove negligibly indeterministic even at the level of single events, but that's just speculation. — Enrique

The point is: Is qualia possible in a deterministic world or not?

P-zombies require they can uphold the illusion of being a human over the course of time. But even the most complex P-zombie robot would not be able to sustain such an illusion for long. — Christoffer

You are right in the sense that to date there is no chatbot that passes a Turing test. Just ask a chatbot what it thinks about climate change and it will answer something like: Ask someone who knows about it. Ridiculous.

But the question is, what if there was a chatbot that passed the Turing test?

Case point, does Ava in Ex Machina have consciousness? Without the ability to internally adapt and change behavior, she would be stuck in a feedback loop of choices that are easily predictable, thus not act like a human. — Christoffer

That is the right question. And the answer is: We can't know, because we don't have a bridge from the third-person perspective to the first-person perspective. Quite simply, both possibilities are conceivable. Likewise, p-zombies are also conceivable.

All that remains, that is the similarity principle. The more similar something is to us, the more likely we are to assume the first-person perspective. But the similarity principle is not a law of nature like others.

My preliminary guess is that additive wavelengths of entangled particles are qualia, ... — Enrique

I do not understand the connection between additive wavelengths and the subjective impression of the smell of roses.

Electric field of brain as registered by EEG interacts with quantum fields of entangled particles (qualia) in additive way (like wavelengths of the visible light spectrum), to produce qualitative experience (sounds, images, feels) in the head. — Enrique

Why does entanglement generate qualia? This also exists in a laboratory and in a much purer form. And every high-voltage line generates more electric fields than a brain. Consequently, a laboratory that studies entanglement and is under a high-voltage line would have to have qualia.

My hypothesis was that all qualia emerge from extremely complex additive properties of quantum entangled and superpositioned wavicles, so qualitative experience is actually a component of the matter itself rather than being an incoherently conceived immaterial supervenience either generated as an illusion or transcending the empirical world. This perhaps resolves the perennial mind/body problem of philosophy. — Enrique

Suppose we lived in a world where atomic stability came not from quantum mechanics but from some other (deterministic) mechanics. If there were human-like creatures in such a world, would they not have feelings or would "classical" humans be philosophical zombies?

Could you please explain in a few words why the word "naturalism" is needed when it actually just means "atheism"?

And how does naturalism bridge the gap between descriptive and normative attributes?

It might well be that QM is complete and deterministic, we just can't simulate large enough systems to observe how macroscopic superposition is avoided. — Kenosha Kid

I have already written it in another thread:

I think the answer is the Schrödinger-Newton-Equation.

"The regime where the mass is around 10^10 atomic mass units while the width is of the order of micrometers is expected to allow for an experimental test of the Schrödinger–Newton equation in the future."

Wave functions of more heavy parts than 10^10 atomic mass units will catch their own wave function.

Is there an article you can point me to, to explain this... hopefully in a way that non-specialists can understand?

The only things I have seen to date are findings which suggest that the Bell Test results can be brought back within expected norms if we take entanglement into account - but there is no explanation for entanglement either. — Gary Enfield

I don't have a link. It's the way I think of it. I assume knowledge of Bohmiam Mechanics and quantum potential, I can't explain that too.

Take two particles with coordinates x1,y1,z1,x2,y2,z2, then the quantum potential is Q = Q(x1,y1,z1,x2,y2,z2,t). We simplify and are only interested in the z-coordinates and also consider Q as constant in time: Q = Q(z1,z2). Then take a landscape with x = z1 and y = z2 and the height z = Q(z1,z2) = Q(x,y).

The two particles are one particle in this representation, where the x-coordinate belongs to particle 1 (z1) and the y-coordinate to particle 2 (z2). If one now moves the "double particle" in the x-direction, the inclination in the y-direction can change. The movement of one particle directly affects the other.

From the point of view of quantum theory, the coordinates z1 and z2 are perpendicular to each other (configuration space), in classical mechanics they are parallel, lying on top of each other.

To what extent does naturalism make statements about technology, ethics or politics? I don't see any connection.

In my opinion, naturalism only says: "Everything is natural", which is not a statement at all, because if there were ghosts, then they would also be natural.

I hate naturalism because it presents itself as clever, but ultimately only asserts a triviality.

That is why the loophole free Bell Test experiments were so important. — Gary Enfield

Bell's inequality can be explained with Bohmian Mechanics. You have a 3n-dimensional (n elementary particles) quantum potential, which is non-local. If you move one particle, it immediately affects all the others through the quantum potential.

It is like walking on a landscape. If you walk to the west, the slope can change in the north-south direction. In classical mechanics, the (for example) z-axes of the particles are parallel, in quantum mechanics they are perpendicular to each other. Thus are the formulas.

It is not certain that he sees it as a rhetorical question. But the question with the identity of the gods is so clear that everything must collapse.

Islam and Christianity are both theistic religions. What's the difference? — Wayfarer

Could you please explain how a god with a son can be the same as a god without a son?

That is correct. The only certain thing is that we ourselves are conscious (I feel, therefore I am), but this cannot be proved to anyone else.

In the same way, we do not know whether a stone, a plant, an animal or a fellow human being is conscious. There are neither sufficient nor necessary criteria for consciousness. All we do is to use the similarity principle.

I think if you get the body exactly right you will inadvertently get consciousness. It’s not like consciousness is some magic sauce you add at the end that you can do without. It’s deeply intertwined with the body. In other words: p-zombies are conceivable (not logically contradictory) but not possible. — khaled

Counter question: How do you know that your computer/BASIC program is not aware when it says "I am aware that you have now pressed so-and-so key!"?

Sorry, I find it very difficult to imagine being another person. I find it logically insignificant as to whether I am me, or you, or John Malkovich, but i find it impossible to imagine actually being another person. Logic can take me places where imagination can't go. — Metaphysician Undercover

Let's make it even simpler. Let's say you have an identical twin brother who is almost always around you. Then you can't imagine being him either?

Is it the same for you as imagining being a stone?

How is that less difficult then imagining that each one of my cells, or each one of my molecules is a fish? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't get it.

Let's make it simple. I think you can imagine (roughly) being another person (e.g. John Malkovich). Can you also imagine being all actors at the same time?

Sure, the organization is a "self", but the question is what causes the elements to organize in this way. You cannot say that the "self" is the cause, because you've already said that the "self" is the effect. It doesn't seem like an understanding to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is a very good argument. I would like to add that someone can possibly still imagine being a fish, but no one can imagine being a school of fish.

To being or not to being. :)

There must be something else that collapses that darn wave function... — Olivier5

I think the answer is the Schrödinger-Newton-Equation.

"The regime where the mass is around 10^10 atomic mass units while the width is of the order of micrometers is expected to allow for an experimental test of the Schrödinger–Newton equation in the future."

Wave functions of more heavy parts than 10^10 atomic mass units will catch their own wave function.

Thus the cat is a measuring instrument.

I wonder if those molecules with some sort of consciousness have philosophical discussions on to what part of them, and how their consciousness connects to their physical existence.

If only someone could document the discourse between conscious molecules, then the argument would be over.

1. Things that have consciousness know that they have consciousness.
2. As conscious beings, they probably ponder the origin of their physical as well as their spiritual existences.
3. Because they ponder their existence's origins, they have consciousness.
Q.E.D. They have consciousness. — god must be atheist

What about sheep? Is bleating a philosophical discussion?