https://www.dropbox.com/s/husbhk9r9ldejrn/One%20with%20I%20in%20its%20eye%20%282%29.pdf%20-%20Copy.docx?dl=0 :)

Hearty, :cool:

... an internal modeling capacity, which requires a level of computing sophistication simple organisms just don't have. — gurugeorge

As I said, an organism needs at least a description of its world and itself within it required to successfully navigate in its world. The description can be rudimentary. Please note that even smallest unicellular organisms have a very complex genome...

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Here are four links on identity of pea and one argument pro and con:

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00795.x ;
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00425-013-1910-4 ;
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050811104308.htm ;
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3863 ;
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4222137/ ;

And here is an attempt to interpret data in a different way:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173758 ;

However, the last link does not explain how plants distinguish between self and non-self. It also does not take into account that a single plant was drafted into two separated plants with identical genome...

And there is more... :)

Hearty, :cool:

That is why I'm talking about the kernel of identity.

Essentially, every living unit needs to have at least a kernel of a description of its world and itself within it. That is required for an organism to navigate through its world...

At each higher level, there are new complexities added...

Complex Adaptive Systems is not panpsychism. The theory is well modelled and simulated...

Enjoy the day, :cool:

There are two links to yeast's altruism:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/altruism-selfishness-evolution-mathematics-princeton-bath-university-a7148471.html ;
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4140606/ ;

Hearty, :cool:

You suggest that consensus, where we all agree, but we could all be wrong, is the same as objective, which offers a sort of guarantee that something is correct, and accurately reflects reality? — Pattern-chaser

There are no guarantees that peer-review will yield an objective view. Even replicated experiments will never give us a 100% objective view.

However, we need to settle at a certain point on the less than 100% objectivity.

The best way to look at this issue is the approximation.

Enjoy the day, :cool:

If so, this would be the first time in the history of the earth, that human caused the earth to warm. — wellwisher

The industrial revolution was also the first time in the history of the Earth. For the first time in the history of the Earth, humans burned carbon on industrial scales. There are also estimates of how many tonnes of carbon have been turned into carbon dioxide...

I do not think that this will be easily bridged. :)

However, a single person cannot and will not ever be able to be objective, but we can be objective as a group, if members of that group has the intention of individually being objective through the process. — Christoffer

The most of the peer-review processes yield a pretty objective picture. However, there can be only one person that submits a paper for peer-review as the second stage towards consensus. In such cases, a single person could be very close to the consensus reached through peer-review...

We can partly agree here... :)

Hearty, :cool:

I dunno, I think the "I" is more of a complex thing than you can get at that level ... — gurugeorge

I think that we agree that the kernel of identity is present at the unicellular level. It is also present in plants - although the form of identity seems very strange compared with human. I would reiterate that identity is a basic atribute for life in general...

From the angle of "determinism," it's quite unproblematic to conceive of a deterministic robot having free will in a deterministic universe. — gurugeorge

Is that a new disagreement? :)

I disagree with your picture of a robot with programmed free will in the deterministic universe. (The deterministic universe is originally Descartes' picture.) I have another picture of the universe - agent-driven universe. In this universe, an agent (with an "I") has various degrees of freedom (Free Will)...

I guess that we will difficult path to an agreement here. I suggest the complex adaptive system theory to bridge this chasm. (I do not trust Wikipedia, but it might be helpful as an introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system ...)

Hearty, :cool:

The Libet experiments only pose a problem if you believe that the "I" is something like this "soul," this "ghost in the machine... " — gurugeorge

I believe that I identified the core of our disagreements - "soul"; the "ghost in the machine". You are assuming something like Descartes' dualism...

Descartes assumed that only humans have a soul enabling choices. The rest of living organisms behave like machines driven by the tick-tock of causes and effects...

Rest assured that I'm not in favour of dualism either... :)

Yeast and humble pea - also demonstrate identity in their own way. I can only reaffirm that identity is a basic attribute of life in general...

Hearty, :cool:

In all 4 scenarios, the boundary of the "I" is the total physical animal; its own awareness of itself, its internal modeling of itself, is secondary, and it doesn't matter if that happens some time after the brain machinery has worked to produce whatever action it produces. — gurugeorge

Tentatively agree. I would also add well-documented cases of feral children. A feral child exhibits animal-like behaviour. However, even then there is an "I" hidden in our genome. :)

We can also assume that "I" is hidden within every unicellular organism. Social like behaviour, for example, was exhibited by yeast cells. When there is not enough food - cells start to die to provide themselves as food-packets for the rest of the colony. An "altruism" at the cellular level...

Humble pea also demonstrates identity awareness. When a single plant is split in two - each half grows independently roots in competition with another half.

In general, identity seems to be an attribute of life in general. And that means that four scenarios can be applied to all life-forms...

The Libet experiments only pose a problem if you believe that the "I" is something like this "soul," this "ghost in the machine" — gurugeorge

Libet's experiments covered only the third scenario. And that was a problem...

Hearty, :cool:

I think you might mean something quite mild when you say "objective", maybe "unbiased"? Even then, there is a difference between that and consensus. — Pattern-chaser

What about Global Warming? We have very large scientific consensus - and yet we have large non-scientific views denying that Global Warming exists...

Hearty, :cool:

I take the liberty to transfer this topic to The Joke thread...

Sorry, but this thread has lost its direction. :)

Hearty, :cool:

... the first part seems similar to the argument that consciousness is epiphenomenal... — JupiterJess

I believe that you are referring to the joke. It's separated topic and you will find some of my answers there. So, please comment there... :)

However in the context of the free will argument couldn't the person say the "I" was a useful fiction existing only for sociological reasons until a better one is found. — JupiterJess

Social context is important. But our free will is not limited to social context only...

That may be the case with dark matter. It only exists to fill a current gap and may just be a useful fiction for that. The difference between them though is our intentions are experienced by us directly. — JupiterJess

You will need to explain that to the physicists. Presently they do not speak about dark matter as a plug to close a gap...

I need a bit more to agree to disagree or agree on the existence of free will - without qualifiers...

Hearty, :cool:

Aren't these the two essential aspects of free will... — Metaphysician Undercover

Please, see my previous reply to gurugeorge with four scenarios for free will...

That's will power. — Metaphysician Undercover

You intuit the fourth scenario.

The "back in time" was a ridiculous attempt to enable "free will" in the third scenario only. You can skip that...

I think that we need a little bit more to agree... :)

Hearty, :cool:

The "I" that's choosing is the entire rational animal — gurugeorge

I disagree. We are not entirely rational animals...

For the rest, let's examine the scenarios needed to explain free will:

• Lift a hand on external cue (given by your friend in a cafe).
• Lift a hand on internal cue (as you speak about lifting a hand).
• Lift a hand without a cue (researched by Dr Benjamin Libet).
• Execute an entirely new dance move.

The first three scenarios (joke) are about intended habitual moves. Dr Benjamin Libet researched only the third scenario - that the reason why his/other's interpretation of the test results was faulty...

The fourth scenario is about learning nonhabitual move that is turning nonhabitual move into habitual.

... it takes Buddhists, for example, several years of serious meditation :) — gurugeorge

I do not know in detail about Buddhists' meditation but it fits nicely with the fourth scenario of learning new thoughts, feelings and actions...

I will need a bit more to change my mind. Please, elaborate more using this four scenarios. :)

Hearty, :cool:

It depends what you mean by free will. If you have read Dan Barker and Sam Harris you would get the impression that free will does not exist on the individual basis, that all of our actions are consequent of physical and psychological traits beyond our comprehension. — Watts729

Are you suggesting that our (in)actions are triggered by mysterious causes. In this case, ask your friend to tell you which hand to lift - and you will have a mysterious cause replaced with words of your friend...

However, Barker suggests free will in terms of a social context, that when we judge others behaviour, we suppose that person had the free will to make such action. To have society without that notion would be chaos. — Watts729

I can see a scenario with me on a deserted island freely exercising my free will - without anything like social considerations...

I will need a bit more convincing argument - without gossip of WHO said/did WHAT.

Hearty, :cool:

And people like Libet, aren't they just trying to understand free will rather than to prove that there is no such thing? — Metaphysician Undercover

Back in 2011, many scientists (and laiks) believed that we do not have free will - and arguments were hotly debated...

Unfortunately, Dr Benjamin Libet believed that we only have free will in cancelling our urges. He was also unsure about "mysterious what" triggers Readiness Potential. I believe that he would agree that he missed some critical evidence provided by scenarios of my joke...

Even Hawkings tried to add a back in time trigger (See "The Big and Small and Human Mind") But, his proposal was absurd and dismissed. In the end, we do not need for a quantum leap back in time...

Hearty,:cool:

Dear all,

The Joke topic is not receiving more comments. I guess that the existence of our free will is now accepted. So, I'll close the topic.

If you have additional comments, please do not hesitate...

Hearty, :cool:

Dear all,

The Tale of Two Apples is not receiving more comments. I'll assume that the topic can be closed. Please check if you would like to post your final comment.

Hearty, :cool:

It's a model. — jorndoe

That's the first time I heard that a model is not a theory...

Hearty,

The question is: Does the object out there have our emotions?

Hearty,

... infinite sample size ... — Pattern-chaser

Is gravity objective?

Before Newton, geometry (circle) was the driving "force" behind movements of celestial objects. So Copernicus proposed the heliocentric system with circular orbits for planets. It didn't work, so Kepler cheated with his elliptical orbits...

And then Newton proposed the gravitational theory and everything clicked together...

The Newton's theory is still a theory - but is it objective?

At some point we need it to be "objective". If new information contradicts - we still have a method called belief revision...

I agree that we need more than two subjective views to proclaim that the theory is objective. But how many - depends on circumstances...

Hearty,

I'm anxious to discover other answers to life's questions. So here I am. I may have a lot of silly questions in the future. Bare with me. — Sylar

Maybe the science can help...

We will be hard pressed to remember what we had for lunch last Monday - unless that was an emotional event or completely habitual - i.e. we can reconstruct what we had for lunch. Emotions enhance the transition from short-term memory into long-term memory. (Some will admit that and then turn to weed out all emotions from their speculations...)

Intelligence without emotions is not possible either. We now speak of emotional intelligence.

So, get rid of "Objectivism" and enjoy life...

Hearty,

Quantum theory in fact relies on the indistinguishability, or identicality, of particles to explain their "weird" statistics - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles — apokrisis

The two statistical, entangled wavicles have at least differences in how they relate to all other wavicles in the universe. This eludes some physicists too. (I wouldn't always trust Wikipedia...)

So, it appears that we can neither justify nor critique logic. Both are circular. — TheMadFool

I state again that we "forgot" Gödel's theorem - that there are truths in a closed system that cannot be derived from other truths within the system.

I would also repeat that we need nonmonotonic logic. And in this logic, we can also revise any belief in the light of new information.

Enjoy the day,

... is not something that could ever be demonstrated, — Janus

Some types of meditation can be taught and then independently verified. Otherwise, I agree that presently we do not even have a clue how to do that...

Hearty,

But I think that more than a couple or even a few subjects would be required to agree about a belief based on the same evidence for it to be counted as objective. — Janus

It is hard to quantify how many subjective views we need to achieve "objective" status. I would say two minimum without objections.

Hearty,

A belief is objective if more then one subjective believes are agreed upon. (That is the power of peer-review.)

Now we can then imagine the more objective view of the world. — apokrisis

"More objective" does not really express the uniqueness. For example:

--- Short History of Australian Landscape Painting ---

Older paintings were exactly the same as English landscape paintings. Over time Australian Landscape paintings were getting closer and closer to actual Australian landscapes.
-------

Without an effort to notice the differences, painters here would still paint English-like landscapes.
----

The world is no longer infinitely divisible. It has a finite definite information content. Only so much difference can be actual. — apokrisis

There is an infinity of actual differences. Even physicists accept that wavicles (WAVe/partICLEs) are unique with infinite sets of differences.

But oh well. It takes more that actual facts about nature to shake people out of a formal classical conception of reality. — apokrisis

I would add: Including quantum physics.

Hearty,

does spot the difference achieve the same results? — JupiterJess

Nothing guarantees that tomorrow you will not need a difference and find a better abstraction...

Hearty,

Is there actually any proof for either side? — Thehoneyman

Yes:

Since Libet's results started to trickle out,
there were speculations that we do not have free will...
What??? My free will is useless - I'll give it up.
Now, how could I - give up something I did/do not have???

My joke clearly outlines scenarios - required for proving that we do have free will. This can be "peer-reviewed in a cafe for example, with your friends.

Hearty,

Possibly, but my point was just that a finite mind, which relies on abstraction, cannot see things as absolute singularities. — Janus

Tentatively agree.

I would also suggest that we can experience the infinity. (Example: Aldous Haxly - The Door of Perception. Some types of meditations can also tackle the infinity of perception.)

But this edges toward art - rather than science.

Hearty,

OK, but this has nothing to do with what we were discussing, which was the difference between finite, and an infinite, mind. — Janus

I wasn't under impression that we were discussing an "infinite mind". Unique (impossible) phenomena can be managed indirectly as infinite sets are managed in math.

Is that an order? — Janus

You can take it as an "order".

Hearty,

A simple question - what is the neurological basis for the subconscious or unconscious mind? — EnPassant

To grasp nonconsciousness we need to define consciousness first:

Consciousness is quite narrow - 7±2 items at the time. Nonconsciousness is everything else. And that includes mostly habitual thoughts, feelings, images acts etc. etc.

Consciousness and nonconsciousness are both active during our awake hours. And that explains the discrepancy between what psychologists consider to be conscious and what philosophers consider to be conscious.

Nonconsciousness is also active during the sleep - especially during REM (Rapid Eyes Movement) phases of our dreaming.

Nonconsciousness also includes instinctive thoughts, feelings, images, acts etc. etc.

A neuronal base is not well described yet - but fMRI (functions Magnetic Resonance Imaging) technique has given some insights. For example, what we are thinking about while our brain is being scanned.

Also. It is better to use nonconsciousness than un/sub-consciousness.

Enjoy the day,

What is external to the mind? — Anthony

Maybe it will help to define "objectivity".

Objectivity is an agreed (but vaguer) form of more than one subjectivities.

This is what peer-view is aiming for. We could also say that such derivation of subjectivities is "external to the mind" outlines what it is external - out there.

Enjoy the day,

Free will is like a dance. We acquired the dance movements and simply dance in the tune of music.

Acquired means that we internalised (made habitual) the new sequence of new moves, feelings and thoughts. In the beginning, we perform haltingly until movements became habitual. And then we dance…

Over time we learned many dances and now we simply intend dance moves. Unfortunately, we became lazy and stopped learning new dances. We still can choose between old dances to perform – but our free will is weakened then.

Unfortunately, the joke presents the clear-cut picture of our free will.

Unfortunately, because it was my favourite past time. And now new discussions are waste of time.

Your argument to the contrary is vague and without any weight.

Enjoy the day,

OK, I'm ready. Now where's the joke? The anticipation's killing me. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sorry, I thought that it was clearly spelling it out.

For your benefit:

“Since Libet’s finding started to filter out,
there were speculations about our free will.

What, my free will is useless – I’ll give it up!
take it my friend and tell me what to do.

Now, how could I – give up something I did/do not have.” — Damir Ibrisimovic

Hope that your anticipation is now elevated...

Enjoy the day,

Yes, only God, being an infinite intelligence, can handle that. — Janus

I would not involve God as yet. As long we keep God outside of picture - and try to resolve our problems ourselves - we will prosper. With reliance on God to solve our problems - we stagnate.

Enjoy the day,

???

But it is our great similarity that enables us to understand each other. — Bitter Crank

Prototyping is also dangerous. Think about racial and similar biases manifesting (mostly nonconsciously) in our dealings with the "same" people. Such, mostly nonconscious, biases aslso spread misunderstanding.

I think that we need a balanced approach to other people. Without uniqueness, we will never overcome our little (but terrible) biases.

Enjoy the day,