John Page

We do have more than one brain cell!

yaktldg

swr: How does one assume anything without the ability for self directed thought?

I have no idea how my brain works, frankly.

surfs_with_rocks

Thoughts are a function of the physical brain.

To direct our thoughts in a completely deterministic universe would violate that deterministic universe. It would require breaking the chain of cause and effect

In a completely deterministic universe we are at most observers

John Page

Thoughts/brain activity can "direct" other thoughts. What do you think "directs" our thoughts?

sodium

Are you saying that it is impossible to have a deterministic system which is also logical? I mean that it is impossible that its circuits or neurons would operate in such a way that it could react differently to reason than nonsense? I suspect you are saying merely that such a being/machine could not be assured of its own logic because it would not be directing itself. It would have to assume that it was self-directed in order to get any assurance of its own logic.

But if the only reason you want to assume we are self-determined is so that you can derive the conclusion that we are logical, why don't we just start from the assumption that we are logical and dispense with the self-determined assumption? This cuts out an unnecessary and confusing step.

DRFseven

I'd like to address this assertion by Dennett. I think that what he says is primarily PR; done to capture the hearts of a lot of people with strong emotional investment in the idea that they are autonomously behaving beings. What he says does not contradict his earlier assertions that we feel as though we have free will, even though our behavior is caused. But he goes one step further and defines the process by which our behaviors are caused as free will, itself. The reasoning is that if we had no means of being bound to any particular option, we couldn't MAKE any decision, and these decisions are the hallmark of free will because organisms that aren't free don't make them. So because we have evolved to seek cognitive goals, to pass along memes, and to use reasoning, we are free to make choices unavailable to other animals. For instance, we can think of other ways to care for our young besides licking and suckling them; we can open college savings accounts and cause them to fear not wearing seat-belts. Other animals who have not evolved as we have are not free to do this.

It is true that without being bound by cognitive and behavioral factors we would not be able to make choices. But by creating a new definition for "real free will", I think he is being a little dishonest. Clever, but dishonest. It seems that his idea is sort of like, "Let them think of it as free will if they wish, as long as they understand how behavior is determined."

surfs_with_rocks

Sodium,

Yes you are right
Thinking about your second point -

We are not logical, we have the capacity for logic.

People can be illogical in a non spurious way ie. in a way that cannot be considered a malfunction of the brain.

sodium

Surfs_with_rocks,

If I understand correctly, your argument is about the fundamental problem that in order to claim any confidence in any conclusion we reach, we have to have a basic trust in our mental abilities, that they have some limited power to separate fact from fiction. Otherwise, any argument, no matter how appealing, could simply be incoherent ravings. You can't reach this premise from any other argument, because whatever argument you use may, as I say, be just incoherent ravings.

I believe you agree that this kind of basic mental reliability could theoretically be found in a deterministic being. However, there is also nothing to guarantee such a being would have basic mental reliability. It should be easier to design a program to rave nonsensically than to design one to recognize logical arguments.

You seem to suggest that we can reach a position of basic mental reliability from the premise that we are self-directed. You didn't explicitly state how, but I think it might be that self-directedness implies the capacity to do any mental task, which implies the capacity to be basically mentally reliable. And if basic mental reliability is our goal, and we have the capacity to obtain this goal, then presumably we must obtain it. This may not be your exact argument, but you can see if my reply is appropriate anyway.

I have at least two problems with this kind of argument.
1) Deriving basic mental reliability is a lost cause, because any argument you use could just be incoherent ravings unless you have already assumed basic mental reliability.
2) If the only reason for assuming self-directedness is to derive basic mental reliability, it would be simpler just to assume basic mental reliability.

surfs_with_rocks

Sodium,

Yes I agree, one cannot derive basic mental reliability from any argument because the argument would be lower on the ontological hierachy of knowledge than many of the premises required for argument

let me restate my position - for the sake of investigation

1) I am assuming basic mental reliability.

2) I assume free will does not exist.

3.) I find 2. undermines 1.

4.) This means that one of the above assumptions is invalid and since it would be meaningless to invalidate 1. it must be 2. that is invalid. (it may be 3 but I cant see why)

I beleive we do have free will. However if it were that simple there would not be a forum for this discussion. So what I am trying to establish is how people who beleive free will does not exist do not find 3. a problem. ie. how they believe we can be assured of our mental reliability in the absence of self directed thought

PS feel free to email me directly

sodium

I'm not clear on what you mean by the word "undermines." If you mean that 2 contradicts 1, then you would appear to be saying that it is impossible for a being without free will to have basic mental reliability. This would mean that a deterministic being that appears to have human intelligence is impossible even in principle. But your past remarks have suggested this is not your contention.

If by "undermines" you mean merely that this eliminates one possible route by which basic mental reliability may be proved, then I don't see why that is a problem. We don't really need to prove something we're already assuming, and an argument that in the end relies on what we want to prove isn't of much use.

It may be that you mean "undermines" in a third way, and if this is the case, it would help me if you would explain in general terms what it means for one proposition to undermine another in this sense.

Here I am confused about what you mean by "assured of our mental reliability". I'm fairly confident in my mental reliability, but I put that down to evolution. Creatures that sit around all day doubting their own mental reliability wouldn't have much of a reproductive advantage. As well, if you were able to program a machine to solve mental problems, it shouldn't be hard to program it not to doubt its own reasoning powers. It seems to be that assurance is easy to come by, if it just means confidence.

If assurance means a logical argument based on something more basic, I haven't seen any such argument for basic mental reliability, nor do I think one is possible, since all arguments assume basic mental reliability for their persuasive force.

If assurance means something else in this context, I'd like to know what it is, and in particular what it means in general terms to have assurance of a proposition in the sense you intend.