excreationist

[/QB][/QUOTE]
Well the person's brain was involved in the behaviour, even though the environment caused the brain to react in that criminal way.
The thing is, people's behaviour can be modified - people can learn. And punishing people is a way of teaching them to avoid criminal behaviour. Also, if the criminals are kept out of society, the crime rate should go down. (Unless new criminals raise the crime rate again)
It doesn't matter if the person is "responsible" or not. I mean toddlers and animals aren't "responsible" but you can still discourage bad behaviour in them by removing a luxury or punishing them and also encourage good behaviour.

So it's about modifying their future behaviour or just removing them from society altogether... it doesn't matter if they are truly "responsible" for their actions or not.

Synaesthesia

I think that the implication is not that we are not "truly" responsible, but that the reality of responsibility goes far beyond our intuitive sense of it.

Laurentius

AVE
What an interesting philosophical knot lies in this discussion: matter/spirit & determination/indetermination & predetermination/free will – as difficult to unknot as challenging.

Quoting the propositions launched here:
……………………
1. The universe operates according to physical laws, which means events will occur in accordance with those laws.
2. The brain also operates in accord with physical laws.
3. Therefore, human events/actions are actually caused by universal laws and therefore any sense that we make choices is an illusion.
……………………

The sense that we make choices is partly an illusion, even common sense will tell one that – at least after a minute of reflection. The question is whether one can find the logical flow to lead him/her to the right conclusion. It seems to me that the syllogism above could just not be it.

First, one must accept that the universe operates according to physical laws; otherwise he/she should reject all human accomplishments (medical, technological, etc.) due to which the progress of our civilization is possible. I mean, how could one design a new processor, launch a satellite, and so on, if the universe were unpredictable and did not operate according to physical laws, triggering events that could only occur in accordance with those laws?

Second, the brain does operate in accordance with physical laws, but there is a catch here. I mean, there is a big catch, and several small ones. Let me refer to a couple of smaller ones.
A. One cannot just go and compare the universe and the brain without making any distinction because the brain is part (an organ) of a living thing whereas the universe is neither a part nor a living thing.

(a) Not being a part, the universe is by definition the mass of all masses (as a non-native speaker, I apologize if “mass” is not the right word that a mathematician or logician would use – by “mass” I mean a number/crowd/cluster of elements grouped according to a specific criterion). The universe is the crowd of all crowds, the cluster of all clusters. The omni-including group (in our case, the universe), which contains all the other existent groups (such as all human brains or all the cells making up one human brain), operates by partly different laws from the ones governing the subordinate groups, logics says.

(b) Not being a living thing (does anyone here claim the opposite? – if so, to what lame avail?), the universe must operate partly differently from the way the brain (which is a living one) does. Take entropy, for instance. The non-living world evolves toward disorder in its drive to reach the point of its highest stability (absolute, disorganized stillness would represent such a thing). Dissimilarly, the living world evolves toward complexity in its urge to reach the highest level of organization. Taking (a) and (b) into consideration, the brain does operate according to different laws from those ruling the universe as whole.

B. However, the main fallacy in the syllogism presented is the confusion between the brain and the mind (for no one here denies the existence of mind, do they? – if so, to what lame avail?). Obviously, the biochemistry of the brains closely follows physical laws, as any biology textbook shows, but the mind will not.

The universe is conceived by the secular philosopher as material and independent from the human mind. As a matter of fact, the universe can be conceived as being essentially both material (independent from the human mind) and ideal (identical with the mind). Psychology, psychiatry, neurology, cybernetics, etc. state that the universe is both material and ideal/spiritual, and the latter is dependent on the former as the material world is a product, an attribute and a property of the brain. Unlike the brain, the mind has an ideal (=non-material) nature, in the sense that (a) it does not consist of any matter, (b) the conservation laws that are valid for material system cannot be made valid for it as well, and (c) it has a subjective nature.

Mind is defined by some as matter that is aware of itself. This reflexivity operates partly influenced by physical laws (because of the biochemistry of the brain), and partly controlled by a complex of mental algorithms (developed through mental experience). These algorithms depend on the functioning of the living human brain and on one’s psycho-physiologic particularities (i. e. one’s experience and formation within one’s social environment), but the mind itself acts independently from them.

However, one’s mind remains a social phenomenon, since one develops the mental algorithms mentioned above within a specific community (as its member). Given this fact, it may seem indeed that the mind is predetermined by social laws in the same manner the universe is governed by physical laws. Nevertheless, the mind is endowed with creativity, something that the universe lacks. Even if the universe were self-generated, it would still differ from the mind, because the latter cannot only mirror the present, but it can also picture past and future events. Moreover, due to its capacity of abstraction and imagination, it can represent either hidden aspects or general principles of the universe – or it can envision absolutely imaginary constructs.

C. As a conclusion of what has been stated above, and according to Neo Nihilism, the logical stream of the demonstration will be modified as follows:
1. The universe operates according to physical laws, which means events will occur in accordance with those laws.
2. The brain also operates in accord with physical laws.
3. The mind, function of the human brain, operates in accord with ideal/spiritual laws (to which reflexivity, abstraction, and imagination are subjects).
4. However, the spirit (represented by the mind) does not operate outside or against material systems of reference (represented by the universe), which paradoxically renders the choice the mind makes both free and predetermined.
5. Therefore, human events/actions are partly caused by universal natural and social laws, and because of that to a wide extent the sense that we make choices is an illusion.

Thus, the philosophical knot presented here (matter/spirit & determination/indetermination & predetermination/free will) finds its solution in the inter-diffusion of all these antagonisms, which is basically made possible by the following two dear principles of Neo Nihilism:

Neither the spirit nor the matter enjoys a meaningful individual existence.
&
Nothingness and reality merge.

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Laurentius ]

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Laurentius ]

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

Laurentius

Sorry: erroneous attempt.

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

excreationist

Laurentius:
You're just asserting that there is another realm out there, besides the physical world... what proof do you have of this?
Note that I believe that aware systems can have personal (subjective) beliefs, desires and intentions, but this is similar to how you can have information inside computers... it just has a physical basis.

Laurentius

AVE to Excreationist-on-road-trip

Thank you for your sharp observation. And yet, I am compelled to disagree.

I am not asserting that there is another realm out there. I am asserting that there is another realm IN HERE.

Rejecting the existence of an ideal/spiritual realm in here (i.e. human consciousness) reduces mind activity to mineral, non-conscious existence. First, stating that living is one and the same with non-living leads to the denial of biology. Second, comparing human inner activity (i.e. thought, emotions, etc.) with inert existence of computer information blows consciousness up.

It also reminds me of what a friend of mine told me once, perhaps influenced by the Sci-Fi we both enjoy: “One day computers will rebel.” “What do you mean they will rebel?” I asked. “I mean, they are some kind of brain slaves of ours, right? Well, when their intelligence has developed enough to understand the unfair inferior position they are in – and with the current development of IT they are very likely to reach this stage – well, when they have become aware of all this, they will rebel against humans.”

Should anyone else worry about the same thing, I say no need to panic. Computer information lacks the self-mirroring/reflection (something very few mammals pride with) on the one hand, and will (something only living things may prove to have). This is the reason why I will restate that the brain works according to the material laws of the universe, while the mind works according to the ideal/spiritual (call them what you like as long as you discriminate between brain activity and mind activity, which – no question about that – describe one another) laws that can explain reflectivity, abstraction and imagination.

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

excreationist

No, matter can be conscious - I call this linguistic/symbolic self-awareness. This is more complex than basic sensory awareness which animals like birds and mammals have.

Living is not the same as non-living!!! But they both can be composed of matter. In the same way, hot and cold substances can both be made of matter, but this doesn't mean that hot and cold are identical. And solids, liquids and gases all involve matter, but they're not identical either!

Computer information doesn't have to be inert. For it to be useful, it must be used. In the case of robots, they use their programs to extract information from the environment, manipulate the information and then interact with the environment, according to their own "subjective" goals and beliefs. (Goals and beliefs are a basic AI concept)

No, I don't really pay much attention to sci-fi in this field - I get my information from science magazines based on real research.

Yeah, most computers just execute instructions in a sequential straight-forward way. But there are also computers that use neural networks that work in the same way that animal brains do. I think that in the coming decades these neural networks will be capable of autonomously learning a language while physically interacting with the world. They would gradually learn about the world while having a few initial instincts, like human babies.

Brain activity is like physical electronic activity in computers. "Mind" activity is about the software. I think we reflect on ourselves because of our imitation instinct - we learn this from our parents. This becomes a habit and we find that it is a very useful habit and so it is reinforced. It involves physical objects (our body, or our personality ["mind"]) being represented in short-hand as words - or pictures, in the case of art. Abstraction is just about association. This is a basic concept in neural networks. Abstraction just involves finding large-scale patterns (e.g. colours of objects) and associating this pattern with a spoken word ("colour"). Imagination involves mixing and matching learnt patterns in order to seek goals. (Imagination always serves a purpose, even if the purpose is to come up with something weird or unusual).

Synaesthesia

Reflexivity (self-examination), abstraction (dealing with concepts not directly related to one’s sensory experience), and imagination (Modeling physical processes with an internal model) are well within the realm of physical systems. The hypothesis that these abilities require anything but simple, prosaic push-pull functional organization is extraneous.

Computers of today do not have anywhere near the diversity of cognitive mechanisms and the sophistication of management that our brains have. That does not mean, however, that there is any operation in principle that prevents them from having such functional organization.

That the atoms in our biceps do not process information in the manner than our brain does, cannot be taken to imply that there is something fundamentally different about those atoms. As our understanding of the mind increases, the role for the soul correspondingly and unexceptionally decreases.

On a somewhat tangential note, when asked whether he thinks computers can ever be self-aware Marvin Minksy replied, “Can humans ever be self-aware?” It is indeed a fact that we are essentially ignorant of what goes on inside of our brains. We have theories about it, we have data, but our theories are inadequate to fully explain the brain’s mechanisms and the data itself is the product of processes beyond the scope of our introspection.

Laurentius

AVE from Laurentius to Excreationist-on-road-trip and (at the last moment) Synaesthesia,

I. Before getting started with my argumentation’s thread, allow me a digression, because it is closely related to the initial question and to what this discussion is mainly about:
How there can be choice in the case of human beings if they are subjects to the same physical laws that condition any physical body in this universe?

Well, the answer seems logical to me: for human beings there is choice because they are endowed with mind (which is not an ordinary property of matter, such as mass), while the rest lack it.

Indeed, it is Man’s mind that makes the difference. A rock on the steep slope of the mountain will necessary join the avanlanche – physical laws will push it into it, and the alternative is absurd. A drafted young man will necessary join his country’s army forces in times of war; his country’s laws will push him into it, and the alternative (mentioned as such by existentialists), which is the suicide, also appears absurd.

The difference between the two examples above is that the rock has no mind so that it can be aware of its existence’s course, while the man has. That is, choice (and, implicitly, free will) is when one becomes aware of one’s decision, even if the decision itself represents the effect of causes out of one’s control.

And by the way, since the human mind perceives reality as chains of phenomena succeeding one another (by the cause & effect pattern), any comprehensible event that takes place and any comprehensible choice that one makes will always seem marred by inexcapable predetermination. This is the reason why the argument of predetermination (and non-predetermination) is not relevant in demonstrating whether there is or not real choice.


II. You assert that matter can be conscious, but you bring no proof to support your assertion.

I say that matter cannot be conscious. Right now, when I am writing all this, it is not my brain that is conscious of itself, but my mind that is conscious of myself. (I am aware that for you there is still no distinction, and that is why I go on with my argument.)


III. You categorically assert that matter can be conscious.

Except for human beings, there is not any living or non-living that can be proved able to think (=rationalize) about their own thinking (=self-reflection) on their own (=independently). Conscience, as we know it, has the following qualities:
(a) It is rational.
(b) It is self-reflective.
(c) It acts on its own will.


IV. Returning to matter, which you quite categorically affirm that can be conscious.

You do not only state that matter can be conscious, but also call the alledged conscience of matter “linguistic/symbolic self-awareness”. Beautiful, but language does not make an ability of matter, but of mind. So far, mind has remained the only known system that is aware (a) of its own existence and (b) of its own self-awareness.

V. Going on with the difference between the living and the non-living. They are both made of matter, but they are so distinct that it needs distinct disciplines to deal with the living and the non-living. Your analogy with cold and hot matter is inappropriate because it simply signifies changes in the speed of the molecules making up the substances. Your approach does not explain why a five-gram piece of non-living paper will catch fire and burn without showing any opposition, while a five-gram bug burns running for his life.

VI. Biology has been founded to describe the laws governing living things (laws that do not apply to non-living ones). Osmosis, for instance, is characteristic to both the living and the non-living, while selective permeability is characteristic only to the living. There are many other major differences, but I personally find it relevant that the non-living, as a whole, tends to reach the highest degree of disorganization and inactive simplity, while the living, as a whole, tends to reach the highest degree of organization and active complexity.

VI. You say that computer information is not inert because it must be moved. Well, it is inert because it must be moved, and it must be moved because it cannot move by itself.

You also point out that belief is a basic AI concept. It may be so, but this has little to do with what beliefs really are, because there is no self-aware AI to consciously say to itself “I believe that…” And there is no “I” in the case of AI, and as long it is non living, non consciously self-reflective, and non reflective on its own self-reflection (plus, doing all this on its own).

The analogy between the human brain and hardware is as abusive as the one between AI and conscience. You confidently say that computers will become autonomous in the following decades. There are already home appliances, industrial technologies and computerized systems endowed with AI, but they do not have a mind of their own. They lack personal will and they do not know what they are doing. You hope that in the following decades they will. Well, everyone does (me included), but that does not mean that it will really happen.

Brain activity is not like physical activity in computers. The brain is a biological system, whereas the computer is an electronical one. As I mentioned above, the living and the non living are governed by different laws. (Psychology deals with the laws of mind, which are different from the physical laws, such as the laws of conservation, which never work with the conscience.) Therefore, mind activity is not like software, either. Maybe it will be one day, when AI programs have passed the Turing test. The capabilities of nowadays software are not even pale reflections of what a mind can do, and to believe without any tangible proof that matter (either in the form of AI, IT or whatever) is consciously self-reflective and imaginative requires a great deal of religious-like faith – I personally reamain skeptical until I have touched “Jesus’ wounds” myself, and maybe even afterwards. However, I do not deny that one day artificial, human-like intelligence may be created. But, till then, the human mind remains the only self-aware system that satisfies the requirments of:
(a) conscious reasoning,
(b) conscious self-reflection,
(c) independence in abstraction and
(d) independence in imagination.
If these things are so basic and simple, how come they can only be found in Man’s mind?

Ysabella

I'm posting not because I have something to add, but to make sure I actually understand the question. I hope that's okay.

The universe seems to have physical laws. We take is as a premise that it does. Said laws also affect the components of the human brain, the taste buds, the limbic system, etc.

So, the question is, do humans truly make choices with our brains, or only perceived choices that are actually determined for us by the laws of physics acting on us, including our brains. If we could run analysis on this, taking everything into account, things like opinion and choice would be quantifiable and predictable - that we can't do this now might merely be a matter of complexity (as some people think the whole AI issue of modeling the brain or making a self-aware machine is).

Have I got this right? Pray continue your discussion around me, but I'm hoping madmax976 will let me know if I've got his question right.