Re: Strong AI Thesis (No Chinese room, I promise)


Michael Olea wrote:
JGCASEY wrote:

Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
"JGCASEY" <jgkjcasey@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message


So if the "soul" caused the choice as long as the "soul"
wasn't determined we'd be okay.


Essentially we are at an impasse here because I cannot
imagine something as "uncaused". If it happens for a
reason (which is a cause) then it is determined. I don't
have examples of things that "just happen" that I can
then show really did "just happen" without anything from
which it could happen.

Quantum mechanics. An example is radioactive decay. In this
realm stuff happens, on average, with a probability equal to
the square of the amplitude of some wave function. Within
that envelope exactly what happens, one event or another,
happens "without cause", though at a statistically predictable
rate. There is no emperical basis for recourse to "hidden
causes" that "really" determine what happens - quite the
opposite, in fact. The gist of the Bell inequality, John
Bell's theorem, is that there are testable differences in the
outcomes of "quantum entanglement" experiments that depend on
whether or not there can be "hidden variables" at work that
"cause" what emperically seem to be fundamentally random
events. Those experiments have been done (the most decisive
being the Aspect epxperiments). The results, most physicists
agree, are unmistakeable - no hidden variables. Some things
are just fundamentally random, fundamentally uncaused.

Of course there are always elaborate alternatives - e.g.
pilot waves with "non-local hidden variables", but these all
abandon causality at some level, and have the look and feel
of epicycles constructed only to preserve some vestige of
causality where the evidence does not seem to support it.
Even if one of these is correct causality still takes a hit
- in the quantum realm.

None of which should be construed as giving any support to
dualist ectoplasmic goo - but ever since QM modern science
has had to reckon with things that at some level "just happen".

I was aware of the crazy quantum world where things apparently
do "just happen" despite Einsteins belief that God didn't play
dice with the Universe.

But it is statistically determinate and at the macro level
things seem to be very determinate.

Still I don't think "things just happen" is what is meant by
"free will" otherwise "free will" would not be put up as a
reason to assign responsibility for peoples actions.

What I was meaning was "thing just happen" as a result
of "free will" without the possibility that in fact they were
determined but we were unable to figure out how.


--
JC

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Strong AI Thesis (No Chinese room, I promise)
    ... Quantum mechanics. ... that depend on whether or not there can be "hidden variables" at work that ... "cause" what emperically seem to be fundamentally random events. ... some vestige of causality where the evidence does not seem to support it. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Why EPR is only a signpost towards controlled FTL action
    ... >> This exemplifies the main reason why experiments showing quantum ... The fact that QM doesn't even need such a concept (causality) ... > Notice I only used the Lorentz transformations. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Why EPR is only a signpost towards controlled FTL action
    ... >> This exemplifies the main reason why experiments showing quantum ... The fact that QM doesn't even need such a concept (causality) ... > Notice I only used the Lorentz transformations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: determinism, Bohm, Bell
    ... > between the predictions of quantum theory and what can be inferred, ... > might be called local hidden variables, but this fact is of little ... It is responsible for the misconception that Bell proved ... > Is 'hidden determinism' viable? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: determinism, Bohm, Bell
    ... > between the predictions of quantum theory and what can be inferred, ... > might be called local hidden variables, but this fact is of little ... > Is it true that we can't prove that the universe ... Our fault is in the selection of context. ...
    (sci.physics)