If we can simulate brains on computers then we cannot have free will

  • Thread starter Thread starter a_fun_username
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

a_fun_username

Guest
assuming that in the far future we have computers powerful enough to perfectly simulate human brains, all the (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs then if we start a simulated brain with a given starting condition we will inevitably receive the same output because computers execute code the same every time and because the computer perfectly simulated the brain then it must be coherent with reality so if the brain in the computer is just reacting to stimuli without accuracy choosing the output then the brain in the real world must like the computer brain must be just reacting to things without choosing it

but just for a moment lets assume that there is some true randomness (which we have observed at the quantum level) then we wouldn’t always receive the same output… but that version of free will would be the same as a pair of dice claiming that it chose to roll whatever number it landed on.
 
Last edited:
so then when i make a choice some otherworldly thing influences the neurons in my brain to do a certain thing… in which case why cant we measure that influence with all the equipment we have like with a C.A.T. scan? @vico
 
Last edited:
a_fun_username said:
assuming that in the far future we have computers powerful enough to perfectly simulate human brains, all the (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs then if we start a simulated brain with a given starting condition we will inevitably receive the same output because computers execute code the same every time and because the computer perfectly simulated the brain then it must be coherent with reality so if the brain in the computer is just reacting to stimuli without accuracy choosing the output then the brain in the real world must like the computer brain must be just reacting to things without choosing it

but just for a moment lets assume that there is some true randomness (which we have observed at the quantum level) then we wouldn’t always receive the same output… but that version of free will would be the same as a pair of dice claiming that it chose to roll whatever number it landed on.
Click to expand...
Do you agree with your parents about everything? That should tell you all you need to know.

No two humans interpret everything identically.

You can start with two babies and expose them to everything at the same time, and one will like ice cream, climbing trees and Nancy Pelosi. The other will like vegitables, needlepoint, and will think Donald Trump is the cats meow.

Just ask your parents.
 
a_fun_username said:
so then when i make a choice some otherworldly thing influences the neurons in my brain to do a certain thing… in which case why cant we measure that influence with all the equipment we have like with a C.A.T. scan? @vico
Click to expand...
Your person is the composite of soul and body. How do you know that you are not measuring the secondary movement?
 
Last edited:
I don’t think technology would reach that state. And for real what is it with all of these free will threads.
 
A computer can only deal with data it obtains. it cannot make value judgments. At least at this stage.
Now artificial intelligence, that’s another story, and a frightening one.
 
would it be possible to isolate the secondary movement without all the rest of the brain that works in the deterministic/ random way? @vico?
 
Last edited:
a_fun_username said:
so then when i make a choice some otherworldly thing influences the neurons in my brain to do a certain thing… in which case why cant we measure that influence with all the equipment we have like with a C.A.T. scan? @vico
Click to expand...
You said it yourself: otherwordly
 
well i beleave i covered that point in the second paragraph… you can get random outputs that the computer cannot predict but that does not mean free will exists… going back to what i said earlier… that version of free will would be the same as a pair of dice claiming that it chose to roll whatever number it landed on.
 
a_fun_username said:
would it be possible to isolate the secondary movement without all the rest of the brain that works in the deterministic/ random way? @vico?
Click to expand...
It it is not necessary that the entire brain and nervous system be perfectly functioning to observe nerve impulses.
 
then could we make that change effect other things? because if it has the power to alter signals in the brain then why could it not alter signals in a machine giving anything with wires sentience?
 
here is my fundamental question i guess… is there some thing that influences matter/ energy… almost a force field where the matter in your brain is influenced by it but nothing in the brain creates that influence?
 
a_fun_username said:
here is my fundamental question i guess… is there some thing that influences matter/ energy… almost a force field where the matter in your brain is influenced by it but nothing in the brain creates that influence?
Click to expand...
A definition of thing is: “an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being”.
The soul is immaterial so is not a material object. The soul is sentient only when united to the body. The theory of Aristotle and of St. Aquinas is that phantasm is the link.
 
a_fun_username said:
then if we start a simulated brain with a given starting condition we will inevitably receive the same output because computers execute code the same every time and because the computer perfectly simulated the brain
Click to expand...
But if the computer has to give the same response to the same stimulus every time then we have not perfectly simulated the brain.

This argument amounts to saying that if we eliminate free will from the simulation that proves there is no free will in the original thing being simulated
 
Zaccheus said:
But if the computer has to give the same response to the same stimulus every time then we have not perfectly simulated the brain.
Click to expand...
I suppose that you could introduce randomness by making the response dependent on a random number in a random sequence of random digits. But I don’t think that free will is the same as randomness.
 
If computers can do this, it’s probably going to be through artificial intelligence, which was mentioned above. Artificial intelligence is being persued today via what are called “machine learning” methods. Some of these methods (particularly what people call “neural networks”) involve algorithms that are meant to simulate what we do when we learn to recognize objects. But once you learn the math behind it, it’s pretty easy to tell that Machine learning and the AI that comes from it do not at all constitute human consciousness. For example, all you really need to understand neural networks is some working knowledge of multivariable calculus, a bit of matrix theory, and some numerical methods for approximating minima and maxima of functions. The actual “learning” that takes place pretty much amounts to optimizing a very complicated function in a short amount of time. The actual computational procedure is really complex, however, in that it requires all sorts of data and bits and whatnot. It has many parts.

Human consciousness, however, has a sort of ontological simplicity. Can you break for the parts of human consciousness? The qualia of consciousness is something that cannot be reduced to physiological processes, because reduction will involve some kind of breakdown.

Even if, though, one could perfectly replicate the human mind with a computer and that consciousness is some “emergent property” of physiological processes, you haven’t proven that free will doesn’t exist. All you’ve done is expand the pool of beings that have consciousness.

That we create technology that can simulate our brains should not be a surprise to us at all. In fact, imitating nature, including human nature happens to be the way wet make all sorts of cool discoveries. But these imitations are physical models of natural processes, and they don’t ever fully capture the original process as models. Furthermore, consciousness itself tends to be recursive. We already imitate consciousness in the arts through stories of characters that seem to come to life. On the opposite end our mathematics has this characteristic. mathematical logic is especially prone to this… For those familiar with set theory, one can consider smaller partial “models” set theory inside the set theory universe… but that’s not the only case.
 
Last edited:
a_fun_username said:
here is my fundamental question i guess… is there some thing that influences matter/ energy… almost a force field where the matter in your brain is influenced by it but nothing in the brain creates that influence?
Click to expand...
Yeah. It’s called reality.
 
I’m not sure if that’s the case because people can have illnesses where their will and cognition/intellect regions of their brain are severely affected (eg:dementia and severe schizophrenia) due to neuronal cell loss,but I presume they still have a soul simply due to still being alive.

@a_fun_username,

For all the talk regarding AI,I personally don’t believe that a computer will ever be able to fully replicate the human experience (ie:emotions and free will) because in reality we are nowhere near even being able to cure things such as Dementia which cause cell death and if we can’t cure these illnesses of cognitive loss and even know fully how the brain functions) then how can a computer robot be created to replicate the human?

http://releases.jhu.edu/2016/07/13/what-free-will-looks-like-in-the-brain/
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top