[ExI] The Problem of Mental Causation

[Jason Resch]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 1:35 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> What is it, that is conscious?
>
> Even if your decisions in reaction to certain stimulus are determined in
> advance, no one can know precisely which stimulus you will experience in
> what order over your entire life.
>

True. Note that this is not unique to humans or consciousness, but is the
case for any chaotic nonlinear system (like a double pendulum). Their
future evolution can only be predicted via a simulation of sufficient
fidelity. But I would say the existence of chaotic systems is
non-controversial and well-understood. The ability for consciousness to
have effects in the world is more controversial and less understood.


>   (No one you will ever interact with in a meaningful-to-you way, anyway.
> If you are in a well-designed simulation for the benefit of others, you'll
> never know.)  Moreover, what are your thoughts in the quiet moments, when
> you have a relative lack of stimuli?
>

I agree that minds are far more complex things than the behaviorist account
admits.


>
> Your decisions are your decisions, no matter how they came about.  It
> doesn’t matter if they were predetermined or not; there is still a you that
> is having those thoughts and finding your way through life.
>

True. Though there remains the question of how this works in a manner
consistent with physical law.


> If you were just an automaton not responsible for your actions or beliefs,
> you would not be having the thought that you were not responsible.
>

What distinguishes an automaton from a human brain operating according to
deterministic physics? I think that is another important question. Is it
the capacity for thought?


>   If you just considered the concept upon reading those words,
> congratulations, you - whatever collection of matter, energy, and perhaps
> more that "you" refers to - can control your mind to some nonzero degree.
>

I agree with the rejection of consciousness inessentialism
(epiphenomenalism). That humans talk about consciousness is evidence that
consciousness has effects in the world. But then this admission only
refocuses attention on the original question: "how does consciousness have
effects in a universe governed by deterministic laws?"

Jason


>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025, 1:19 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> One of the great puzzles when it comes to understanding consciousness and
>> its role in the universe is the question of how conscious thoughts could
>> have any causal power in a universe fully governed and determined by
>> particles blindly following forces of nature.
>>
>> Some solve this problem by supposing our will must somehow miraculously
>> intervene in physics. Others solve this problem by denying human will or
>> agency, relegating consciousness to an ineffectual, and inessential
>> "epiphenomenon."
>>
>> But I think a more nuanced view can show that consciousness can have
>> causal power in a universe fully determined by particles following physical
>> equations. Here is my attempt at describing such a view:
>>
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qCuCc9kvbw5KKHJ223l7MbbNhZkTamhA/view?usp=sharing
>>
>> An answer to this question is relevant to whether uploaded minds, AI, or
>> robots can have will or agency, despite their behavior being fully
>> determined by low-level machine code.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20250430/b645f299/attachment.htm>