Dear Baldmonkey,
Can Cartesian interactionism be compatible with the principle of the conservation of energy if we accept that we don't have free will?
( Comma, Sat 16 May 2009, 15:40, archived)

It's difficult to see how conservation of energy is exclusive to either of those things.

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 16 May 2009, 15:43, archived)

i find it best not to leave things on standby.

( Tyronne Get To Falkirk, Sat 16 May 2009, 15:44, archived)

in a dualist system, the mind world has to absorb and emit energy to the physical world
but the physical world is the world that is subject to the principle of conservation of energy
( spacefish bong!, Sat 16 May 2009, 15:46, archived)

no it doesn't.
it only has to transmit information.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 16 May 2009, 15:47, archived)

If mind acts upon matter, and I have free will,
I can put more energy into the physical world by deciding to do a little boogie.
( Comma, Sat 16 May 2009, 15:48, archived)

that might be poetic energy,
but it's not really physical energy. Dancing doesn't violate the law of conservation of energy, whether it's by free will or not.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 16 May 2009, 15:49, archived)

wouldn't that break conservation of momentum though?

( spacefish bong!, Sat 16 May 2009, 15:49, archived)

not necessarily.
consider two degenerate quantum states that a particle could be in. A transition of one to the other can happen spontaneously since both states are at the same potential, but whichever state the particle occupies is nevertheless a piece of information. This is the basis of a great many thought experiments, such as the infamous Schrodinger's Cat example, and is also the principle behind quantum teleportation. According to the usual interpretation of Bell's Inequality, the information content of any measurement of a quantum event did not exist in the Universe before the point of observation. Information is therefore not conserved in the physical universe, even though energy and momentum are.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 16 May 2009, 15:52, archived)

are you 12 or gay or autism?

( Gilgamesh gazed in wonder as Frampton came alive, Sat 16 May 2009, 15:54, archived)

do I have to pick one?

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 16 May 2009, 15:54, archived)

aha!
there's your answer, comma. the universe has a cop-out clause
( spacefish bong!, Sat 16 May 2009, 15:54, archived)

Dualism is nonsense anyway,
but that's not the question, although I'm particularly intrigued by the idea of dualism without free will, because without that, surely the whole idea is redundant.

It's redundant anyway, but in this case, it's doubly redundant.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:09, archived)

Why is dualism without free will redundant?

( Comma, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:12, archived)

Well, what is it for, in that case?

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:12, archived)

Oh, I see.
I thought you meant "how could there possibly be mind" rather than "why should mind exist".
( Comma, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:18, archived)

Clarification.
If there were no free will, the mind would be incapable of making any kind of decision, because a decision is an instance of free will. And the definition of a mind is the seat of intelligence - i.e. the decision making process. Without free will, the mind would be bound only to observe the world and never act upon it, so as a means to explain human behaviour and abilities it accounts for nothing.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:23, archived)

I don't think that's the definition of the mind at all.
Decision-making is only one part of the mind, along with consciousness, memory, imagination etc.
It's possible that we should have the perception of decision-making without actually making any decisions.
( Comma, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:28, archived)

Decision making is the ultimate result of all those things,
memory, imagination and consciousness.

I don't think it goes along side them like you suggest.

"Perception of decision making" is a nonsense. You are still making a decision, even if you don't act on that decision.
( Master Of Turnips. Only gays and morons believe in ghosts., Sat 16 May 2009, 16:31, archived)

What I mean is that it's possible
that all of my actions and experiences, including my perception of decision-making, are causally determined by something other than me, so even if I think I could have chosen to act differently, I actually couldn't.
( Comma, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:34, archived)

I disagree.
Although it's correct that all of your decisions are influenced by outside sources, they are not governed by those. The deciding factor is always your own mind, no matter how you choose to define your own mind.

I think there is only one way you will act at any point. You can think "what if I did this differently", but the point is you can never have acted differently. However, this is a result how your own mind interprets outside influences, the decisions are all your own mind's.

I'm not making sense.

*hums*
( Master Of Turnips. Only gays and morons believe in ghosts., Sat 16 May 2009, 16:38, archived)

It's an exercise in the redefinition of "I",
which is fair enough as I've never seen a really good definition of it yet.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:43, archived)

Imagination is a set of decisions,
but I'll give you the other two. Whether we have the perception of free will or not, the point is that without it the mind would have no influence on the world at all, even if the world could still have an influence on the mind. If that were the case, I am bound to merely spectate as my body argues about dualism. And if it is capable of that without me, what am I for?
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:33, archived)

Yes. Totally.
I'm not claiming that it's not bizarre on this view that there should be mind as well as matter, just that it's not illogical.
( Comma, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:37, archived)

That's why I said redundant, rather than self-contradictory.
It is necessarily impossible to disprove anything that's redundant, like invisible unicorns and teapots in space. Yes, I even used those analogies.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:41, archived)

k.

( Comma, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:42, archived)

this is how a video recorder must feel while taping a tom stoppard play

( spacefish bong!, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:39, archived)

I wonder if that's what Tom Stoppard feels
when he's writing them.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:44, archived)

Apathy,
at least that's what I feel when I watch one.
( Master Of Turnips. Only gays and morons believe in ghosts., Sat 16 May 2009, 16:46, archived)

You're more of an engineer than a philosopher,
I can tell.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:47, archived)

In general, yes.
But my feelings on Tom Stoppard are due to A Level English Literature.

being forced to analyse Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead for weeks on end leads to a general feeling of "shut up, I don't care anymore".
( Master Of Turnips. Only gays and morons believe in ghosts., Sat 16 May 2009, 16:49, archived)

ah.
that sort of thing can ruin anything.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:50, archived)

Why does it only have to transmit information and not energy?

( Comma, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:07, archived)

Why should it have to transmit energy?
All that needs to be transferred is your mind's "orders", and the world's response to that in the form of perceptions. Energy is only defined in terms of physically measurable quantities in any case, so it makes little sense to consider it leaving or entering the physical universe whether it is conserved or not.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:12, archived)

What do you mean by the world's perceptions?
Surely perceptions exist in the mind.
( Comma, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:19, archived)

Perceptions are fed to the mind by the world,
if the source of the information is not the world, but is internal to the self, it is a fantasy or dream.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:26, archived)

Oh, I see. I misread what you were saying.
Can you expand on what information is? I think that's where I'm falling down.
( Comma, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:31, archived)

Now you present me with the arduous task
of trying to explain the idea of information without transmitting a great deal of it in the process. It's a bootstrapping problem.

Personally, I believe information to be the fundamental substance of everything. Every measurement or observation you can possibly make comes down to information, any theory you can come up with is information, any decision you can make is information. A desk and chair is information. You and I are information.

But more specifically, I suppose, information is a decision.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:37, archived)

o.O
I don't hold out much hope for my understanding of this, but I'm sure you're right.
( Comma, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:39, archived)

Don't take my information for it.

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:44, archived)

the mind world has to absorb and emit energy to the physical world
but the physical world is the world
TWO MEN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVES
( glued eel /questions/questionsyoudliketoask/post1648081, Sat 16 May 2009, 15:47, archived)

Psychophysics is a non-science.

( Master Of Turnips. Only gays and morons believe in ghosts., Sat 16 May 2009, 15:50, archived)

i have two oranges in one hand and one orange in the other, how many oranges do i have?
NO YOU DON'T YOU'RE LYING YOU DON'T HAVE ANY ORANGES IN YOUR HANDS
( spacefish bong!, Sat 16 May 2009, 15:52, archived)