Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   One (maybe not completely physical) possibility would be if the
> > computer/brain is able to make decision as a closed system. In other
> > words, it's capable of processing and changing information, and making
> > decisions without those decisions being the direct and inevitable
> > consequence of external input or quantum randomness.

> I understand what you're saying. I'm not seeing how that addresses any of 
> those questions I asked.

> Basically, I was trying to investigate what might be the cause of the 
> (assumed) presence of this non-physical mechanism that's present in humans 
> but not in rocks.

  If the decisions made by a sentient being are

1) not random (in the quantum-mechanical sense), and
2) not a result of external influences, ie. not predictable

because the decisions are being made in a closed system rather than as a
consequence of the entire universe, then one could consider that sentient
being as having a will of its own, with choices which are not just a direct
consequence of external events, and this without necessarily having to
ascend above physics. (But, as I said, I'm not sure if this would break
some laws of physics regarding closed systems and what they can do.)

  Of course if we examine the decisions from *inside* this closed system,
then we might find out that it is still completely bound to deterministic
and random consequences. However, from the *outside* it may be exactly as
if it was a being having true unbounded free will. (In other words, from
the outside it's impossible say whether the decisions are being done by
supernatural or natural means.)

  This would make the sentient being different from a rock, which does
not have such an internal closed decision-making system.

  This might be somewhat similar to what you already wrote in some of your
replies, and maybe this is just your point sinking in.

> > The decisions may
> > be *based* on the external input, but they are not the inevitable and
> > deterministic consequence of it. The computer/brain might be able to
> > use its own internal logic to make choices based on the input, but in a
> > way that from the outside it's impossible to predict which choises will
> > be made.

> Sure. But for it to meet your definition, not just "impossible to predict" 
> but "supernatural."

  I didn't really require for free choice to be supernatural. I only required
that it must not be bound to previous events nor randomness (else it wouldn't
really be free choice at all).

  If a closed system I described is physically possible, then (I think) it
would perfectly *emulate* supernatural free will, even if it isn't really.

> >   Can such closed system exist in the physical world? Could that idea break
> > some laws of physics (eg. something along the lines that new information
> > cannot be generated in a closed system or something)?

> Normally a "closed system" means something different than what you're 
> talking about - in particular, you wouldn't be able to observe the behavior 
> of a person that's a "closed system", whereas the result of the person 
> making the choice is obvious to people outside. If I choose to go to the 
> store today, the other shoppers are going to know that, so I'm no longer a 
> closed system. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to express.

  Wouldn't it be a closed system if the internal decision process is
impossible to observe from the outside, no matter what kind of stimulus
is being applied? In other words, the responses are completely unpredictable,
without necessarily being random (in the quantum-mechanical sense).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message