iNow

More precisely, it’s from a reconstruction of the environment, after the fact

The classical quantum debate’s head rears once more.

Great idea, but I bet it goes back even farther. Some plants and definitely spore based organisms likely fit the same criteria used to classify the worms as sentient in their study. Is this a question or an assertion? Your meaning is unclear.

Interesting idea, though quite lacking. I know scores of actual humans who can’t even give the right reactions to social norms and yet they’re still sentient.

They’re pretty commonly used in California to treat wildfires.

Agreed. I just don't see ability to interact with social norms as sufficient to pass Turing.

This is a bold claim. I suspect you'd struggle to support it if asked to do so.

Are you suggesting we know something is sentient if they follow social norms and mores? That seems to be a tenuous claim, if so.

Insufficient info available to answer

How basic do you need me to go? What level is your current understanding of neuroscience? Perhaps you missed it. It was my very first response to your very first question.

Define consciousness then (maybe without so many all caps and exclamation points)

I think those people are fooling themselves. A possible path to impeachment? Maybe An effective path to impeachment? No way. Not even close. Impeachment is a political process (I.e. laws and facts are secondary), and the contents of this report aren’t sufficient to get a GOP led Senate on board with it. End program. Perhaps this report will drive new investigations and new findings, but IMO it doesn’t rise to that level on its own.

Kudos to John on the insane word play

The underlying chemistry activating electrical impulses across a neurobiological substrate I suspect living is too ambiguous of a term to help us much here. I don’t see life as prerequisite, though. No. It very possibly could (and IMO likely does) emerge from that which we’d today describe as inanimate. I suppose it might, but rocks seem less likely since their chemistry is less fluid and any electrical currents through then tend to be external (as opposed to internally generated). I don’t know who told you that, but they never told me. Also, it seems to me that this very much hinges on what you mean by “computation,” and further on how universal these quote unquote “laws of computation” actually are. As we struggle to even define consciousness in a consistent meaningful way, it seems presumptuous and myopic to make any bold claims about whether computer or dominoes express it I’m inclined toward yes, but once again this very much depends on your definition of consciousness. Thanks, chief. I know what a global supply chain is and how they function. What I don’t know is what you mean by consciousness. The answer to your questions is contingent on that, and that alone. If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it’s not the fish that’s best described as stupid. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. Think of the northern lights. They’re an emergent phenomenon of the way particles from the sun interact with our magnetic field and atmosphere. Consciousness appears to follow the same structure. It’s beautiful. It’s profound. It’s also just an emergent phenomenon stemming from more basic interactions themselves more simply described.

Specifically, they said it would be challenging for the government to win a case focused on motives and intent given the availability evidence, especially against a sitting president, but left open the door to further investigation... especially once Trump is no longer in office. I just finished reading it. Am sure others will have alternative interpretations.

I understand you prefer taking a different approach, but what you call "a stretch," I call functionally accurate and operationally correct. It's simply a different perspective than yours, and not wrong for that reason alone. Right. I was already clear on your stance here. I was not asking you to repeat it. I was asking you to explain why you hold it. I've altered my framing of the issue to align with your framing... that coercion means it's not free will. Per your own definition above, coercion is something which compels behaviors or actions. As is obvious from the data, and has been obvious for years already, our own actions and behaviors are compelled by a complex chemistry playing out across a dynamic biological network conducting electrical peaks and troughs, plus a whole bucket full of other inputs from organisms, bacteria, and the broader environment like salinity, hydration, and even pollen or temperature. Those inputs all play a role in compelling us toward specific actions and behaviors; they all affect the manner with which we interact with the cosmos in each passing moment... so why treat them any differently from when we're similarly compelled (or "coerced" to use your word) by another organism we just happen to call a person (or fellow human)? Thanks for the link. Interesting read. This is pretty close to my stance, yes. I'd like to explore it further as I'm sure there are important gaps I'm not currently considering, but it wouldn't be unfair to compare with with Pereboom here. One thing I will say (and this bothers me in most of these conversations) is that I didn't like how the author introduced the idea of responsibility / consequences for specific actions deemed to be immoral by society and culture. That's an important consideration, for sure... if we lack freewill, then should we not punish those committing heinous acts?... those are important questions to explore, but to me that's an entirely separate question from whether our will is free in the first place.

I believe so, yes, in some instances (but not all). On net, however, we're aligned that it's proven useful more often than not. Because the source or cause of consciousness is independent from and unrelated to whether or not it confers any benefit or utility. I'd have no quarrel if you did. This is, IMO, broadly accurate and largely synonymous with calling it an emergent phenomenon (as I previously described it many times here and elsewhere).

And yet such a conclusion may very well remain valid. Perhaps it is accurate to describe it as an emergent phenomenon, even if doing so doesn't illuminate other issues for you.

Just to follow-up: I’m curious to better understand your thinking on this part.

We're likely not as far apart on this as it appears, but I'm sure you agree that it feels like we're talking past one another a bit. To answer your question: It's an input to the decision or choice. Envision a scale, one of those old fashioned two-sided ones like you see lady justice holding in front of courtrooms. When we use that scale, some items are placed on side A while some other items are placed on side B. Eventually, as more items are added, the scale tips one way or the other as the inputs themselves shift. The scale, however, didn't "decide" or "choose" to tip. It just happened as a result of the inputs to it and the underlying physics. Similarly, this same "tipping due to inputs" happens in our minds with each passing moment. "We" didn't decide or choose what to do or how to act. The inputs did. We just later applied a narrative to make sense of those inputs (often as long as 11 seconds later).

We agree here. I was previously pushing back a bit on the suggestion that because it evolved it must be advantageous. That was a flawed conclusion. Many things evolve which confer no benefit (as do things which are detrimental), often as a random byproduct of other traits which were themselves selected. That was the clarification I offered.

Agreed. My basic premise is this: Eise argues that coercion from external actors / people is a valid reason not to call something "free will." I argue that coercion occurs everywhere and all the time in every single decision or "choice" we make via inputs like surrounding environment, neural structure, chemistry, and even the biome and hydration levels or diet. Those, too, are external actors, even if hosted within our body. So, if one form of coercion allows us to say there isn't free will, then why not the other?

What about my previous explanations was unclear?

If by "Keith" you mean the biological bag of water and chemicals, then we agree. If instead by Keith you mean a conscious mind or self, then we diverge from our consensus. And yet evolution occurs even absent what we're calling consciousness. Trees, plants, microbes all evolve and it'd be a stretch to call them conscious. Perhaps I'm getting hung up on semantics, but this suggests it is absolutely NOT essential. I notice another thread recently opened on free will. Will try to avoid replies to each from bleeding into one another.