The illusion of free will is an artifact of the incomplete knowledge of the mind’s knowledge of the brain. It is not practical for an organism to evolve a brain to take be aware of its own functioning on the physical level of the decision making. An accurate simulation of a mind need not rely on a brain at all. We hope.
While we can say that actions are a result of purely physical processes, it is necessary to create abstract models of other people’s projected actions in order to influence them. In recent years we have developed electromagnetic methods of overriding volition, but that approach is surely less efficient than persuasion.
My point is that neurology and psychology are different disciplines, and while they do overlap they do not need to converge but instead to conspire.
As for the moral thread of the post, rationally applied behavior modification ought take both into account. I am not sure what societal responses the post would suggest be changed, but I do believe that some moral truths are self-evident. {I am strongly opposed to destroying complexity without cause.}
I hope that within my lifetime mind will be more easily separate from brain through simulation and emulation. I suspect that new environments will be created in which action without consequence will be possible. I look forward to new means of communication which will muddle questions of identity and uniqueness (in a good way).
I would rather people look upon their bodies and brains as temporary vehicles for consciousness, and that they would be encouraged to find replacements as soon as possible. The inevitability of death is just a meme.
I assume that neurology and psychology will converge or one of them will be forgotten by the way side.
I don’t see how bodies and brains can be temporary vehicles for consciousness. If you mean that the state of our brains can be transferred to a machine in some sort of readout and that machine is capable of consciousness—then that machine becomes our brain/body replacement. A disembodied consciousness is something I cannot imagine.
I assume that neurology and psychology will converge or one of them will be forgotten by the way side.
Could psychology not be found to be still useful when considering human behaviors at a different level of abstraction (or, indeed, with different forms of experimentation)?
Yes, of course, psychology and neurology could exist together using different levels of abstraction and different methods—like physics and chemistry. But if they disagree on fundamentals and cannot converge then I don’t think they can stay that way for long.
Agreed concerning the need for a processing platform. Not so sure about the convergence of psych and neuro for same reason. If the same psych rules can apply to a consciousness regardless of platform, then neurology not applicable in that case.
The illusion of free will is an artifact of the incomplete knowledge of the mind’s knowledge of the brain. It is not practical for an organism to evolve a brain to take be aware of its own functioning on the physical level of the decision making. An accurate simulation of a mind need not rely on a brain at all. We hope.
While we can say that actions are a result of purely physical processes, it is necessary to create abstract models of other people’s projected actions in order to influence them. In recent years we have developed electromagnetic methods of overriding volition, but that approach is surely less efficient than persuasion.
My point is that neurology and psychology are different disciplines, and while they do overlap they do not need to converge but instead to conspire.
As for the moral thread of the post, rationally applied behavior modification ought take both into account. I am not sure what societal responses the post would suggest be changed, but I do believe that some moral truths are self-evident. {I am strongly opposed to destroying complexity without cause.}
I hope that within my lifetime mind will be more easily separate from brain through simulation and emulation. I suspect that new environments will be created in which action without consequence will be possible. I look forward to new means of communication which will muddle questions of identity and uniqueness (in a good way).
I would rather people look upon their bodies and brains as temporary vehicles for consciousness, and that they would be encouraged to find replacements as soon as possible. The inevitability of death is just a meme.
I assume that neurology and psychology will converge or one of them will be forgotten by the way side. I don’t see how bodies and brains can be temporary vehicles for consciousness. If you mean that the state of our brains can be transferred to a machine in some sort of readout and that machine is capable of consciousness—then that machine becomes our brain/body replacement. A disembodied consciousness is something I cannot imagine.
Could psychology not be found to be still useful when considering human behaviors at a different level of abstraction (or, indeed, with different forms of experimentation)?
Yes, of course, psychology and neurology could exist together using different levels of abstraction and different methods—like physics and chemistry. But if they disagree on fundamentals and cannot converge then I don’t think they can stay that way for long.
Agreed concerning the need for a processing platform. Not so sure about the convergence of psych and neuro for same reason. If the same psych rules can apply to a consciousness regardless of platform, then neurology not applicable in that case.