Alexandros Syrakos

In recent literature there has been increased interest in the so-called “paradox of predictability” (PoP) which purportedly shows that a deterministic universe is fundamentally unpredictable, even if its initial state and governing laws are known perfectly. This ostensible conclusion has been used to support compatibilism, the thesis that determinism is compatible with free will: supposedly, the PoP reveals that the nature of determinism is misunderstood and actually allows freedom, hence also free will. The present paper aims to disprove this conclusion and show that the PoP has absolutely no implication concerning the predictability of deterministic systems and the nature of determinism. Its paradoxy arises from a confusion between mental and physical notions in its formulation (the PoP tacitly premises a mental arbiter with respect to whom notions such as prediction and signification have meaning) and disappears once it is expressed in purely physical language. Ultimately, the PoP demonstrates not that prediction is impossible under determinism, but merely the obvious fact that it is impossible to predict while simultaneously acting so as to disprove one’s own prediction. The related issue of the impossibility of self-prediction is also discussed.

Modern philosophy focuses on the mind's universal features, such as qualia and intentionality, typically with the aim of reducing them to physical processes. This endeavour runs into so-called "hard problems", much like the alchemists' pursuits in ages past. Meanwhile, the mind's particularity – its deepest, most distinctive, defining characteristic – is surprisingly overlooked. Each mind is a particular, in a quintessential sense: I experience life through my own, private, unique, and non-duplicable perspective, which is what fundamentally distinguishes me from the rest of the universe and gives me my unique identity. Out of billions of human bodies, it was the formation of what I call "my" body that led to me coming into existence. Why? There seems to be nothing inherently special about this body compared to the billions of others, and I can easily imagine it belonging to another mind and me experiencing life through another body or not existing at all. While for an inanimate particular, such as a chair, it is nonsensical to ask why, when it was constructed, it was that chair and not some other one that came into existence, for a conscious being the question "Why was it I that was brought into existence" is of the utmost relevance and should concern anyone that takes their existence seriously and marvels at its mystery. In this paper it is argued that the particularity of a mind can not be explained or deduced through any supposed composition of that mind, or even in terms of any external factors. Organisation of the brain's matter, architecture of neural circuitry, genetic sequence, combination of parents, or even hypothetical immaterial constituents as posited by panpsychism, cannot tell us anything about the particularity of the mind that possesses them. To begin with, all such combinations of constituents are duplicable (e.g. two or more minds could, theoretically, have identical bodies), or the constituents are exchangeable between minds (the matter constituting the body of one mind could, theoretically, be gradually exchanged with the matter of another mind's body), whereas the particularities of minds are not. Furthermore, the complete symmetry among the particularities of all minds implies that no combination of supposed constituents can have any a priori special relation to any particular mind; all such combinations are equally (a priori) neutral towards all particularities, lacking anything that could serve as a basis for pointing to a specific emergent mind, e.g.\ you rather than me. Finally, the particularity of a mind is something completely private to that mind itself and can be found nowhere else in the universe. The conclusion is that the mind/person/self is a simple (i.e. non-composite) entity, a simple substance, as Descartes proposed.

The mind is our most intimate and familiar element of reality, yet also the most mysterious. Various schools of thought propose interpretations of the mind that are consistent with their worldview, all of which face some problems. Some of these problems can be characterised as ``hard'', not in the sense of being difficult to solve (most problems concerning the mind are difficult), but in the sense of being most likely insurmountable: they bring to the surface logical inconsistencies between the reality of the mind as we perceive it and the fundamental metaphysical tenets of that particular worldview, thus putting the latter in danger of being disproven. This essay focuses mainly on the hard problems that the author considers to be of greatest importance for physicalism, the currently prevalent worldview. Nevertheless, some of these hard problems pertain also to otherviews such as panpsychism. In the author's opinion, the hardest and most profound of these, pertaining equally to physicalism and to panpsychism, is the one discussed in Section 4: the particular subjective first-person viewpoint that defines a particular person can be found nowhere in the universe except in that person itself; all outside entities (physical or mental) are equally neutral towards the ``particularity'' of that person, which therefore cannot be explained as arising from any combination of such outside elements. Therefore, a person is a simple substance. Other hard problems discussed concern the physical explanation of conscious experiences and the physical explanation of meaning, while their repercussions with respect to free will and ethics are also examined. Although these latter hard problems have already been discussed elsewhere, a somewhat fresh perspective is given here by someone who is not a professional philosopher but a physical scientist.