The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[untermensche]

We have two entities.

The mind. That which Descartes said is an essential truth.

If there is thought there is a thinker.

And the brain.

It has been looked at and examined and we know a lot about it. We know what the cells are doing.

We have the mind and we have the brain.

But we don't have ONE thing that connects them.

 

[Juma]

(The image on the screen is in YOUR mind. Its just a bunch of colored dots.)

the mind is the processing of the brain, exactly as the executing program is the processing of the computer. They are both information processes.

Nobody has a clue what the mind is beyond something apparently done by the brain.

But if the mind is a mechanism then of course free decisions are possible.

What the is "free" supposed to mean here?
What is the difference between decisions and free decisions?

 

[Juma]

We have two entities.

The mind. That which Descartes said is an essential truth.

If there is thought there is a thinker.

And the brain.

It has been looked at and examined and we know a lot about it. We know what the cells are doing.

We have the mind and we have the brain.

But we don't have ONE thing that connects them.

Except that everything that goes on in the mind, is done by the brain. Vision, memory etc.

 

[DBT]

I have no idea what "mind" is. And neither do you.

Mention the word 'mind' to any English speaker and they are likely to define it as the ability to consciously think, feel, decide, to be aware of environment and self.


Full Definition of mind (Merriam Webster)

1: recollection, memory <keep that in mind> <time out of mind>

2a : the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons b : the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism c : the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism.

What is not understood is how the brain generates the set of conscious experiences we call 'mind'

But the activity of the brain seems to be a slave to the mind.

Nah, wrong. You need to brush up on Neuroscience.

I "will" my arm to raise and it does. Every time.

What comes before you even feel the need to raise your arm is the interesting part. Again, you really need to brush up on neuroscience.

Maybe it has something to do with neurons. That seems likely.

That's a start, now do some study of movement intention, parietal lobe, Hallet, Haggard, Gazzaniga, Planck institute studies, etc.

 

[untermensche]

Nobody has a clue what the mind is beyond something apparently done by the brain.

But if the mind is a mechanism then of course free decisions are possible.

What the is "free" supposed to mean here?
What is the difference between decisions and free decisions?

A decision can be forced.

You may think you want a chocolate ice cream cone but really all the little switches in your brain, that have no choice, make you think you want a chocolate ice cream cone.

 

[DBT]

We have two entities.

The mind. That which Descartes said is an essential truth.

If there is thought there is a thinker.

And the brain.

It has been looked at and examined and we know a lot about it. We know what the cells are doing.

We have the mind and we have the brain.

But we don't have ONE thing that connects them.

Duality has been discredited long ago. There is no homunculus.

''The homunculus argument is a fallacy arising most commonly in the theory of vision. One may explain (human) vision by noting that light from the outside world forms an image on the retinas in the eyes and something (or someone) in the brain looks at these images as if they are images on a movie screen (this theory of vision is sometimes termed the theory of the Cartesian Theater: it is most associated, nowadays, with the psychologist David Marr). The question arises as to the nature of this internal viewer. The assumption here is that there is a 'little man' or 'homunculus' inside the brain 'looking at' the movie. '' - Wiki.

 

[untermensche]

Mention the word 'mind' to any English speaker and they are likely to define it as the ability to consciously think, feel, decide, to be aware of environment and self.


Full Definition of mind (Merriam Webster)

1: recollection, memory <keep that in mind> <time out of mind>

2a : the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons b : the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism c : the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism.

What is not understood is how the brain generates the set of conscious experiences we call 'mind'

Knowing the definition of "mind" is not knowing what a mind is.

And you don't have the slightest clue what a mind is.

Otherwise you could tell me.

What comes before you even feel the need to raise your arm is the interesting part. Again, you really need to brush up on neuroscience.

Not this crap masquerading as knowledge again. Something you don't understand happened in a brain in some study.

This is not in the least knowledge of the mind and how the mind effects the brain.

 

[untermensche]

We have two entities.

The mind. That which Descartes said is an essential truth.

If there is thought there is a thinker.

And the brain.

It has been looked at and examined and we know a lot about it. We know what the cells are doing.

We have the mind and we have the brain.

But we don't have ONE thing that connects them.

Duality has been discredited long ago. There is no homunculus.

''The homunculus argument is a fallacy arising most commonly in the theory of vision. One may explain (human) vision by noting that light from the outside world forms an image on the retinas in the eyes and something (or someone) in the brain looks at these images as if they are images on a movie screen (this theory of vision is sometimes termed the theory of the Cartesian Theater: it is most associated, nowadays, with the psychologist David Marr). The question arises as to the nature of this internal viewer. The assumption here is that there is a 'little man' or 'homunculus' inside the brain 'looking at' the movie. '' - Wiki.

You haven't addressed my point in any way.

You've made some tangential and unrelated point about a homunculus.

Tell it to somebody who speaks of one.

We don't have one bit of knowledge of how a mind is generated or what a mind is.

Not the slightest shred.

 

[untermensche]

We have two entities.

The mind. That which Descartes said is an essential truth.

If there is thought there is a thinker.

And the brain.

It has been looked at and examined and we know a lot about it. We know what the cells are doing.

We have the mind and we have the brain.

But we don't have ONE thing that connects them.

Except that everything that goes on in the mind, is done by the brain. Vision, memory etc.

We don't have any idea what memory is.

We have a hypothesis and evidence it is in the brain somewhere.

 

[ryan]

Uh oh, I have a feeling DBT is going to have something to say about that.

But don't worry, I have the solution to free will, and it is purely scientific.

That's right I have something to say.

And that is: As the 'mind' is something that the brains is doing, shaping and forming, it is not the mind that is doing anything but the activity of the brain. The state of the hardware, the brain, being reflected in the expression of the mind.

Proven by, as I have already described, failure of connectivity, structural or chemical changes, etc, which manifest as breakdowns in the conscious mind.

I am interested in why you didn't respond to my last rebuttal to you.

What is not understood is how the brain generates the set of conscious experiences we call 'mind'

This seems like dualism: an immaterial substance arising from material.

 

[Juma]

Except that everything that goes on in the mind, is done by the brain. Vision, memory etc.

We don't have any idea what memory is.

We have a hypothesis and evidence it is in the brain somewhere.

Thus you where wrong, we have lots that connects mind and brain.

 

[untermensche]

We don't have any idea what memory is.

We have a hypothesis and evidence it is in the brain somewhere.

Thus you where wrong, we have lots that connects mind and brain.

What that statement means is we have absolutely no knowledge of how a mind is generated, what a mind is and therefore how a mind can influence a brain.

It doesn't mean we don't have a hypothesis that the mind is generated by the brain.

 

[DBT]

I am interested in why you didn't respond to my last rebuttal to you.

I doubt that it was a rebuttal.

I saw your post, but time is a problem and I got sidetracked by replying to fast, etc. So much to do but so little time to do it all.

This seems like dualism: an immaterial substance arising from material.

No, just because we don't understand how the brain produces conscious experience doesn't mean that its immaterial....which explains nothing anyway. What is this 'non material?' How does it work?

There is no explanation for that, so it's useless as an explanation for conscious experience.

 

[DBT]

Thus you where wrong, we have lots that connects mind and brain.

What that statement means is we have absolutely no knowledge of how a mind is generated, what a mind is and therefore how a mind can influence a brain.

It doesn't mean we don't have a hypothesis that the mind is generated by the brain.

We don't know how 'mind' is generated by a brain, but that the mind is the work of a brain is well supported by evidence. Hence what the brain is producing in response to stimuli, inputs, etc, does not influence or control the brain. What influences the brain is the information it receives from its senses...which it uses to form a conscious model, perception and related thoughts and feelings. Which are always after the fact, after the event.

 

[untermensche]

What that statement means is we have absolutely no knowledge of how a mind is generated, what a mind is and therefore how a mind can influence a brain.

It doesn't mean we don't have a hypothesis that the mind is generated by the brain.

We don't know how 'mind' is generated by a brain, but that the mind is the work of a brain is well supported by evidence. Hence what the brain is producing in response to stimuli, inputs, etc, does not influence or control the brain. What influences the brain is the information it receives from its senses...which it uses to form a conscious model, perception and related thoughts and feelings. Which are always after the fact, after the event.

What influences the brain is also the mind.

Again. I "will" my arm to move and it does. You don't know what is going on nor does anybody else. There is a little knowledge of what general regions in the brain are more or less active when this happens. But what activity is allowing me to "will" my arm to move is not understood in the least.

That is the "will" under consideration when people talk of "free will".

 

[ryan]

I doubt that it was a rebuttal.

I saw your post, but time is a problem and I got sidetracked by replying to fast, etc. So much to do but so little time to do it all.

That's okay, no rush.

This seems like dualism: an immaterial substance arising from material.

No, just because we don't understand how the brain produces conscious experience doesn't mean that its immaterial....which explains nothing anyway. What is this 'non material?' How does it work?

There is no explanation for that, so it's useless as an explanation for conscious experience.

I had to question your reply to untermensche.

 

[DBT]

We don't know how 'mind' is generated by a brain, but that the mind is the work of a brain is well supported by evidence. Hence what the brain is producing in response to stimuli, inputs, etc, does not influence or control the brain. What influences the brain is the information it receives from its senses...which it uses to form a conscious model, perception and related thoughts and feelings. Which are always after the fact, after the event.

What influences the brain is also the mind.

Sensory inputs are not the 'mind' - sensory input provides the brain with information that is represented in conscious form which is experienced as mind.

Again. I "will" my arm to move and it does. You don't know what is going on nor does anybody else..

What we do know is that duality is false. There is no you the homunculus 'willing' your arm to move. What is understood is that something prompted the brain to form the will/intention to move the arm, which is subsequently experienced consciously.

The motor action to move the arm is initiated milliseconds before awareness of that intention and action is formed. That is what the evidence tells us. Please keep up with the research and don't just base your beliefs on subjective experience...what you feel is happening is not what is actually happening.

Movement intention After Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans;
''Parietal and premotor cortex regions are serious contenders for bringing motor intentions and motor responses into awareness. We used electrical stimulation in seven patients undergoing awake brain surgery. Stimulating the right inferior parietal regions triggered a strong intention and desire to move the contralateral hand, arm, or foot, whereas stimulating the left inferior parietal region provoked the intention to move the lips and to talk. When stimulation intensity was increased in parietal areas, participants believed they had really performed these movements, although no electromyographic activity was detected. Stimulation of the premotor region triggered overt mouth and contralateral limb movements. Yet, patients firmly denied that they had moved. Conscious intention and motor awareness thus arise from increased parietal activity before movement execution.''

A parietal-premotor network for movement intention and motor awareness
''It is commonly assumed that we are conscious of our movements mainly because we can sense ourselves moving as ongoing peripheral information coming from our muscles and retina reaches the brain. Recent evidence, however, suggests that, contrary to common beliefs, conscious intention to move is independent of movement execution per se. We propose that during movement execution it is our initial intentions that we are mainly aware of. Furthermore, the experience of moving as a conscious act is associated with increased activity in a specific brain region: the posterior parietal cortex. We speculate that movement intention and awareness are generated and monitored in this region. We put forward a general framework of the cognitive and neural processes involved in movement intention and motor awareness.''

 

[untermensche]

The motor action to move the arm is initiated milliseconds before awareness of that intention and action is formed. That is what the evidence tells us. Please keep up with the research and don't just base your beliefs on subjective experience...what you feel is happening is not what is actually happening.

You simply label some activity in the brain, you don't understand, as "motor action" and then pretend you know something about what is going on.

I have extensive training in human anatomy and physiology. I have dissected a human.

Don't try to pass this off as knowledge.

Something, we don't know what, happens in a brain, prior to voluntary movement, under some circumstances. It may just be a transition of attention.

There really is NOTHING we can make of this at this point. It isn't in any way knowledge of the "mind" or how the "mind" effects the brain.

 

[fast]

The mind is an abstraction, abstractions are immaterial, so the mind is immaterial.

 

[untermensche]

The mind is an abstraction, abstractions are immaterial, so the mind is immaterial.

Is your mind an abstraction?