Human Instinct and Free Will

[untermensche]

You can't look at the evolution of something unless you know what it is.

And nobody knows what consciousness is. And your hand waving is evidence.

Of course. Of course. I should have known. You never read physiology. There is a classic prepartation known as the "cerveau isolé" where cats, rats, dogs, humans, go somnolent and quit producintg synchronized eeg. This has been associated with the activation of the Ascending reticular system which today is referred to as ARAS. EN Sokolov developed a theory and model for this system in the late fifties and we've been pursuing wakefulness ever since. Later a second activation system was found originating from locus coeruleus which radiated horizontally through the cortex. This too has been the subject of many studies on awareness and 'conscious activation and orientation.

But hey, there is no study of consciousness in physiology or physiological neuroscience because you say so.

All you have said is that there is some evidence that consciousness is produced by the brain.

Yet you don't seem to comprehend this is not any explanation of how neural activity becomes consciousness or what specific activity results in consciousness.

 

[DBT]

That's what I'm asking you to explain - this 'we' you talk about as if this 'we' exists independently of the brain and its activity, and - apparently based on what you are saying - somehow orchestrates how the brain makes decisions.

What is asking me?

An active brain generating self awareness in terms of an internal subjective representation of information gathered from the external world in relation to an identity developed through experience; brain/mind/ self interacting with its inputs by means of neural networks processing information.

Your turn.

 

[untermensche]

What is asking me?

An active brain generating self awareness in terms of an internal subjective representation of information gathered from the external world in relation to an identity developed through experience; brain/mind/ self interacting with its inputs by means of neural networks processing information.

Your turn.

So which it is? You list two things.

A brain is asking me or something the brain is doing is asking me?

 

[DBT]

Not only do the things that shape and form it have freedom from QM, something selects the will has freedom too. As far as I can tell, will is partially freely made and in many cases freely selected.

What is it that selects will? What is it that selects quantum outcomes?

Me, since the freedom is a part of me.

Just saying 'me' is meaningless unless you explain the nature of this 'me' and how it relates to brain, mind and decision making....how do you think this so far undefined 'me' actually chooses quantum states, for instance?

 

[DBT]

An active brain generating self awareness in terms of an internal subjective representation of information gathered from the external world in relation to an identity developed through experience; brain/mind/ self interacting with its inputs by means of neural networks processing information.

Your turn.

So which it is? You list two things.

No I don't. Substance dualism is a dead duck.

Your turn.

 

[untermensche]

So which it is? You list two things.

No I don't. Substance dualism is a dead duck.

Your turn.

You're dancing.

Which is it, some brain or something some brain is doing?

Which is having trouble understanding this.

It can't be both.

 

[Juma]

Again, that consciousness exists is well established.

How you can know that you dont what it is is unknowable beats me.

But you run from the subject: the zombie argument.

You are all over the place. First I can't talk about zombies because they aren't scientific, yet we can discuss the consciousness (ths noun not the verb) which is not scientific.

This a discussion. I cannot forbid you anything. I present argument for why the zombie arhument sucks with the result that you just starts talking about something else without indicating that you agreed about the zombie argument...

And conciousness as a noun... To me that means that which makes us concious.

And we are concious so?

Or do you have som prejudiced nothing of an entity tgt could be found somewhere and extracted from the body and when removed turn us into philosophical zombies?
If so I agree: That wouldnt be so scientific.

 

[DBT]

No I don't. Substance dualism is a dead duck.

Your turn.

You're dancing.

Which is it, some brain or something some brain is doing?

Which is having trouble understanding this.

It can't be both.

You are avoiding your responsibility to provide your own version of mind in relation to brain and brain architecture functions. You are the one dancing, as you have all along by ignoring all evidence for brain generated mind.

Which is it, some brain or something some brain is doing?

Which is having trouble understanding this.

It can't be both.

There is no 'both' - a brain as an information process has evolved for the very purpose of interacting with the external world in order that the organism as a whole survives, thrives even, and perpetuates the species...evolutionary biology/psychology specific to the species (type of brain) and individuals within a species.

Now your turn. Stop avoiding your responsibility for explaining your model of mind.

 

[rousseau]

I appreciate untermensche's penchant for the socratic method, but once you've made your point you've made your point and the conversation isn't going anywhere else. When he/she can no longer present a coherent argument, continued discussion is pointless and you're better off with one of your stubbies.

 

[untermensche]

You're dancing.

Which is it, some brain or something some brain is doing?

Which is having trouble understanding this.

It can't be both.

You are avoiding your responsibility to provide your own version of mind in relation to brain and brain architecture functions. You are the one dancing, as you have all along by ignoring all evidence for brain generated mind.

Which is it, some brain or something some brain is doing?

Which is having trouble understanding this.

It can't be both.

There is no 'both' - a brain as an information process has evolved for the very purpose of interacting with the external world in order that the organism as a whole survives, thrives even, and perpetuates the species...evolutionary biology/psychology specific to the species (type of brain) and individuals within a species.

Now your turn. Stop avoiding your responsibility for explaining your model of mind.

You are saying nothing.

What is expressing all these ideas?

A brain? Some activity of a brain? Or something some activity of a brain is producing?

Stop dancing.

I wonder why you won't give a straight answer.

 

[untermensche]

I appreciate untermensche's penchant for the socratic method, but once you've made your point you've made your point and the conversation isn't going anywhere else. When he/she can no longer present a coherent argument, continued discussion is pointless and you're better off with one of your stubbies.

It is pointless when you are talking to people with religious dogmas that can't support them or be moved from them.

Care to actually make a point?

What is expressing these ideas?

A brain? Some activity of a brain? Or something some activity of a brain is producing?

Prove you are capable of saying something of substance.

 

[untermensche]

Dup

 

[ryan]

What is it that selects will? What is it that selects quantum outcomes?

Me, since the freedom is a part of me.

Just saying 'me' is meaningless unless you explain the nature of this 'me' and how it relates to brain, mind and decision making....how do you think this so far undefined 'me' actually chooses quantum states, for instance?

I don't know exactly how it works. All I know is that there may be freedom to choose from a superposition of possible choices. The thing that chooses may be my consciousness entangled into this quantum state or it might be the randomness of existence that chooses for me, in which case one still might argue whether one has free will because one could have chosen differently.

 

[ryan]

You are all over the place. First I can't talk about zombies because they aren't scientific, yet we can discuss the consciousness (ths noun not the verb) which is not scientific.

This a discussion. I cannot forbid you anything. I present argument for why the zombie arhument sucks with the result that you just starts talking about something else without indicating that you agreed about the zombie argument...

So let me get this straight. You believe in a ghostly material that science can't say anything about, yet you think it's preposterous to bring up the zombie argument. How on Earth could you possibly justify this?

And conciousness as a noun... To me that means that which makes us concious.

And we are concious so?

In science, it is completely normal to say conscious as a verb and he has consciousness as a noun because it only means that the person is reacting coherently. The consciousness noun that I mean is more about the philosophical definition; the one we are talking about.

Or do you have som prejudiced nothing of an entity tgt could be found somewhere and extracted from the body and when removed turn us into philosophical zombies?
If so I agree: That wouldnt be so scientific.

Then how can you talk about the consciousness?

 

[DBT]

I appreciate untermensche's penchant for the socratic method, but once you've made your point you've made your point and the conversation isn't going anywhere else. When he/she can no longer present a coherent argument, continued discussion is pointless and you're better off with one of your stubbies.

It is pointless when you are talking to people with religious dogmas that can't support them or be moved from them.

Oh, the Irony, the Irony, the Irony.

 

[DBT]

You are avoiding your responsibility to provide your own version of mind in relation to brain and brain architecture functions. You are the one dancing, as you have all along by ignoring all evidence for brain generated mind.

Which is it, some brain or something some brain is doing?

Which is having trouble understanding this.

It can't be both.

There is no 'both' - a brain as an information process has evolved for the very purpose of interacting with the external world in order that the organism as a whole survives, thrives even, and perpetuates the species...evolutionary biology/psychology specific to the species (type of brain) and individuals within a species.

Now your turn. Stop avoiding your responsibility for explaining your model of mind.

You are saying nothing.

What is expressing all these ideas?

A brain? Some activity of a brain? Or something some activity of a brain is producing?

Stop dancing.

I wonder why you won't give a straight answer.

I still don't see you offering a working model of mind that supports your contentions, just the irony of your charge of 'dancing' offered by a master dancer.

You ask the same questions over and over, I give you a reply. You ignore what I said just to repeat the same questions.

Meanwhile after answering your questions (what is answering, etc) I ask you a question in turn...to no avail: you offer nothing but the same questions. Talk about dancing.

 

[DBT]

Me, since the freedom is a part of me.

Just saying 'me' is meaningless unless you explain the nature of this 'me' and how it relates to brain, mind and decision making....how do you think this so far undefined 'me' actually chooses quantum states, for instance?

I don't know exactly how it works. All I know is that there may be freedom to choose from a superposition of possible choices. The thing that chooses may be my consciousness entangled into this quantum state or it might be the randomness of existence that chooses for me, in which case one still might argue whether one has free will because one could have chosen differently.

If it truly is 'your' consciousness that chooses, 'you' should be conscious of manipulating quantum states in order to make your desired decision. But it doesn't work like that, does it. Quantum entanglement is not subject to conscious manipulation in favour of your conscious will. The idea isn't supported by evidence.

 

[ryan]

I don't know exactly how it works. All I know is that there may be freedom to choose from a superposition of possible choices. The thing that chooses may be my consciousness entangled into this quantum state or it might be the randomness of existence that chooses for me, in which case one still might argue whether one has free will because one could have chosen differently.

If it truly is 'your' consciousness that chooses, 'you' should be conscious of manipulating quantum states in order to make your desired decision. But it doesn't work like that, does it. Quantum entanglement is not subject to conscious manipulation in favour of your conscious will. The idea isn't supported by evidence.

Before I answer you on this, what exactly do you mean by "consciousness"? Is the consciousness you speak about only matter? Or do you have ideas that something emerges that is not itself particles of the Standard model?

 

[DBT]

If it truly is 'your' consciousness that chooses, 'you' should be conscious of manipulating quantum states in order to make your desired decision. But it doesn't work like that, does it. Quantum entanglement is not subject to conscious manipulation in favour of your conscious will. The idea isn't supported by evidence.

Before I answer you on this, what exactly do you mean by "consciousness"? Is the consciousness you speak about only matter? Or do you have ideas that something emerges that is not itself particles of the Standard model?

Ryan, I was responding to you and your use of the term in relation to your idea of consciousness and free will.

I quote:

''The thing that chooses may be my consciousness entangled into this quantum state or it might be the randomness of existence that chooses for me....'' - ryan.

 

[ryan]

Before I answer you on this, what exactly do you mean by "consciousness"? Is the consciousness you speak about only matter? Or do you have ideas that something emerges that is not itself particles of the Standard model?

Ryan, I was responding to you and your use of the term in relation to your idea of consciousness and free will.

I quote:

''The thing that chooses may be my consciousness entangled into this quantum state or it might be the randomness of existence that chooses for me....'' - ryan.

okay

If it truly is 'your' consciousness that chooses, 'you' should be conscious of manipulating quantum states in order to make your desired decision.

I am consciously choosing something from a superposition of choices; that's not just philosophy but science.

Quantum entanglement is not subject to conscious manipulation in favour of your conscious will. The idea isn't supported by evidence.

Of course it is. How much more evidence do you need? As I understand it, during the decision-making process, there is a mathematical model and a working model explaining how it works using QM. I don't know what else I should have to give to show that we may have free will???