Human Instinct and Free Will

[DBT]

You repeat this like a religious mantra despite having been provided with evidence for multiple distinct systems being at work to produce both the motor action and the awareness of desire and intention to move your finger.

Nothing you have said has in any way shown I can't move my finger at "will".

So you still ignore the means by which your experience is being produced. That's understandable, given what you are trying to defend.

Repeating this magic bit of near meaningless jargon: "multiple distinct systems" is not any kind of proof or argument I can't move my finger at "will".

The jargon is not mine, but it does refer to the architecture of the brain and its numerous functions.

That you have the experience of moving your finger at will is the function of these systems....which can be separated, disabling one aspect while retaining another. So you may feel that you are moving your finger but in reality you are not. Or the phantom hand experiment where the subject feels that he or she is controlling or moving their hand, but the hand may be rubber or belongs to someone else, depending on the set up. (use of screens).

Apparently you have no idea about the research that has been done.

''Hold your hand up in front of your face. It is patently obvious that the five-fingered thing in front of you is your hand, and the empty space next to it is not. But this ability to recognise your own body is more complicated than it first appears, and can be fooled through a surprisingly simple trick.''

''Henrik Ehrsson from the Karolinska Institute is a master of such illusion. When I visited his lab in 2011, he used little more than virtual reality headsets, mannequins and batons to convince me that I had left my body, shrunk to doll-size, and gained a third arm. Now, his team member Arvid Guterstam has devised a way of convincing people that they’ve got an invisible hand.'

''Ehrsson’s team have proved the point with one spectacular illusion after another. The principles are always the same as the rubber hand one. You fool the eyes with fake body parts or headsets, and you fool the body with synchronous strokes and prods. If you see a doll’s feet through a headset, and those feet are stroked in time with your actual ones, you will think you’ve shrunk. Change the view, and you can convince people they have swapped bodies with someone else, or had an out-of-body experience.''

The fact that you think you can just throw out some near meaningless jargon and dismiss real evidence is amazing.

Hilarious coming from someone who ignores all research and evidence and stubbornly asserts some kind of inexplicable, magical autonomy of mind that no researcher in the field even considers to be a valid explanation for agency.

Couldn't be bothered with the rest of your post. It's just more of the same absurdities being repeated.

 

[ryan]

The Schrodinger equation is not what you think it is.

I have no thoughts on the matter other than what the equation itself is in relation to describing the (deterministic) evolution of the wave function of a particle.

You should be concerned with your own untenable claims. You ignore the numerous elements that destroy your contentions and just go on to repeat them in a slightly different form.

QM, probability function or radioactive decay doesn't help establish an argument for free will in general, nor your particular slant on it.... for the given reasons.

The reason why this is a very tough argument for you to win is because of your certainty on such an uncertain subject. When we first started this argument, maybe 2 years ago now, I knew that brain science was only partially understood. I knew brain science would either strengthen models using classical physics or it would find out that QM plays a large role. I wasn't sure when either of these sides would gain momentum, but it turns out QM was the one that did.

Soft sciences like brain science, cosmology, sociology, etc. are just far from certain. Contemporary theories of which often are mistaken for good theories, but they are just the best theories at the time.

 

[Juma]

I have no thoughts on the matter other than what the equation itself is in relation to describing the (deterministic) evolution of the wave function of a particle.

You should be concerned with your own untenable claims. You ignore the numerous elements that destroy your contentions and just go on to repeat them in a slightly different form.

QM, probability function or radioactive decay doesn't help establish an argument for free will in general, nor your particular slant on it.... for the given reasons.

The reason why this is a very tough argument for you to win is because of your certainty on such an uncertain subject. When we first started this argument, maybe 2 years ago now, I knew that brain science was only partially understood. I knew brain science would either strengthen models using classical physics or it would find out that QM plays a large role. I wasn't sure when either of these sides would gain momentum, but it turns out QM was the one that did.

In this case QM is a false friend. It is just a"god of the gaps". There is only superficial reasons to beleive that QM explans conciousness, a false hope that wierd facts from a unrelated domain should explain the weird conciousness.

QM is the alluring simple solution to a problem that is really a result of extremely complex processes that we just have started to understand.

 

[Juma]

No, it is not. Using better models is not "being relative to the observer".

And who is right? Just roll the dice and measure the outcome!

This will explain what I mean better. You are in a box and can't see out. Someone outside the box roles a die. The die lands on 6. You don't know this because you are in the box. You would be justified by assigning the die a 1/6 chance it landed on 6. The person outside the box assigns 1 that it landed on 6 because he sees the outcome.

That the probability is 1 when it has happened is totally beside the point.
The person in the box also assign 1 to the outcome when he sees the outcome.

What I have been saying is that if there is purpose behind what numbers show up that would violate the equal probability of each side.

If the dice rolls somehow had "free will" the outcome would no longer follow the probability of 1/6 for each side.

Thus the fact that QM follows the schrödinger equation totally invalidates your religious belief of volition as the internal cause of how the wave collapses. (Not why, but how)

 

[ryan]

This will explain what I mean better. You are in a box and can't see out. Someone outside the box roles a die. The die lands on 6. You don't know this because you are in the box. You would be justified by assigning the die a 1/6 chance it landed on 6. The person outside the box assigns 1 that it landed on 6 because he sees the outcome.

That the probability is 1 when it has happened is totally beside the point.
The person in the box also assign 1 to the outcome when he sees the outcome.

What I have been saying is that if there is purpose behind what numbers show up that would violate the equal probability of each side.

If the dice rolls somehow had "free will" the outcome would no longer follow the probability of 1/6 for each side.

Thus the fact that QM follows the schrödinger equation totally invalidates your reliogious belief of voltionas the internal cause of how the wave collapses. (Not why, but how)

The problem here seems to be that you immediately think I am talking about the magical "why", and not its scientific alternative the "how". I am talking about how, and I am using other scientific terms only. Free will definitions seem to be compatible with scientific terms: "the ability to have chosen differently". "Choose" can easily equal "decided". Now the definition becomes, "the ability to have decided differently".

It very clear that science has allowed free will to be a possibility.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing you have said has in any way shown I can't move my finger at "will".

So you still ignore the means by which your experience is being produced. That's understandable, given what you are trying to defend.

You don't have a clue how the experience is created or what experience is in terms of brain activity.

You can not point to any specific activity of the brain and say: "This is experience".

I'm defending the clearly observable, I move my finger at "will", from wild speculations with no underlying explanations.

You offer no explanations of anything. You merely repeat your mantra. "You don't know the research".

I can read the research and what it says is that some completely unexplained activity takes place in the motor cortex when a mind is aware a decision will be made soon and whether the wrist moves or does not move.

This is not an explanation of anything. And to not know it is not an explanation of anything is astounding.

Repeating this magic bit of near meaningless jargon: "multiple distinct systems" is not any kind of proof or argument I can't move my finger at "will".

The jargon is not mine, but it does refer to the architecture of the brain and its numerous functions.

The jargon is meaningless and does not explain a thing. It is no different from just saying "stuff".

Your argument amounts to: "You can't move your finger at "will" because of stuff in the brain." It is no more than that.

That you have the experience of moving your finger at will is the function of these systems....which can be separated, disabling one aspect while retaining another. So you may feel that you are moving your finger but in reality you are not. Or the phantom hand experiment where the subject feels that he or she is controlling or moving their hand, but the hand may be rubber or belongs to someone else, depending on the set up. (use of screens).

Yes I can experience it. You have explained nothing about "experience" or what it means in terms of brain physiology to create an experience. So you throw in this word "experience" and pretend you have explained something.

So an experiment where the mind can be tricked is evidence of what beyond that the mind can be tricked?

It is not evidence at all that the mind is continually tricked.

There are optical illusions where the mind can be tricked. That is not evidence that vision is nothing but a trick.

Couldn't be bothered with the rest of your post. It's just more of the same absurdities being repeated.

More of your ignorance pretending to know everything.

You ignore things your mind does not like.

Like the clear implications of your position.

You claim the mind is superfluous. It can do nothing, effect nothing, bring no action into being.

So this awareness of vision, awareness of hearing, awareness of thought and memory is completely superfluous.

There may be a reason for a brain, that does all the acting, to create a visual representation of the world.

But there is no reason for a brain to create something aware of these representations (a mind) if that mind can act in no way.

You like to throw worthless labels at things and pretend you have explained something. But this cannot be just swept away with some worthless labels.

 

[Juma]

That the probability is 1 when it has happened is totally beside the point.
The person in the box also assign 1 to the outcome when he sees the outcome.

What I have been saying is that if there is purpose behind what numbers show up that would violate the equal probability of each side.

If the dice rolls somehow had "free will" the outcome would no longer follow the probability of 1/6 for each side.

Thus the fact that QM follows the schrödinger equation totally invalidates your reliogious belief of voltionas the internal cause of how the wave collapses. (Not why, but how)

The problem here seems to be that you immediately think I am talking about the magical "why", and not its scientific alternative the "how".

Have you already forgot that your point is that "free will" is the reason WHY the wave collapses.
We are waiting for any hint of you explaining HOW it do it without violating the Schrödinger equations...

 

[fromderinside]

... If a brain "decides" to initiate movement this initiation must occur somehow.

So a deciding mind goes to the wishing well after it decides to wish something might happen? Novel to say the least.

 

[untermensche]

... If a brain "decides" to initiate movement this initiation must occur somehow.

So a deciding mind goes to the wishing well after it decides to wish something might happen? Novel to say the least.

A "mind" does not have to go anywhere to "will" a finger to move.

 

[ryan]

The problem here seems to be that you immediately think I am talking about the magical "why", and not its scientific alternative the "how".

Have you already forgot that your point is that "free will" is the reason WHY the wave collapses.
We are waiting for any hint of you explaining HOW it do it without violating the Schrödinger equations...

My argument does not work the same with duality. I don't have a how explanation there. How is easily explained using monism. That is what the argument with DBT is about.

 

[Juma]

Have you already forgot that your point is that "free will" is the reason WHY the wave collapses.
We are waiting for any hint of you explaining HOW it do it without violating the Schrödinger equations...

My argument does not work the same with duality. I don't have a how explanation there. How is easily explained using monism. That is what the argument with DBT is about.

Dualism? I say nothing about dualism.
So where is your explanation?

 

[ryan]

My argument does not work the same with duality. I don't have a how explanation there. How is easily explained using monism. That is what the argument with DBT is about.

Dualism? I say nothing about dualism.
So where is your explanation?

It is in my last 1000 posts. I used science the whole time.

 

[DBT]

I have no thoughts on the matter other than what the equation itself is in relation to describing the (deterministic) evolution of the wave function of a particle.

You should be concerned with your own untenable claims. You ignore the numerous elements that destroy your contentions and just go on to repeat them in a slightly different form.

QM, probability function or radioactive decay doesn't help establish an argument for free will in general, nor your particular slant on it.... for the given reasons.

The reason why this is a very tough argument for you to win is because of your certainty on such an uncertain subject.

There is no argument. There never was an argument. You have made unsupportable claims which have been shown to be false by several posters, including myself. Yet you regroup and rephrase each and every time the reasons why your contentions are false and try again with the essentially the same failed premises.

Quite simply, all species and types of brains have the same quantum substrata but each and every species and type of brain produces behaviour specific to its own architecture and information base (memory function) and not because it has a quantum substructure....which is common to all brains, and everything else in the universe.

 

[DBT]

So you still ignore the means by which your experience is being produced. That's understandable, given what you are trying to defend.

You don't have a clue how the experience is created or what experience is in terms of brain activity.

Another ignorant remark. I have repeatedly said that it is not known how the brain forms its internal experience of the world in the form of conscious mind, but it is quite clear that it is the brain that is forming an experience of mind and self.

This is for all practical purposes is accepted by neuroscientists and researchers of other fields, evolutionary psychology, etc.

More than enough evidence showing that it is indeed the state and condition of the brain in any given instance that determines the state of its mind has been provided, yet you refuse to consider anything that contravenes your unfounded belief in an inexplicable and irrational autonomy of mind, which you have been asked to explain, but instead repeat your mantra ''I can move my finger at will'' - never mind that you didn't choose or generate your will consciously or have access to the initiation of the motor action...which, according to the available evidence, was set into motion milliseconds before conscious awareness.

 

[ryan]

The reason why this is a very tough argument for you to win is because of your certainty on such an uncertain subject.

There is no argument. There never was an argument. You have made unsupportable claims which have been shown to be false by several posters, including myself. Yet you regroup and rephrase each and every time the reasons why your contentions are false and try again with the essentially the same failed premises.

Quite simply, all species and types of brains have the same quantum substrata but each and every species and type of brain produces behaviour specific to its own architecture and information base (memory function) and not because it has a quantum substructure....which is common to all brains, and everything else in the universe.

What frustrates me is that we work really hard to get to a certain point, and then you leave and come back with these types of posts. Why would you want to start all over again? I don't want to spend too much time on this.

 

[DBT]

There is no argument. There never was an argument. You have made unsupportable claims which have been shown to be false by several posters, including myself. Yet you regroup and rephrase each and every time the reasons why your contentions are false and try again with the essentially the same failed premises.

Quite simply, all species and types of brains have the same quantum substrata but each and every species and type of brain produces behaviour specific to its own architecture and information base (memory function) and not because it has a quantum substructure....which is common to all brains, and everything else in the universe.

What frustrates me is that we work really hard to get to a certain point, and then you leave and come back with these types of posts. Why would you want to start all over again? I don't want to spend too much time on this.

I post 'this type of post' in response to what you prompt, whether consciously or unconsciously, when you say: ''the reason why this is a very tough argument for you to win is because of your certainty on such an uncertain subject'' - ryan - which is an assumption you have made.

 

[ryan]

What frustrates me is that we work really hard to get to a certain point, and then you leave and come back with these types of posts. Why would you want to start all over again? I don't want to spend too much time on this.

I post 'this type of post' in response to what you prompt, whether consciously or unconsciously, when you say: ''the reason why this is a very tough argument for you to win is because of your certainty on such an uncertain subject'' - ryan - which is an assumption you have made.

First of all, the Schrodinger equation can only determine the probability of a particle being in a specific location. Second, the SE is only a mathematical model of reality which may or may not be correct. Chances are the SE will need to be corrected like with all other mathematical models that exist.

Now, please answer this question that I asked a few posts ago. Do you believe that the consciousness makes decisions?

 

[Juma]

Dualism? I say nothing about dualism.
So where is your explanation?

It is in my last 1000 posts. I used science the whole time.

Then you could easily point to a post where you lay out your detailed explanation. So where?

 

[Juma]

, the SE is only a mathematical model of reality which may or may not be correct. Chances are the SE will need to be corrected like with all other mathematical models that exist.

So you admit that your theory violates the Schrödinger equation and still holds on to it without a shred of evidens...

 

[ryan]

, the SE is only a mathematical model of reality which may or may not be correct. Chances are the SE will need to be corrected like with all other mathematical models that exist.

So you admit that your theory violates the Schrödinger equation and still holds on to it without a shred of evidens...

I don't want to get into this with you because you muddy the water with notions of dualism. I admit that I do not have a scientific explanation when dualism is involved. The particles and the curve are not there, only particles.