Human Instinct and Free Will

[Juma]

The binding problem exists even with information processing theories.

Well that's why there is a binding problem and a problem of unity. Entanglement, on the surface, solves those problems.

No there isnt. We only behave "as if". There is no such binding or unity in reality.

Contradictorily, if your statement is correct, then it needs to be true as a whole.

you are welcome to try to show that.

What are talking about? How could your statement be only partly true if the whole thing is required for it to be true? If you cut the sentence in half, then it is not half true. The conscious perception of a true statement disappears; its meaning is consciously irreducible. There is a unity problem that can't be fixed with isolated particles making up the consciousness.

Who the fuck talks about cutting sentences in half? Are you complete bonkers?

And no the conciousness isnt just particles. Its a specific interaction of particles. As a working computer program is not the particles in the computer, its how they interact.

 

[DBT]

Random changes within a system do not produce rational outputs or decisions. The brain is not a random 'decision maker' - it is a classical system evolved to perceive and respond to events in the environment in a related and rational way,

The brain doesn't have to be rational. We have been over this many times.

Are you saying that an irrational, dysfunctional brain, a brain that produces inappropriate response is an example of 'free will?'

 

[ryan]

The brain doesn't have to be rational. We have been over this many times.

Are you saying that an irrational, dysfunctional brain, a brain that produces inappropriate response is an example of 'free will?'

Why are you bringing dysfunctional into irrational?

Don't you believe that a person can choose to go on a trip for enjoyment instead of save for the future and not be "dysfunctional"?

 

[ryan]

The binding problem exists even with information processing theories.

Well that's why there is a binding problem and a problem of unity. Entanglement, on the surface, solves those problems.

No there isnt. We only behave "as if". There is no such binding or unity in reality.

Contradictorily, if your statement is correct, then it needs to be true as a whole.

you are welcome to try to show that.

What are talking about? How could your statement be only partly true if the whole thing is required for it to be true? If you cut the sentence in half, then it is not half true. The conscious perception of a true statement disappears; its meaning is consciously irreducible. There is a unity problem that can't be fixed with isolated particles making up the consciousness.

Who the fuck talks about cutting sentences in half? Are you complete bonkers?

And no the conciousness isnt just particles. Its a specific interaction of particles. As a working computer program is not the particles in the computer, its how they interact.

I said that the statement needs to be true as a whole (or whatever is minimally possible in getting the meaning across). If it is not whole in the consciousness, the whole meaning of it being true disappears.

If we both can assume that the consciousness is physical/quantifiable like everything in the universe appears to be, then we have to ask why we can't cut the conscious meaning of the statement in half and have a half truth. It's whole or nothing in the sense of its meaning. If we are going to keep physicalism, then the only physical correlation that is irreducible is entanglement (not the particles that are entangled but entanglement itself). I repeat, the entangled system is reducible, but the entanglement is not; you can't have one thing entangled. If you try to cut ten entangled things in half you affect the whole system. If you break anything not entangled in half you do not affect the intrinsic properties of the whole system.

 

[Juma]

The binding problem exists even with information processing theories.

Well that's why there is a binding problem and a problem of unity. Entanglement, on the surface, solves those problems.

No there isnt. We only behave "as if". There is no such binding or unity in reality.

Contradictorily, if your statement is correct, then it needs to be true as a whole.

you are welcome to try to show that.

What are talking about? How could your statement be only partly true if the whole thing is required for it to be true? If you cut the sentence in half, then it is not half true. The conscious perception of a true statement disappears; its meaning is consciously irreducible. There is a unity problem that can't be fixed with isolated particles making up the consciousness.

Who the fuck talks about cutting sentences in half? Are you complete bonkers?

And no the conciousness isnt just particles. Its a specific interaction of particles. As a working computer program is not the particles in the computer, its how they interact.

I said that the statement needs to be true as a whole (or whatever is minimally possible in getting the meaning across). If it is not whole in the consciousness, the whole meaning of it being true disappears.

If we both can assume that the consciousness is physical/quantifiable like everything in the universe appears to be, then we have to ask why we can't cut the conscious meaning of the statement in half and have a half truth. It's whole or nothing in the sense of its meaning. If we are going to keep physicalism, then the only physical correlation that is irreducible is entanglement (not the particles that are entangled but entanglement itself). I repeat, the entangled system is reducible, but the entanglement is not; you can't have one thing entangled. If you try to cut ten entangled things in half you affect the whole system. If you break anything not entangled in half you do not affect the intrinsic properties of the whole system.

For the millionth time: the conciousness is not an extensive property. Its a complicate process. Noone expects that dividing a specific structure within that process will give you two fully functional structures.

It is as silly as to think you can divide a computer software in two.

 

[Juma]

Are you saying that an irrational, dysfunctional brain, a brain that produces inappropriate response is an example of 'free will?'

Why are you bringing dysfunctional into irrational?

Don't you believe that a person can choose to go on a trip for enjoyment instead of save for the future and not be "dysfunctional"?

No. A person that randomly changes its behavior like that is dysfunctional.

 

[ryan]

The binding problem exists even with information processing theories.

Well that's why there is a binding problem and a problem of unity. Entanglement, on the surface, solves those problems.

No there isnt. We only behave "as if". There is no such binding or unity in reality.

Contradictorily, if your statement is correct, then it needs to be true as a whole.

you are welcome to try to show that.

What are talking about? How could your statement be only partly true if the whole thing is required for it to be true? If you cut the sentence in half, then it is not half true. The conscious perception of a true statement disappears; its meaning is consciously irreducible. There is a unity problem that can't be fixed with isolated particles making up the consciousness.

Who the fuck talks about cutting sentences in half? Are you complete bonkers?

And no the conciousness isnt just particles. Its a specific interaction of particles. As a working computer program is not the particles in the computer, its how they interact.

I said that the statement needs to be true as a whole (or whatever is minimally possible in getting the meaning across). If it is not whole in the consciousness, the whole meaning of it being true disappears.

If we both can assume that the consciousness is physical/quantifiable like everything in the universe appears to be, then we have to ask why we can't cut the conscious meaning of the statement in half and have a half truth. It's whole or nothing in the sense of its meaning. If we are going to keep physicalism, then the only physical correlation that is irreducible is entanglement (not the particles that are entangled but entanglement itself). I repeat, the entangled system is reducible, but the entanglement is not; you can't have one thing entangled. If you try to cut ten entangled things in half you affect the whole system. If you break anything not entangled in half you do not affect the intrinsic properties of the whole system.

For the millionth time: the conciousness is not an extensive property. Its a complicate process. Noone expects that dividing a specific structure within that process will give you two fully functional structures.

It is as silly as to think you can divide a computer software in two.

A computer is just as meaningless as anything else if there is no consciousness to unify and bind what it does.

 

[ryan]

Why are you bringing dysfunctional into irrational?

Don't you believe that a person can choose to go on a trip for enjoyment instead of save for the future and not be "dysfunctional"?

No. A person that randomly changes its behavior like that is dysfunctional.

Where did I mention changes in behavior? I gave one example.

 

[Juma]

No. A person that randomly changes its behavior like that is dysfunctional.

Where did I mention changes in behavior? I gave one example.

A person that randomly spends and randomly saves money is disfunctional.

 

[Juma]

The binding problem exists even with information processing theories.

Well that's why there is a binding problem and a problem of unity. Entanglement, on the surface, solves those problems.

No there isnt. We only behave "as if". There is no such binding or unity in reality.

Contradictorily, if your statement is correct, then it needs to be true as a whole.

you are welcome to try to show that.

What are talking about? How could your statement be only partly true if the whole thing is required for it to be true? If you cut the sentence in half, then it is not half true. The conscious perception of a true statement disappears; its meaning is consciously irreducible. There is a unity problem that can't be fixed with isolated particles making up the consciousness.

Who the fuck talks about cutting sentences in half? Are you complete bonkers?

And no the conciousness isnt just particles. Its a specific interaction of particles. As a working computer program is not the particles in the computer, its how they interact.

I said that the statement needs to be true as a whole (or whatever is minimally possible in getting the meaning across). If it is not whole in the consciousness, the whole meaning of it being true disappears.

If we both can assume that the consciousness is physical/quantifiable like everything in the universe appears to be, then we have to ask why we can't cut the conscious meaning of the statement in half and have a half truth. It's whole or nothing in the sense of its meaning. If we are going to keep physicalism, then the only physical correlation that is irreducible is entanglement (not the particles that are entangled but entanglement itself). I repeat, the entangled system is reducible, but the entanglement is not; you can't have one thing entangled. If you try to cut ten entangled things in half you affect the whole system. If you break anything not entangled in half you do not affect the intrinsic properties of the whole system.

For the millionth time: the conciousness is not an extensive property. Its a complicate process. Noone expects that dividing a specific structure within that process will give you two fully functional structures.

It is as silly as to think you can divide a computer software in two.

A computer is just as meaningless as anything else if there is no consciousness to unify and bind what it does.

I dont think you have a clue what yuo are babbling about.

 

[ryan]

Where did I mention changes in behavior? I gave one example.

A person that randomly spends and randomly saves money is disfunctional.

Please read my post again to have a linearly coherent discussion.

 

[bilby]

A person that randomly spends and randomly saves money is disfunctional.

Please read my post again to have a linearly coherent discussion.

If he wanted one of those, he wouldn't have come to this thread.

 

[ryan]

A computer is just as meaningless as anything else if there is no consciousness to unify and bind what it does.

I dont think you have a clue what yuo are babbling about.

You usually try to explain why i am wrong except for this time, hmmmm.

 

[Juma]

I dont think you have a clue what yuo are babbling about.

You usually try to explain why i am wrong except for this time, hmmmm.

Meaning is created in interaction and by the need to predict other agents behavior. We project a evil will to a car that wont start. And we project an evil will to a child that wont clean its room. And we project onto our own actions. That is all there is to it. No "unity", no "bind"-problem.


A proposition has a meaning because the meaning is what we predict others would react if we told it to them.

 

[DBT]

Are you saying that an irrational, dysfunctional brain, a brain that produces inappropriate response is an example of 'free will?'

Why are you bringing dysfunctional into irrational?

Because rational means ''based on or in accordance with reason or logic.'' In other words, a logical response to a given situation.

The response being in related to whatever requires attention or action.

Your random 'could have done otherwise' may have no relationship to the situation being responded to, hence irrational and dysfunctional.

Don't you believe that a person can choose to go on a trip for enjoyment instead of save for the future and not be "dysfunctional"?

Not at all. It may be quite rational to have a holiday in order to recharge,revitalize...or simply enjoy life for a while. Your example assumes that the sole purpose of life is to 'save for the future'

 

[Juma]

A person that randomly spends and randomly saves money is disfunctional.

Please read my post again to have a linearly coherent discussion.

It is a perfectly coherent argument that shows that you are wrong. A person that without any reason spends all money on a trip somewhere he really dont want to go is clearly dysfunctional. Thus your example shows that we are very much controlled by what we want. Thus: no free will.

 

[ryan]

You usually try to explain why i am wrong except for this time, hmmmm.

Meaning is created in interaction and by the need to predict other agents behavior. We project a evil will to a car that wont start. And we project an evil will to a child that wont clean its room. And we project onto our own actions. That is all there is to it. No "unity", no "bind"-problem.

So now there aren't binding and unity problems?! Juma, the people specializing in this field claim these problems exist.

 

[ryan]

Why are you bringing dysfunctional into irrational?

Because rational means ''based on or in accordance with reason or logic.'' In other words, a logical response to a given situation.

The response being in related to whatever requires attention or action.

Your random 'could have done otherwise' may have no relationship to the situation being responded to, hence irrational and dysfunctional.

Don't you believe that a person can choose to go on a trip for enjoyment instead of save for the future and not be "dysfunctional"?

Not at all. It may be quite rational to have a holiday in order to recharge,revitalize...or simply enjoy life for a while. Your example assumes that the sole purpose of life is to 'save for the future'

If you were told as a child that you better turn your bedroom lights off to power or else you will have bad karma, you may grow up to believe this. It is irrational, but your brain would be functioning perfectly.

 

[DBT]

Because rational means ''based on or in accordance with reason or logic.'' In other words, a logical response to a given situation.

The response being in related to whatever requires attention or action.

Your random 'could have done otherwise' may have no relationship to the situation being responded to, hence irrational and dysfunctional.

Don't you believe that a person can choose to go on a trip for enjoyment instead of save for the future and not be "dysfunctional"?

Not at all. It may be quite rational to have a holiday in order to recharge,revitalize...or simply enjoy life for a while. Your example assumes that the sole purpose of life is to 'save for the future'

If you were told as a child that you better turn your bedroom lights off to power or else you will have bad karma, you may grow up to believe this. It is irrational, but your brain would be functioning perfectly.

Not the same...but your example does demonstrate that it is indeed information state that determines behavioural output. Not only social conditioning but the state of the architecture, including any quantum function or interference within the system, being non chosen states and conditions.

 

[ryan]

Because rational means ''based on or in accordance with reason or logic.'' In other words, a logical response to a given situation.

The response being in related to whatever requires attention or action.

Your random 'could have done otherwise' may have no relationship to the situation being responded to, hence irrational and dysfunctional.

Don't you believe that a person can choose to go on a trip for enjoyment instead of save for the future and not be "dysfunctional"?

Not at all. It may be quite rational to have a holiday in order to recharge,revitalize...or simply enjoy life for a while. Your example assumes that the sole purpose of life is to 'save for the future'

If you were told as a child that you better turn your bedroom lights off to power or else you will have bad karma, you may grow up to believe this. It is irrational, but your brain would be functioning perfectly.

Not the same...but your example does demonstrate that it is indeed information state that determines behavioural output. Not only social conditioning but the state of the architecture, including any quantum function or interference within the system, being non chosen states and conditions.

You are just arguing circularly. You are saying that if the brain doesn't function the way you assume it does, then the brain must be dysfunctional. But clearly they don't understand exactly how the brain functions.