What is the actual free will humans have?

[untermensche]

What you call 'flimsy claims' being an opinion based on your own beliefs and not something that is objective. Do you think researchers believe their own work to be flimsy? Decades of research and nothing learned? I don't think so.

Based on my understandings.

I understand that consciousness, the ability to experience as a human experiences, is a completely unexplained phenomena. Nobody understands how it happens.

Some don't quite understand this.

Some happen to ignore the means by which conscious experience is being formed and generated.....this being the field of study in relation to the brain.

You do not know how they are generated.

Like I said is a completely unexplained phenomena. Not one aspect of how consciousness is generated is understood. What consciousness actually is is not understood.

- - - Updated - - -

I have said the clear and consistent evidence is of autonomy. The evidence of direct experience.

And it would take stronger clearer evidence to dispute it.

Not flimsy nothingness.

What exactly are you saying has autonomy again?

I claim that you can do "something" with your mind and cause your arm to move in a planned manner.

Can you?

 

[Subsymbolic]

Some happen to ignore the means by which conscious experience is being formed and generated.....this being the field of study in relation to the brain.

You do not know how they are generated.

Like I said is a completely unexplained phenomena. Not one aspect of how consciousness is generated is understood. What consciousness actually is is not understood.

- - - Updated - - -

I have said the clear and consistent evidence is of autonomy. The evidence of direct experience.

And it would take stronger clearer evidence to dispute it.

Not flimsy nothingness.

What exactly are you saying has autonomy again?

I claim that you can do "something" with your mind and cause your arm to move in a planned manner.

Can you?

I'm just unhappy with the metaphysics as written.

I am my mind/brain, embedded in a body, embedded in an environment. Me (as a mental event) and my arm movements are both products of the brain. If I want to get both causation and teleology right then I think there's a very, very complex story to tell.

The notion as the self as the captain of the ship is a terribly tempting metaphor, but it has its roots in Cartesian Dualism and outside of the need for a point at which the soul grips the wheel it really doesn't make any sense. Prior to that the nicest metaphor for self was more one of a nightwatchman with a lantern, which I always thought at least gave a nicer account of the vagaries of attention.

 

[untermensche]

I claim that you can do "something" with your mind and cause your arm to move in a planned manner.

Can you?

I'm just unhappy with the metaphysics as written.

I am my mind/brain

Make up your mind.

What are you?

Your brain and your mind are two completely different things. A mind is a product of brain activity, it is not a brain.

 

[Subsymbolic]

I claim that you can do "something" with your mind and cause your arm to move in a planned manner.

Can you?

I'm just unhappy with the metaphysics as written.

I am my mind/brain

Make up your mind.

What are you?

Your brain and your mind are two completely different things. A mind is a product of brain activity, it is not a brain.

I disagree. A mind is brain activity. Not a product of it. It's what brain activity feels like when a brain is doing it. There is no reason for, or motivation to, split the two up. The mind and the brain are two aspects of the same coin.

 

[Hermit]

Mind and brain

 

[untermensche]

It is absurd if you say a controlling person is in the head.

It is not absurd at all if you say a controlling mind is generated by the brain.

The mind does not have a mind.

 

[Hermit]

It is absurd if you say a controlling person is in the head.

It is not absurd at all if you say a controlling mind is generated by the brain.

The mind does not have a mind.

If you try to separate mind from brain you finish up at best with what Daniel Dennett called a Cartesian theatre, which in turn leads to the homunculus problem, i.e. infinite regress.

 

[untermensche]

It is absurd if you say a controlling person is in the head.

It is not absurd at all if you say a controlling mind is generated by the brain.

The mind does not have a mind.

If you try to separate mind from brain you finish up at best with what Daniel Dennett called a Cartesian theatre, which in turn leads to the homunculus problem, i.e. infinite regress.

You have to separate the mind from the brain.

The brain is a bunch of cells.

The mind is something that arises somehow by some kind of activity.

It is not a brain. It is not made up of cells.

To say you cannot separate the brain from the mind is absolute nonsense.

 

[DBT]

Some happen to ignore the means by which conscious experience is being formed and generated.....this being the field of study in relation to the brain.

You do not know how they are generated.

Like I said is a completely unexplained phenomena. Not one aspect of how consciousness is generated is understood. What consciousness actually is is not understood.

As pointed out numerous times, we don't have to know how the brain creates the virtual experience of consciousness to know that the brain is indeed the agent of consciousness. That is what the evidence supports.

 

[fromderinside]

You have to separate the mind from the brain.

The brain is a bunch of cells.

The mind is something that arises somehow by some kind of activity.

It is not a brain. It is not made up of cells.

To say you cannot separate the brain from the mind is absolute nonsense.

Yet there are communities of cells that process threatening behavior tied to processes that produce threatened behavior. At the same time those same these same cell process and recognize people experiencing specific kinds of threat which turns out to be very like the behavior these cells are responsible for producing.

I'm pretty sure these are all well demonstrated situations and consequences all traced directly to communities of brain cells. Now if you want the appreciation of blue you provide a stimulus of a particular energy light to one's receptors. No need for things like consciousness acting independently from the brain. These are cells doing brain work which we treat as consciousness for want of a better phenomenal expression. They are the same cells and consequent to stimulation of these cells certain activities transpire.

It is no less reasonable to conclude that a suite of regions producing variations of visual space perception are the same cells responsible for producing our experiencing of it.

Perhaps it would help if you reconsidered your beliefs based on your experiences and began to adjust these beliefs to be the result of particular brain activity. It would certainly make the problem of appreciating what you are experiencing more palatable if it were to be due to further processing of data into a self statement following the carrying out what you are about to experience.

IE you are the cause because you responded this way.

I argue we were conscious before we had language. I'm not sure you would argue that way. In fact, I might even argue the Manta is conscious if sufficient study had been conducted.

 

[untermensche]

Some happen to ignore the means by which conscious experience is being formed and generated.....this being the field of study in relation to the brain.

You do not know how they are generated.

Like I said is a completely unexplained phenomena. Not one aspect of how consciousness is generated is understood. What consciousness actually is is not understood.

As pointed out numerous times, we don't have to know how the brain creates the virtual experience of consciousness to know that the brain is indeed the agent of consciousness. That is what the evidence supports.

Yes you do.

You have to know what is going on to know what is going on.

If you don't even know what is creating the phenomena of consciousness you can say nothing about it. If it is some quantum effect of matter, which physicists like Freedom Dyson think is highly likely, that is very different than if it is an electrical effect.

Guessing about what is going on is nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

You have to separate the mind from the brain.

The brain is a bunch of cells.

The mind is something that arises somehow by some kind of activity.

It is not a brain. It is not made up of cells.

To say you cannot separate the brain from the mind is absolute nonsense.

Yet there are communities of cells that process threatening behavior tied to processes that produce threatened behavior. At the same time those same these same cell process and recognize people experiencing specific kinds of threat which turns out to be very like the behavior these cells are responsible for producing.

I'm pretty sure these are all well demonstrated situations and consequences all traced directly to communities of brain cells. Now if you want the appreciation of blue you provide a stimulus of a particular energy light to one's receptors. No need for things like consciousness acting independently from the brain. These are cells doing brain work which we treat as consciousness for want of a better phenomenal expression. They are the same cells and consequent to stimulation of these cells certain activities transpire.

It is no less reasonable to conclude that a suite of regions producing variations of visual space perception are the same cells responsible for producing our experiencing of it.

Perhaps it would help if you reconsidered your beliefs based on your experiences and began to adjust these beliefs to be the result of particular brain activity. It would certainly make the problem of appreciating what you are experiencing more palatable if it were to be due to further processing of data into a self statement following the carrying out what you are about to experience.

IE you are the cause because you responded this way.

I argue we were conscious before we had language. I'm not sure you would argue that way.

Are you saying the mind, a thing experienced, is made of living cells?

How is an experience a living cell?

It is too absurd to take seriously for a second.

 

[fromderinside]

Experience, like sensing, involves physical context like facial expression, muscle tightening, and changes in metabolic indices. If you had read I pointed out mirror cells read state and signal state state setting, experience. Mind is made up of physical content, experience.

Obviously you didn't spend even a second reading my post.

Last try to reach what seems to be a hopelessly obtuse poster.

 

[DBT]

As pointed out numerous times, we don't have to know how the brain creates the virtual experience of consciousness to know that the brain is indeed the agent of consciousness. That is what the evidence supports.

Yes you do.

You have to know what is going on to know what is going on.

We know something (rather than nothing as you claim) about what is going on through observable behaviour and report and correlation. The subject describes their inner state in response to surgery, lesions, drugs, electrical stimulation, fMRI experiments, etc, all of which relate to the condition of the brain which in turn relates to the conscious experience of the subject, irrational behaviour, signs of pain, inability to recall and so on. All being evidence which supports brain agency, not autonomy of consciousness.

 

[untermensche]

As pointed out numerous times, we don't have to know how the brain creates the virtual experience of consciousness to know that the brain is indeed the agent of consciousness. That is what the evidence supports.

Yes you do.

You have to know what is going on to know what is going on.

We know something (rather than nothing as you claim) about what is going on through observable behaviour and report and correlation. The subject describes their inner state in response to surgery, lesions, drugs, electrical stimulation, fMRI experiments, etc, all of which relate to the condition of the brain which in turn relates to the conscious experience of the subject, irrational behaviour, signs of pain, inability to recall and so on. All being evidence which supports brain agency, not autonomy of consciousness.

You have to know what is going on to say anything about what is going on.

You need to stop saying it is possible to know what is going on without knowing one bit of what is going on.

Is conscious experience a quantum effect of matter? Is the ability to experience something an unknown quantum effect?

Artificial currents applied to the brain could still elicit unknown quantum effects in the system.

If you cannot say one way or the other with certainty you do not know one thing about what is going on.

 

[untermensche]

Experience, like sensing, involves physical context like facial expression, muscle tightening, and changes in metabolic indices. If you had read I pointed out mirror cells read state and signal state state setting, experience. Mind is made up of physical content, experience.

Obviously you didn't spend even a second reading my post.

Last try to reach what seems to be a hopelessly obtuse poster.

You simply want to make your point even if it is totally irrelevant.

The mind is something experienced.

It is not made up of cells.

It cannot possibly be the same thing as the brain, a thing composed of living cells. That is impossible.

 

[fromderinside]

Experience, like sensing, involves physical context like facial expression, muscle tightening, and changes in metabolic indices. If you had read I pointed out mirror cells read state and signal state state setting, experience. Mind is made up of physical content, experience.

Obviously you didn't spend even a second reading my post.

You simply want to make your point even if it is totally irrelevant.

... and what is it I made up that is as you say? I'm expecting chirps and sighs in response.

The mind is something experienced.

See bolded in my statement. Read, damnit.

It is not made up of cells.

I wrote mirror cells can read and recognize experience. I didn't write cells experience. Again read!!

It cannot possibly be the same thing as the brain, a thing composed of living cells. That is impossible.

First that is not my claim. That is your straw man. Second it isn't responsive to what I wrote. My comments are that cells read experience and are involved in inducing experience. That is not impossible. That is the objective scientific record on the topics.

My first sentence clearly states I don't hold that cells are experience or mind. What you need to do is incorporate what cells do into the forming of experience and mind as I point out.

Oh, and you need to clearly state why brains can't be either mind or experience. Why are those things are impossible? You've made claims. You need to provide evidence and argument to support those claims. Both are required to be objective.

I've clearly stated brain cell relations to experience.

 

[untermensche]

First that is not my claim.

Then you are a rational duelist.

The brain is one thing.

Something that somehow arises out of some part of brain activity (consciousness) is something completely different.

Oh, and you need to clearly state why brains can't be either mind or experience.

Brains are physical objects composed of cells.

The mind is not a physical object.

The ability to experience is not a physical object.

 

[fromderinside]

No. I'm a deterministic monist if you don't already know that. BTW: speculating on what I am is not part of the discussion of actual free will.

The brain is a conglomerate which most now accept as including the entire nervous system. Most theorists see evolution of functional structured layered and built upon underlying structures similar to most other ontogeny resulting across phylogeny.

Experience is physical activity induced, determined, controlled, and moderated by brain processes

Consciousness because it is awareness of physical experience is also physical experience.

The mind is the totality of physical experienced orchestrated mainly by the nervous system.

Yes the ability to experience is not a physical object. Experience are physical processes derived and controlled by nervous system processes.

 

[untermensche]

...Experience is physical activity induced, determined, controlled, and moderated by brain processes....

Is the ability to experience an electrical phenomena or a quantum phenomena, since you claim to know what it is?

 

[Subsymbolic]

...Experience is physical activity induced, determined, controlled, and moderated by brain processes....

Is the ability to experience an electrical phenomena or a quantum phenomena, since you claim to know what it is?

The answer to that is definitely MU.