Free Will And Free Choice

[fromderinside]

Given conditions at t = 0, thereafter everything occurs IAW natural law. What's so hard comprehend. Bottom up requirement for evaluating complex things. Complexity doesn't permit analysis from top down re causality. Top down analysis may serve to explain why such complexity appears, why the complex thing has particular behavior, but that is not the same as explaining it's causality.

Senses are only partly responsive to external events ergo one has no way of knowing what conditions are at t=0, much less the way things are there after. So what it comes down to are what are actual choices re t=0 and what are the perceived choices re t=0. I've already conceded given man isn't privy to all nature he is free relative to information available to choose freely. However from the vantagepoint of everything being known view he is behaving IAW natural law. One isn't privy to sufficient information to realize one is behaving IAC laws of nature.

As for consciousness I'm on record as saying awareness, consciousness, self are subjective umbrellas primarily there because they work with Descartes view of "I" being something other than the being itself. They don't actually exist. They serve as cover for failure to understand the relationship between evolutionary law (fitness) re life and the physical activity of the brain.

We know there are many solutions evolved as nervous construction and activity to the same detected conditions in the world. The cerebellum gives testimony to this state of affairs. Similarities between verbal behavior and physical behavior testify to this viewpoint as well. That is to say the same brain processes may underlie both.

As for reality we can't connect with it except through experimentation and we aren't capable of experimenting with everything in the world so we can't arrive at reality by that means either. However it is interesting that electrons and other particles are conditioned by interactions with another particle of the same sort at distance and time and that families of physical things exhibit symmetry.

 

[untermensche]

There is no such thing as an observed T = 0 when it comes to the mind.

The active mind that can act does not cease for such a thing to be recorded.

 

[DBT]

You're a philosophical hack that doesn't understand philosophical points.

That's you.

Right.

I make argument after argument and all you say is that they are declarations.

It's clear that you can't tell the difference between an argument and a claim or declaration.

You make claims and declarations while imagining that you are making arguments. Which is why your description - a philosophical hack - fits you perfectly.

You either have the freedom to accept ideas or you don't.

Once again: it is the neural architecture of a brain that enables its ability to acquiring and process information and select options based on sets of criteria (experience and learning)....each brain, species, individuals, etc, according to their own capacity.

 

[fromderinside]

...

"Aware" is part of the reality we know. If we don't know "aware," then we don't know anything. If you claim there is no knowledge of anything and thus no science and no truth, then you cannot make statements or claims about anything, such as you're doing. If you banish "aware" from having any reality, then you are banishing every claim you yourself make, thus falsifying anything you're saying about "time=0" or about "aware" or about determinism or anything else.

You miss the point. 'Aware (awareness)' is not reality. Awareness is a subjective construct, placeholder for all the nervous system, muscle, and endocrinal functions integrated into how humans - not any other being if you look carefully at definitions of instinct and reflex behavior - behave.

Man, the special one, created this category as a thing that "does". All of what humans have lumped into this thing, awareness, are accomplished primarily with our nervous system activity. This nervous system was created via a random selective evolutionary design where those genetically most fit to world demands survive. producing many extant behavioral options for most any sense aggregate choice.

(I'm gong to use the editorial god token 'we' as I provide an operational context for choice, will, and reality.)

We are not talking about different things we are talking about treating those elements differently. We don't need an "awareness" function. We need to materially understand how humans accomplishes what is lumped in to the category 'awareness' by understanding brain processes, primarily, that carry out those functions tying them experimentally to material processes in in the nervous system, primarily, to do so.

At another level our 'argument' about "free will", another fictional placeholder for how the physical brain processes information is answered by answering the question "can humans distinguish reality and make choices within it." We can't since we aren't be privy to reality because of our input limitations.

Instead we believe by answering that question substituting the information we know for reality making choice in it a demonstration we do so as independent behaving agents. Obviously we are not independent behaving agents in the determined world. But we can say we are capable of free will given what we know of the world through ignorance of most of it.

 

[untermensche]

Right.

I make argument after argument and all you say is that they are declarations.

It's clear that you can't tell the difference between an argument and a claim or declaration.

You make claims and declarations while imagining that you are making arguments. Which is why your description - a philosophical hack - fits you perfectly.

You either have the freedom to accept ideas or you don't.

Once again: it is the neural architecture of a brain that enables its ability to acquiring and process information and select options based on sets of criteria (experience and learning)....each brain, species, individuals, etc, according to their own capacity.

I am not talking to the neural architecture of anything.

I am talking to a foolish mind that has no clue.

If you have no freedom you have no freedom to make truth judgements.

PERIOD.

To claim you do not have intellectual freedom but also know you have truth is about as stupid a thing a person can say.

 

[DBT]

It's clear that you can't tell the difference between an argument and a claim or declaration.

You make claims and declarations while imagining that you are making arguments. Which is why your description - a philosophical hack - fits you perfectly.



Once again: it is the neural architecture of a brain that enables its ability to acquiring and process information and select options based on sets of criteria (experience and learning)....each brain, species, individuals, etc, according to their own capacity.

I am not talking to the neural architecture of anything.

I am talking to a foolish mind that has no clue.

If you have no freedom you have no freedom to make truth judgements.

PERIOD.

To claim you do not have intellectual freedom but also know you have truth is about as stupid a thing a person can say.

Your remarks make no sense. Your remarks do not relate to what I have said, or provided in the way of research.

How hard is, ''it is the neural architecture of a brain that enables the attributes of mind/consciousness to function'' to grasp?

That it is the brain that enables/generates thought and decision making is supported by the available evidence. Decision making fails when the brain is damaged in specific ways. Not only decision making, but the way you experience the world and self, sight, sound, touch, smell, etc, is effected or even eliminated by specific brain conditions. This is undeniable.

 

[fromderinside]

Body punches there DBT. Damaging.

 

[untermensche]

That it is the brain that enables/generates thought and decision making is supported by the available evidence.

You have no scientific understanding of the mind. You have no idea what it is or what it can do. You have no idea how it is related to the brain.

Go talk about the brain in the science section. But there is nothing that can be said about the mind in the science section. Science knows nothing about it.

You claim to have some truth. Which means you think you have the ability to discern truth from lies.

To discern a truth from a lie requires the intellectual freedom to make valid judgments.

You are claiming you are free with every argument you try to make.

You are screaming "I am free and therefore can know truth from lies" with every argument you make.

You cannot find a false statement from me.

These are all truthful valid points.

I don't want to hear any more worthless claims about the brain.

You have no clue what the mind is or HOW the mind relates to the brain.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

 

[DBT]

That it is the brain that enables/generates thought and decision making is supported by the available evidence.

You have no scientific understanding of the mind. You have no idea what it is or what it can do. You have no idea how it is related to the brain.

Go talk about the brain in the science section. But there is nothing that can be said about the mind in the science section. Science knows nothing about it.

You claim to have some truth. Which means you think you have the ability to discern truth from lies.

To discern a truth from a lie requires the intellectual freedom to make valid judgments.

You are claiming you are free with every argument you try to make.

You are screaming "I am free and therefore can know truth from lies" with every argument you make.

You cannot find a false statement from me.

These are all truthful valid points.

I don't want to hear any more worthless claims about the brain.

You have no clue what the mind is or HOW the mind relates to the brain.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

Unbelievable.

 

[fromderinside]

That it is the brain that enables/generates thought and decision making is supported by the available evidence.

1. You have no scientific understanding of the mind. You have no idea what it is or what it can do. You have no idea how it is related to the brain.

2. Go talk about the brain in the science section. But there is nothing that can be said about the mind in the science section. Science knows nothing about it.

3. You claim to have some truth. Which means you think you have the ability to discern truth from lies.

4. To discern a truth from a lie requires the intellectual freedom to make valid judgments.

5. You are claiming you are free with every argument you try to make.

6. You are screaming "I am free and therefore can know truth from lies" with every argument you make.

7. You cannot find a false statement from me.

8. These are all truthful valid points.

9. I don't want to hear any more worthless claims about the brain.

10../1. You have no clue what the mind is or HOW the mind relates to the brain.

11. Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

Unbelievable.

Good start DBT​.

I numbered his claims and provided guidance to each below so he can fix them enough to make them logical requests or points. Otherwise what he wrote is meaningless.

1. No support for declarations made.

2. In order: We do. You don't support your next two claims. Criticism is dismissed.

3. you don't provide instances where ether of us made that claim. So when you do maybe, given there aren't more issues with your argument we might provide facts on the matter.

4.You make claims with no supporting logic. support your claims and we may respond (see 3.)

5.You need to support those claims logically. declarations don't make an argument. We may respond to your clams after you've supported them if your support is logical and correct.

6. Your declaration needs to be supported logically and empirically.

7. We can't find a true or logical point from you. Justify your claim and we may respond (see 3.)

8. If believing were logical you might have a point. Until you justify your claim we have nothing to which we cant respond.

9. Are your feelings points of logic? You need to support them else there's nothing in your statement which even asks for response..

10, A restatement of declaration in 1. So?

11. You are going to have to support every aspect of your request. Otherwise there is nothing there to which we might logically respond.

IOW Where is your logic? My conclusion, whether you want it or not, is, as my analysis of your statements demonstrates, your screed shows you have very little knowledge of logical argument

 

[untermensche]

That it is the brain that enables/generates thought and decision making is supported by the available evidence.

You have no scientific understanding of the mind. You have no idea what it is or what it can do. You have no idea how it is related to the brain.

Go talk about the brain in the science section. But there is nothing that can be said about the mind in the science section. Science knows nothing about it.

You claim to have some truth. Which means you think you have the ability to discern truth from lies.

To discern a truth from a lie requires the intellectual freedom to make valid judgments.

You are claiming you are free with every argument you try to make.

You are screaming "I am free and therefore can know truth from lies" with every argument you make.

You cannot find a false statement from me.

These are all truthful valid points.

I don't want to hear any more worthless claims about the brain.

You have no clue what the mind is or HOW the mind relates to the brain.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

Unbelievable.

This latest childish dodge from you IS unbelievable.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

I'm going to ask you this question until you have the balls to address it.

Of course you will address it in your way with your free mind.

Or you will freely run away.

Whatever you do your freedom of choice and freedom of behavior is clear.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

 

[untermensche]

Unbelievable.

Good start DBT​.

I numbered his claims and provided guidance to each below so he can fix them enough to make them logical requests or points. Otherwise what he wrote is meaningless.

1. No support for declarations made.

2. In order: We do. You don't support your next two claims. Criticism is dismissed.

3. you don't provide instances where ether of us made that claim. So when you do maybe, given there aren't more issues with your argument we might provide facts on the matter.

4.You make claims with no supporting logic. support your claims and we may respond (see 3.)

5.You need to support those claims logically. declarations don't make an argument. We may respond to your clams after you've supported them if your support is logical and correct.

6. Your declaration needs to be supported logically and empirically.

7. We can't find a true or logical point from you. Justify your claim and we may respond (see 3.)

8. If believing were logical you might have a point. Until you justify your claim we have nothing to which we cant respond.

9. Are your feelings points of logic? You need to support them else there's nothing in your statement which even asks for response..

10, A restatement of declaration in 1. So?

11. You are going to have to support every aspect of your request. Otherwise there is nothing there to which we might logically respond.

IOW Where is your logic? My conclusion, whether you want it or not, is, as my analysis of your statements demonstrates, your screed shows you have very little knowledge of logical argument

More like points ignored from those you don't have the freedom to even see them.

 

[untermensche]

The deluded believers in the unfree mind can't even answer simple questions.

They will claim simple questions are not a rational argument or some other stupidity I guess.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

Are they cowards or just too stupid to answer?

Every time this question is ignored will be evidence of free minds that can't address it and freely run away from it.

We have a real clown in this thread who like a toddler says he will use his will and not address a thing I say.

Then this blind silly fool who can't answer questions will claim he has no freedom.

I must admit I am getting a lot of laughs from people here desperate to make a point but also claiming they have no freedom to make points.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Turn on, tune in, drop out!

Something funny happened on the way to the free-will debunking . . .

Two subjectives were in a boat. Free will fell out and Norm was left. What was left. Nothing. Do you agree?

translation: The moon landing never really happened.

Sometimes a simple parable says it all. If you don't see it (or better yet, grasp it), memorize the above parable about the two subjectives in the boat, and repeat it 100 times. And recite it 100 times every day for at least a year. The Truth will dawn on you finally, if you just open up to it.

 

[untermensche]

What would you call a poor creature that did not think it came here and typed out it's words freely?

As barren and sterile as this place is.

They are trapped zombies.

Not making any decisions. Just being constantly tricked to think they are.

Would we even call these things without a free will alive?

 

[fromderinside]

Whatever floats your Norm Lumpenproletariat​.

 

[DBT]

Unbelievable.

This latest childish dodge from you IS unbelievable.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

I'm going to ask you this question until you have the balls to address it.

Of course you will address it in your way with your free mind.

Or you will freely run away.

Whatever you do your freedom of choice and freedom of behavior is clear.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

The nature of cognition/decision making, brain agency, information exchange between cells and regions of the brain, has been explained and supported by research, case studies, evidence, etc, enough times.

You reject all research, evidence and expert analysis, and just repeat your mantra.

Your position is irrational.

Plain Language Summary

''Decision-making is a cognitive process of the human brain. The brain behaves as a complex system, and providing a model would be a convenient way to represent the complexity of the brain. Every decision includes some stages: each stage can be interpreted as a cognitive criterion. The brain controls the path by predicting the action’s result. The brain needs to know the criteria to perform its primary function as a predictor. It is known that the hippocampus stores the knowledge, and the prefrontal cortex approximates the goals; therefore, our study models the interactions between the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex by providing an algorithmic view. In our model, the effects of the brain regions controlling the path are replaced by the model predictive control. Now the neurological mechanisms of the decision-making process in the brain can be simulated. This capability allows us to Work on some sort of neural networks diseases such as neurodegenerative disease or some rehabilitations, which needs memory consolidation.''

 

[DBT]

What would you call a poor creature that did not think it came here and typed out it's words freely?

As barren and sterile as this place is.

They are trapped zombies.

Not making any decisions. Just being constantly tricked to think they are.

Would we even call these things without a free will alive?

Your comment shows that you haven't understood what is being said about the decision making process.

 

[fromderinside]

What would you call a poor creature that did not think it came here and typed out it's words freely?

As barren and sterile as this place is.

They are trapped zombies.

Not making any decisions. Just being constantly tricked to think they are.

Would we even call these things without a free will alive?

Your comment shows that you haven't understood what is being said about the decision making process.

Untermensche 21^st century calling 19^th century, 21^st century calling 19^th century. Methods of evidence conversation have changed as has amount of information available.


As for the last of your screed please point out what in what DBT wrote signals he "doesn't understand what is being said about the decision making process." Doing so would help the rest of those participating in the decision making process on this thread understand about WTF you are talking.

 

[untermensche]

Unbelievable.

This latest childish dodge from you IS unbelievable.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

I'm going to ask you this question until you have the balls to address it.

Of course you will address it in your way with your free mind.

Or you will freely run away.

Whatever you do your freedom of choice and freedom of behavior is clear.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

The nature of cognition/decision making, brain agency, information exchange between cells and regions of the brain, has been explained and supported by research, case studies, evidence, etc, enough times.

You reject all research, evidence and expert analysis, and just repeat your mantra.

Your position is irrational.

Plain Language Summary

''Decision-making is a cognitive process of the human brain. The brain behaves as a complex system, and providing a model would be a convenient way to represent the complexity of the brain. Every decision includes some stages: each stage can be interpreted as a cognitive criterion. The brain controls the path by predicting the action’s result. The brain needs to know the criteria to perform its primary function as a predictor. It is known that the hippocampus stores the knowledge, and the prefrontal cortex approximates the goals; therefore, our study models the interactions between the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex by providing an algorithmic view. In our model, the effects of the brain regions controlling the path are replaced by the model predictive control. Now the neurological mechanisms of the decision-making process in the brain can be simulated. This capability allows us to Work on some sort of neural networks diseases such as neurodegenerative disease or some rehabilitations, which needs memory consolidation.''

Decision making occurs in the mind. Not the brain, and you have no science that tells you anything else. That is a bunch of worthless speculation based on very bad premises. It is just a statement of prejudice. Worthless.

That is a story invented about activity that is not understood. Nowhere is there a mind in any of it.

That "study" you just posted is the kind of worthless shit Chomsky has shown has no value. Applying statistical models to any activity will give you a result. It will not tell you the first thing about how a decision is made.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

I am asking you a question.

You have RUDELY ignored it 5 times.

You can't even comprehend the question, can you?