Free Will And Free Choice

[fromderinside]

My reasons for subscribing to a cause effect are consistent with my and other individuals using them as data points in experiments.

I see no basis for your declarations beyond your claims made based on self reference.

That dear boy is why you are even involved in this discussion. If it were just my feeling versus your feeling there would be no discussion and very little mention.

But that is not the nature of our discussion. Rather this discussion is your declarations being countered by my listing of evidence contrary to your declarations.

I have little doubt that most gain more from being exposed to research rather than being assaulted by repeated personal declarations.

So keep it up. Soon you will be alone on your personal island just as you believe you are right now. Its my way of saying you'll suffer from the consequences of cause effect.

You, on the other hand, have no basis for hope beyond your self proclamations. May your hand waving continue forever as even you know it won't.

 

[untermensche]

My reasons for subscribing to a cause effect are consistent with my and other individuals using them as data points in experiments.

Yes "YOUR" reasons. Not your brain's reasons.

Case closed.

I see no basis for your declarations beyond your claims made based on self reference.

That you see no basis is my point.

The basis is my mind which is not your mind and is impenetrable by you.

No research can help you. What the mind is is not known. It can't be studied objectively. In every study the mind is absent. So they ask for subjective guesses from minds instead.

You merely have an absurd ridiculous irrational position and don't care.

You claim to have truth without the freedom to make truth judgements.

You are a laughing stock.

Nobody to take seriously.

 

[fromderinside]

Being is to what I refer when I say "My".

Check!

Your use of 'mind' references your 'self'.

Check. Mate in one.

I don't claim to have truth. I reported verifiable material evidence.

Mate!

 

[DBT]

My reasons for subscribing to a cause effect are consistent with my and other individuals using them as data points in experiments.

Yes "YOUR" reasons. Not your brain's reasons.

Case closed.

I see no basis for your declarations beyond your claims made based on self reference.

That you see no basis is my point.

The basis is my mind which is not your mind and is impenetrable by you.

No research can help you. What the mind is is not known. It can't be studied objectively. In every study the mind is absent. So they ask for subjective guesses from minds instead.

You merely have an absurd ridiculous irrational position and don't care.

You claim to have truth without the freedom to make truth judgements.

You are a laughing stock.

Nobody to take seriously.

Maybe you can explain how mind achieves independence from the brain?

 

[untermensche]

Yes "YOUR" reasons. Not your brain's reasons.

Case closed.



That you see no basis is my point.

The basis is my mind which is not your mind and is impenetrable by you.

No research can help you. What the mind is is not known. It can't be studied objectively. In every study the mind is absent. So they ask for subjective guesses from minds instead.

You merely have an absurd ridiculous irrational position and don't care.

You claim to have truth without the freedom to make truth judgements.

You are a laughing stock.

Nobody to take seriously.

Maybe you can explain how mind achieves independence from the brain?

Not necessary for all my points to remain valid.

You clearly think you have the freedom to decide which ideas in the world are true and which are not.

If science ever discovers what the mind is objectively it will be able to examine it.

Examining the brain dos not equal examining the mind.

Just like examining a car does not equal riding in one.

 

[untermensche]

Being is to what I refer when I say "My".

Check!

Your use of 'mind' references your 'self'.

Check. Mate in one.

I don't claim to have truth. I reported verifiable material evidence.

Mate!

Oh "being"?

Now that is a philosophical topic that has been examined intensely.

What did Sartre say about it?

https://smile.amazon.com/Being-Noth...child=1&keywords=Sartre&qid=1627215096&sr=8-2

I don't claim to have truth. I reported verifiable material evidence.

But you are claiming the methods used to produce the data to make the conclusions are ALL valid. And ALL the conclusions are valid.

YOU claim the methods and conclusions are ALL valid.

They are not inherently valid.

Humans decide if they are or are not.

Asking somebody to guess when an invisible "urge" begins to the microsecond is not objective data.

Limiting choices to something humans can do within a second limits the data collected.

Any random data will have a mean and a standard deviation.

And nowhere is there any talk of normal things when you talk about human performance.

Like biofeedback and practice.

Humans make mistakes when they trust "feelings".

Trying to relax muscles mentally can be difficult.

But with biofeedback and practice the muscles are relaxed easily.

 

[fromderinside]

Being is to what I refer when I say "My".

Check!

Your use of 'mind' references your 'self'.

Check. Mate in one.

I don't claim to have truth. I reported verifiable material evidence.

Mate!

Oh "being"?

Now that is a philosophical topic that has been examined intensely.

What did Sartre say about it?

https://smile.amazon.com/Being-Noth...child=1&keywords=Sartre&qid=1627215096&sr=8-2

I don't claim to have truth. I reported verifiable material evidence.

But you are claiming the methods used to produce the data to make the conclusions are ALL valid. And ALL the conclusions are valid.

YOU claim the methods and conclusions are ALL valid.

They are not inherently valid.

Humans decide if they are or are not.

No. Humans decide through testing whether they are useful, contribute to knowledge, or not. I claim the conclusions and the data used to arrive at them are verifiable.

That Sartre bit is basically a phenomenal tract consistent with existentialism which nibbles at the edges of either truth or validity which you seem to see as the essence of self attributions.

What follows the from you is BS derived from your false claims so I struck it.

Asking somebody to guess when an invisible "urge" begins to the microsecond is not objective data.

Limiting choices to something humans can do within a second limits the data collected.

Any random data will have a mean and a standard deviation.

And nowhere is there any talk of normal things when you talk about human performance.

Like biofeedback and practice.

Humans make mistakes when they trust "feelings".

Trying to relax muscles mentally can be difficult.

But with biofeedback and practice the muscles are relaxed easily.

 

[untermensche]

YOU claim the methods and conclusions are ALL valid.

They are not inherently valid.

Humans decide if they are or are not.

No. Humans decide through testing whether they are useful, contribute to knowledge, or not. I claim the conclusions and the data used to arrive at them are verifiable.

You are saying human minds can be goal oriented.

To move towards a predetermined goal requires using the will.

You can't show that anything but a subjective mind (that thing you are forced to use to guess about the timing of urges because you have no clue what the mind is objectively) knows about the goal.

So to get there requires a mind directing activity towards that goal.

A free will in other words.

Directed by predetermined goals, not by some squirts in the brain.

That Sartre bit

The "bit"?

Pathetic!

You know no philosophy.

That is why you behave so irrationally and don't even know it.

You claim to have truths but no freedom to make truth determinations.

Asking somebody to guess when an invisible "urge" begins to the microsecond is not objective data.

Limiting choices to something humans can do within a second limits the data collected.

Any random data will have a mean and a standard deviation.

And nowhere is there any talk of normal things when you talk about human performance.

Like biofeedback and practice.

Humans make mistakes when they trust "feelings".

Trying to relax muscles mentally can be difficult.

But with biofeedback and practice the muscles are relaxed easily.

 

[DBT]

Yes "YOUR" reasons. Not your brain's reasons.

Case closed.



That you see no basis is my point.

The basis is my mind which is not your mind and is impenetrable by you.

No research can help you. What the mind is is not known. It can't be studied objectively. In every study the mind is absent. So they ask for subjective guesses from minds instead.

You merely have an absurd ridiculous irrational position and don't care.

You claim to have truth without the freedom to make truth judgements.

You are a laughing stock.

Nobody to take seriously.

Maybe you can explain how mind achieves independence from the brain?

Not necessary for all my points to remain valid.

You clearly think you have the freedom to decide which ideas in the world are true and which are not.

If science ever discovers what the mind is objectively it will be able to examine it.

Examining the brain dos not equal examining the mind.

Just like examining a car does not equal riding in one.

It is necessary. Without an explanation or evidence, you are simply making declarations.

 

[WAB]

Asking somebody to guess when an invisible "urge" begins to the microsecond is not objective data. - untermensche.

I agree with that.

*buggers off*

 

[DBT]

Asking somebody to guess when an invisible "urge" begins to the microsecond is not objective data. - untermensche.

I agree with that.

*buggers off*

The subject doesn't guess, she or he feels an urge and reports feeling that urge microseconds after it began (motor action delay). Brain activity relating to the felt urge begins before the subject reports or becomes conscious of the urge. Decisions can be predicted before the subject becomes conscious of them.

It can only be like that because the brain must necessarily process information prior to conscious experience. Information processing feeds into conscious activity which allows continuity of conscious experience, the flow of sight, sound, thoughts, emotions, etc, etc.

 

[untermensche]

Not necessary for all my points to remain valid.

You clearly think you have the freedom to decide which ideas in the world are true and which are not.

If science ever discovers what the mind is objectively it will be able to examine it.

Examining the brain dos not equal examining the mind.

Just like examining a car does not equal riding in one.

It is necessary. Without an explanation or evidence, you are simply making declarations.

Declarations can be disputed. It is called philosophy. Or maybe just arguing.

You don't address any of them.

So they remain untouched and assumed to be valid.

 

[untermensche]

Asking somebody to guess when an invisible "urge" begins to the microsecond is not objective data. - untermensche.

I agree with that.

*buggers off*

The subject doesn't guess, she or he feels an urge and reports feeling that urge microseconds after it began (motor action delay). Brain activity relating to the felt urge begins before the subject reports or becomes conscious of the urge. Decisions can be predicted before the subject becomes conscious of them.

It can only be like that because the brain must necessarily process information prior to conscious experience. Information processing feeds into conscious activity which allows continuity of conscious experience, the flow of sight, sound, thoughts, emotions, etc, etc.

They are asked to determine when an invisible "urge" begins. Whatever the fuck an "urge" is. Must be something the will does?

It can only be a wild guess.

That you don't know that makes you unfit to discuss science.

A scientist knows the difference between objective and totally subjective data.

A scientist knows color is a totally subjective experience.

Knowing the difference is what makes something valid science.

There is no majority agreement about the interpretation or the significance of Libet's experiments.[9] However, Libet's experiments suggest to some[10] that unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore plays no part in their initiation. If unconscious brain processes have already taken steps to initiate an action before consciousness is aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in volition is all but eliminated, according to this interpretation. For instance, Susan Blackmore's interpretation is "that conscious experience takes some time to build up and is much too slow to be responsible for making things happen."[11]

Such a conclusion would be overdrawn as in a subsequent run of experiments, Libet found that even after the awareness of the decision to push the button had happened, people still had the capability to veto the decision and not to push the button. So they still had the capability to refrain from the decision that had earlier been made. Some therefore take this brain impulse to push the button to suggest just a readiness potential which the subject may either then go along with or may veto. So the person still has power over his or her decision.[9]

For this reason, Libet himself regards his experimental results to be entirely compatible with the notion of free will.

 

[untermensche]

Asking somebody to guess when an invisible "urge" begins to the microsecond is not objective data. - untermensche.

I agree with that.

*buggers off*

Of course.

They don't ask the subject to guess within a microsecond. They just ask them to guess the exact moment and measure within a microsecond.

It is subjective data. It will be scattered in some kind of distribution. They merely use the mean value and ignore the spread as if subjective guesses are no different than dropping a ball.

If subjective guesses were like dropping balls you could not have a show like Jeopardy, you would not have professional poker players.

All subjects are different and they will all guess about invisible events differently.

It takes a special blindness not to see it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Only minds care about research.

Brains have no idea there is such a thing as research.

Brains are cells that emit molecules.

They do not have knowledge of anything. They respond the way they have evolved to respond.

But a mind is an adaption to a specific time and place.

That is why the brain relies on it for survival and follows it's commands like a dutiful slave.

So, in your estimate, minds are some sort of disembodied entities floating in the astral plane, ready to come down to earth and manifest within a brain, because, well, that's how you believe the world works?

For unter that appears to be how he believes his world works. It's like running. Before anyone runs there's something called velocity out there in space that needs to be married with something. The velocity is already there, it only needs an object, then it all moves.

 

[DBT]

They are asked to determine when an invisible "urge" begins. Whatever the fuck an "urge" is. Must be something the will does?

It can only be a wild guess.

That you don't know that makes you unfit to discuss science.

A scientist knows the difference between objective and totally subjective data.

A scientist knows color is a totally subjective experience.

Knowing the difference is what makes something valid science.

There is no majority agreement about the interpretation or the significance of Libet's experiments.[9] However, Libet's experiments suggest to some[10] that unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore plays no part in their initiation. If unconscious brain processes have already taken steps to initiate an action before consciousness is aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in volition is all but eliminated, according to this interpretation. For instance, Susan Blackmore's interpretation is "that conscious experience takes some time to build up and is much too slow to be responsible for making things happen."[11]

Such a conclusion would be overdrawn as in a subsequent run of experiments, Libet found that even after the awareness of the decision to push the button had happened, people still had the capability to veto the decision and not to push the button. So they still had the capability to refrain from the decision that had earlier been made. Some therefore take this brain impulse to push the button to suggest just a readiness potential which the subject may either then go along with or may veto. So the person still has power over his or her decision.[9]

For this reason, Libet himself regards his experimental results to be entirely compatible with the notion of free will.

Libet based his free will defense on ideology. Why? Well, basically because his 'veto function' is just as subject to brain state and function as the original decision.

The fact remains that information input precedes propagation, information processing precedes conscious representation of that information, experience. Which means that your will is formed by the brain microseconds prior to awareness.

Which means you did not consciously form your will. Will appears fully formed in your mind as an urge or impulse to act, along with the thought of what action to take.

As for your mind independent of brain, that, given the evidence, is simply absurd.

 

[untermensche]

For unter that appears to be how he believes his world works. It's like running. Before anyone runs there's something called velocity out there in space that needs to be married with something. The velocity is already there, it only needs an object, then it all moves.

What I know is my world is not your world.

Every mind is a unique creation.

Created by the combination of experience and individual genetic potentials.

I claim the mind is created after birth.

How exactly is that already existing?

Your criticism is bad because it ignores my position.

 

[untermensche]

Libet based his free will defense on ideology. Why? Well, basically because his 'veto function' is just as subject to brain state and function as the original decision....

You can't prove that.

You can only claim it.

I claim the veto is the result of a mind state.

You have a prejudice and nothing else.

I have experience and the same data that convinced Libet.

I have rational ideas.

Like the understanding that the truth claims of an unfree entity are meaningless.

 

[fromderinside]

You are saying human minds can be goal oriented.

To move towards a predetermined goal requires using the will.

You can't show that anything but a subjective mind (that thing you are forced to use to guess about the timing of urges because you have no clue what the mind is objectively) knows about the goal.

So when Thorndike and Watson showed that animals learned by responding to signals and rewards for behavior that was at the behest of a mind?

 

[DBT]

Libet based his free will defense on ideology. Why? Well, basically because his 'veto function' is just as subject to brain state and function as the original decision....

You can't prove that.

You can only claim it.

I claim the veto is the result of a mind state.

You have a prejudice and nothing else.

I have experience and the same data that convinced Libet.

I have rational ideas.

Like the understanding that the truth claims of an unfree entity are meaningless.

Magically autonomous mind is not an explanation, it is an assertion.

All of the evidence supports brain agency....therefore Libet's veto function can only be a function of the brain, not some magical autonomous element that jumps in to veto brain activity.

The simple matter of it being: fresh information alters the decision making process. A line of thought is vetoed by fresh information. That is, if there is time. If not, you get to regret your decision a moment after it is made.