Free Will And Free Choice

[fromderinside]

verify belief > something > mind.

'Are' is not a reason for existence. However lack of understanding is a reason to invent a catchall for self revealed inventions.

You arbitrarily replace brain with mind because you have no idea how the brain works so you can go on your Libet screed.

then you gather a herd of suppositions

then you return to 'I judge you' rant.

Seems to me that Libet was pretty careful to constrain himself to brain signals not mind signals.

Now if you'd constrain yourself to what Libet actually did rather than slopping presumptions in all over the place we might actually be having a fruitful discussion.

How can you say 'guesses' when Libet gets data he can validate via accepted statistical analysis? Many premier cognitive scientists and leading current philosophers have used Libet as a starting point winding up in the end agreeing choice is determined even they used very advanced analytical tools and methods. All you've done is slander him. Not a very balanced approach.

 

[untermensche]

No.

You because of prejudice replace mind and say instead "dumb brain did it".

You are a mind. And smarter than a brain because as a mind you can react to ideas.

You care because you are a free mind.

Determining when invisible events actually start is a total guess.

It can never be more.

It is not scientific data.

It is only evidence the researchers have no way to test their theories without subjective input. They have no objective understanding of the mind.

They see brain activity and have no clue how it arose but have a prejudice that the mind had nothing to do with it when the mind is doing it all.

All Libet showed is that the mind prepares for movement before initiating movement. Something most physical therapists already know. The young and active prepare for movement extremely quickly and the elderly prepare more slowly.

No activity seen by Libet just arose on it's own. The mind knew a move might be made and prepared. The brain reacted and prepared to comply.

And the mind can shut the whole thing down any time it chooses if you give subjects that option.

The experimenters absurdly rely on minds that comply to say the mind is not in control.

The thing that can shut it all down is in control.

That is why Libet said he had not found any evidence to counter the idea of free will. He had no clue how any activity he observed arose and was honest about it.

 

[untermensche]

How can you say 'guesses' when Libet gets data he can validate via accepted statistical analysis? Many premier cognitive scientists and leading current philosophers have used Libet as a starting point winding up in the end agreeing choice is determined even they used very advanced analytical tools and methods. All you've done is slander him. Not a very balanced approach.

Randomly occurring numbers have a mean and a standard deviation.

You can do statistical analysis of the numbers.

Having statistical analysis of numbers is not evidence the numbers are objective data.

Methods are what assure you have objective data.

Subjective guesses about invisible events is not an objective data gathering method.

A real scientist would know this.

I only slander those who don't understand Libet. He understood his work did not speak about free will.

He found some activity in the brain with a correlation to subjective reports of initiating movement.

He did not claim to know anything about the origin of the activity or why it arose.

 

[fromderinside]

Wab

We already see Mayzie as falsely placed outside the machine. It's the machine (brain) we can't yet completely explain so we've invented Mayzie as a place holder. Some idiot got the idea that Mayzie was a thing rather than a placeholder for undetermined brain functions, activities, and processes


Untermensche

Randomly occurring numbers have a mean and a standard deviation.

You can do statistical analysis of the numbers.

Having statistical analysis of numbers is not evidence the numbers are objective data.

Methods are what assure you have objective data.

Subjective guesses about invisible events is not an objective data gathering method.

Obviously you know almost nothing about reputable scientific publication.

Read his article carefully, especially the Method and Results sections. Top experts in the field concentrate on evaluating these elements of a paper. You will find no reason to doubt method or result since Libet put his work in to a database for anyone to review. You obviously didn't even bother to read those sections and you definitely didn't examine the data behind the publication. Your criticisms are a ham handed blurb of possible fraud which are not evident in his publications, nor in the study of others who replicated and extended his work.

Your moment in the peanut gallery is coming to an end.

 

[untermensche]

You claim applying statistical methods to numbers magically makes the numbers objective data.

That is absolute stupidity.

You have no argument to make subjective guesses anything but subjective guesses so instead make a huge and worthless appeal to authority.

You are a joke.

You don't even know what objective data is.

Is there a thing in this topic from color production to the nature of subjective guesses about invisible events you do not get wrong?

 

[DBT]

Not fully understanding doesn't mean that nothing is understood. We understand that Consciousess is made up of a collection of elements, vision, smell, touch, taste, hearing, thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc, and that these key elements of conscious mind are related to sense organs, brain regions and brain information processing activity.

We know by having experiences we can experience sights and sounds and smells and thoughts and pain and grief and happiness and hatred and revulsion.....

We know none of this from neuroscience and neuroscience has no clue how we have any of it or what we are that has these experiences.

We are not a brain.

We are not electricity.

We are not Dopamine.

We are the center of experience and the center of the will. That thing that experiences and wills.

Your conclusion doesn't follow. You still ignore all the evidence for brain agency and just assert autonomous mind without explanation or the slightest justification.

You are unable to explain, so you make declarations.

Meanwhile:



Quote:

What is the neural substrate of conscious experience? While William James (1842-1910) concluded that it was the entire brain (1), recent approaches have attempted to narrow the focus: are there neurons endowed with a special location or intrinsic property that are necessary and sufficient for conscious experience? Does primary visual cortex contribute to conscious experience? Are brain areas that project directly to prefrontal cortex more relevant than those that do not (2)? Although heuristically useful, these approaches leave a fundamental problem unresolved: How could the possession of some particular anatomical location or biochemical feature render some neurons so privileged that their activity gives rise to subjective experience? Conferring this property on neurons seems to constitute a category error, in the sense of ascribing to things properties they cannot have (3).

The authors pursue a different approach. Instead of arguing whether a particular brain area or group of neurons contributes to consciousness or not, their strategy is to characterize the kinds of neural processes that might account for key properties of conscious experience. The authors emphasize two properties: conscious experience is integrated (each conscious scene is unified) and at the same time it is highly differentiated (within a short time, one can experience any of a huge number of different conscious states). Neurobiological data indicates that neural processes associated with conscious experience are highly integrated and highly differentiated.

Consciousness, as William James pointed out, is not a thing, but a process or stream that is changing on a time scale of fractions of seconds (1). As he emphasized, a fundamental aspect of the stream of consciousness is that it is highly unified or integrated. Integration is a property shared by every conscious experience irrespective of its specific content: Each conscious state comprises a single "scene" that cannot be decomposed into independent components (5). Integration is best appreciated by considering the impossibility of conceiving of a conscious scene that is not integrated, that is, one which is not experienced from a single point of view. A striking demonstration is given by split-brain patients performing a spatial memory task in which two independent sequences of visuospatial positions were presented, one to the left and one to the right hemisphere. In these patients, each hemisphere perceived a separate, simple visual problem and the subjects were able to solve the double task well. Normal subjects could not treat the two independent visual sequences as independent, parallel tasks. Instead, they combined the visual information into a single conscious scene and into a single, large problem that was much more difficult to solve.

In summary: Conventional approaches to understanding consciousness are generally concerned with the contribution of specific brain areas or groups of neurons. By contrast, the authors consider what kinds of neural processes can account for key properties of conscious experience. Applying measures of neural integration and complexity, together with an analysis of extensive neurological data, leads to a testable proposal -- the dynamic core hypothesis -- about the properties of the neural substrate of consciousness.(4)''

 

[untermensche]

Not fully understanding doesn't mean that nothing is understood. We understand that Consciousess is made up of a collection of elements, vision, smell, touch, taste, hearing, thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc, and that these key elements of conscious mind are related to sense organs, brain regions and brain information processing activity.

We know by having experiences we can experience sights and sounds and smells and thoughts and pain and grief and happiness and hatred and revulsion.....

We know none of this from neuroscience and neuroscience has no clue how we have any of it or what we are that has these experiences.

We are not a brain.

We are not electricity.

We are not Dopamine.

We are the center of experience and the center of the will. That thing that experiences and wills.

Your conclusion doesn't follow.

What conclusion?

Those are all facts you can't dispute.

 

[untermensche]

Fact: The arm will not move until "I" allow it to move.

Absolute proof of free will.

To those with honest minds.

 

[Elixir]

Fact: The arm will not move until "I" allow it to move.

Absolute proof of free will.

To those with honest minds.

Did a doctor pronounce you dead when he discovered your lack of reflexes?

 

[untermensche]

Fact: The arm will not move until "I" allow it to move.

Absolute proof of free will.

To those with honest minds.

Did a doctor pronounce you dead when he discovered your lack of reflexes?

I did not say anybody could touch me or blow me up with a grenade.

Me sitting here.

The arm will not move unless I allow it.

I am in control.

 

[Elixir]

Fact: The arm will not move until "I" allow it to move.

Absolute proof of free will.

To those with honest minds.

Did a doctor pronounce you dead when he discovered your lack of reflexes?

The arm will not move unless I allow it.

I am in control.

At the moment.
Under current circumstances.
As far as you can tell.

 

[untermensche]

The arm will not move unless I allow it.

I am in control.

At the moment.
Under current circumstances.
As far as you can tell.

That's called data supporting my claims.

 

[fromderinside]

uh uh.

Any time you spout The Elixer

you are still self referencing

That's called repeating your declarations.

 

[DBT]

Your conclusion doesn't follow.

What conclusion?

Those are all facts you can't dispute.

What conclusion? Your conclusion that the mind achieves independence from the brain, that the mind can act autonomously. That is what you said. Yet upon being asked repeatedly for an explanation and evidence, you just declare your conclusion over and over again.

You declare your belief in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that it is in fact brain activity that generates conscious mind.

 

[DBT]

Fact: The arm will not move until "I" allow it to move.

Absolute proof of free will.

To those with honest minds.

That's where you go wrong: motor action signals precede conscious awareness. The brain initiates an action prior to making it conscious.

This has been pointed out time and time again, yet you persist in declaring your own erroneous beliefs.

Once again:

Motor actions:
''When it comes to the human brain, even the simplest of acts can be counter-intuitive and deceptively complicated. For example, try stretching your arm.

Nerves in the limb send messages back to your brain, but the subjective experience you have of stretching isn't due to these signals. The feeling that you willed your arm into motion, and the realisation that you moved it at all, are both the result of an area at the back of your brain called the posterior parietal cortex. This region helped to produce the intention to move, and predicted what the movement would feel like, all before you twitched a single muscle.

Michel Desmurget and a team of French neuroscientists arrived at this conclusion by stimulating the brains of seven people with electrodes, while they underwent brain surgery under local anaesthetic. When Desmurget stimulated the parietal cortex, the patients felt a strong desire to move their arms, hands, feet or lips, although they never actually did. Stronger currents cast a powerful illusion, convincing the patients that they had actually moved, even though recordings of electrical activity in their muscles said otherwise.''


Decision-Making

''Decision-making is such a seamless brain process that we’re usually unaware of it — until our choice results in unexpected consequences. Then we may look back and wonder, “Why did I choose that option?” In recent years, neuroscientists have begun to decode the decision-making process. What they’re learning is shedding light not only on how the healthy brain performs complex mental functions, but also on how disorders, such as stroke or drug abuse, affect the process.''

''Researchers can study decision-making in animals. As monkeys decide which direction a moving target is headed, researchers record the activity in brain cells called neurons. These studies have helped to reveal the basis for how animals and humans make everyday decisions.''

Thanks to advances in technology, researchers are beginning to unravel the mysterious processes by which humans make decisions.''

 

[untermensche]

Your conclusion doesn't follow.

What conclusion?

Those are all facts you can't dispute.

What conclusion? Your conclusion that the mind achieves independence from the brain, that the mind can act autonomously. That is what you said. Yet upon being asked repeatedly for an explanation and evidence, you just declare your conclusion over and over again.

You declare your belief in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that it is in fact brain activity that generates conscious mind.

Until you have even a clue what the mind is you can't possibly know.

But I can know beyond doubt that for any decision about the truth of any idea to be valid the mind MUST be free.

You have nothing to support your religious beliefs about the mind.

You have no clue what the mind is.

Neuroscience has no clue what the mind is. If you don't even know what something is you can't possibly know what it can do.

They ask subjects to make guesses instead.

 

[fromderinside]

1. Until you have even a clue what the mind is you can't possibly know.

2. But I can know beyond doubt that for any decision about the truth of any idea to be valid the mind MUST be free.

3. You have nothing to support your religious beliefs about the mind.

4. You have no clue what the mind is.

5. Neuroscience has no clue what the mind is. If you don't even know what something is you can't possibly know what it can do.

6. They ask subjects to make guesses instead.

1-6 untermensche continues to chant to his-damn-sef

to wit:

1. The mind is a man made bag for what man appears to do according to man without intervention of experiment or data.

2. yeah. You know because your introspection told you so. hah.

3. You have no idea of what DBT is basing his reported understanding but you KNOW it doesn't correspond to your hallucinations.

4. Neither do you. Especially you don't because you don't know what you are talking about being in the black box you found.

5. Neuroscience has no clue. Now that's a rich one. Its got to be right because you are the one defining what it is out of whole fart.

6. Of course they are and you know this because you were sitting right there as they did their work, evaluated the work done, and judged it to be credible and publishable.

Untermenche as no clothes.

 

[DBT]

What conclusion? Your conclusion that the mind achieves independence from the brain, that the mind can act autonomously. That is what you said. Yet upon being asked repeatedly for an explanation and evidence, you just declare your conclusion over and over again.

You declare your belief in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that it is in fact brain activity that generates conscious mind.

Until you have even a clue what the mind is you can't possibly know.

But I can know beyond doubt that for any decision about the truth of any idea to be valid the mind MUST be free.

You have nothing to support your religious beliefs about the mind.

You have no clue what the mind is.

Neuroscience has no clue what the mind is. If you don't even know what something is you can't possibly know what it can do.

They ask subjects to make guesses instead.

Neuroscience has no clue, you say? Your own belief overrides research and evidence, allowing you to dismiss anything that you disagree with?

Such authority.

 

[untermensche]

What conclusion? Your conclusion that the mind achieves independence from the brain, that the mind can act autonomously. That is what you said. Yet upon being asked repeatedly for an explanation and evidence, you just declare your conclusion over and over again.

You declare your belief in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that it is in fact brain activity that generates conscious mind.

Until you have even a clue what the mind is you can't possibly know.

But I can know beyond doubt that for any decision about the truth of any idea to be valid the mind MUST be free.

You have nothing to support your religious beliefs about the mind.

You have no clue what the mind is.

Neuroscience has no clue what the mind is. If you don't even know what something is you can't possibly know what it can do.

They ask subjects to make guesses instead.

Neuroscience has no clue, you say? Your own belief overrides research and evidence, allowing you to dismiss anything that you disagree with?

Such authority.

Sorry to upset your religious devotion but no.

Neuroscience does not have the slightest clue what the mind is. Not the slightest clue what a thought is or what an emotion is or what the visual experience is.

They have no understanding of the phenomena of experience or the phenomena of the will.

Sorry.

 

[untermensche]

The mind is a man made bag for what man appears to do according to man without intervention of experiment or data.

The mind is what makes up rubbish like this.

And inferior minds believe it.

You know because your introspection told you so. hah.

It is called rational thinking.

If a person wants to claim they have a truth they must also claim they have the freedom to decide if an idea is true or false.

You somehow think this is not freedom.

The stuff of inferior minds.