Free Will And Free Choice

[DBT]

Even several seconds before we consciously make a decision its outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain... - from a quote that DBT posted.

Now wait a minute. I posted this objection to the "several seconds" crap somewhere upthread.

I will lodge my objection again, using the same examples, via video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJxJN3hK9bs

Watch the video and see people reacting instantly - there is less than a second in some of these. Now, if decisions were to take "several seconds", then none of this would be possible. The ball is thrown, the batter swings - all unpredictable; the person catches the ball. There is no way, NO WAY, that several seconds could elapse in order for the brain to decide what to do. The whole "several seconds" argument is destroyed in this video alone.

It is a bunch of crap.

The researchers artificially limit choices people can make to two things. And the subject knows a decision is needed and when it will be needed. Nothing is taking place that the subject isn't fully aware of.

Nobody can claim they know when precisely the decision was actually made by the subject. Not even the subject. Their guesses are not data.

The subject only has two choices. They can either do something with their right hand or their left. And they don't have the option to no nothing. That is really the will in action. Refusing to participate.

And the researchers don't guess correctly every time.

Guessing correctly 100% of the time is knowing something.

You have no idea. Decisions are simply not possible without first input and processing, without which being conscious of the event is not possible. First input, then propagation of information, processing and finally, being conscious of the event...the time it takes for light, sound, etc, to enter the system via the senses, processed and represented in conscious form must necessarily be after the event by microseconds.

Just basic physics falsifies your claims and unfounded proclamations.

 

[untermensche]

Even several seconds before we consciously make a decision its outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain... - from a quote that DBT posted.

Now wait a minute. I posted this objection to the "several seconds" crap somewhere upthread.

I will lodge my objection again, using the same examples, via video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJxJN3hK9bs

Watch the video and see people reacting instantly - there is less than a second in some of these. Now, if decisions were to take "several seconds", then none of this would be possible. The ball is thrown, the batter swings - all unpredictable; the person catches the ball. There is no way, NO WAY, that several seconds could elapse in order for the brain to decide what to do. The whole "several seconds" argument is destroyed in this video alone.

It is a bunch of crap.

The researchers artificially limit choices people can make to two things. And the subject knows a decision is needed and when it will be needed. Nothing is taking place that the subject isn't fully aware of.

Nobody can claim they know when precisely the decision was actually made by the subject. Not even the subject. Their guesses are not data.

The subject only has two choices. They can either do something with their right hand or their left. And they don't have the option to no nothing. That is really the will in action. Refusing to participate.

And the researchers don't guess correctly every time.

Guessing correctly 100% of the time is knowing something.

You have no idea. Decisions are simply not possible without first input and processing, without which being conscious of the event is not possible. First input, then propagation of information, processing and finally, being conscious of the event...the time it takes for light, sound, etc, to enter the system via the senses, processed and represented in conscious form must necessarily be after the event by microseconds.

Just basic physics falsifies your claims and unfounded proclamations.

Only with your model.

Not according to anything you can prove.

You have a model where the brain creates every aspect of the mind.

Many have a different model.

Where the brain creates a mind and the mind is such that it acts according to ideas and plans and immediate desires and it can have feedback on the brain.

Your model is not the only model.

In your model the mind is not needed. If the brain is making all decisions then the mind is not needed. In your model the mind has no ability to do anything. Evolution says if your model is correct the mind should not be there. It serves no function. If the brain is reacting to ideas then the brain knows about ideas. There is no need for a mind to know about ideas.

In your model the mind is something to be tricked into thinking it is deciding and doing things and it does nothing else.

 

[fromderinside]

Unfortunately we do subvocalize. How else would you have us explain hearing voices in our head than by inventing something fancy and magical to explain it?

Don't have answer to that one do you. The mind is a convenient Ill-us-ion.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Don't try to light it. You'll burn your lips.


... 'cause it too is an illusion.

 

[untermensche]

We can imagine a green elephant.

What does it prove beyond we have freedom and we experience things with our minds?

The mind is complicated.

But if the mind can't do anything then experiencing so-called "sub-vocalizations", Chomsky calls it self talk and it is the largest use of language, is meaningless.

 

[fromderinside]

That called self talk is not one talking to ones self, it is one talking of what one is doing. It's the brain articulating one's emerging plan of action through auditory, visual and olfactory concurrent play. Dogs fill space and time with odors. In many ways such brainwork permits the brain to modify what it does by what takes place in the sensorium while the brain rehearses.

 

[DBT]

You have no idea. Decisions are simply not possible without first input and processing, without which being conscious of the event is not possible. First input, then propagation of information, processing and finally, being conscious of the event...the time it takes for light, sound, etc, to enter the system via the senses, processed and represented in conscious form must necessarily be after the event by microseconds.

Just basic physics falsifies your claims and unfounded proclamations.

Only with your model.

Not according to anything you can prove.

You have a model where the brain creates every aspect of the mind.

Many have a different model.

Where the brain creates a mind and the mind is such that it acts according to ideas and plans and immediate desires and it can have feedback on the brain.

Your model is not the only model.

In your model the mind is not needed. If the brain is making all decisions then the mind is not needed. In your model the mind has no ability to do anything. Evolution says if your model is correct the mind should not be there. It serves no function. If the brain is reacting to ideas then the brain knows about ideas. There is no need for a mind to know about ideas.

In your model the mind is something to be tricked into thinking it is deciding and doing things and it does nothing else.

I use a model (not my own) based on research, evidence, testing and analysis by those who are qualified in the field. Max Planck institute, as one example.

You don't have a model.

You assert. You proclaim and declare.

You declare, without evidential support, that mind is able to act independently from the brain.

When asked how this is possible, you blow a smokescreen and repeat your assertions like a Mantra.

This has all been pointed out over and over.

 

[untermensche]

You have no idea. Decisions are simply not possible without first input and processing, without which being conscious of the event is not possible. First input, then propagation of information, processing and finally, being conscious of the event...the time it takes for light, sound, etc, to enter the system via the senses, processed and represented in conscious form must necessarily be after the event by microseconds.

Just basic physics falsifies your claims and unfounded proclamations.

Only with your model.

Not according to anything you can prove.

You have a model where the brain creates every aspect of the mind.

Many have a different model.

Where the brain creates a mind and the mind is such that it acts according to ideas and plans and immediate desires and it can have feedback on the brain.

Your model is not the only model.

In your model the mind is not needed. If the brain is making all decisions then the mind is not needed. In your model the mind has no ability to do anything. Evolution says if your model is correct the mind should not be there. It serves no function. If the brain is reacting to ideas then the brain knows about ideas. There is no need for a mind to know about ideas.

In your model the mind is something to be tricked into thinking it is deciding and doing things and it does nothing else.

I use a model (not my own) based on research, evidence, testing and analysis by those who are qualified in the field. Max Planck institute, as one example.

You don't have a model.

You assert. You proclaim and declare.

You declare, without evidential support, that mind is able to act independently from the brain.

When asked how this is possible, you blow a smokescreen and repeat your assertions like a Mantra.

This has all been pointed out over and over.

There is no model of the mind based on any research. All models of the mind are based on human imagination and nothing else.

Science does not have the slightest idea what the mind is.

That's why they have to ask subjects to make wild guesses and pretend that is data.

 

[untermensche]

That called self talk is not one talking to ones self, it is one talking of what one is doing. It's the brain articulating one's emerging plan of action through auditory, visual and olfactory concurrent play. Dogs fill space and time with odors. In many ways such brainwork permits the brain to modify what it does by what takes place in the sensorium while the brain rehearses.

The brain does not use language.

There is no evidence the brain knows what words mean.

Minds know words. Something beyond the brain knows words.

Minds are the only thing known that understands words.

Do an experiment.

Give the brain a word in some language the subject does not understand and see if the brain ever tells the subject what the word means.

Please try. I need a good laugh.

Your ideas are ridiculous.

I slacked off and a bunch of woo has replaced rational thinking in neuroscience.

 

[WAB]

Even several seconds before we consciously make a decision its outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain... - from a quote that DBT posted.

Now wait a minute. I posted this objection to the "several seconds" crap somewhere upthread.

I will lodge my objection again, using the same examples, via video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJxJN3hK9bs

Watch the video and see people reacting instantly - there is less than a second in some of these. Now, if decisions were to take "several seconds", then none of this would be possible. The ball is thrown, the batter swings - all unpredictable; the person catches the ball. There is no way, NO WAY, that several seconds could elapse in order for the brain to decide what to do. The whole "several seconds" argument is destroyed in this video alone.

It is a bunch of crap.

The researchers artificially limit choices people can make to two things. And the subject knows a decision is needed and when it will be needed. Nothing is taking place that the subject isn't fully aware of.

Nobody can claim they know when precisely the decision was actually made by the subject. Not even the subject. Their guesses are not data.

The subject only has two choices. They can either do something with their right hand or their left. And they don't have the option to no nothing. That is really the will in action. Refusing to participate.

And the researchers don't guess correctly every time.

Guessing correctly 100% of the time is knowing something.

You have no idea. Decisions are simply not possible without first input and processing, without which being conscious of the event is not possible. First input, then propagation of information, processing and finally, being conscious of the event...the time it takes for light, sound, etc, to enter the system via the senses, processed and represented in conscious form must necessarily be after the event by microseconds.

I've got no quibble with "microseconds"; it's the "several seconds" I have a problem with. I notice that over time we've gone from "several seconds" to "miscroseconds". I see that as progress.

As for "several seconds" I refer to your post #651, where you quoted:

''Contrary to what most of us would like to believe, decision-making may be a process handled to a large extent by unconscious mental activity. A team of scientists has unraveled how the brain actually unconsciously prepares our decisions. Even several seconds before we consciously make a decision its outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain."

Of course, that says, "even several seconds", which I take to mean "up to several seconds".

I bring back "readiness potential". This unconscious activity in the brain is readiness to act. It predicts that "an" action will be taken, but not any "specific" action (fromderinside's objections notwithstanding).

Of course, I could be wrong!

Is there any documentation that indicates that this unconscious brain activity can predict a specific decision? Can it determine that a man who is trying to decide between a red tie and a blue tie will choose the red tie?

I am not doubting that such documentation exists. I'd just like to read it.

 

[DBT]

You have no idea. Decisions are simply not possible without first input and processing, without which being conscious of the event is not possible. First input, then propagation of information, processing and finally, being conscious of the event...the time it takes for light, sound, etc, to enter the system via the senses, processed and represented in conscious form must necessarily be after the event by microseconds.

I've got no quibble with "microseconds"; it's the "several seconds" I have a problem with. I notice that over time we've gone from "several seconds" to "miscroseconds". I see that as progress.

As for "several seconds" I refer to your post #651, where you quoted:

''Contrary to what most of us would like to believe, decision-making may be a process handled to a large extent by unconscious mental activity. A team of scientists has unraveled how the brain actually unconsciously prepares our decisions. Even several seconds before we consciously make a decision its outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain."

Of course, that says, "even several seconds", which I take to mean "up to several seconds".

I bring back "readiness potential". This unconscious activity in the brain is readiness to act. It predicts that "an" action will be taken, but not any "specific" action (fromderinside's objections notwithstanding).

Of course, I could be wrong!

Is there any documentation that indicates that this unconscious brain activity can predict a specific decision? Can it determine that a man who is trying to decide between a red tie and a blue tie will choose the red tie?

I am not doubting that such documentation exists. I'd just like to read it.

The claim is not that all decisions take seconds to process. The meaning is obviously - as you say - ''up to several seconds.''

The point of all this being: Information must - as a matter of physics - be processed prior to be made available to conscious activity. That even while we experience consciousness, there is an underlying feed of processed information that preceded your experience of it.

 

[DBT]

I use a model (not my own) based on research, evidence, testing and analysis by those who are qualified in the field. Max Planck institute, as one example.

You don't have a model.

You assert. You proclaim and declare.

You declare, without evidential support, that mind is able to act independently from the brain.

When asked how this is possible, you blow a smokescreen and repeat your assertions like a Mantra.

This has all been pointed out over and over.

There is no model of the mind based on any research. All models of the mind are based on human imagination and nothing else.

Science does not have the slightest idea what the mind is.

That's why they have to ask subjects to make wild guesses and pretend that is data.

We experience mind. We understand its features and attributes well enough; we can see, feel, smell, touch, taste, think and act knowingly. We can assaociate these atttibutes with regions and structures of a brain, visual cortex, auditary cortex, etc, etc. What is not understood is precisely how the brain achieves this phenomena.

Not knowing everything doesn't mean that nothing is understood.

Your own notion of independant mind has no foundation whatsoever.

 

[fromderinside]

Untrmensche, my answer to your contention that the brain doesn't know is the brain isn't a mind. The brain is a biological, physical, thing. It performs material operations. Knowing isn't something brains do. Knowing is something that humans which have relatively large brains do. Brains are a large part of the biological machine responsible for doing the work which humans use to know.

The brain is made up of sensing processors, biological program routine structures and processors, along with a lot of directional emotive systems, body maintenance and sustenance systems, and other muscle control and organizing systems, none of which knows, thinks, emotes.

Those components just function. What they do supports man knowing. The only thing in this entire list of functions with consciousness, mind, self, is a human. Those categories just listed are what man has uses to encapsulate what man does, to which man points as doing what he does. They are not actual things. They are man defined aspects of being a man. They are not actual material entities.

 

[untermensche]

I use a model (not my own) based on research, evidence, testing and analysis by those who are qualified in the field. Max Planck institute, as one example.

You don't have a model.

You assert. You proclaim and declare.

You declare, without evidential support, that mind is able to act independently from the brain.

When asked how this is possible, you blow a smokescreen and repeat your assertions like a Mantra.

This has all been pointed out over and over.

There is no model of the mind based on any research. All models of the mind are based on human imagination and nothing else.

Science does not have the slightest idea what the mind is.

That's why they have to ask subjects to make wild guesses and pretend that is data.

We experience mind. We understand its features and attributes well enough; we can see, feel, smell, touch, taste, think and act knowingly. We can assaociate these atttibutes with regions and structures of a brain, visual cortex, auditary cortex, etc, etc. What is not understood is precisely how the brain achieves this phenomena.

Not knowing everything doesn't mean that nothing is understood.

Your own notion of independant mind has no foundation whatsoever.

You talk about experience, something real, as if it isn't real. I tell my arm to move it does. I tell my arm not to move and it won't.

In none of your terrible "studies" you worship was the subject ever given the option to say "no". I won't move anything.

That absolute no and refusal to participate is proof of a free will.

We both do not experience "mind".

I have my mind that is rational and skeptical and you have your mind that accepts everything your preferred authority decrees.

You are a religious observer. Nothing more.

You have no ideas. You have lived but have not risen to the point you can think for yourself and justify what you believe. You just have some other people you believe without hesitation. Like a Christian.

 

[untermensche]

Untrmensche, my answer to your contention that the brain doesn't know is the brain isn't a mind. The brain is a biological, physical, thing. It performs material operations. Knowing isn't something brains do. Knowing is something that humans which have relatively large brains do. Brains are a large part of the biological machine responsible for doing the work which humans use to know.

The brain is made up of sensing processors, biological program routine structures and processors, along with a lot of directional emotive systems, body maintenance and sustenance systems, and other muscle control and organizing systems, none of which knows, thinks, emotes.

Those components just function. What they do supports man knowing. The only thing in this entire list of functions with consciousness, mind, self, is a human. Those categories just listed are what man has uses to encapsulate what man does, to which man points as doing what he does. They are not actual things. They are man defined aspects of being a man. They are not actual material entities.

You are right.

The brain is not the mind.

I rest my case.

 

[DBT]

We experience mind. We understand its features and attributes well enough; we can see, feel, smell, touch, taste, think and act knowingly. We can assaociate these atttibutes with regions and structures of a brain, visual cortex, auditary cortex, etc, etc. What is not understood is precisely how the brain achieves this phenomena.

Not knowing everything doesn't mean that nothing is understood.

Your own notion of independant mind has no foundation whatsoever.

You talk about experience, something real, as if it isn't real. I tell my arm to move it does. I tell my arm not to move and it won't.

In none of your terrible "studies" you worship was the subject ever given the option to say "no". I won't move anything.

That absolute no and refusal to participate is proof of a free will.

We both do not experience "mind".

I have my mind that is rational and skeptical and you have your mind that accepts everything your preferred authority decrees.

You are a religious observer. Nothing more.

You have no ideas. You have lived but have not risen to the point you can think for yourself and justify what you believe. You just have some other people you believe without hesitation. Like a Christian.

At no time did I say or suggest that experience is not a real phenomenon. My contention is purely with your notion of mind being independent from the brain. A notion that has no foundation.

 

[untermensche]

At no time did I say or suggest that experience is not a real phenomenon. My contention is purely with your notion of mind being independent from the brain. A notion that has no foundation.

Good.

You understand all my points are based on data then.

I have never said the mind is totally independent.

The mind needs the brain to create it. The mind is a living "thing" that grows and changes. Like a leg.

But once created a mind can over time learn to control the body and thoughts. We learn to control our bodies very early when reflexive movement is replaced with purposeful movement.

It is done so early most do not realize they learned how to control their body with their mind very early. They just do it with ease.

Controlling our thoughts is much harder and many do not get very good at it.

Early learning is deep learning and many minds are indoctrinated to nonsense, like religion, at an early age and are never able to overcome the abuse.

 

[fromderinside]

Untrmensche, my answer to your contention that the brain doesn't know is the brain isn't a mind. The brain is a biological, physical, thing. It performs material operations. Knowing isn't something brains do. Knowing is something that humans which have relatively large brains do. Brains are a large part of the biological machine responsible for doing the work which humans use to know.

The brain is made up of sensing processors, biological program routine structures and processors, along with a lot of directional emotive systems, body maintenance and sustenance systems, and other muscle control and organizing systems, none of which knows, thinks, emotes.

Those components just function. What they do supports man knowing. The only thing in this entire list of functions with consciousness, mind, self, is a human. Those categories just listed are what man has uses to encapsulate what man does, to which man points as doing what he does. They are not actual things. They are man defined aspects of being a man. They are not actual material entities.

You are right.

The brain is not the mind.

I rest my case.

You rest an empty portfolio.

 

[untermensche]

Your criticisms don't really mean anything.

You think radiant energy has information about color hidden somewhere within it for Pete's sake.

The experience of color is absolute proof of two things.

Minds and experience.

 

[fromderinside]

Your criticisms don't really mean anything.

You think radiant energy has information about color hidden somewhere within it for Pete's sake.

The experience of color is absolute proof of two things.

Minds and experience.

Destroying your hand wave.

 Color#Physics_of_color

Electromagnetic radiation is characterized by its wavelength (or frequency) and its intensity. When the wavelength is within the visible spectrum (the range of wavelengths humans can perceive, approximately from 390 nm to 700 nm), it is known as "visible light".

Physics of color established as frequency and intensity of electromagnetic radiation. Physical basis of color vision are attributes of material responding to light in receptor.

Physical bases established for light color and perception of color.

Your claim there is no material basis for color, mind and experience are necessary humans to 'see' color.

My claim is evolution process provides basis for color perception your claim is magic provides basis for the mind having and experience being color.

Game over. Mind and experience not necessary for brain to process color.

 

[DBT]

At no time did I say or suggest that experience is not a real phenomenon. My contention is purely with your notion of mind being independent from the brain. A notion that has no foundation.

Good.

You understand all my points are based on data then.

I have never said the mind is totally independent.

The mind needs the brain to create it. The mind is a living "thing" that grows and changes. Like a leg.

But once created a mind can over time learn to control the body and thoughts. We learn to control our bodies very early when reflexive movement is replaced with purposeful movement.

It is done so early most do not realize they learned how to control their body with their mind very early. They just do it with ease.

Controlling our thoughts is much harder and many do not get very good at it.

Early learning is deep learning and many minds are indoctrinated to nonsense, like religion, at an early age and are never able to overcome the abuse.

Your claim that the mind is able to act independently of the brain, which is the point of contention, has no foundation.

It goes contrary to all evidence, experiments, case studies, brain conditions and expert analysis.....all of which you reject, only to repeat your claim again and again.