COLOUR

[DBT]

That is what I meant. It's just a matter of convenience and brevity to say 'the mind' in reference to all the attributes and features of both conscious and unconscious brain activity.

I understand the convenience but, unfortunately, people like unter take it literally as a "thing" rather than a process of the brain and build a whole woo belief system around it. Such people are then incapable of comprehending anything outside their woo.

That's true. I'd add to that, that no matter what anyone says, no matter how carefully someone explains his fallacies, it won't do any good, Mr Untermensche will carry on regardless, huff and puff and abuse anyone who disagrees with his Woo.

 

[DBT]

The question was; are you still claiming that the mind (all of the attributes and features) can act independently from the brain?

You have said as much in the past, and I can quote.

If so, you know what the ability to act independently means.....right? Do you understand the implications?

Acting independently means that once you are created you have your own abilities distinct from the thing that has created you.

Yes it does. That is, if you are created as a separate entity.

Unfortunately for you the brain does not create a separate entity of 'mind' - rather, the brain generates mind as a process, feeding new information into its own conscious activity while it occurs.


There lie the distinction. There lies the source of your 'mind independent from brain' fallacy.

It means the situation is far more complex than your simple minded notions.

It's undeniably more complex, but that doesn't make mind independent from the very brain that is generating that form of activity.

Are you still claiming the mind can't act independently from the brain?

The mind is what the brain does. Damage to the brain damages the mind. Altering the chemistry of the brain alters the experience of consciousness.....

 

[untermensche]

Unfortunately for you the brain does not create a separate entity of 'mind' - rather, the brain generates mind as a process, feeding new information into its own conscious activity while it occurs.

OK.

More empty claims.

All you have are empty claims. I don't agree.

We are done.

 

[steve_bank]

Scarecrow's lament 'if I only had a brain'.

The problem is the brain trying to describe itself with invented words. Analogues to trying to pull yourself up by your own shoestrings.

Mind looks in a mirror and says 'that is mind'.

I agree mind is contextual and a catchall term that includes many things. It is meaningless to argue over what mind is. Someday there may be a working model that simulates a brain.

Goedel considered that possibly an analog mind could be grown as a child learns and grows.

The only way to make an argument is what um does. separate mind from brain and proceed as if they are separate.

The 'I' that is making the argument is not the 'I' that is the mind. Leading to consciousness as a separate entity not tied to brain and mind. The I that speaks is not brain.

Possibly an unhealthy way to see things.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

The only way to make an argument is what um does. separate mind from brain and proceed as if they are separate.

... snip ...

"The mind" is a metaphor for brain function (an action), not the brain. Similar to "god" being a metaphor for natural physical forces that create lightning, storms, etc. To believe the metaphor is an actual description of some "thing" leads to confused thinking.

Metaphors are quite useful shortcuts for discussions about complex realities but if someone takes the metaphor as a reality then they spin off into woo-woo land.

 

[DBT]

Unfortunately for you the brain does not create a separate entity of 'mind' - rather, the brain generates mind as a process, feeding new information into its own conscious activity while it occurs.

OK.

More empty claims.

All you have are empty claims. I don't agree.

We are done.

Empty claims? Are you saying that brain damage or chemical imbalances do not affect the mind?

 

[untermensche]

Unfortunately for you the brain does not create a separate entity of 'mind' - rather, the brain generates mind as a process, feeding new information into its own conscious activity while it occurs.

OK.

More empty claims.

All you have are empty claims. I don't agree.

We are done.

Empty claims? Are you saying that brain damage or chemical imbalances do not affect the mind?

I have said there is a correlation between the brain and the mind.

Like there is a correlation between driving and a functioning engine.

But the engine is not driving.

Just because the brain creates a mind (whatever it is) it does not mean the mind cannot possibly have feedback influence on the brain.

If the mind has no ability to make decisions and act on the brain it serves no purpose. The brain does not need it.

The mind is an evolved decision making tool. As a decision making tool it must be able to influence the brain or it's decisions are meaningless.

And asking subjects when they think some "urge" started is not objective data. It is a wild guess.

The average of many wild guesses is not objective data. Random numbers have an average. Every set of numbers has an average.

 

[fromderinside]

The average of many wild guesses is not objective data. Random numbers have an average. Every set of numbers has an average.

OK then.

Here is the experiment.

Unconscious cerebral initiativeand the role of conscious willin voluntary action http://philosophy.org.za/uploads_other/Libet1985.pdf

Show us the wild guesses and lack of objective data. Tautological declarations do not an argument make.

 

[DBT]

Empty claims? Are you saying that brain damage or chemical imbalances do not affect the mind?

I have said there is a correlation between the brain and the mind.

Like there is a correlation between driving and a functioning engine.

But the engine is not driving.

Just because the brain creates a mind (whatever it is) it does not mean the mind cannot possibly have feedback influence on the brain.

If the mind has no ability to make decisions and act on the brain it serves no purpose. The brain does not need it.

The mind is an evolved decision making tool. As a decision making tool it must be able to influence the brain or it's decisions are meaningless.

And asking subjects when they think some "urge" started is not objective data. It is a wild guess.

The average of many wild guesses is not objective data. Random numbers have an average. Every set of numbers has an average.

Correlation? No, it's a clear case of causation.

Someone will in fact get drunk or high by ingesting chemicals, alcohol, drugs, etc, which means altering perception and thought, which means the mind is being altered by chemical means. Then we have electrical stimulation or surgery, etc, which can alter thought, perception, character, personality....

This can be verified and repeated over and over. You have no case to argue. Which is why you assert.

 

[WAB]

Yeah, Libet, all that, talked about ad infinitum, over the course of years here. I've read over and over and over it all, and have asked about this particular bit before, but don't recall any kind of reasoned response:

The experimental findings led us to the conclusion that voluntary acts can be initiated by unconscious cerebral processes before conscious intention appears but that conscious control over the actual motor performance of the acts remains possible.

^this was in response to FDI's post re the Libet experiments. DBT squeezed a post in before I activated (voluntarily) my finger to the submit button.

...And just to be clear I do agree with DBT that "mind" is dependent on the brain, and could not exist without the brain (as far as we know - allowing a remote chance that there is something mystically magically going on, or something so super-duperly advanced that it may as well be magic to our tiny minds...er...brains).

 

[DBT]

It's not complicated. The brain, according to evidence, is the agency of mind. Information is acquired and processed, with some of that information being made conscious. Information input and processing must necessarily precede awareness and conscious thought.

 

[WAB]

Yes, obviously. I am not disputing that.

But - from the abstract:

It was concluded that cerebral initiation of a spontaneous voluntary act begins unconsciously. However, it was found that the final decision to act could still be consciously controlled during the 150 ms or so remaining after the specific conscious intention appears. Subjects can in fact "veto" motor performance during a 100-200-ms period before a prearranged time to act.

That there is an unconscious initiation of intention to act is not surprising, given the subjects' understanding of the experiment, and that they were expected to do something. Of course there is a "readiness potential." I do not dispute that.

 

[fromderinside]

As it turns out over the about forty years since Libet's publication in 1983 scientists have found there are many possibilities of intention to act for any situation. The readiness potential cuts that off. From Wegner to the conversion Haggard this remains fairly consistent.

A recent study (2021) Timing of readiness potentials reflect a decision-making process in the human brain https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/338806v3.full.pdf again validates the function of readiness potential, sustaining IMHO the path pioneered by Libet, Wegner and others that will isn't in control of decision behavior.

Decision-making has several underlying components including stimulus encoding, perceptual12 categorization, response selection, and response execution. In this study, we made use of a task where13 decision-making mostly involved response selection. For this task, we find that the duration of a signal14 linked to the motor system, the RP, has a one-to-one relationship with amount of time required to make15 the decision, which is modeled by a stochastic evidence accumulation process. This close relationship16 between the RP and the evidence accumulation process supports the notion that an accumulator process17 is a general neural implementation of decision-making in both sensory and motor systems, both when18 individuals take actions in response to stimuli (Shadlen and Kiani 2013) or of their own free will19 (Schurger et al. 2012). Our results suggest that the contributions of sensory or motor systems to20 variability in decision-making time can be assessed by the timing of sensory and motor evoked21 potentials.

 

[steve_bank]

He is saying perception is not reality therefore all perception is subjective. Agree with the premise disgree with the conclusion.

It all depends on how you define objective and subjective.

As an engineer to me objective is that which can be measured and quantified based on the NIST standards. Or that which can be directly observed.

Whether scientific models actually reflect true reality is not knowable IMO, but we still call it objective because we can quantify, and experiments and observations can be repeted with the same results regardless of how we think of the experiment .

By um's thinking classification of visible light by wavelength is subjective because all perceptions including physical measuremnts are subjective. Scienthen is a subjective perception.

Objective is something that can be demonstrated and measured without regard to how we think about it. The color blue is objective. What we see as color in our mind's images is objective. Assuming we are not halucinating we will always see a wavelngth as blue regadless of how we think about it.

Perception wise collrs are accessed by human trials. Perception varies with individuals. Tht woud ne generics. An arist I knew in the 70s asked how many shades of color I could resolve on a color spectrum strip. She cliamed to be able to resolve many more than I could. Some people are 'tone deaf' and can not tune a guitar by ear.

I can see w where um is coming from. Science is based on arbitrary reference points so models reflect the reference points, IOW kilogram, second, and meter. He may be calling that subjective from a philosophical view but objective means to me data and information not subject to personal feelings or interpretation.

That blie is defined and measured based on standards is objective. That radiation interacts with the eye resulting in a mental image is objective. The causal chain leading to a visual image is not subject to how we think.

 

[untermensche]

Correlation? No, it's a clear case of causation.

I don't think you know what the word means. If one thing causes another then of course there is a correlation.

But the relationship of the phenomena of mind to the activity of the brain is more than that.

Brain activity gives rise to the phenomena of mind and to the mind's abilities.

But experience creates the contents of the mind and a created mind can change the brain.

If you willfully practice the piano three hours a day then over time this causes structural changes to the brain. The willed activity of the phenomena of mind has permanent effects on the brain.

The reason you can partially understand English (not the word 'correlation' for some reason) is because of experience. The brain allows for the phenomena of mind to learn and understand English but does not cause the phenomena of mind to learn English. The phenomena of mind learns the language it is exposed to. Experience gives the phenomena of mind it's ability to learn and use English. The brain merely allows the phenomena of mind to learn a language the phenomena of mind is exposed to at critical times of development.

So there is a correlation between the phenomena of mind and the activity of the brain.

Someone will in fact get drunk or high by ingesting chemicals, alcohol, drugs, etc, which means altering perception and thought, which means the mind is being altered by chemical means.

You are off into other topics like alertness and arousal and waking state vs sleeping state.

For the phenomena of mind to function properly the brain must be intact and functioning properly.

The brain controls our state of arousal. Alcohol alters our state of arousal and therefore alters what the phenomena of mind can do.

You can't learn history while asleep. You need a certain level of arousal to do it.

All you are saying is for the phenomena of mind to function properly the brain must be functioning properly.

There is a correlation between brain activity and the phenomena of mind.

Then we have electrical stimulation or surgery, etc, which can alter thought, perception, character, personality....

Dysfunctional brains have an effect on the abilities of the phenomena of mind.

There is a correlation between brain activity and the abilities of the phenomena of mind.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, obviously. I am not disputing that.

But - from the abstract:

It was concluded that cerebral initiation of a spontaneous voluntary act begins unconsciously. However, it was found that the final decision to act could still be consciously controlled during the 150 ms or so remaining after the specific conscious intention appears. Subjects can in fact "veto" motor performance during a 100-200-ms period before a prearranged time to act.

That there is an unconscious initiation of intention to act is not surprising, given the subjects' understanding of the experiment, and that they were expected to do something. Of course there is a "readiness potential." I do not dispute that.

There is no evidence of any "unconscious initiation".

There is the appearance of activity at almost the exact instant subjects claim they are initiating activity.

Because initiation of activity is something the subject can't observe they guess about it.

And subjective guesses tend to be slightly (a fraction of a second) after activity is seen.

That is all.

There is no evidence of "unconscious initiation".

There is activity seen and it's origin is totally unknown but highly correlated to subjective guesses.

 

[fromderinside]

I don't think you know what the word means. If one thing causes another then of course there is a correlation.

Cause: This > That (gravity > apple fall)

Correlation: This and That (Jim and Gym)

 

[untermensche]

I don't think you know what the word means. If one thing causes another then of course there is a correlation.

Cause: This > That (gravity > apple fall)

Correlation: This and That (Jim and Gym)

Gravity is correlated with apples falling.

If one thing cause something else then there is definitely a correlation between the two.

Causation is a type of correlation.

Some understand English better than others.

Correlation: mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/correlation

 

[steve_bank]

Science 101, correlation is not necessarily causation.

Statistically a correlation can be made that shows a commonality across groups without there being and causation.

Correlating the position of planets to human politics can be and is done by astrologers, but there is no causation unless you believe planets affect human beings.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes, obviously. I am not disputing that.

But - from the abstract:

It was concluded that cerebral initiation of a spontaneous voluntary act begins unconsciously. However, it was found that the final decision to act could still be consciously controlled during the 150 ms or so remaining after the specific conscious intention appears. Subjects can in fact "veto" motor performance during a 100-200-ms period before a prearranged time to act.

That there is an unconscious initiation of intention to act is not surprising, given the subjects' understanding of the experiment, and that they were expected to do something. Of course there is a "readiness potential." I do not dispute that.

There are different sections of the brain involved in initiating different actions.

The brainstem is responsible for reflex actions that happen before the higher brain functions are even aware there is a need (like jerking a hand away from a hot stove). It is also responsible for regulating pulse and unconscious breathing rate.

The cerebrum is responsible for reasoned actions like picking up a coffee mug to take a sip.