A simple explanation of free will.

[DBT]

Something is mind independent, we cannot alter quantum rules by an act of mind, but only observe and act according to the rules. the evidence appears to show that matter/energy existed long before the advent of 'mind' - that is, before the evolution of minds of humans and other animals.....unless you mean the idea of 'Cosmic Mind' which collapsed wave function on a Universal scale, thereby forming the framework, stars, planets, etc, to enable the evolution of animal/human brains which collapse wave function in the sense of perceiving the solid appearing but ultimately virtual world of wave function/particles (wavicles) in conscious form? Is that what you mean? Or something else?

Yes, I'm implying that the universe is the product of a mind.

When you say 'a mind' you imply that it is a single mind that creates the universe....which raises the question: which particular mind?

 

[ryan]

Oh come on, that is a definitional argument. We don't even know what the hell "I" even is.

Dont we? "I" is the reflected representation of you as an agent. The self awareness.

Maybe you don't need memories to have an "I". But then maybe if you do have memories, the memories become the "I".

2) when the brain thinks then you experience the thoughts of the brain.

This is currently a huge debate. There are good arguments on both sides..

What is supposed to be a debate? What are these "both sides"?

The Benjamin Libet experiments (readiness potential) versus how free will can be compatible with the experiments. Those experiments are how we know that the brain can make some decisions before the consciousness knows what it is about to do.

The point was that you have all of this certainty that free will doesn't exist, yet you mention that so much in the brain can be an illusion. So how do you know for sure that free will does not exist?

Because LFW is not logically consitent.

You are the one who brought in the illusion variable. The possibility of an illusion can work against your claims too.

Certainty can only erode.

 

[Juma]

Dont we? "I" is the reflected representation of you as an agent. The self awareness.

Maybe you don't need memories to have an "I". But then maybe if you do have memories, the memories become the "I".

2) when the brain thinks then you experience the thoughts of the brain.

This is currently a huge debate. There are good arguments on both sides..

What is supposed to be a debate? What are these "both sides"?

The Benjamin Libet experiments (readiness potential) versus how free will can be compatible with the experiments. Those experiments are how we know that the brain can make some decisions before the consciousness knows what it is about to do.

The point was that you have all of this certainty that free will doesn't exist, yet you mention that so much in the brain can be an illusion. So how do you know for sure that free will does not exist?

Because LFW is not logically consitent.

You are the one who brought in the illusion variable. The possibility of an illusion can work against your claims too.

Certainty can only erode.

Since my reasoning does not rest upon the feeble fundaments of intrepreted feelings I cannot see how it would "work against your claims too".

what i tried to explain to you is that you cannot trust what you feel (as in "my feeling of being in control") since the feelings are created by the brain.

 

[ryan]

No, you miss the point. It doesn't matter that we do not fully understand the mechanisms of memory function, which is more than just remembering things (enabling recognition, self awareness, etc), nor would it matter if we knew nothing about the mechanisms of memory...what we do know is what happens when memory function fails.

What we know happens when memory function fails is, sadly, demonstrated in every clinical case of memory dysfunction and failure. We know from clinical examples that recognition breaks down. We know that patients increasingly cannot function or think coherently as the condition deteriorates.

Consequently, there is ample evidence for the role and function of memory retention and integration into consciousness, even if we do not understand how the brain integrates information and forms consciousness.

That is the point, that it is the condition of the brain that is reflected in its formation of consciousness and self, regardless of the role of 'quantum microtubules'...which are presumably an underlying aspect of all brains.

I don't see how this helps your argument or is suppose to correct mine.

I really don't see what there is left for me to argue against. I feel like I have overcome all of you objections. Furthermore, we have all of the essential pieces for free will to exist. There just doesn't seem to be anything left for us to discuss.

If I may add one more thing, I did not have the faintest idea about most of this before I started in on this argument months ago on the other thread. But when I see people having such certainty about something, it usually turns out really bad for them.

 

[ryan]

Maybe you don't need memories to have an "I". But then maybe if you do have memories, the memories become the "I".

2) when the brain thinks then you experience the thoughts of the brain.

This is currently a huge debate. There are good arguments on both sides..

What is supposed to be a debate? What are these "both sides"?

The Benjamin Libet experiments (readiness potential) versus how free will can be compatible with the experiments. Those experiments are how we know that the brain can make some decisions before the consciousness knows what it is about to do.

The point was that you have all of this certainty that free will doesn't exist, yet you mention that so much in the brain can be an illusion. So how do you know for sure that free will does not exist?

Because LFW is not logically consitent.

You are the one who brought in the illusion variable. The possibility of an illusion can work against your claims too.

Certainty can only erode.

Since my reasoning does not rest upon the feeble fundaments of intrepreted feelings I cannot see how it would "work against your claims too".

what i tried to explain to you is that you cannot trust what you feel (as in "my feeling of being in control") since the feelings are created by the brain.

Your logic is created by your brain too.

 

[DBT]

The Benjamin Libet experiments (readiness potential) versus how free will can be compatible with the experiments. Those experiments are how we know that the brain can make some decisions before the consciousness knows what it is about to do.

Consciousness is as much a part of the work of the brain as the preceding calculations that are reported in conscious form, consciousness in not an independent agent, it is not the orchestrator of decision making, as you appear to imply.

Libet's veto function is nothing more than new information altering a decision made by neural networks milliseconds ago, but only if there is sufficient time and the necessary information to alter or 'veto' a decision made a moment ago. A progression of events evolving over the course of milliseconds of information processing.

 

[Juma]

Maybe you don't need memories to have an "I". But then maybe if you do have memories, the memories become the "I".

2) when the brain thinks then you experience the thoughts of the brain.

This is currently a huge debate. There are good arguments on both sides..

What is supposed to be a debate? What are these "both sides"?

The Benjamin Libet experiments (readiness potential) versus how free will can be compatible with the experiments. Those experiments are how we know that the brain can make some decisions before the consciousness knows what it is about to do.

The point was that you have all of this certainty that free will doesn't exist, yet you mention that so much in the brain can be an illusion. So how do you know for sure that free will does not exist?

Because LFW is not logically consitent.

You are the one who brought in the illusion variable. The possibility of an illusion can work against your claims too.

Certainty can only erode.

Since my reasoning does not rest upon the feeble fundaments of intrepreted feelings I cannot see how it would "work against your claims too".

what i tried to explain to you is that you cannot trust what you feel (as in "my feeling of being in control") since the feelings are created by the brain.

Your logic is created by your brain too.

Wtf. What if you actually used that grey mass between the ears just once in a while? That is so stupid that I... Aargh....

Do you realize the difference between a feeling and a logical argument?

 

[DBT]

No, you miss the point. It doesn't matter that we do not fully understand the mechanisms of memory function, which is more than just remembering things (enabling recognition, self awareness, etc), nor would it matter if we knew nothing about the mechanisms of memory...what we do know is what happens when memory function fails.

What we know happens when memory function fails is, sadly, demonstrated in every clinical case of memory dysfunction and failure. We know from clinical examples that recognition breaks down. We know that patients increasingly cannot function or think coherently as the condition deteriorates.

Consequently, there is ample evidence for the role and function of memory retention and integration into consciousness, even if we do not understand how the brain integrates information and forms consciousness.

That is the point, that it is the condition of the brain that is reflected in its formation of consciousness and self, regardless of the role of 'quantum microtubules'...which are presumably an underlying aspect of all brains.

I don't see how this helps your argument or is suppose to correct mine.

I really don't see what there is left for me to argue against. I feel like I have overcome all of you objections.

I'm sure you feel that way, but you are wrong. You have not made a connection between quantum randomness or quantum microtubules and the concept of 'free will' - and as I have pointed out, even if these are a feature of brain architecture, they are a feature of all brains, the brains of all species, and brains in all states and conditions....yet each brain (species and individuals within a species) generates sets of behaviour that are specific to species and to each individual within a species. Consequently it is not quantum randomness or 'vibrating microtubules' that shape and form conscious experience and decision making but the neural architecture of the brain, which operates at many orders of scale above quantum randomness and vibrating microtubules.

 

[ryan]

The Benjamin Libet experiments (readiness potential) versus how free will can be compatible with the experiments. Those experiments are how we know that the brain can make some decisions before the consciousness knows what it is about to do.

Consciousness is as much a part of the work of the brain as the preceding calculations that are reported in conscious form, consciousness in not an independent agent, it is not the orchestrator of decision making, as you appear to imply.

Libet's veto function is nothing more than new information altering a decision made by neural networks milliseconds ago, but only if there is sufficient time and the necessary information to alter or 'veto' a decision made a moment ago. A progression of events evolving over the course of milliseconds of information processing.

I was talking about the original experiment. The one that shows unconscious decision making before conscious decision making. I would have expected more people to bring it up as a good argument against free will.

 

[ryan]

Maybe you don't need memories to have an "I". But then maybe if you do have memories, the memories become the "I".

2) when the brain thinks then you experience the thoughts of the brain.

This is currently a huge debate. There are good arguments on both sides..

What is supposed to be a debate? What are these "both sides"?

The Benjamin Libet experiments (readiness potential) versus how free will can be compatible with the experiments. Those experiments are how we know that the brain can make some decisions before the consciousness knows what it is about to do.

The point was that you have all of this certainty that free will doesn't exist, yet you mention that so much in the brain can be an illusion. So how do you know for sure that free will does not exist?

Because LFW is not logically consitent.

You are the one who brought in the illusion variable. The possibility of an illusion can work against your claims too.

Certainty can only erode.

Since my reasoning does not rest upon the feeble fundaments of intrepreted feelings I cannot see how it would "work against your claims too".

what i tried to explain to you is that you cannot trust what you feel (as in "my feeling of being in control") since the feelings are created by the brain.

Your logic is created by your brain too.

Wtf. What if you actually used that grey mass between the ears just once in a while? That is so stupid that I... Aargh....

Do you realize the difference between a feeling and a logical argument?

It is the same feeling that I get about science. If A, then B. If ball is let go, ball falls. If I want a donut, I get a donut. The feeling of expectations like these rely on induction.

 

[ryan]

I don't see how this helps your argument or is suppose to correct mine.

I really don't see what there is left for me to argue against. I feel like I have overcome all of you objections.

I'm sure you feel that way, but you are wrong. You have not made a connection between quantum randomness or quantum microtubules and the concept of 'free will' - and as I have pointed out, even if these are a feature of brain architecture, they are a feature of all brains, the brains of all species, and brains in all states and conditions....yet each brain (species and individuals within a species) generates sets of behaviour that are specific to species and to each individual within a species.

Other species don't have as complete of a consciousness as we do. So they obviously wouldn't have the ability to express whatever consciousness they have in a meaningful way.

And how do you even know other species don't have free will? It isn't falsifiable right now, so it isn't even science.

Consequently it is not quantum randomness or 'vibrating microtubules' that shape and form conscious experience and decision making but the neural architecture of the brain, which operates at many orders of scale above quantum randomness and vibrating microtubules.

In all of the articles, the microtubules are said to have an effect on the consciousness.

 

[Juma]

Maybe you don't need memories to have an "I". But then maybe if you do have memories, the memories become the "I".

2) when the brain thinks then you experience the thoughts of the brain.

This is currently a huge debate. There are good arguments on both sides..

What is supposed to be a debate? What are these "both sides"?

The Benjamin Libet experiments (readiness potential) versus how free will can be compatible with the experiments. Those experiments are how we know that the brain can make some decisions before the consciousness knows what it is about to do.

The point was that you have all of this certainty that free will doesn't exist, yet you mention that so much in the brain can be an illusion. So how do you know for sure that free will does not exist?

Because LFW is not logically consitent.

You are the one who brought in the illusion variable. The possibility of an illusion can work against your claims too.

Certainty can only erode.

Since my reasoning does not rest upon the feeble fundaments of intrepreted feelings I cannot see how it would "work against your claims too".

what i tried to explain to you is that you cannot trust what you feel (as in "my feeling of being in control") since the feelings are created by the brain.

Your logic is created by your brain too.

Wtf. What if you actually used that grey mass between the ears just once in a while? That is so stupid that I... Aargh....

Do you realize the difference between a feeling and a logical argument?

It is the same feeling that I get about science. If A, then B. If ball is let go, ball falls. If I want a donut, I get a donut. The feeling of expectations like these rely on induction.

"if I want a donut, I get a donut. "

Donutman, if you dont want to discuss then why do you post?

 

[DBT]

Consciousness is as much a part of the work of the brain as the preceding calculations that are reported in conscious form, consciousness in not an independent agent, it is not the orchestrator of decision making, as you appear to imply.

Libet's veto function is nothing more than new information altering a decision made by neural networks milliseconds ago, but only if there is sufficient time and the necessary information to alter or 'veto' a decision made a moment ago. A progression of events evolving over the course of milliseconds of information processing.

I was talking about the original experiment. The one that shows unconscious decision making before conscious decision making. I would have expected more people to bring it up as a good argument against free will.

It has been brought up numerous times.....I have even posted links to some of the latest experiments done by Hallett and associates on the timing of cognitive events.

 

[DBT]

I'm sure you feel that way, but you are wrong. You have not made a connection between quantum randomness or quantum microtubules and the concept of 'free will' - and as I have pointed out, even if these are a feature of brain architecture, they are a feature of all brains, the brains of all species, and brains in all states and conditions....yet each brain (species and individuals within a species) generates sets of behaviour that are specific to species and to each individual within a species.

Other species don't have as complete of a consciousness as we do. So they obviously wouldn't have the ability to express whatever consciousness they have in a meaningful way.

That is the point. That it is neural architecture that determines the attributes and abilities being represented in conscious form, and not quantum randomness or vibrating microtubules...which, presumably are an underlying feature of all brain.

And how do you even know other species don't have free will? It isn't falsifiable right now, so it isn't even science.

A brain is a rational system that processes information and represents the bits that are necessary in terms of response in conscious form, a set of both adaptive and maladaptive behaviours according to brain condition. The term 'free will' is simply irrelevant to any description of species or individual cognitive processes and behaviour.

In all of the articles, the microtubules are said to have an effect on the consciousness.

It probably does, but not in a way that helps you to establish a case for free will.

 

[ryan]

"if I want a donut, I get a donut. "

Donutman, if you dont want to discuss then why do you post?

It may be an illusion, but then why stop there? What can't be an illusion, obviously we don't know.

 

[Juma]

"if I want a donut, I get a donut. "

Donutman, if you dont want to discuss then why do you post?

It may be an illusion, but then why stop there? What can't be an illusion, obviously we don't know.

If you cannot discuss sincerely there is really no use to go on. Go annoy someone else.

 

[ryan]

In all of the articles, the microtubules are said to have an effect on the consciousness.

It probably does, but not in a way that helps you to establish a case for free will.

If,

they have freedom,

and they are integral to the decision making process,

then what else would free will need?

In other words, what else would we need in order for you to accept free will?

 

[ryan]

It may be an illusion, but then why stop there? What can't be an illusion, obviously we don't know.

If you cannot discuss sincerely there is really no use to go on. Go annoy someone else.

You are the one who brought up illusions. But if I talk about illusions, I am not sincere. What is going on here?!

 

[Juma]

If you cannot discuss sincerely there is really no use to go on. Go annoy someone else.

You are the one who brought up illusions. But if I talk about illusions, I am not sincere. What is going on here?!

You being an insincere jerk is what is going on. I know that you are not as stupid as your last posts.
You doesnt put any thought at all to them, you just jot down whatever shit comes to your mind.

That what happens. I'm fed up with it.

 

[Kharakov]

You are the one who brought up illusions. But if I talk about illusions, I am not sincere. What is going on here?!

You being an insincere jerk is what is going on. I know that you are not as stupid as your last posts.
You doesnt put any thought at all to them, you just jot down whatever shit comes to your mind.

That what happens. I'm fed up with it.

If he didn't just jot down whatever came to his mind, he'd always be correct, and it wouldn't be fun to argue with him. Admit it... you love it!