A simple explanation of free will.

[DBT]

The conscious is a passenger on a bus they are not driving. The conscious is the spokesman for the body/mind responsible for explaining why the body/mind did what it did. Responsible for taking input from the environment and remembering patterns so the next time will be avoided or repeated depending on the feedback from the environment. Responsible for telling the driver where to go. Consciousness is the on-board computer capable of reasoning, capable of drawing inferences, capable of making plans; not merely reacting totally on instinct. The mind is embodied. No body, nobody, no mind, never mind.

The evidence supports the proposition that consciousness (virtual experience of sensory/memory information interaction) is generated by input feeding from various regions of the brain in the form of a 'global workspace' - information coming together as 'conscious activity in order to construct a working model of the world and its objects and events, including perception of self as the actor. A useful model, but not actually the director, orchestrator or decision maker.

 

[DBT]

Your definition is flawed.

Why didn't you say something when I defined it weeks ago?

I did say something.

This doesn't seem to be a problem. I have always told you that there is freedom within the given structure. I was never saying that we are gods that can form into what ever we want.

It is a problem.

Several posters, including myself, have pointed out the problems.

Terminal problems.

Which you duly ignore.

 

[ryan]

Why didn't you say something when I defined it weeks ago?

I did say something.

I don't see how processes in my brain aren't a part of me. Okay so explain again how my definition of "I" is flawed. I did not understand your reason in post #872.

This doesn't seem to be a problem. I have always told you that there is freedom within the given structure. I was never saying that we are gods that can form into what ever we want.

It is a problem.

Several posters, including myself, have pointed out the problems.

Terminal problems.

Which you duly ignore.

Don't worry about what other people think. Logic and reason will prevail.

 

[George S]

The conscious is a passenger on a bus they are not driving. The conscious is the spokesman for the body/mind responsible for explaining why the body/mind did what it did. Responsible for taking input from the environment and remembering patterns so the next time will be avoided or repeated depending on the feedback from the environment. Responsible for telling the driver where to go. Consciousness is the on-board computer capable of reasoning, capable of drawing inferences, capable of making plans; not merely reacting totally on instinct. The mind is embodied. No body, nobody, no mind, never mind.

The evidence supports the proposition that consciousness (virtual experience of sensory/memory information interaction) is generated by input feeding from various regions of the brain in the form of a 'global workspace' - information coming together as 'conscious activity in order to construct a working model of the world and its objects and events, including perception of self as the actor. A useful model, but not actually the director, orchestrator or decision maker.

There is an actor. It is a person in a physical body.
The decision maker is the body-mind entire. The spokesman who speaks for that body-mind and justifies its actions is called that body-mind's consciousness.
The mind has a body. The body has a mind. They are parts of each other. The body produces the state of mind. The mind influences the body. They are one.

All the world's a stage. We are each a director who orchestrates the actions of one actor. As the actor we may follow the script or ad lib when other actors fluff their lines or ad lib themselves. A unity of author, director, and actor.
Who made your decision? You did. Even when you made the decision outside of conscious thought, you still made it. A useful model indeed. You, yes, you, are responsible for your decisions both consciously decided and unconsciously decided. You may consciously decide to alter your body image by becoming more fit and less fat. Your unconscious decides that a nice brisk sit is perfect exercise. And just one helping of au gratin potatoes is not quite enough. (We can tell the driver where to go; sometimes he just doesn't listen, and sometimes does.)

 

[Juma]

Don't worry about what other people think. Logic and reason will prevail.

Logic and reason requires that you actually follow some basic rules. I cant see that you are doing that.

 

[DBT]

The evidence supports the proposition that consciousness (virtual experience of sensory/memory information interaction) is generated by input feeding from various regions of the brain in the form of a 'global workspace' - information coming together as 'conscious activity in order to construct a working model of the world and its objects and events, including perception of self as the actor. A useful model, but not actually the director, orchestrator or decision maker.

There is an actor. It is a person in a physical body.

To say ''it is a person in a physical body'' implies an autonomous agent, the 'person in a physical body''.. rather than a conscious entity that is an aspect of a physical body. And even then, depending on the activity of the brain, not always present.

The decision maker is the body-mind entire. The spokesman who speaks for that body-mind and justifies its actions is called that body-mind's consciousness.

The latter being shaped, formed and generated specifically by the activity of the brain part of physical body.

The mind has a body. The body has a mind. They are parts of each other. The body produces the state of mind. The mind influences the body. They are one.

A living body may or may not have a functional mind. Most do, but some don't.

But there can be no mind without a functional body, and specifically a functional brain.

The state of that mind being a reflection of the physical state of the brain.

 

[George S]

There is an actor. It is a person in a physical body.

To say ''it is a person in a physical body'' implies an autonomous agent, the 'person in a physical body''.. rather than a conscious entity that is an aspect of a physical body. And even then, depending on the activity of the brain, not always present.

The decision maker is the body-mind entire. The spokesman who speaks for that body-mind and justifies its actions is called that body-mind's consciousness.

The latter being shaped, formed and generated specifically by the activity of the brain part of physical body.

The mind has a body. The body has a mind. They are parts of each other. The body produces the state of mind. The mind influences the body. They are one.

A living body may or may not have a functional mind. Most do, but some don't.

But there can be no mind without a functional body, and specifically a functional brain.

The state of that mind being a reflection of the physical state of the brain.

There is no dualism. Do not select single quotations where the language may imply such.

When a body has no mind we call that body brain-dead. (Already dead, so pulling the plug is not murder.)

Not sure why you are disagreeing with me. Just to be disagreeable?

 

[DBT]

To say ''it is a person in a physical body'' implies an autonomous agent, the 'person in a physical body''.. rather than a conscious entity that is an aspect of a physical body. And even then, depending on the activity of the brain, not always present.

The decision maker is the body-mind entire. The spokesman who speaks for that body-mind and justifies its actions is called that body-mind's consciousness.

The latter being shaped, formed and generated specifically by the activity of the brain part of physical body.

The mind has a body. The body has a mind. They are parts of each other. The body produces the state of mind. The mind influences the body. They are one.

A living body may or may not have a functional mind. Most do, but some don't.

But there can be no mind without a functional body, and specifically a functional brain.

The state of that mind being a reflection of the physical state of the brain.

There is no dualism. Do not select single quotations where the language may imply such.

When a body has no mind we call that body brain-dead. (Already dead, so pulling the plug is not murder.)

Not sure why you are disagreeing with me. Just to be disagreeable?

Not trying to be disagreeable. Just pointing out possible difficulties and implications.

 

[OLDMAN]

In re: Determinism and Free Will

If determinism were the fact then there would be no free will at all.* Luckily determinism ala Newton (given the position and momentum of every particle in nature the future can be predicted to 100% accuracy) is false. Nature itself knows history by probability only (see Feynman's sum-over-histories).

Free Will is not very free. Decisions thought to be made in the moment were actually made unconsciously some time earlier. The locus of free will is imagination. We make (imaginary) plans and our unconscious carries out the needed action(s). Planning can be from a moment to a lifetime.

If free will is taken to be the fact that plans made affect the future then that much we have. Most of the future is fate; events over which you have no direct control. But plans made like deciding that if this situation occurs I plan to take this action and it is rehearsed do affect the future.

How large a bank error in your favor would it take to call it to the attention of the bank? In my case I reported a wire transfer of $500 to my account that was unexpected. How did that come to pass? I made plans a long time ago to deal with everyone honestly.

When there was a temptation to moral error I had planned in advance what should happen. Is it libertarian free will? No. Is it determinism? No. Is it enough free will to be responsible for self's moral error? Yes.

*See also Dan Dennet's Elbow Room:The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting .

But you didn't "just" determine to treat everyone "honestly" years ago....the experiences and imput that went into that decision determined how you reached reached the original conclusion...and on and on.

 

[fromderinside]

There is no dualism. Do not select single quotations where the language may imply such.

When a body has no mind we call that body brain-dead. (Already dead, so pulling the plug is not murder.)

Not sure why you are disagreeing with me. Just to be disagreeable?

You could have commented on how many episodes of True detective you've seen. Otherwise how are you doing? Still got that mb thingie.

 

[Togo]

Well, we agree there is regulative control. It's in the brain architecture (presumably). So all we're disagreeing about is whether that brain architecture is a determined system. You're saying it is. Ryan's invoking QM microtubules as a known exception to the idea that physical systems are determined, thus suggesting that this brain architecture isn't determined, or more precisely, that it can't be demonstrated to be. I'm denying that physical systems are determined in the first place.

So we're all talking about the physical brain, we're all talking about the same means of regulatory control, we're just disagreeing on whether that physical system is determined or not.

Ten years and this crock is still being trotted out.

Well sure, a good argument is eternal. It's not linked to a particular person, and will continue long after we're dead and gone. What you mean is, in the last ten years, you've never managed to counter this point.

for the simple reason that whatever 'regulative control' exists within the system is determined by neural architecture,

If you assume determinism, then sure. Otherwise, no.

You understand you can't reasonably counter LFW by assuming determinism?

if the connections that are being made in the course of information processing, the thought or the decision is either experienced consciously (report) or carried out automatically, walking, reacting to danger, etc.

You're assuming conscious decision making is a report, rather than a decision?

None which is consciously chosen or willed prior to processing and expression.

You've never consciously decided to do something, and then done it?

All of which disintegrates, self awareness, self identity, the ability to think or act rationally, etc, etc, when connectivity fails, neural tangles, progressive memory function failure, yada, yada.

which means it's physical, nothing more.

But if you want to believe in the validity of a vague, poorly defined term

It's very well defined. Your favoured definition is poorly defined, but why would anyone use your definition?

that does not correspond to the physical system of the brain, that is your business.

The idea that all actions are automatic, which consciousness coming in afterwards, doesn't fit the science either. There are notable differences between automatic and non-automatic behaviour, which are measured and tested for.

- - - Updated - - -

Not seeing how that contradicts what I said,

I said he was claiming to have disproved a causeless free will. You're quoting him saying he's demonstrated a stoachstic set of factors that influence the precusor processes he's studying. Not seeing the contradiction, or why you're bolding causal mechanism. Can you expand?

Apparently all you see is the bolded enlarged. Read the statement again. It states ".... is not, strictly speaking, causal machanistic ... I've even bolded the not for you.

Still not seeing it, sorry.

 

[fromderinside]

Still not seeing it, sorry.

The sight of Togo in denial.

What isn't certainly is not is.


Even Clinton knew that.

 

[Kharakov]

Still not seeing it, sorry.

The sight of Togo in denial.

It's not like he could hold his position if he didn't deny reality.

 

[Kharakov]

Ten years and this crock is still being trotted out.

If Togo agrees with you, do you immediately retest whether it is true because Togo agreed with you?

 

[DBT]

Ten years and this crock is still being trotted out.

If Togo agrees with you, do you immediately retest whether it is true because Togo agreed with you?

Of course. Standard practice...after the initial shock wears off.

 

[Togo]

Still not seeing it, sorry.

The sight of Togo in denial.

I'm not denying anything. I just have no idea what you're referring to. If it's that obvious, just say it.

 

[fromderinside]

The sight of Togo in denial.

I'm not denying anything. I just have no idea what you're referring to. If it's that obvious, just say it.

OK. I went all the way back to your original claim about what I posted from the et al and Haggard article.

The bottom line of that quote was: "Our results suggest that free won’t may be no more free than free will." This was after they wrote: Recent neuroscientific studies have strongly questioned the concept of free will, but have had difficulty addressing the alternative concept of free won’t, largely because of the absence of behavioural markers of inhibition.

So having admitted strong questioning of free will in neuro-scientific studies they now say they strongly question free won't. What could be clearer? Your thread to Haggard's defense of free will has been severed by Haggard.

Give it up man. Randomness in the vicinity is just randomness. It is not a behavioral 'cause'. If it were then rocks falling on rocks would be behavioral causes if a brain perceived them even though the rocks were filmed from a remote location. I don't think one can make a strong case for the butterfly even in that proximal a scenario. We're getting back to monks counting angles on pins.