A simple explanation of free will.

[Juma]

Not really. Because it implies some sort of top level consciousness in charge. But it´s not there. For whatever reason our consciousness is fed data that is uses to construct a fiction regarding the process of us taking a decision. In this case, forming a subjective experience. But it wasn´t necessarily the subjective experience that reached our consciousness that was the same subjective experience that was the basis for taking the decision. Decision-making seems to be distributed in the brain. There is on-going debate regarding what consciousness is for. But it isn´t "in charge", so therefore it´s subjective experience doesn´t really matter.

So, isn't it then beyond dispute that, for whatever reason, it seems as though I am thinking?

Since the thinking is distributed, what is this "I" that does the thinking?

Something is doing something that something (perhaps else) experience as thinking.

 

[PyramidHead]

So, isn't it then beyond dispute that, for whatever reason, it seems as though I am thinking?

Since the thinking is distributed, what is this "I" that does the thinking?

I don't know, but whatever it is, it still seems as though I am thinking. That part, I think (heh) is beyond dispute; even if there is no unitary consciousness, there is still the illusion of such, which is all that is claimed by "it seems as though I am thinking." Maybe this isn't what Descartes meant after all, but it's a reasonable facsimile thereof.

 

[Togo]

Since the thinking is distributed, what is this "I" that does the thinking?

I don't know, but whatever it is, it still seems as though I am thinking. That part, I think (heh) is beyond dispute; even if there is no unitary consciousness, there is still the illusion of such, which is all that is claimed by "it seems as though I am thinking." Maybe this isn't what Descartes meant after all, but it's a reasonable facsimile thereof.

It seems pretty close. He does later explicitly consider whether his subjective experiences are illusory (the so-called 'wicked demon' section), so it seems clear that here he is referring to the appearance or sensation of thinking, which does establish the existence of I as a phenomenon.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Not really. Because it implies some sort of top level consciousness in charge. But it´s not there. For whatever reason our consciousness is fed data that is uses to construct a fiction regarding the process of us taking a decision. In this case, forming a subjective experience. But it wasn´t necessarily the subjective experience that reached our consciousness that was the same subjective experience that was the basis for taking the decision. Decision-making seems to be distributed in the brain. There is on-going debate regarding what consciousness is for. But it isn´t "in charge", so therefore it´s subjective experience doesn´t really matter.

So, isn't it then beyond dispute that, for whatever reason, it seems as though I am thinking?

It depends where you place your "I". Sure, the brain as a whole thinks. But your brain doesn´t think in the way that your consciousness perceives it does.

"I" = brain as a whole = correct.
I = consciousness = wrong.

If you make a bad decision on the fly somewhere and then try to walk backward in your mind to try to figure out where in your thought process you took a wrong turn, you will be wrong. The chain of reasoning is a fabrication after the fact.

 

[Togo]

So, isn't it then beyond dispute that, for whatever reason, it seems as though I am thinking?

It depends where you place your "I". Sure, the brain as a whole thinks. But your brain doesn´t think in the way that your consciousness perceives it does.

"I" = brain as a whole = correct.
I = consciousness = wrong.

If you make a bad decision on the fly somewhere and then try to walk backward in your mind to try to figure out where in your thought process you took a wrong turn, you will be wrong. The chain of reasoning is a fabrication after the fact.

There is no evidential support for all reasoning being fabrication after the fact.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, isn't it then beyond dispute that, for whatever reason, it seems as though I am thinking?

It depends where you place your "I". Sure, the brain as a whole thinks. But your brain doesn´t think in the way that your consciousness perceives it does.

What do you mean "your consciousness perceives it does"? What kind of percept could that be? Are you referring to something which is not what the subject is subjectively aware of? How could that be? Let's assume the person is looking at the moon. As I understand what you are saying, the brain is busy doing all the actual thinking, yes? So what is left for consciousness to perceive? Yet, presumably, the subject will have, subjectively, some impression of looking at the moon. Me, I would say that the "looking at the moon" is properly speaking an illusion. But, as I understand what you say, consciousness does perceive something and therefore it has to perceive the illusion, and this perception can only be real. The perception of the illusion cannot be itself an illusion. And then, I don't see how this perception could be anything else than the impression the subject must have of looking at the moon, however delusional this looking at the moon may be.
EB

 

[Juma]

The perception of the illusion cannot be itself an illusion.

Yes it can. That "perception of the illusion" is just a representation. There cannot really be a perception going on there.

 

[Togo]

The perception of the illusion cannot be itself an illusion.

Yes it can. That "perception of the illusion" is just a representation. There cannot really be a perception going on there.

What do you mean by 'really a perception going on', and why is it a requirement for looking at the moon?


If I'm driving a car, I have a speedometer to tell me how fast I'm going. The speedometer doesn't really tell me how fast I'm going, it's just a representation. Therefore the idea that I know how fast I'm going is false, and my impression of knowing the car's speed is an illusion. Is that what you mean, or is it something else?

 

[fromderinside]

It depends where you place your "I". Sure, the brain as a whole thinks. But your brain doesn´t think in the way that your consciousness perceives it does.

What do you mean "your consciousness perceives it does"? What kind of percept could that be? Are you referring to something which is not what the subject is subjectively aware of? How could that be? Let's assume the person is looking at the moon. As I understand what you are saying, the brain is busy doing all the actual thinking, yes? So what is left for consciousness to perceive? Yet, presumably, the subject will have, subjectively, some impression of looking at the moon. Me, I would say that the "looking at the moon" is properly speaking an illusion. But, as I understand what you say, consciousness does perceive something and therefore it has to perceive the illusion, and this perception can only be real. The perception of the illusion cannot be itself an illusion. And then, I don't see how this perception could be anything else than the impression the subject must have of looking at the moon, however delusional this looking at the moon may be.
EB

Interesting, but, wrong. It might help to understand how sensation works. At its base, in every sense I've studied, sensations starts as a reaction to input. That reaction begins a tuning process whereby the 'sense' focuses to on what it is reacting. That process, if it begins before another process in the sense, has precedence and agency over the second or and third, etc, sense processing. Sensory scientists refer to this as the formation of a single channel sense process.

Seems the same thing happens between senses in the integration areas of the brain as well. That is the first sensed item has first call on assets for integration. All of this is after the fact of an item being detected by the individual. Remarkably, the 'brain' if we can call it that since it is many brains within brains uses the above as a general organizing rule leading to such as tuning toward, attending, etc.

Where things become interesting, remember all of this is well after stuff gets these brains going, processing takes place ordering what has been sensed and retained (its important to understand that much is not retained, but, still wandering about in one or even many of these brains) according to some rules which very importantly include social setting.*

So it seems rather silly to me that we should be dealing with a rationalization of 'cognito' which doesn't incorporate any of the know things our brain, I, do when coming to a sense of thinking or being. Most importantly the fact that we plan is not the sum total of reasoning. So in contradiction to Togo there is much literature in psychology and neuroscience that much of 'reasoning, actually all of reasoning, takes place after the fact and much of reasoning is not included in what we spout, draw, write, rehearse, which is what we're talking about when we are being I.


*^{_{as social animals we have developed sets of procedures for ordering what is important for us to project to others whom were all the time monitoring for attitude, feeling, approval, most importantly approval, so we don't do things like step on our status in the group}}.

 

[fromderinside]

Yes it can. That "perception of the illusion" is just a representation. There cannot really be a perception going on there.

What do you mean by 'really a perception going on', and why is it a requirement for looking at the moon?


If I'm driving a car, I have a speedometer to tell me how fast I'm going. The speedometer doesn't really tell me how fast I'm going, it's just a representation. Therefore the idea that I know how fast I'm going is false, and my impression of knowing the car's speed is an illusion. Is that what you mean, or is it something else?

I'm agreeing with Togo here (don't scream) only because perceiving a thought is perceiving. It goes through the same brain machinations. I suggest Togo is being somewhat wrong when he says knowing a cars speed is an illusion. Its OK for the comment, but in truth, our balance sense helps us 'know' the car's speed under whatever calibration or reference.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It depends where you place your "I". Sure, the brain as a whole thinks. But your brain doesn´t think in the way that your consciousness perceives it does.

"I" = brain as a whole = correct.
I = consciousness = wrong.

If you make a bad decision on the fly somewhere and then try to walk backward in your mind to try to figure out where in your thought process you took a wrong turn, you will be wrong. The chain of reasoning is a fabrication after the fact.

There is no evidential support for all reasoning being fabrication after the fact.

That is how I have interpreted Libet´s results, and all the people who have done follow up studies after him. I know you don´t agree. I´m fine with that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It depends where you place your "I". Sure, the brain as a whole thinks. But your brain doesn´t think in the way that your consciousness perceives it does.

What do you mean "your consciousness perceives it does"? What kind of percept could that be? Are you referring to something which is not what the subject is subjectively aware of? How could that be? Let's assume the person is looking at the moon. As I understand what you are saying, the brain is busy doing all the actual thinking, yes? So what is left for consciousness to perceive? Yet, presumably, the subject will have, subjectively, some impression of looking at the moon. Me, I would say that the "looking at the moon" is properly speaking an illusion. But, as I understand what you say, consciousness does perceive something and therefore it has to perceive the illusion, and this perception can only be real. The perception of the illusion cannot be itself an illusion. And then, I don't see how this perception could be anything else than the impression the subject must have of looking at the moon, however delusional this looking at the moon may be.
EB

But most of your image of the Moon is stuff your brain has pulled out from memory. All your senses takes in about 16 000 bytes of data a second. That is not a lot. Most of what you see around you is good-enough aproximations. Your brain doesn´t aim for accuracy. It aims for keeping you alive. That by the way is why optical illusions are so effective in fooling us. That´s where all our cerebral vision short-cuts break down. Read up on Gestalt Psychology is you don´t believe me. But your consciousness is completely clueless about this gong on. It´s continually being lied to by the rest of the brain. It makes this whole consciousness and decision making a messy business to sort out. Who or what is in charge in your brain? Not obvious.

 

[Juma]

What do you mean "your consciousness perceives it does"? What kind of percept could that be? Are you referring to something which is not what the subject is subjectively aware of? How could that be? Let's assume the person is looking at the moon. As I understand what you are saying, the brain is busy doing all the actual thinking, yes? So what is left for consciousness to perceive? Yet, presumably, the subject will have, subjectively, some impression of looking at the moon. Me, I would say that the "looking at the moon" is properly speaking an illusion. But, as I understand what you say, consciousness does perceive something and therefore it has to perceive the illusion, and this perception can only be real. The perception of the illusion cannot be itself an illusion. And then, I don't see how this perception could be anything else than the impression the subject must have of looking at the moon, however delusional this looking at the moon may be.
EB

But most of your image of the Moon is stuff your brain has pulled out from memory. All your senses takes in about 16 000 bytes of data a second. That is not a lot. Most of what you see around you is good-enough aproximations. Your brain doesn´t aim for accuracy. It aims for keeping you alive. That by the way is why optical illusions are so effective in fooling us. That´s where all our cerebral vision short-cuts break down. Read up on Gestalt Psychology is you don´t believe me. But your consciousness is completely clueless about this gong on. It´s continually being lied to by the rest of the brain. It makes this whole consciousness and decision making a messy business to sort out. Who or what is in charge in your brain? Not obvious.

I have a nice anecdote about this: one morning back when "age of empire" was new I had been playing for hours at a friend and was on my way home when i reslized something weird: all greenery: trees, bushes etc, looked exactly like the texture pattern used for trees and bushes in the game! A perfect example of how much the brain constructs what we experience from what it knows things look like since our actual input is not enough to support the illusion of experience everything within sight.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The perception of the illusion cannot be itself an illusion.

Yes it can. That "perception of the illusion" is just a representation. There cannot really be a perception going on there.

Fine with me, you just disagreed with DrZoidberg here:

It depends where you place your "I". Sure, the brain as a whole thinks. But your brain doesn´t think in the way that your consciousness perceives it does.

So take it up with him, I'm sure you will get somewhere fast.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Interesting, but, wrong. It might help to understand how sensation works. At its base, in every sense I've studied, sensations starts as a reaction to input. That reaction begins a tuning process whereby the 'sense' focuses to on what it is reacting. That process, if it begins before another process in the sense, has precedence and agency over the second or and third, etc, sense processing. Sensory scientists refer to this as the formation of a single channel sense process.

Seems the same thing happens between senses in the integration areas of the brain as well. That is the first sensed item has first call on assets for integration. All of this is after the fact of an item being detected by the individual. Remarkably, the 'brain' if we can call it that since it is many brains within brains uses the above as a general organizing rule leading to such as tuning toward, attending, etc.

Where things become interesting, remember all of this is well after stuff gets these brains going, processing takes place ordering what has been sensed and retained (its important to understand that much is not retained, but, still wandering about in one or even many of these brains) according to some rules which very importantly include social setting.*

Interesting but beside the point, we're talking about consciousness, not the brain.

Remember what I said, to understand my posts you need to read and understand the post I'm responding to. You keep forgetting but I want to try the same reminding routine as I do with my seriously old mother and I do get excellent results.

So it seems rather silly to me that we should be dealing with a rationalization of 'cognito' which doesn't incorporate any of the know things our brain, I, do when coming to a sense of thinking or being. Most importantly the fact that we plan is not the sum total of reasoning. So in contradiction to Togo there is much literature in psychology and neuroscience that much of 'reasoning, actually all of reasoning, takes place after the fact and much of reasoning is not included in what we spout, draw, write, rehearse, which is what we're talking about when we are being I.

Interesting but beside the point, I was talking about the subjective perspective of consciousness.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

What do you mean "your consciousness perceives it does"? What kind of percept could that be? Are you referring to something which is not what the subject is subjectively aware of? How could that be? Let's assume the person is looking at the moon. As I understand what you are saying, the brain is busy doing all the actual thinking, yes? So what is left for consciousness to perceive? Yet, presumably, the subject will have, subjectively, some impression of looking at the moon. Me, I would say that the "looking at the moon" is properly speaking an illusion. But, as I understand what you say, consciousness does perceive something and therefore it has to perceive the illusion, and this perception can only be real. The perception of the illusion cannot be itself an illusion. And then, I don't see how this perception could be anything else than the impression the subject must have of looking at the moon, however delusional this looking at the moon may be.
EB

But most of your image of the Moon is stuff your brain has pulled out from memory. All your senses takes in about 16 000 bytes of data a second. That is not a lot. Most of what you see around you is good-enough aproximations. Your brain doesn´t aim for accuracy. It aims for keeping you alive. That by the way is why optical illusions are so effective in fooling us. That´s where all our cerebral vision short-cuts break down. Read up on Gestalt Psychology is you don´t believe me. But your consciousness is completely clueless about this gong on. It´s continually being lied to by the rest of the brain. It makes this whole consciousness and decision making a messy business to sort out. Who or what is in charge in your brain? Not obvious.

Sorry but I can't see how that could be understood as any kind of meaningful response to my post.

Also, I'm quite certain I understand well enough what you say and also the main claims of neurobiology and psychology as to how the brain may work so as to explain our main observations, scientific or otherwise, as to what people objective do or achive. All that is irrelevant and I don't need to read on gestalt psychology. I only hoped I could have a meaningful response from you but clearly I won't get it.

Anyway, thanks for trying.
EB

 

[Togo]

There is no evidential support for all reasoning being fabrication after the fact.

That is how I have interpreted Libet´s results, and all the people who have done follow up studies after him. I know you don´t agree. I´m fine with that.

You're contradicting some of the scientists involved. You're welcome to disagree with me, but why misrepresent the science?

 

[fromderinside]

Interesting but beside the point, we're talking about consciousness, not the brain.
...

Interesting but beside the point, I was talking about the subjective perspective of consciousness.
EB

Funny stuff.

So you're saying its not really relevant what the brain does because we've got this imaginary bone, consciousness, to chew on. Seems to me that if what the brain does in inconsistent with what you are talking about maybe you should go back to the drawing board and re-establish some relationship with reality other that that comes from one's impulses about what it is. Really. Further, what the fuck (pardon my french translation) is a subjective perspective of a fiction?

Aren't you getting tired of trying to give life to a 70 years-dead-man's notions of something he invented to explain hysteria in women? At least update yourself to Berne.

- - - Updated - - -

That is how I have interpreted Libet´s results, and all the people who have done follow up studies after him. I know you don´t agree. I´m fine with that.

You're contradicting some of the scientists involved. You're welcome to disagree with me, but why misrepresent the science?

Last I read that some has been converted.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That is how I have interpreted Libet´s results, and all the people who have done follow up studies after him. I know you don´t agree. I´m fine with that.

You're contradicting some of the scientists involved. You're welcome to disagree with me, but why misrepresent the science?

I´ll tell you after you tell me why you stopped beating your wife.

 

[Togo]

You're contradicting some of the scientists involved. You're welcome to disagree with me, but why misrepresent the science?

Last I read that some has been converted.

Can you remember where you read that? Not the lecture or book circuit - up to date studies?

Last time I did the rounds, a few years ago, the movement was in the other direction. While there's been a lot of good work in tracing the neural pathways involved, the focus was shifting to when this process gets disrupted, and the link between disruption and learning. In other words, drawing a link between the disruption of habitual or 'automatic' thought patterns, and the learning process. Now if your field is neurophysiology, this isn't particularly useful, because there's no particular significance to replacing one process with another. However, if you're a cognitive scientist, it gets more interesting, because that opens the door to incorporating 30+ years of attentional studies, veto studies, and other experiments where a fairly mindless task is interrupted by a highly attended action.

You don't have to call that the effects of conscious attention on task performance, of course, but there's no longer a reason not to.

That is how I have interpreted Libet´s results, and all the people who have done follow up studies after him. I know you don´t agree. I´m fine with that.

You're contradicting some of the scientists involved. You're welcome to disagree with me, but why misrepresent the science?

I´ll tell you after you tell me why you stopped beating your wife.

We broke the bed, and had to buy a new one. It's got a metal frame and better pinion points, so we're hoping that won't be a problem again.
So, why misrepresent the science?

I'm not asking you to incriminate yourself, I'm just asking you to put the same conditionals and caveats in your statements of what the science is, as appear in the original studies. Is that unreasonable? To ask that when you describe the extant science, you don't contradict the scientists who did the actual work? Or at least not without giving some kind of reason as to why you disagree with them?