A simpler explanation of free will.

[DBT]

Whatever you feel you can choose, whatever you feel you can do, it is the underlying parallel processing power of neural networks that are producing not only 'your' experience, but you yourself as a conscious experience. This is not your choice.

You claim that there is an underlying mindless process controlling our minds, is this theory of yours actually falsifiable or do you admit that it's just a theory that you have faith in, ie, conjecture ?

Your objection is rather odd, given that we understand that the wiring, optic nerve, etc, conveys information to the processors (neurons) and their connections, which is processed and represented as vision, hearing, tactile sensations and so on, with associated feelings and thoughts.

If the eyes or optic nerves are damaged, vision (an aspect of mind/consciousness) is lost. The same applies to hearing, tactile sensation, thoughts and feelings.

Severe damage to the system disintegrates mind/consciousness. This is so well proven that it should not need explaining.

What you say - ''an underlying mindless process controlling our minds''- implies duality. Some sort of presence of independent non physical mind, but there is no evidence for that proposition.

The state of the brain is reflected in all of our cognitive attributes and features, intelligence, emotions, thoughts and actions. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

Chemical or structural changes always alter brain/mind function if the change is sufficient to overwhelm plasticity, the brains ability to rewire and re-route information.

That is not correlation. It is causation.

 

[Togo]

Is anybody reading what this fromderinside and Karkov write?!

This is torture! I mean I actually feel uninspired from reading their posts; it even makes me feel uninterested in philosophy somehow.

It's like I am forced to sit through an extremely boring and pretentious dialog made by two play writers who try to explain philosophy to an audience.

If you don't believe me, just look at post #17.

Someone reading this might be thinking that I could just ignore their posts. But it's like driving past a bad car accident; you know nothing good will come from looking, but you do anyways because it's along your path.

You both might end up killing TF and god knows what other forums you're on. Please stop, please, no more.

They're both eliminative reductionists. That is they seek to eliminate from discourse certain subjects as being invalid or not proper for discussion. Those who understand the position have reasonable arguments as to why discourse should be limited in this way, based on what the discussion is trying to achieve. Those who don't, often try and cast any venture into forbidden territory as a mental aberration on the part of questioner. They don't, can't, have an argument to support this, because such an argument can only exist in relation to a particular purpose, so instead they try and avoid discussion, and we end up with name calling, insults, and appeals to accept their position as 'obvious' or 'pragmatic'.

So it may be that the people you're discussing these things with have well-developed arguments for their positions that they simply avoid sharing for unknown reasons. Or it may be that discussions are painful precisely because you are asking questions they are desperate not only to avoid discussing, but to supress entirely as questions that may be asked.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Is anybody reading what this fromderinside and Karkov write?!

This is torture! I mean I actually feel uninspired from reading their posts; it even makes me feel uninterested in philosophy somehow.

It's like I am forced to sit through an extremely boring and pretentious dialog made by two play writers who try to explain philosophy to an audience.

If you don't believe me, just look at post #17.

Someone reading this might be thinking that I could just ignore their posts. But it's like driving past a bad car accident; you know nothing good will come from looking, but you do anyways because it's along your path.

You both might end up killing TF and god knows what other forums you're on. Please stop, please, no more.

They're both eliminative reductionists. That is they seek to eliminate from discourse certain subjects as being invalid or not proper for discussion. Those who understand the position have reasonable arguments as to why discourse should be limited in this way, based on what the discussion is trying to achieve. Those who don't, often try and cast any venture into forbidden territory as a mental aberration on the part of questioner. They don't, can't, have an argument to support this, because such an argument can only exist in relation to a particular purpose, so instead they try and avoid discussion, and we end up with name calling, insults, and appeals to accept their position as 'obvious' or 'pragmatic'.

So it may be that the people you're discussing these things with have well-developed arguments for their positions that they simply avoid sharing for unknown reasons. Or it may be that discussions are painful precisely because you are asking questions they are desperate not only to avoid discussing, but to supress entirely as questions that may be asked.

Well stated. I think any position with potential for some kind of deism is reflexively dismissed. Alternately, there seems to come concept of macho nihilism ie the more forcefully you can dismiss these positions, the more of a clear-eyed no-nonsense realist and therefore wiser you are.

 

[Juma]

I think any position with potential for some kind of deism is reflexively dismissed. .

You gotta be kidding. Right? If not then give an example.

 

[fromderinside]

Well stated. I think any position with potential for some kind of deism is reflexively dismissed. Alternately, there seems to come concept of macho nihilism ie the more forcefully you can dismiss these positions, the more of a clear-eyed no-nonsense realist and therefore wiser you are.

As a ryan 'target', as much as I like to discuss stuff with Togo, what I want to talk about now is what you write hopefully to avoid missing the point to ryan.

Deism is discarded by advocates failure to produce evidence. That's the whole point of our dismissal actually. Without evidence there is parlor room discussion, folk philosophy and psychology, and lots of room for argument gymnastics with accompanying attitudes about philosophical method. Reasonable enough?

More?

Sure rational philosophy has a place. But until philosophers actually succeed in demonstrating they are willing to give up evidence free, produce evidence based, argument by successfully producing scientific philosophical journals I'm not likely to give much ground. Purely rational 'reality' Philosophy actually was buried by failure of the positivists in the teens and twenties.

Another thing I find amusing is the utter failure of those who believe in rational method to even consider the possibility that 'mind' is other than a thing. I've been arguing, citing evidence, about this. A random, opportunistic, view of evolution, destroys the idea that there is a continuity or 'purpose' to brain architecture that is suitable for something like 'mind'. Mind is always defended by self reference which has been substantively discredited as scientific methodology.

Those who point to the usefulness of heirarchical scientific explanation are always overcome by advances from reductionist scientific discovery. Its currently happening right now in a more reductionistic theory of brain function replacing a purposeful explanation of the Sperry sort.

Current research suggests several, if not many, awareness loci pulls, of which one or several become operable at any time, takes out by the root Descartes 'cognito ...'. His was a church adhering apologia based on rotated craniums, the concept of conscious self, positing 'freeness' of choice in humans alone, proposal based on the self evident. The self evident!

Look. We gave up long ago on those who choose to pursue life style theory. Why not now do the same for those who want to pursue rational theory?

just sayin...

 

[Togo]

Sure rational philosophy has a place. But until philosophers actually succeed in demonstrating they are willing to give up evidence free, produce evidence based, argument by successfully producing scientific philosophical journals I'm not likely to give much ground.

Perhaps you could describe which philosophical journals you have read, and describe why these would be improved by narrowing the field of acceptable discourse as you suggest?

Another thing I find amusing is the utter failure of those who believe in rational method to even consider the possibility that either mind as a thing. I've been arguing, citing evidence, that this pulls out by the root Descartes 'cognito', a church adhering apologia based on rotated craniums, the concept of conscious self, positing 'freeness' of choice in humans alone.

<sigh>
1) If you can describe what position you think hasn't been considered, I'll try and dig out a reference for you of where it was considered.
2) If you can post a link to where you have advanced your argument, I'll show you what's wrong with it and why it doesn't show what you think it does.
3) It's cogito, not cognito
4) Cogito is a theory on establishing certainty from first principles. Descartes' theories on brain structure are nothing to do with cogito.
5) Descartes' theories are not church-adhering, either at the time, or now.
6) While Descartes is famous, and was a dualist, few if any modern dualist ideas are based on the dualism described by Descartes
7) Dualism /= free will. Cogito/=free will.

Is it possible that people have resisted your ideas because they can tell you don't know what you're talking about?

 

[fromderinside]

Perhaps you could describe which philosophical journals you have read, and describe why these would be improved by narrowing the field of acceptable discourse as you suggest?

Another thing I find amusing is the utter failure of those who believe in rational method to even consider the possibility that either mind as a thing. I've been arguing, citing evidence, that this pulls out by the root Descartes 'cognito', a church adhering apologia based on rotated craniums, the concept of conscious self, positing 'freeness' of choice in humans alone.

<sigh>
1) If you can describe what position you think hasn't been considered, I'll try and dig out a reference for you of where it was considered.
2) If you can post a link to where you have advanced your argument, I'll show you what's wrong with it and why it doesn't show what you think it does.
3) It's cogito, not cognito
4) Cogito is a theory on establishing certainty from first principles. Descartes' theories on brain structure are nothing to do with cogito.
5) Descartes' theories are not church-adhering, either at the time, or now.
6) While Descartes is famous, and was a dualist, few if any modern dualist ideas are based on the dualism described by Descartes
7) Dualism /= free will. Cogito/=free will.

Is it possible that people have resisted your ideas because they can tell you don't know what you're talking about?

Let me just point you to one area seen by a philosopher who seems to understand science.

In disputes about conceptual analysis, each side typically appeals to pre-theoretical ‘intuitions’about particular cases. Recently, many naturalistically oriented philosophers have suggestedthat these appeals should be understood as empirical hypotheses about what people would saywhen presented with descriptions of situations, and have consequently conducted surveys onnon-specialists. I argue that this philosophical research programme, a key branch of what isknown as ‘experimental philosophy’, rests on mistaken assumptions about the relation betweenpeople’s concepts and their linguistic behaviour. The conceptual claims that philosophers makeimply predictions about the folk’s responses only under certain demanding, counterfactualconditions. Because of the nature of these conditions, the claims cannot be tested with methodsof positivist social science. We are, however, entitled to appeal to intuitions about folk conceptsin virtue of possessing implicit normative knowledge acquired through reflective participation ineveryday linguistic practices.

From: http://philpapers.org/archive/KAUTRA.pdf

Since you were there you can go back to your posts and bring them back if you want. Enjoy.

Just let me say that intuitions fall under what Wundt tried to do in the mid 1800s which was deal with self reports as psychological/philosophical nuggets, which one, properly trained, could accurately report. NO.

Knowing about? Not really. The can tell I misstate cogito as cognito though, surely.

...and those self principles are/is undeniable self evidence?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Deism is discarded by advocates failure to produce evidence. That's the whole point of our dismissal actually. Without evidence there is parlor room discussion, folk philosophy and psychology, and lots of room for argument gymnastics with accompanying attitudes about philosophical method. Reasonable enough?

Actually, no. Rejecting an argument because it may be give aid and comfort to deists, and belittling the presentor, flys directly in the face of your high minded statements.

AFAICT Ryan isn't advocating for any supernatural force behind his LFW.

 

[apeman]

The brain containing the I is not the same as the brain being the I, so yeah you're right. For instance, the brain could be a conduit through which the I acts, so that when part of the brain is damaged that part of the I no longer exists within this world.

What "this world". If the mind is a dream there is no "this world"

If the world is totally mind dependent then this world is made from information. Information in such a situation is necessarily produced by another mind. What separates this reality from dreams is that this reality has rules governing it that stem from the will of the mind that encapsulates the whole of reality. People have called this greater mind God.

 

[apeman]

I think you have just dreamt that up because it's complete conjecture. Are you claiming that you know the boundary of everything?

So how's your search for a backwards  Arrow of time and a  Dean drive?
As for dreamed up eat these cookies from Arrow of time:

British physicist Sir Alfred Brian Pippard wrote, "There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances."

In other words "all things wind down".

Surely you can do as well? No? ....then done!

Just explain how the fuck you know that this is not a dream type event. It seems certain to me that anyone who applies logic to philosophy can not deny the possibility that all is mind product.

Keep it simple mate, I'm not as bright as you and don't always follow what the hell you're getting at.

 

[apeman]

You claim that there is an underlying mindless process controlling our minds, is this theory of yours actually falsifiable or do you admit that it's just a theory that you have faith in, ie, conjecture ?

Your objection is rather odd, given that we understand that the wiring, optic nerve, etc, conveys information to the processors (neurons) and their connections, which is processed and represented as vision, hearing, tactile sensations and so on, with associated feelings and thoughts.

If the eyes or optic nerves are damaged, vision (an aspect of mind/consciousness) is lost. The same applies to hearing, tactile sensation, thoughts and feelings.

Severe damage to the system disintegrates mind/consciousness. This is so well proven that it should not need explaining.

What you say - ''an underlying mindless process controlling our minds''- implies duality. Some sort of presence of independent non physical mind, but there is no evidence for that proposition.

The state of the brain is reflected in all of our cognitive attributes and features, intelligence, emotions, thoughts and actions. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

Chemical or structural changes always alter brain/mind function if the change is sufficient to overwhelm plasticity, the brains ability to rewire and re-route information.

That is not correlation. It is causation.

I'll ask again, is your theory falsifiable, ie, can you explain how I could potentially prove that the foundation of this existence is not mind independent? As I have pointed out, if you can not point to how your theory is falsifiable then it is only by faith that it exists, not proof.

It seems utterly logical to me that the most straightforward explanation of reality is to pursue the notion that all is thought dependent...at least we know for sure that thought exists and we can conceive of how reality can be constructed in such a situation (eg, our minds are a sub-set of the greater mind , God.)

 

[Juma]

Your objection is rather odd, given that we understand that the wiring, optic nerve, etc, conveys information to the processors (neurons) and their connections, which is processed and represented as vision, hearing, tactile sensations and so on, with associated feelings and thoughts.

If the eyes or optic nerves are damaged, vision (an aspect of mind/consciousness) is lost. The same applies to hearing, tactile sensation, thoughts and feelings.

Severe damage to the system disintegrates mind/consciousness. This is so well proven that it should not need explaining.

What you say - ''an underlying mindless process controlling our minds''- implies duality. Some sort of presence of independent non physical mind, but there is no evidence for that proposition.

The state of the brain is reflected in all of our cognitive attributes and features, intelligence, emotions, thoughts and actions. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

Chemical or structural changes always alter brain/mind function if the change is sufficient to overwhelm plasticity, the brains ability to rewire and re-route information.

That is not correlation. It is causation.

I'll ask again, is your theory falsifiable, ie, can you explain how I could potentially prove that the foundation of this existence is not mind independent? As I have pointed out, if you can not point to how your theory is falsifiable then it is only by faith that it exists, not proof.

It seems utterly logical to me that the most straightforward explanation of reality is to pursue the notion that all is thought dependent...at least we know for sure that thought exists and we can conceive of how reality can be constructed in such a situation (eg, our minds are a sub-set of the greater mind , God.)

Bullshit. If you assume that thought is the basic building part of everything then nothing is different from the materialistic viewpoint: yoy still need scientific teories for how the "dreamworld" works, you still have no evidence for any god.
Its a useless hypotesis.

 

[DBT]

Your objection is rather odd, given that we understand that the wiring, optic nerve, etc, conveys information to the processors (neurons) and their connections, which is processed and represented as vision, hearing, tactile sensations and so on, with associated feelings and thoughts.

If the eyes or optic nerves are damaged, vision (an aspect of mind/consciousness) is lost. The same applies to hearing, tactile sensation, thoughts and feelings.

Severe damage to the system disintegrates mind/consciousness. This is so well proven that it should not need explaining.

What you say - ''an underlying mindless process controlling our minds''- implies duality. Some sort of presence of independent non physical mind, but there is no evidence for that proposition.

The state of the brain is reflected in all of our cognitive attributes and features, intelligence, emotions, thoughts and actions. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

Chemical or structural changes always alter brain/mind function if the change is sufficient to overwhelm plasticity, the brains ability to rewire and re-route information.

That is not correlation. It is causation.

I'll ask again, is your theory falsifiable, ie, can you explain how I could potentially prove that the foundation of this existence is not mind independent? As I have pointed out, if you can not point to how your theory is falsifiable then it is only by faith that it exists, not proof.

It seems utterly logical to me that the most straightforward explanation of reality is to pursue the notion that all is thought dependent...at least we know for sure that thought exists and we can conceive of how reality can be constructed in such a situation (eg, our minds are a sub-set of the greater mind , God.)

There was no need to ask me again. I explained it the first time.

The proposition that consciousness/mind is a form of brain activity not only falsifiable, it never been falsified.

On the contrary, that consciousness/mind is a form of brain activity is routinely demonstrated.

Consider what I said about chemical and structural changes to the brain altering conscious experience in specific ways, loss of vision and all other sensation, the ability to think and reason, self awareness may be lost, emotion may be heightened or diminished yet the subject is intelligent, etc, etc...all related to brain state.

And of course, conscious activity can be routinely switched off through chemical means: whenever someone is being operated on they are put under general anesthetic. Which means the conscious activity of 'their' brain is being suppressed by the anesthetic.

The result being, the conscious mind is switched off for the duration of an operation.

That conscious mind is being switched off means the conscious 'person' 'self' ''I'' ''myself, etc, is no longer aware of anything until the anesthetic has cleared from the brain and normal conscious activity is restored.

Which is what happens naturally every night when you go to bed. The brain switches you off for the night, you are put to sleep, and wakes you up/restores you in the morning.

You - conscious mind/self awareness/identity - can in fact can be routinely switched off, be it naturally or chemically.

Again, this is not correlation, it is causation.

 

[apeman]

I'll ask again, is your theory falsifiable, ie, can you explain how I could potentially prove that the foundation of this existence is not mind independent? As I have pointed out, if you can not point to how your theory is falsifiable then it is only by faith that it exists, not proof.

It seems utterly logical to me that the most straightforward explanation of reality is to pursue the notion that all is thought dependent...at least we know for sure that thought exists and we can conceive of how reality can be constructed in such a situation (eg, our minds are a sub-set of the greater mind , God.)

Bullshit. If you assume that thought is the basic building part of everything then nothing is different from the materialistic viewpoint: yoy still need scientific teories for how the "dreamworld" works, you still have no evidence for any god.
Its a useless hypotesis.

Well of course things would be different if the basis of reality is thought.

The simplest way to look at this idea is to see the world as a programme (like Windows) and our minds like sub-programmes (like Explorer). Obviously the only difference is that there wouldn't be any material (mind-independent) objects existing like computers, the programmes would exist of themselves without the requirement for physical material .

This theory solves a couple of problems...dualism and freewill are no longer an issue. It is self explanatory why the problem of dualism is by-passed, but it also means that the world around us doesn't completely cause our actions, because in a way we are not an intrinsic part of it, it exists alongside us rather than us being absolutely incorporated into it . That doesn't mean that we are not dependent on it, just that there is a degree of separateness...which we can demonstrate with non-material subjects like mathematical laws and such.

Obviously the other big difference would be that the larger mind ( God or whatever you want to call it) would have opinions , opinions that would almost certainly involve morals and aesthetics...so the idea also objectifies those subjects... so relativism is also undermined.

 

[apeman]

I'll ask again, is your theory falsifiable, ie, can you explain how I could potentially prove that the foundation of this existence is not mind independent? As I have pointed out, if you can not point to how your theory is falsifiable then it is only by faith that it exists, not proof.

It seems utterly logical to me that the most straightforward explanation of reality is to pursue the notion that all is thought dependent...at least we know for sure that thought exists and we can conceive of how reality can be constructed in such a situation (eg, our minds are a sub-set of the greater mind , God.)

There was no need to ask me again. I explained it the first time.

The proposition that consciousness/mind is a form of brain activity not only falsifiable, it never been falsified.

On the contrary, that consciousness/mind is a form of brain activity is routinely demonstrated.

Consider what I said about chemical and structural changes to the brain altering conscious experience in specific ways, loss of vision and all other sensation, the ability to think and reason, self awareness may be lost, emotion may be heightened or diminished yet the subject is intelligent, etc, etc...all related to brain state.

And of course, conscious activity can be routinely switched off through chemical means: whenever someone is being operated on they are put under general anesthetic. Which means the conscious activity of 'their' brain is being suppressed by the anesthetic.

The result being, the conscious mind is switched off for the duration of an operation.

That conscious mind is being switched off means the conscious 'person' 'self' ''I'' ''myself, etc, is no longer aware of anything until the anesthetic has cleared from the brain and normal conscious activity is restored.

Which is what happens naturally every night when you go to bed. The brain switches you off for the night, you are put to sleep, and wakes you up/restores you in the morning.

You - conscious mind/self awareness/identity - can in fact can be routinely switched off, be it naturally or chemically.

Again, this is not correlation, it is causation.

You still have not explained how you know that these ideas, that you are so convinced by, are not just correlation. The easiest way that I have of putting this (and I have said it before) is that if you play a computer game and you crash a simulated car into a simulated tree then it looks as though the tree has damaged the car, but in actual fact the "damage" is the result of the underlying programme...so in actual fact the collision between the car and the tree and the resulting damage is a series of correlations...the programme itself is the cause.

It is logical to accept that when ideas enter your mind, ideas like the results of brain stimulus/damage causing a resultant effect of thoughts within that brain, that all of that may just be pure thought information being received by your brain/mind. This doesn't undermine science because if it is a predictable correlation then that is just as useful to us as a predictable causation.

 

[Juma]

Bullshit. If you assume that thought is the basic building part of everything then nothing is different from the materialistic viewpoint: yoy still need scientific teories for how the "dreamworld" works, you still have no evidence for any god.
Its a useless hypotesis.

Well of course things would be different if the basis of reality is thought.

The simplest way to look at this idea is to see the world as a programme (like Windows) and our minds like sub-programmes (like Explorer). Obviously the only difference is that there wouldn't be any material (mind-independent) objects existing like computers, the programmes would exist of themselves without the requirement for physical material .

This theory solves a couple of problems...dualism and freewill are no longer an issue. It is self explanatory why the problem of dualism is by-passed, but it also means that the world around us doesn't completely cause our actions, because in a way we are not an intrinsic part of it, it exists alongside us rather than us being absolutely incorporated into it . That doesn't mean that we are not dependent on it, just that there is a degree of separateness...which we can demonstrate with non-material subjects like mathematical laws and such.

Obviously the other big difference would be that the larger mind ( God or whatever you want to call it) would have opinions , opinions that would almost certainly involve morals and aesthetics...so the idea also objectifies those subjects... so relativism is also undermined.

But there will still be a world to consider. Step over the edge of a cliff and you fall to your death.

Your theory is simply dualism. A dead end.

 

[apeman]

Well of course things would be different if the basis of reality is thought.

The simplest way to look at this idea is to see the world as a programme (like Windows) and our minds like sub-programmes (like Explorer). Obviously the only difference is that there wouldn't be any material (mind-independent) objects existing like computers, the programmes would exist of themselves without the requirement for physical material .

This theory solves a couple of problems...dualism and freewill are no longer an issue. It is self explanatory why the problem of dualism is by-passed, but it also means that the world around us doesn't completely cause our actions, because in a way we are not an intrinsic part of it, it exists alongside us rather than us being absolutely incorporated into it . That doesn't mean that we are not dependent on it, just that there is a degree of separateness...which we can demonstrate with non-material subjects like mathematical laws and such.

Obviously the other big difference would be that the larger mind ( God or whatever you want to call it) would have opinions , opinions that would almost certainly involve morals and aesthetics...so the idea also objectifies those subjects... so relativism is also undermined.

But there will still be a world to consider. Step over the edge of a cliff and you fall to your death.

Your theory is simply dualism. A dead end.

It isn't in the slightest bit dualist. Everything in this theory is thought process, the chair you're sat on , the sense of self that you have, mathematical laws...everything is thought process.

 

[fromderinside]

Just explain how the fuck you know that this is not a dream type event. It seems certain to me that anyone who applies logic to philosophy can not deny the possibility that all is mind product.

Keep it simple mate, I'm not as bright as you and don't always follow what the hell you're getting at.

As you point out, knowing knowing is impossible so I've become an understanding kind of guy.

 

[Juma]

But there will still be a world to consider. Step over the edge of a cliff and you fall to your death.

Your theory is simply dualism. A dead end.

It isn't in the slightest bit dualist. Everything in this theory is thought process, the chair you're sat on , the sense of self that you have, mathematical laws...everything is thought process.

But then your view is the same as the materialists view: there is only a single basic principle underlying everything.

 

[ryan]

It isn't in the slightest bit dualist. Everything in this theory is thought process, the chair you're sat on , the sense of self that you have, mathematical laws...everything is thought process.

But then your view is the same as the materialists view: there is only a single basic principle underlying everything.

That's an interesting point. Is there any difference between the different kinds of monisms?