According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[Jarhyn]

no deviation or non determined events within the system

Even in a system with no deviation or events that fail to follow from one another, those events still originate as the product of local phenomena.

You are more responsible for you, because you interact more with you than anything else even possibly can.

There is no inner say as to state and condition of a brain

How ridiculously wrong this is!

Obviously, recursively connected switch networks are trivial examples to where an internal system has "say" as to the continued state and condition of itself.

 

[DBT]

Also, I might note, moral desert responsibility is a shifted goalpost.

Not in the least, Not at all. It ultimately comes down to agency, state and condition.

The compatibilist doesn't discuss, nor need to discuss, moral desert responsibility in defense of compatibilism.

That's the very point at which compatibilism fails, ignoring the fact that it is the non-chosen state and condition of the underlying system that determines/fixes conscious will according to antecedents, and not free will.

The compatibilist asserts free will at the expense of ignoring key elements of their own definition of determinism.

In fact, moral desert responsibility only starts far later in a discussion about as far removed from basic mechanical responsibility as can be; we are still in the mode of "can respond", not "ought respond", so bringing up "ought respond" as if it has any bearing here is intensely misleading, potentially dishonest, and wholely inappropriate.

We discuss the ABILITY to render response at this stage, the obligation comes as a product of different logical concerns.

Ability is - according to the given definition of determinism - fixed by the nature of system and its events as they evolve without deviation from past to present and future states of the system.

This is not according to me, but how you define determinism.

Therefore;

''An action’s production by deterministic process, even when the agent satisfies the conditions on moral responsibility specified by compatibilists, presents no less of a challenge to basic-desert responsibility than does deterministic manipulation by other agents. ''

 

[pood]

For heavens sake, the compatibilist defines the terms and conditions of determinism. You did it yourself, if you recall. No randomness, etc, which means no deviation or non determined events within the system.

Maybe someday you’ll get the point that the brain is part of the deterministic process, and since you are your brain, you help determine what happens next in a chain of deterministic events? And that therefore the compatibilist does not argue for “non-determined” events, which is to be expected, given that “compatibilism” means “compatible with determinism?”

Nah.

 

[pood]

Look again at the quote of yours — no “non-determined events within the system.” Yet the compatibilist agrees with this. So what are you saying? The agent doesn’t determine what happens next in a chain of events? And we’ve been over this, and of course you never give a coherent answer. If the agent doesn’t determine what happens next, who or what does? If what happens is “determined” before the agent enters the scene, then — as I’ve explained — that’s not determinism, it’s predeterminism. Are you arguing for that? If you are, you’re not a determinist, you’re a predeterminist or a superdeterminist. But then earlier, when I challenged you on whether the big bang was responsible for the great building a star architect designed and executed, you denied it, denied that we are meat puppets if the big bang. Fine. So, where and when did the building get built? And the answer is right there staring you in the face: the architect got it built —he determined how that would hapen.

 

[DBT]

For heavens sake, the compatibilist defines the terms and conditions of determinism. You did it yourself, if you recall. No randomness, etc, which means no deviation or non determined events within the system.

Maybe someday you’ll get the point that the brain is part of the deterministic process, and since you are your brain, you help determine what happens next in a chain of deterministic events? And that therefore the compatibilist does not argue for “non-determined” events, which is to be expected, given that “compatibilism” means “compatible with determinism?”

Nah.

You miss the point. Sure, you are your brain and the brain is you. The distinction in this debate being - the brain can exist and function without generating a conscious 'you' who feels, thinks and acts, where the sense conscious a you is being produced by the underlying information processing of a system that did not choose its own neural architecture, attributes, abilities or state and condition.

In other words, you and your thoughts and actions are something a brain is doing with the cards it has been dealt, genetics and environment, family, culture, life circumstances and experience.


''The increments of a normal brain state is not as obvious as direct coercion, a microchip, or a tumor, but the “obviousness” is irrelevant here. Brain states incrementally get to the state they are in one moment at a time. In each moment of that process the brain is in one state, and the specific environment and biological conditions leads to the very next state. Depending on that state, this will cause you to behave in a specific way within an environment (decide in a specific way), in which all of those things that are outside of a person constantly bombard your senses changing your very brain state. The internal dialogue in your mind you have no real control over.''

 

[DBT]

Look again at the quote of yours — no “non-determined events within the system.” Yet the compatibilist agrees with this. So what are you saying? The agent doesn’t determine what happens next in a chain of events? And we’ve been over this, and of course you never give a coherent answer. If the agent doesn’t determine what happens next, who or what does? If what happens is “determined” before the agent enters the scene, then — as I’ve explained — that’s not determinism, it’s predeterminism. Are you arguing for that? If you are, you’re not a determinist, you’re a predeterminist or a superdeterminist. But then earlier, when I challenged you on whether the big bang was responsible for the great building a star architect designed and executed, you denied it, denied that we are meat puppets if the big bang. Fine. So, where and when did the building get built? And the answer is right there staring you in the face: the architect got it built —he determined how that would happen.

Essentially, it's not that complicated, and it is evidence based. Again, it is the non-chosen state and condition of the brain, genetics, neural architecture, social conditioning, circumstances, life experiences, etc, that determines who you are, your character, personality, your strengths and weaknesses.

1- The physical organism has evolved to interact with the environment through the medium of consciousness.

2 - The brain/organism generates an internal approximation of the external world from information it receives via the senses...consciousness.

3 -From the moment of birth, the brain/body/organism gathers information about itself and its place in the scheme of things; language, name, family, objects and their functions, behaviour, mannerisms, etc. The brain does that through the medium of consciousness, and without a well developed personality for approximately the first 3 years of life.

4 - What, psychologically speaking, we call our 'self' ''I' 'me' is the result of that information.

5 - Personality is simply a description of how the brain/body/organism interacts with the external world. Personality changes with time and experience, or may dissipate entirely if the brain is damaged through trauma or disease.

 

[Jarhyn]

the brain can exist and function without generating a conscious 'you'

No, it can't, unless you want to prove that that you can.

Many arguments have been raised on these forums questioning the very coherence of such a statement and it is certainly in conflict with my own position: that it is impossible to switches together and not get "consciousness of something" in some way.

"Self-awareness" is just the same, but involves recursion back into the system, some input into the system that was drawn off the previous cycle of the system itself, such that the system can become "aware" of facts about "itself".

It's just so ridiculous watching someone who doesn't even understand the first thing about behavioral systems discussing with such unearned confidence what they do and don't experience phenomenally.

 

[pood]

Look again at the quote of yours — no “non-determined events within the system.” Yet the compatibilist agrees with this. So what are you saying? The agent doesn’t determine what happens next in a chain of events? And we’ve been over this, and of course you never give a coherent answer. If the agent doesn’t determine what happens next, who or what does? If what happens is “determined” before the agent enters the scene, then — as I’ve explained — that’s not determinism, it’s predeterminism. Are you arguing for that? If you are, you’re not a determinist, you’re a predeterminist or a superdeterminist. But then earlier, when I challenged you on whether the big bang was responsible for the great building a star architect designed and executed, you denied it, denied that we are meat puppets if the big bang. Fine. So, where and when did the building get built? And the answer is right there staring you in the face: the architect got it built —he determined how that would happen.

Essentially, it's not that complicated, and it is evidence based. Again, it is the non-chosen state and condition of the brain, genetics, neural architecture, social conditioning, circumstances, life experiences, etc, that determines who you are, your character, personality, your strengths and weaknesses.

1- The physical organism has evolved to interact with the environment through the medium of consciousness.

2 - The brain/organism generates an internal approximation of the external world from information it receives via the senses...consciousness.

3 -From the moment of birth, the brain/body/organism gathers information about itself and its place in the scheme of things; language, name, family, objects and their functions, behaviour, mannerisms, etc. The brain does that through the medium of consciousness, and without a well developed personality for approximately the first 3 years of life.

4 - What, psychologically speaking, we call our 'self' ''I' 'me' is the result of that information.

5 - Personality is simply a description of how the brain/body/organism interacts with the external world. Personality changes with time and experience, or may dissipate entirely if the brain is damaged through trauma or disease.

I actually agree with all of the above, more or less — if I studied it long enough I might find details to dispute or nits to pick — but how is it responsive to the quote you excerpted from me?

 

[Jarhyn]

Look again at the quote of yours — no “non-determined events within the system.” Yet the compatibilist agrees with this. So what are you saying? The agent doesn’t determine what happens next in a chain of events? And we’ve been over this, and of course you never give a coherent answer. If the agent doesn’t determine what happens next, who or what does? If what happens is “determined” before the agent enters the scene, then — as I’ve explained — that’s not determinism, it’s predeterminism. Are you arguing for that? If you are, you’re not a determinist, you’re a predeterminist or a superdeterminist. But then earlier, when I challenged you on whether the big bang was responsible for the great building a star architect designed and executed, you denied it, denied that we are meat puppets if the big bang. Fine. So, where and when did the building get built? And the answer is right there staring you in the face: the architect got it built —he determined how that would happen.

Essentially, it's not that complicated, and it is evidence based. Again, it is the non-chosen state and condition of the brain, genetics, neural architecture, social conditioning, circumstances, life experiences, etc, that determines who you are, your character, personality, your strengths and weaknesses.

1- The physical organism has evolved to interact with the environment through the medium of consciousness.

2 - The brain/organism generates an internal approximation of the external world from information it receives via the senses...consciousness.

3 -From the moment of birth, the brain/body/organism gathers information about itself and its place in the scheme of things; language, name, family, objects and their functions, behaviour, mannerisms, etc. The brain does that through the medium of consciousness, and without a well developed personality for approximately the first 3 years of life.

4 - What, psychologically speaking, we call our 'self' ''I' 'me' is the result of that information.

5 - Personality is simply a description of how the brain/body/organism interacts with the external world. Personality changes with time and experience, or may dissipate entirely if the brain is damaged through trauma or disease.

I actually agree with all of the above, more or less — if I studied it long enough I might find details to dispute or nits to pick — but how is it responsive to the quote you excerpted from me?

Right. It just doesn't actually say anything about whether we have free will in the compatibilist sense of the words over any particular things. None of.those bullet points preclude permanent or sufficiently permanent changes to the character of the function of the system owing to some present, soon to be past, event in the system itself.

 

[DBT]

the brain can exist and function without generating a conscious 'you'

No, it can't, unless you want to prove that that you can.

It's proven when the brain malfunctions.

The loss of memory function proves it. In the final stages your body is still alive, your brain is still alive, but you as conscious entity no longer exist. You no longer recognize yourself or anything around you. You don't know who you are, where you are or what is happening to you.

Why does this need repeating? The last fifty times or so that it's been pointed out were ignored and now the question is repeated.


Quote;
''People suffering from Alzheimer's disease are not only losing their memory, but they are also losing their personality. In order to understand the relationship between personality and memory, it is important to define personality and memory. Personality, as defined by some neurobiologists and psychologists, is a collection of behaviors, emotions, and thoughts that are not controlled by the I-function. Memory, on the other hand, is controlled and regulated by the I-function of the neocortex. It is a collection of short stories that the I-function makes-up in order to account for the events and people. Memory is also defined as the ability to retain information, and it is influenced by three important stages. The first stage is encoding and processing the information, the second stage is the storing of the memory, and the third stage is memory retrieval. There are also the different types of memories like sensory, short-term, and long-term memory. The sensory memory relates to the initial moment when an event or an object is first detected. Short-term memories are characterized by slow, transient alterations in communication between neurons and long-term memories (1). Long-term memories are marked by permanent changes to the neural structure''


The terminal Stages of the disease, and the consequences of such a profound memory loss being; Symptoms:

''Can't recognize family or image of self in mirror.
Little capacity for self-care.
Can't communicate with words.....''

Memory is the key to recognition, comprehension, self awareness, understanding, self identity, the ability respond rationally and so on.

 

[DBT]

Look again at the quote of yours — no “non-determined events within the system.” Yet the compatibilist agrees with this. So what are you saying? The agent doesn’t determine what happens next in a chain of events? And we’ve been over this, and of course you never give a coherent answer. If the agent doesn’t determine what happens next, who or what does? If what happens is “determined” before the agent enters the scene, then — as I’ve explained — that’s not determinism, it’s predeterminism. Are you arguing for that? If you are, you’re not a determinist, you’re a predeterminist or a superdeterminist. But then earlier, when I challenged you on whether the big bang was responsible for the great building a star architect designed and executed, you denied it, denied that we are meat puppets if the big bang. Fine. So, where and when did the building get built? And the answer is right there staring you in the face: the architect got it built —he determined how that would happen.

Essentially, it's not that complicated, and it is evidence based. Again, it is the non-chosen state and condition of the brain, genetics, neural architecture, social conditioning, circumstances, life experiences, etc, that determines who you are, your character, personality, your strengths and weaknesses.

1- The physical organism has evolved to interact with the environment through the medium of consciousness.

2 - The brain/organism generates an internal approximation of the external world from information it receives via the senses...consciousness.

3 -From the moment of birth, the brain/body/organism gathers information about itself and its place in the scheme of things; language, name, family, objects and their functions, behaviour, mannerisms, etc. The brain does that through the medium of consciousness, and without a well developed personality for approximately the first 3 years of life.

4 - What, psychologically speaking, we call our 'self' ''I' 'me' is the result of that information.

5 - Personality is simply a description of how the brain/body/organism interacts with the external world. Personality changes with time and experience, or may dissipate entirely if the brain is damaged through trauma or disease.

I actually agree with all of the above, more or less — if I studied it long enough I might find details to dispute or nits to pick — but how is it responsive to the quote you excerpted from me?

It relates to the free will debate in terms a deterministic system that is the brain, how the brain functions (mostly unconscious information processing according to neural architecture), perceives the world and responds to it by means of a mental representation of the world and self in the form consciousness. A rational system (when functional), intelligent and responsive, but nothing to do with free will, Farah, Hallet, et al.

 

[Jarhyn]

the loss of memory function proves it. In the final stages your body is still alive, your brain is still alive, but you as conscious entity no longer exist

So, this is no different from waging in an RNN that of you broke the recurrent link, that the state previously being reported no longer exists because of the lack of report, but that's fucking stupid. Only the report ceases as a function of the cease of the report. The entity that is conscious of that state is still there, the only thing it loses consciousness of is the consciousness of being conscious, the meta-awareness.

Ceasing to be recursively self-conscious does not change the reality of the things the system encodes awareness of in continuity.

 

[DBT]

the loss of memory function proves it. In the final stages your body is still alive, your brain is still alive, but you as conscious entity no longer exist

So, this is no different from waging in an RNN that of you broke the recurrent link, that the state previously being reported no longer exists because of the lack of report, but that's fucking stupid. Only the report ceases as a function of the cease of the report. The entity that is conscious of that state is still there, the only thing it loses consciousness of is the consciousness of being conscious, the meta-awareness.

Ceasing to be recursively self-conscious does not change the reality of the things the system encodes awareness of in continuity.

You miss the point entirely. You ignore the evidence entirely. You ignore the well known consequences of permanent memory loss and how it manifests in patients who are suffering progressive memory loss though its stages.

It's simple enough: If your brain permanently loses memory function, you no longer exist as a conscious entity. You are gone. You as a self aware entity disintegrated before the physical death of your body and brain.

 

[Jarhyn]

. You ignore the evidence entirely.

No, it's just what you think constitutes "evidence" isn't evidence, least of all, for your claims about free will.

You don't even have a definition for what you mean by "conscious", still leaning on "is/isn't 'conscious'" rather than "isn't conscious of ____".

Your incoherence is showing

 

[DBT]

. You ignore the evidence entirely.

No, it's just what you think constitutes "evidence" isn't evidence, least of all, for your claims about free will.

You don't even have a definition for what you mean by "conscious", still leaning on "is/isn't 'conscious'" rather than "isn't conscious of ____".

Your incoherence is showing

Of course it's evidence.

When normal brain function is effected in some way, the changes to its function is directly related to the nature of the effect of the change and how profound it is.

You drink too much, you get drunk, keep drinking and you pass out.

Take drugs, LSD for instance, your experience of the world and self becomes psychedelic.

Your brain permanently loses memory function, your experience as a self conscious being is gone, you no longer exist.

An example;

''Goldberg brings his description of frontal dysfunction to life with insightful accounts of clinical cases. These provide a good description of some of the consequences of damage to frontal areas and the disruption and confusion of behavior that often results. Vladimir, for example, is a patient whose frontal lobes were surgically resectioned after a train accident. As a result, he is unable to form a plan, displays an extreme lack of drive and mental rigidity and is unaware of his disorder. In another account, Toby, a highly intelligent man who suffers from attention deficits and possibly a bipolar disorder, displays many of the behavioral features of impaired frontal lobe function including immaturity, poor foresight and impulsive behavior.''

 

[Jarhyn]

Of course it's evidence

Only of your faith-basis.

your experience as a self conscious being is gone

See, this is your issue: you somehow think that when you cease looking out the window, the outside ceases to exist.

Your experience of your consciousness is not your consciousness.

In ALL recursive systems the recursion can't yield information to the system about itself in the same clock cycle it is rendered. It could attempt to predict its own future states, but usually that isn't the case (except with hyper threading).

The consciousness of the system of its inputs and the awareness of whatever subpart of the system of some "sentence of truth" exists even if that recursive link os broken such that it cannot measure its own awareness. The awareness isn't a function of its own measurement, it stands alone.

You are still a conscious and aware being, in that case, you just aren't a functional or self-conscious thing, generally.

 

[DBT]

Of course it's evidence

Only of your faith-basis.

your experience as a self conscious being is gone

See, this is your issue: you somehow think that when you cease looking out the window, the outside ceases to exist.

That's not an analogy. Not even close.

Conscious self is not something like a tree, a mountain or a river. Conscious self is not an object. The brain is the object, the agency that generates a conscious self as a means to navigate and respond to the objects and events of the world, a body of information on who you are and where you are, and without memory function (not merely a temporary glitch or amnesia, but the final stages of permanent memory loss) that information is lost and you as a conscious entity no longer exist.

You don't come back. You die.

Your experience of your consciousness is not your consciousness.

Oh, boy.....the content of consciousness includes a representation of the external world based on sensory inputs and you as a conscious self, all under the umbrella terms of 'consciousness.' Of course, you are not constantly self conscious, you may be absorbed in a task, a book, music, video, etc, where you lose track of time and self.

In ALL recursive systems the recursion can't yield information to the system about itself in the same clock cycle it is rendered. It could attempt to predict its own future states, but usually that isn't the case (except with hyper threading).

You are running through the briars and brambles of irrelevancy again.

The consciousness of the system of its inputs and the awareness of whatever subpart of the system of some "sentence of truth" exists even if that recursive link os broken such that it cannot measure its own awareness. The awareness isn't a function of its own measurement, it stands alone.

You are still a conscious and aware being, in that case, you just aren't a functional or self-conscious thing, generally.

The system that is the brain operates on both an unconscious and conscious level. Inputs are acquired and processed prior to conscious representation of some but not all of that information, a modular system.


For instance.

''Neuroscience tells us that most of the work done by our brains happens on an unconscious level, but when does that “a-ha!” moment occur? And what happens during it? New research investigates.''

''Dr. Shadlen and colleagues started out from an interesting hypothesis, one which they derived from previous research on the neurobiological processes involved in decision-making.

As the authors explain, research conducted in both monkeys and humans shows that many of our decisions take place at a point when the brain “feels” as though it has gathered enough information, or when a critical level of information has been accumulated.

This process of making a decision once the brain has accumulated enough evidence bears the name of “bounded evidence accumulation.” Reaching this threshold is important because, although the brain does not use all of the information available, it uses as much as is necessary to make a speedy yet accurate decision.''

 

[Jarhyn]

Conscious self is not something like a tree, a mountain or a river. Conscious self is not an object

Ok silly nonsense beliefs confirmed?

To be fair "consciousness" is not an object because "consciousness" has no such general form, as everything switchlike is apparently "conscious" of "something"

The system that is the brain operates on both an unconscious and conscious level

This is so ridiculous it kinda hurts to read.

No, 100% of the brain is conscious of the things it is conscious of, and every part is conscious of something. It's just that not every part is conscious of what every part is or was conscious of.

The same way you cannot observe the extant states which the calculator is aware of, you cannot observe of yourself either... But that doesn't mean it's not there and happening, doesn't mean that this hidden consciousness ceases to exist.

 

[DBT]

Conscious self is not something like a tree, a mountain or a river. Conscious self is not an object

Ok silly nonsense beliefs confirmed?

Nah, unlike your computers have consciousness and will claim, it's not even controversial. The brain generates is able to generate conscious activity and the brain is able to puts it to sleep.

If the brain malfunctions to the point where it cannot generate coherent conscious activity, permanent memory function loss, etc, it's over, you as a conscious being no longer exist.

Or are you a duelist? A believer in the existence of a soul or a homunculus?

To be fair "consciousness" is not an object because "consciousness" has no such general form, as everything switchlike is apparently "conscious" of "something"

A switch is not conscious, there is no mechanism or means for it.

The system that is the brain operates on both an unconscious and conscious level

This is so ridiculous it kinda hurts to read.

Take an aspirin and lie down.

It's basic brain function. I provided articles that give summaries of the role that unconscious activity plays, acquiring and processing information prior to conscious representation, regulating body functions, feedback, etc.

Again, nothing contraversial.

No, 100% of the brain is conscious of the things it is conscious of, and every part is conscious of something. It's just that not every part is conscious of what every part is or was conscious of.

Prove it. Show, for instance, that the eyes,, retina, rods and cones, nerve c optic nerve, etc, are conscious of the signals they acquire and transmit to the brain for processing, the visual cortex and so on before vision is generated.

The same way you cannot observe the extant states which the calculator is aware of, you cannot observe of yourself either... But that doesn't mean it's not there and happening, doesn't mean that this hidden consciousness ceases to exist.

You are speculating and asserting what you believe regardless of not having any evidence to support your assertions. There is no evidence that computers have consciousness and will, there is no evidence that dendrites and synapses have consciousness or will, there is no evidence that nerve cells are conscious of what they are doing.

You can assert your beliefs, but you are unable to justify your assertion. It's just empty rhetoric

 

[Jarhyn]

You are speculating and asserting what you believe regardless of not having any evidence to support your assertions

That the world doesn't go away when you aren't looking at it. Hardly a huge leap.

In fact it might be one of the most basic realizations even most 2 year olds master.

I can't help someone who is intractably ignorant of how behavioral systems function in the understanding and analysis of behavioral systems.