Could our actions be decided by our conscious mind?

[Speakpigeon]

Thank you to discuss the following argument, its two premises and its validity.

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.
EB

Thank you to restrict yourself to facts and logic.
EB

 

[DBT]

Available evidence strongly suggests that our experience of conscious mind is an activity of neural networks, that conscious mind is in no way independent from that activity. That it is this underlying neural network activity that determines the expression of conscious mind, therefore the decisions that are made and the actions that are taken.

The conclusion - ''Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person'' - appears to fail to take into account the significance of this underlying neural activity, implying that it is the conscious mind that somehow, autonomously, determines what someone does.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Available evidence strongly suggests that our experience of conscious mind is an activity of neural networks, that conscious mind is in no way independent from that activity. That it is this underlying neural network activity that determines the expression of conscious mind, therefore the decisions that are made and the actions that are taken.

The conclusion - ''Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person'' - appears to fail to take into account the significance of this underlying neural activity, implying that it is the conscious mind that somehow, autonomously, determines what someone does.

You appear to be unfamiliar with what is very basic formal logic or perhaps you don't understand what the premises say.

I take it that the conclusion you don't like. But I'm not interested in how you feel. As indicated, I want an argument based on logic and/or facts.

So, you could try to argue that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, or else you could try to claim that the premises are contrary to facts.

If you're uncertain as to what any of the premises say, I can clarify.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Available evidence strongly suggests that our experience of conscious mind is an activity of neural networks.....

That is a lie.

There is nothing that connects the latest fad "neural networks" to the phenomena of consciousness, the phenomena of an active living mind.

Neural networks can at most organize electricity.

To the brain electricity elicits a reflex.

The most a neural network could explain is a reflex.

It could never explain the phenomena of a mind experiencing the color blue.

 

[untermensche]

Jung's notion of synchronicity (meaningful coincidences) has a specific meaning with Jung.

The term has a different meaning for quantum physicists.

I use the term for the brain based on it's root "to synchronize": To cause to occur or operate at the same time.

One thing seems clear. For a consciousness to arise from the workings of a brain a great deal of activity must be synchronized.

To have an effect there must be controlling mechanisms of activity.

The brain creates synchronicity of activity and a consciousness arises from it.

A delicate yet stable synchronicity.

 

[fromderinside]

Thank you to discuss the following argument, its two premises and its validity.

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.
EB

Thank you to restrict yourself to facts and logic.
EB

Replace 'may' with 'is' then your conclusion may hold together if what the premises state are true or, better, replace 'is' with 'may' since it cannot be said that consciousness or mind are actually physical things. I also contest the notion that the state of neurons determines anything since actions are processes not states. It has to be what neurons are doing rather than what is the condition of those joint neurons at any instant.

Your first premise is conditional on both knowing and knowing all as I read it. Also there is no specificity at to the state of which neurons in the brain.

So wishy washy at best, more likely useless as an argument since persons have specified and demonstrated robustly identified particular neuron groups upon which decisions are made without specifying what the decisions actually are except through statistical implication.

So perhaps one needs to go further by specifying particular neurons which make decisions supported by confirmation that such activity generates actions confirming decisions.

I've over analyzed you premices beyond recognition primarily because your premises are much too vague.

Other than that it's a ho hum HS exercise. Nothing remotely interesting in the speculations which have been empirically bandied about from at least the time of Sherrington who actually proposed the causal connection between neurons for information communication.

I think someone may have to copy my post in theirs for Speakpigeon to read it since he says he's got me on ignore.

 

[DBT]

Available evidence strongly suggests that our experience of conscious mind is an activity of neural networks, that conscious mind is in no way independent from that activity. That it is this underlying neural network activity that determines the expression of conscious mind, therefore the decisions that are made and the actions that are taken.

The conclusion - ''Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person'' - appears to fail to take into account the significance of this underlying neural activity, implying that it is the conscious mind that somehow, autonomously, determines what someone does.

You appear to be unfamiliar with what is very basic formal logic or perhaps you don't understand what the premises say.

I take it that the conclusion you don't like. But I'm not interested in how you feel. As indicated, I want an argument based on logic and/or facts.

So, you could try to argue that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, or else you could try to claim that the premises are contrary to facts.

If you're uncertain as to what any of the premises say, I can clarify.
EB

I made a valid comment on the premise expressed in your OP - ''Could our actions be decided by our conscious mind?'' - so if you cannot understand what I said, as indicated by your ignorant response, there is obviously nothing I could possibly say to enlighten you. In your own way you are no better than our Mr Untermensche.

A hint: your conclusion does not follow from your premises....as I have already both pointed out, and explained why.

 

[DBT]

Available evidence strongly suggests that our experience of conscious mind is an activity of neural networks.....

That is a lie.

Something is not necessarily true because you assert it. You do a lot of asserting.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Available evidence strongly suggests that our experience of conscious mind is an activity of neural networks, that conscious mind is in no way independent from that activity. That it is this underlying neural network activity that determines the expression of conscious mind, therefore the decisions that are made and the actions that are taken.

The conclusion - ''Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person'' - appears to fail to take into account the significance of this underlying neural activity, implying that it is the conscious mind that somehow, autonomously, determines what someone does.

You appear to be unfamiliar with what is very basic formal logic or perhaps you don't understand what the premises say.

I take it that the conclusion you don't like. But I'm not interested in how you feel. As indicated, I want an argument based on logic and/or facts.

So, you could try to argue that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, or else you could try to claim that the premises are contrary to facts.

If you're uncertain as to what any of the premises say, I can clarify.
EB

I made a valid comment on the premise expressed in your OP - ''Could our actions be decided by our conscious mind?'' - so if you cannot understand what I said, as indicated by your ignorant response, there is obviously nothing I could possibly say to enlighten you. In your own way you are no better than our Mr Untermensche.

A hint: your conclusion does not follow from your premises....as I have already both pointed out, and explained why.

Right, that's going to be breast-feeding but let's go through your initial post in details.

Available evidence strongly suggests that our experience of conscious mind is an activity of neural networks,

On vocabulary, you say here "activity" where I use "state". Some people seem to have a hung-up on this but they shouldn't. An activity is just a succession of states in time if there is such a thing as "continuous time", and a state is just what the activity reduces to at a point in time, assuming there are such a thing as zero-dimensional "points in time". In other words, an activity is just a succession of states only if time is a succession of points in time. So, my "state" is more conservative, less metaphysical, than your "activity". If your agree with "activity", you have to agree with "state". "State" should be good enough for you, and I can accept it as well. I know the state I am in, but I certainly don't know any activity. That being said, once you agree with "state", you can move on and replace it with "activity", that's not my concern.

On substance, I don't believe there is anything even close to "available evidence strongly suggesting" this. Premise 1 just broadly assumes it "may" be true "for all we know", which just means there is no evidence, even very weak evidence, to the contrary. So, it's reasonable, rational, to accept this as a premise, and I think it could be used for example as hypothesis for proper scientific research.

So, here we clearly disagree on whether premise 1 is known to be true, which is apparently your view, or, as I more prudently accept myself, merely acceptable as a rational hypothesis. But is you think premise 1 is known to be true, then you should certainly accept it as a rational hypothesis.

I repeat premise 1 here for convenience:

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;

So, this part of your initial comment doesn't seem to constitute any substantial criticism at all.

that conscious mind is in no way independent from that activity.

Here again, what you want to claim here is logically entailed by premise 1: If A is B, then A is not independent of B. So, if a conscious mind is the state (or the activity) of a group of neurons, then a conscious mind is not independent from a group of neurons. That should go without me having to explain such trivially obvious evidence.

So, again, this apparently doesn't constitute any substantive criticism of the argument. It just shows you have serious difficulties with parsing logical sentences and/or English sentences.

That it is this underlying neural network activity that determines the expression of conscious mind,

Ah, now, this is, on the face of it, certainly contradictory to premise 1. This is saying in effect that a conscious mind is somehow something ontologically apart from the activity of any neural network (or group of neurons, to be more general). This effectively contradicts premise 1's idea that a conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons, since premise 1 logically entails that a conscious mind is not anything apart from a group of neurons.

Now, I think I can safely assume that despite appearances your words are not really meant to carry any ontological meaning. I will assume therefore that you don't really mean to say that there are actually two ontologically separate things, i.e. neurons (group, network, set etc.) and the activity of the said neurons. This would in effect be a substance dualism à la Descartes and so I think it's only charitable to assume your words have implications way beyond what you really mean. Again, this only shows your English skills are poor or your logic is faulty.

So, on this point, assuming this charitable interpretation, let me explain premise 1 again. Premise 1 says that a conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons. If so, neurons are not "underlying" anything conscious and a conscious mind isn't the "expression" of any group of neurons, unless you would want to say that a proton is the expression of a proton and that a proton is what is underlying the expression of a proton.

So, this part of your post just doesn't make sense and I can't interpret it in any way as a meaningful, let alone substantive, criticism of the premise. Possibly, you could try to rephrase if that could help.

That it is this underlying neural network activity that determines the expression of conscious mind, therefore the decisions that are made and the actions that are taken.

Again, if a conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons, the distinction you insist on here doesn't make any sense. This is obviously either a problem you have parsing English and/or logical expressions, or possibly some hardcore materialist ideological hung-up.

So, again, this bit doesn't carry any substantive criticism.

The conclusion - ''Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person'' - appears to fail to take into account the significance of this underlying neural activity, implying that it is the conscious mind that somehow, autonomously, determines what someone does.

Again, you seem to fail to interpret correctly what premise 1 says. Premise 1 assumes that a conscious mind may be the same thing as a group of neurons. Talking to you is like talking to a Stalinist. You may want to spend your next holiday in Putin's Russia. May be they have some rehabilitation centre for the old camarade having difficulties adjusting to modern life.

So, overall, no substantial point. Just confusion across the board. I already explained how you could try to proceed, but I guess this will be in vain.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Available evidence strongly suggests that our experience of conscious mind is an activity of neural networks.....

That is a lie.

Something is not necessarily true because you assert it. You do a lot of asserting.

I only assert absolute truths that cannot be questioned.

Like, the absolute truth I must do something with my mind to get my arm to move as a I chose.

And the absolute truth my arm will not move as I chose until I do something with my mind to move it.

Absolute truths.

What do you offer?

Absolutely nothing. Some worship of "research" that explains none of it.

 

[DBT]

I made a valid comment on the premise expressed in your OP - ''Could our actions be decided by our conscious mind?'' - so if you cannot understand what I said, as indicated by your ignorant response, there is obviously nothing I could possibly say to enlighten you. In your own way you are no better than our Mr Untermensche.

A hint: your conclusion does not follow from your premises....as I have already both pointed out, and explained why.

Right, that's going to be breast-feeding but let's go through your initial post in details.

Available evidence strongly suggests that our experience of conscious mind is an activity of neural networks,

On vocabulary, you say here "activity" where I use "state". Some people seem to have a hung-up on this but they shouldn't. An activity is just a succession of states in time if there is such a thing as "continuous time", and a state is just what the activity reduces to at a point in time, assuming there are such a thing as zero-dimensional "points in time". In other words, an activity is just a succession of states only if time is a succession of points in time. So, my "state" is more conservative, less metaphysical, than your "activity". If your agree with "activity", you have to agree with "state". "State" should be good enough for you, and I can accept it as well. I know the state I am in, but I certainly don't know any activity. That being said, once you agree with "state", you can move on and replace it with "activity", that's not my concern.

This makes absolutely no difference to what I said. Your distinction is irrelevant to the point I made.

On substance, I don't believe there is anything even close to "available evidence strongly suggesting" this.

Of course there is. The evidence for a causal relationship between brain state/activity being found in neuroscience, research, experiments, case studies, lesions, etc.

So, here we clearly disagree on whether premise 1 is known to be true, which is apparently your view, or, as I more prudently accept myself, merely acceptable as a rational hypothesis. But is you think premise 1 is known to be true, then you should certainly accept it as a rational hypothesis.

You can disagree, but you are clearly wrong about the availability of evidence that supports brain agency;

Eg;
On the neurology of morals
''Patients with medial prefrontal lesions often display irresponsible behavior, despite being intellectually unimpaired. But similar lesions occurring in early childhood can also prevent the acquisition of factual knowledge about accepted standards of moral behavior.''

''Reaction time (RT) is the elapsed time between the presentation of a sensory stimulus and the subsequent behavioral response. RT is often used in experimental psychology to measure the duration of mental operations, an area of research known as mental chronometry. The behavioral response is typically a button press but can also be an eye movement, a vocal response, or some other observable behavior.''

I repeat premise 1 here for convenience:

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;

So, this part of your initial comment doesn't seem to constitute any substantial criticism at all.

That part is fine.

Here again, what you want to claim here is logically entailed by premise 1: If A is B, then A is not independent of B. So, if a conscious mind is the state (or the activity) of a group of neurons, then a conscious mind is not independent from a group of neurons. That should go without me having to explain such trivially obvious evidence.

It is your conclusion - as I have already mentioned - that is the problem. Your conclusion implies more than is allowed by your premises. In fact your conclusion implies/imparts a degree of autonomy to the states and conditions described in your premises....as I said in my initial response.

Your conclusion appears to suggest something along the lines of Mr Untermensches belief in autonomy of mind.

If you did not intend this implication, the way you phrased your conclusion is at fault.

So, again, this apparently doesn't constitute any substantive criticism of the argument. It just shows you have serious difficulties with parsing logical sentences and/or English sentences.

Oh, right, you yourself being immaculate, flawless in every way, you could never be at fault. Every sentence perfectly composed, flawless logic, impeccable grasp of language...no doubt about that, eh, EB?

 

[steve_bank]

Thank you to discuss the following argument, its two premises and its validity.

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.
EB

Thank you to restrict yourself to facts and logic.
EB

We are all conditioned by experience and knowledge from birth. The question is wheteher or not we can make a toatly unconditioned response. I do not know if we can in general.

If I say cola soda one of two major brands will come to mind in most people. Pepsi and Coke. Coffee shop = Starbucks and so on.

On a given day why do you put on white socks instead of black? If you buy a new car why pick how A chevy looks over a Toyota? We choose in the context of images we have buried in our brain. The clothes you wear are chosen by the inage they project, an image crafted by marketing and advertising.

What you perceive as conscious mind is conditioned by the subconscious.

Karma is the mental causal chains of thoughts from conditioning that leads us to distress.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Right, that's going to be breast-feeding but let's go through your initial post in details.



On vocabulary, you say here "activity" where I use "state". Some people seem to have a hung-up on this but they shouldn't. An activity is just a succession of states in time if there is such a thing as "continuous time", and a state is just what the activity reduces to at a point in time, assuming there are such a thing as zero-dimensional "points in time". In other words, an activity is just a succession of states only if time is a succession of points in time. So, my "state" is more conservative, less metaphysical, than your "activity". If your agree with "activity", you have to agree with "state". "State" should be good enough for you, and I can accept it as well. I know the state I am in, but I certainly don't know any activity. That being said, once you agree with "state", you can move on and replace it with "activity", that's not my concern.

This makes absolutely no difference to what I said. Your distinction is irrelevant to the point I made.

On substance, I don't believe there is anything even close to "available evidence strongly suggesting" this.

Of course there is. The evidence for a causal relationship between brain state/activity being found in neuroscience, research, experiments, case studies, lesions, etc.

So, here we clearly disagree on whether premise 1 is known to be true, which is apparently your view, or, as I more prudently accept myself, merely acceptable as a rational hypothesis. But is you think premise 1 is known to be true, then you should certainly accept it as a rational hypothesis.

You can disagree, but you are clearly wrong about the availability of evidence that supports brain agency;

Eg;
On the neurology of morals
''Patients with medial prefrontal lesions often display irresponsible behavior, despite being intellectually unimpaired. But similar lesions occurring in early childhood can also prevent the acquisition of factual knowledge about accepted standards of moral behavior.''

''Reaction time (RT) is the elapsed time between the presentation of a sensory stimulus and the subsequent behavioral response. RT is often used in experimental psychology to measure the duration of mental operations, an area of research known as mental chronometry. The behavioral response is typically a button press but can also be an eye movement, a vocal response, or some other observable behavior.''

I repeat premise 1 here for convenience:

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;

So, this part of your initial comment doesn't seem to constitute any substantial criticism at all.

That part is fine.

Here again, what you want to claim here is logically entailed by premise 1: If A is B, then A is not independent of B. So, if a conscious mind is the state (or the activity) of a group of neurons, then a conscious mind is not independent from a group of neurons. That should go without me having to explain such trivially obvious evidence.

So, it seems now that you agree with both premises. I had to go through this because your initial response didn't make that clear. If it's not clear, it's a muddle. So, let's assume for now that the muddle is cleared up. Let's assume you agree with both premises.

It is your conclusion - as I have already mentioned - that is the problem. Your conclusion implies more than is allowed by your premises. In fact your conclusion implies/imparts a degree of autonomy to the states and conditions described in your premises....as I said in my initial response.

Your conclusion appears to suggest something along the lines of Mr Untermensches belief in autonomy of mind.

If you did not intend this implication, the way you phrased your conclusion is at fault.

So, here you'll have to find better than that. If you agree with the premises but not with the conclusion, you have to identify what makes the argument invalid. For the moment, all I can see is that although you agree with both premises, you feel or you believe there is something wrong with the conclusion that makes it false. Well, that's too bad but that's your problem. Me, I'm only interested as to whether you can identify a flaw in the argument. In other words, how do you think the premises don't entail the conclusion.

So, again, this apparently doesn't constitute any substantive criticism of the argument. It just shows you have serious difficulties with parsing logical sentences and/or English sentences.

Oh, right, you yourself being immaculate, flawless in every way, you could never be at fault. Every sentence perfectly composed, flawless logic, impeccable grasp of language...no doubt about that, eh, EB?

Well, your last conclusion does show you don't seem to understand logic at all and how you should go about proving that a logical argument is wrong.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Thank you to discuss the following argument, its two premises and its validity.

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.
EB

Thank you to restrict yourself to facts and logic.
EB

We are all conditioned by experience and knowledge from birth.

The question is wheteher or not we can make a toatly unconditioned response.

We choose in the context of images we have buried in our brain.

The clothes you wear are chosen by the inage they project, an image crafted by marketing and advertising.

What you perceive as conscious mind is conditioned by the subconscious.

It seems you believe our conscious mind is conditioned by experience, knowledge, images buried in our brain, marketing, advertising and our subconscious.

That much is clear. However, that doesn't even begin to address the argument. So, either it's just a derail or maybe you could try addressing the argument as phrased and worded, and from a logical point of view? Do you disagree with any of the premises and if so, why? Do you agree with the premises but think they don't entail the conclusion, and if so why?

That sort of things.

Unless your conscious mind is too conditioned by your engineering training to touch logic even with a barge pole.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I only assert absolute truths that cannot be questioned.

Like, the absolute truth I must do something with my mind to get my arm to move as a I chose.

And the absolute truth my arm will not move as I chose until I do something with my mind to move it.

Absolute truths.

Could you explain the difference you see between truth simpliciter and absolute truth?

Oh, never mind.
EB

 

[untermensche]

No shit never mind.

 

[steve_bank]

For some people I know if I word a post a specific way it will likely result in that person crating a thread...

 

[DBT]

So, it seems now that you agree with both premises. I had to go through this because your initial response didn't make that clear. If it's not clear, it's a muddle. So, let's assume for now that the muddle is cleared up. Let's assume you agree with both premises.

What do you mean ''now'' I agree with your premises. I pointed out that it was conclusion that was flawed in my second post. It was also clear in my first post, but you didn't understand what I said.

So, here you'll have to find better than that. If you agree with the premises but not with the conclusion, you have to identify what makes the argument invalid. For the moment, all I can see is that although you agree with both premises, you feel or you believe there is something wrong with the conclusion that makes it false. Well, that's too bad but that's your problem. Me, I'm only interested as to whether you can identify a flaw in the argument. In other words, how do you think the premises don't entail the conclusion.

I pointed out the reasons why your conclusion does not follow your premises in my first post

Again, your conclusion: ''Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person'' - implies that conscious mind itself may have the ability to determine what somebody does


This contradicts your premises; ''somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain'' and ''What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain'' because your premises point to brain/neuronal agency for conscious mind, therefore brain state/condition/agency as the determining factor for how someones conscious mind is being expressed, including all consequent actions...not the conscious mind.

You can't have it both ways, that it is neural networks determine mind and action, and that mind inexplicable has the power of determining a persons actions

It also implies a division between the person and his mind and brain. There is no division. The brain is the sole agent of cognition and action.

Your conclusion is something that Mr Untermensche himself could have wrote, that being his belief.

Well, your last conclusion does show you don't seem to understand logic at all and how you should go about proving that a logical argument is wrong.
EB

Arrogance has always been your defining quality, but that's probably the least of your problems.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Again, your conclusion: ''Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person'' - implies that conscious mind itself may have the ability to determine what somebody does
This contradicts your premises; ''somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain'' and ''What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain'' because your premises point to brain/neuronal agency for conscious mind, therefore brain state/condition/agency as the determining factor for how someones conscious mind is being expressed, including all consequent actions...not the conscious mind.

You can't have it both ways, that it is neural networks determine mind and action, and that mind inexplicable has the power of determining a persons actions

It also implies a division between the person and his mind and brain. There is no division. The brain is the sole agent of cognition and action.

Your conclusion is something that Mr Untermensche himself could have wrote, that being his belief.

Never mind.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

EB is a creature of intellectual habit. Continually going in circles of conditioned responses.

Enlightenment is realizing your own conditioned responses.