Free Will And Free Choice

[fromderinside]

Just in case. Re:

Fitness has a starting impetus from the nature of the conditions with which it is confronted. Mutations are more likely at the periphery. Fitness works from proximal to distal, from stimulus input to stimulus response from one minor mutation to the next at a particular locus then the next relevant locus.

Before anyone goes off halfcocked the mutations I was describing were those taking place in the individual generated by extant environment, Using that I was attempting to illustrate a process whereby genetic variation and fitness progresses over generations within a being. Obviously mutations passing from one generation to the next take place primarily in male and female DNA. There structure and location of genes relative to primary and founder genes determine most of such genetic variation. Adapted mutation and direction of fitness still normally progresses relative to environment from receptor to neuron up existing pathways to cortex over time.

However on a second note the specific frequencies signaled by a single receptor merge with that of other visual receptors into a phototropic array at cortex and perhaps at other nuclei in ascending visual pathways which also retains receptor information.

I would never rule out a probable mechanisms for how evolution takes place given the number of possibilities of gene change mechanisms. Williams syndrome is an example of radical genetic change. It's not really viable but it does illustrate the extent to which a single genetic change can rewire many features of behavior and anatomy.

Nitall. I need my Nitol.

 

[untermensche]

What the brain does is mind. The brain generates both unconscious mind and conscious mind. Conscious mind is based on information acquired from the senses, memory integration enabling recognition, feelings and thought.

Any of these attributes of mind, sight, hearing, smell, thought, etc, etc, can be disrupted by specific changes to neural structures or chemical balance.

Mind, according to the given evidence, is a physical electro-chemical activity of a brain.

Abstract

''The unconscious mind is still viewed by many psychological scientists as the shadow of a “real” conscious mind, though there now exists substantial evidence that the unconscious is not identifiably less flexible, complex, controlling, deliberative, or action-oriented than is its counterpart. This “conscious-centric” bias is due in part to the operational definition within cognitive psychology that equates unconscious with subliminal. We review the evidence challenging this restricted view of the unconscious emerging from contemporary social cognition research, which has traditionally defined the unconscious in terms of its unintentional nature; this research has demonstrated the existence of several independent unconscious behavioral guidance systems: perceptual, evaluative, and motivational. From this perspective, it is concluded that in both phylogeny and ontogeny, actions of an unconscious mind precede the arrival of a conscious mind—that action precedes reflection.''

Blah blah blah.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

Answer the question.

Your question has been explained too many times to count. You ignore or reject any and every explanation, just to repeat the question. A question that shows that you have not understood the research or its implications, or you are just not willing to accept it.

Another hint on the nature of decision making: think about the role played by neural architecture and information exchange between cells and structures.

TOTAL DODGE.

You have proven yourself to be worthless.

You did that freely.

Don't blame your brain that is just trying to help a weak mind.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

 

[untermensche]

Why can't evolution extend to sensitivity to particular energy? Why must there be experience prior to their being color or sound. If a crystal resonates to a particular frequency why shouldn't that be a driver for the nature more central elements of the perceiving system.

The opsin mechanism does create a sensitivity to particular energy. The majority of EM energy does not cause a transformation of the opsin molecule. Only EM energy of a particular frequency causes a transformation. When the transformation occurs the opsin molecule does not know what caused the transformation or have any information about what caused the transformation. That is simply not possible. Heat could also have caused the transformation. Exposure to the right amount of energy causes the molecular transformation. And when the transformation takes place the cell has mechanisms that react to the transformation of the molecule. The cell is not reacting to the energy. The molecule is reacting to the energy. The cell is reacting to a molecular transformation. The cell does not know anything about what caused the transformation. The cell has binary information based on whether or not a molecular transformation has taken place or has not taken place. The binary information from millions of cells becomes a neural signal moving towards the brain. But there is not just one kind of opsin molecule. There is a class of these molecules and they differ in how much energy is needed to cause a transformation. This provides variation within the neural signal. The brain has mechanisms to convert these variations into different visual experiences. The visual experience is a creation based on binary neural information from cells in the eye. It is not an experience based on the energy that caused the transformation of the opsin molecule. The opsin molecule, the cell, and the brain have no information about the energy that caused the transformation. All the cell knows is when a molecular transformation has taken place. It has mechanisms that react to that. The cell can't possibly know what caused the molecular transformation. The brain can't get any information about what caused the molecular transformation. It can get a lot of binary information about whether or not a molecular transformation has occurred in millions of cells though. With this information the brain constructs the visual experience.

Color and sound are experiences. They do not exist as anything but as experiences. Color is an evolved reaction to binary information from many cells. It is not a reaction to light. The only thing that is a reaction to light is a molecular transformation. And all the cell knows is if a transformation has occurred. The brain does not react to light. It reacts to a binary coded neural signal based on whether or not a molecular transformation has taken place or not taken place. Color can't possibly be a reaction to light. The brain knows nothing about light.

I expect the first visual sensors just reported something in a direction relative to the being. From there more particular and specific capabilities were evolved permitting the classification of frequency and temperature and vibration and pressure at the receptor and at subsequent neural processes. That seems to be the evidence evolution of sight has provided for us.

The likely first step was the cells somehow making use of the opsin molecule and importing the molecule into the cell. Then by chance the opsin molecule migrated to a place where external energy could cause the transformation and then the cell evolved to make use of this transformation caused by external energy. There is no way for evolving cells to know what might react to external energy. Anything that happened happened by chance. And this all happened in water, in things that lived in water. Sunlight is not just visual light. It is heat energy too. Moving towards sunlight is also moving towards increased temperature.

The brain is not classifying frequencies. Frequency information is not passed to the opsin molecule. It is simply an either/or situation. Either the molecule transforms or it doesn't. How or why the transformation occurred is not known by the cell. The cell only knows that a transformation has occurred. The cell has binary information based on whether or not a transformation occurred or didn't occur. The cell does not have information about frequencies or information about the energy. The brain is classifying binary information somehow contained within a neural signal. The brain has evolved mechanisms that reflexively turn this binary coded neural information into experience. If you want to talk about a transducer the brain is an incredible complicated transducer that reflexively converts neural signals from sensory cells into experiences. The brain does more than that of course. But a main purpose of the brain is to convert neural information from peripheral cells into experiences. Avoiding the lion is more likely if you experience a representation of the lion. Finding food is more likely if you experience a representation of the food. But a yellow or red representation will make finding the food more likely than a green representation.

But saying the brain is not classifying frequencies does not mean an experience of color is not correlated to a certain frequency. The brain constructs color reflexively based on neural information. That neural information is correlated to a certain frequency. But not directly. It is an incidental correlation based on the properties of an opsin molecule as much as the properties of the energy that transforms it. The cell only knows if a transformation has occurred. We as humans know a specific frequency caused the transformation but the cell has no such understanding. The cell knows nothing about frequencies or anything about what caused the transformation. The transformation is just a switch. If it is turned on the cell reflexively reacts. Reacting to a transformation is not reacting to a frequency of energy. Since many things could cause the transformation and knowing a transformation has occurred does not mean you know what caused it. We as external humans know. But the cells have no knowledge of the energy. They only know about molecular transformations. And this is binary quantized information. It is (0 1) information. Either a transformation of the molecule occurred or it did not occur. That is not information about frequency but it is correlated to the frequency since the frequency is partially responsible for the information. The properties of the opsin molecule are also responsible for the binary information.

You have a situation where the combination of the properties of energy and the properties of a molecule create binary (+ or -) information. It is not just the properties of the energy that create the binary information. The information is not a transfer of information from the energy about itself to the cell.

Much of what we see is related to boundary light/dark transitions time transitions across segments of the visual field which are clearly evolved over very great periods of time.

On the other hand if only sensation of visible light - that band of EM frequencies with which materials can interact - is received there is no rationale for the development of an experience of color driving it's evolution. I find that a fatal flaw in your belief

"Seeing" is just everyday shorthand for "Having a visual experience". The mind is having a visual experience. It is experiencing a tree and a cow and a pickup truck. But the mind is experiencing a created representation of the tree, cow and truck, not the actual things themselves. Since minds can only experience created representations there is great freedom in how things can be represented. There is no purpose that I can think of in not representing the shape of objects accurately if you are a mobile animal that must avoid obstacles and predators and collect or hunt food. If you move through the trees not experiencing the shape of branches accurately will be fatal most of the time. There would be a self-correcting mechanism to experiencing shape. The better your brain represented shape the better you avoided obstacles, the better you could avoid predators, the more easily you could grasp and catch food. The better way to find food is to make it a bright color. If you by chance make the fruit yellow in the visual experience you will more likely find it. Finding the fruit will be a feedback mechanism based on the ease to find the fruit. Not based on any property of the fruit. Of course there would be many competing factors determining the fitness of a color experience. But the experience will be based on overall fitness of the randomly arising color experiences, not based on any property of light.

Much EM we only sense as heat relative to your body temperature. From those we get a sense of pain related to reaction of tissue damage signals within the nervous system and the sense of a general warmth or coolness sat the skin interface.

A final attempt to get your attention: The presence of sensors capable of responding to particular frequencies of light and their consistent perception by observers as akin to those frequencies leads one away from an experience based model.

The experience of temperature is a complicated topic. An internal temperature of 98 degrees is not perceptible but an external temperature of 98 degrees is experienced as very uncomfortable to most. The body needs to give off heat. When the external temperature rises to a certain point the body can't give off heat as well and the internal temperature begins to rise. That is called a fever when the body does it in response to infection. You get a high or low enough internal temperature and you are incapacitated. The regulation of internal temperature is also a complicated subject. I am not going to say more about it.

The consistent perception (experience) of color is due to the correlation between the frequency of energy and the cellular response. There is a correlation. That does not mean the energy directed the experience only that the energy is correlated with the experience. The cellular response in the eye is caused by a molecular transformation. What the cell knows is a transformation has occurred and it passes that information which is binary (+, -) information to the brain. Since the energy is what caused the transformation you always have both the energy and the transformation together. But the energy is not binary (+,-) information. It is not really information at all. It is energy. It causes a transformation. It does not transfer information. Whatever information the energy might possess it is all converted into either a yes or a no. Either a transformation occurs or a transformation does not occur. This binary information from millions of cells at once is the information the brain uses to create the visual experience. The brain does not use information about the energy to create the visual experience. The brain has no idea what created the binary information is receives. The brain reacts reflexively to it and creates a visual experience with pre-existing evolved mechanisms.

Second fitness is not an a priori criterion. A system does not explore comparative fitness selecting one over another by lottery. There is no mechanism with which a central process evolves trying this then that variable then this then that particular variable. One chance. Fail. Die.

A system cannot create an experience directed by external stimulation either. The external stimulation can only act as a hand pushing a switch. It can only cause a change that the cell can recognize. The stimulation cannot give the cell information about itself.

 

[fromderinside]

You do rattle on. Just a quick fact check. The particular frequency activation consists of molecule twisting which leads to depolarization along the receptor wall leading to change in surface voltage which leads to releasing transmitter substances toward ganglion cells. More or less capture leads to different sensitivities at each cell leading to a particular cell delivering a small population of related frequencies depending on number photon strike transmissions. Cells are arranged spatiotemporally along the ascending pathway where correlations among frequencies are established resulting in a pretty clear spectral mapping in cortex. No need for experience inventing.

The cells don't need to know anything about what the are the specific colors since repeated or continuous transmission yielding the same result builds up a composite spectrum which can serve as reference to color this or that receptor signals.

Let me provide an acoustic analogy. Sound strikes the eardrum causing energy to be passed down the cochlea IAC frequency. Initially the observer reports click, then fuzzy tone, then later clear tone That process takes about 300 ms.

Similarly a light flash is perceived as white, further stipulation from the same source leads to a reddish or bluish or yellowish identification until finally after the signal has been on for about three to four tenths of a second the observer reports a pretty precise report on color.

Both of these processes are consistently reported by psychophysics researchers. Standards are set resulting from this kind of work. It is pretty clear that sound recognition and color recognition are multi-sample processes which reflect tuning of the sensory system to full perception in about a 300-400 milliseconds.

That doesn't sound much like an experience creating anything. It is exactly what responsive systems do whether mechanical, optical or physiological. If something creates something from what is sent then that something should persist when stimulation persists.

If something is responsively tuned one should be able to fatigue the tuning mechanism since unlimited energy is not available. That's what happens in all sensory systems studied to date. At some point receptors or transmitters become unresponsive. It's called sensory fatigue. A responsive system a will report differently after overstimulation than it does during beginning or ongoing stimulation. What appears as sensed becomes either black, noise or absence of sensation. Walla. All living sensory systems report fatigue suggestive very strongly they are responsive in nature.

Your argument just doesn't hold up.

All of your "can't" arguments involve presumption cells are acting rather than reporting. Senses are reporting instruments not generating instruments. All physical tests bear this out.

The systems aren't creating anything. They are doing and reporting everything as responsive beings.

Cells don't "know" anything. They are biological machines composed of organic molecules that can be replicated by manufacturing via DNA code. Because DNA has mechanical weak points, makes mistakes and can be impacted by radiation, DNA is pliable via reproduction and survival. What happens is variations in DNA changes behaviors of the machines. Those that survive continue those that don't don't. Natural selection. Machines don't create they produce IAC instructions and report information IAC instructions. The creation part is the selective part not the functioning part.

Humans insist on will as a matter of conceit. We are merely biologic machines doing as we were designed by chance to do in our human niches. When, say in thousand years, man makes machines as well as evolution has done those machines will also develop conceit.

All stars (create) radiate different temperatures based on mass and composition. All stars report those temperatures as color which can be verified photographically. We know that energy coming from stars will reflect the dominant temperature of those emissions as color.

 

[untermensche]

You do rattle on. Just a quick fact check. The particular frequency activation consists of molecule twisting which leads to depolarization along the receptor wall leading to change in surface voltage which leads to releasing transmitter substances toward ganglion cells. More or less capture leads to different sensitivities at each cell leading to a particular cell delivering a small population of related frequencies depending on number photon strike transmissions. Cells are arranged spatiotemporally along the ascending pathway where correlations among frequencies are established resulting in a pretty clear spectral mapping in cortex. No need for experience inventing.

In English.

Energy causes an opsin molecule to transform from a trans configuration to a cis configuration. That's all the energy does.

The transformation does not cause depolarization in itself.

The cell has mechanisms that respond to the transformation and they cause the depolarization.

Transmitter is released when the cell depolarizes.

Basically energy hits a switch in the eye.

It does not give the eye any information.

There is no possible way for the visual experience to contain any information from the energy.

 

[DBT]

Your question has been explained too many times to count. You ignore or reject any and every explanation, just to repeat the question. A question that shows that you have not understood the research or its implications, or you are just not willing to accept it.

Another hint on the nature of decision making: think about the role played by neural architecture and information exchange between cells and structures.

TOTAL DODGE.

You have proven yourself to be worthless.

You did that freely.

Don't blame your brain that is just trying to help a weak mind.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

So says the Master Dodger who ignores evidence...the man who rejects the work of those who are qualified in the field, instead adopting New Age Woo....magic as an explanation of decision making: which according to the evidence is clearly and undeniably the work of the information processing activity of a brain.

 

[fromderinside]

...The particular frequency activation consists of molecule twisting which leads to depolarization along the receptor wall leading to change in surface voltage which leads to releasing transmitter substances toward ganglion cells.

In English.

Energy causes an opsin molecule to transform from a trans configuration to a cis configuration. That's all the energy does.

The transformation does not cause depolarization in itself.

The cell has mechanisms that respond to the transformation and they cause the depolarization.

Uh, not all. It' a bit more complicated. From: Phototransduction: How the Brain Converts Light into Neural Signals https://talkfreethought.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=916839



Your cis trans bit is only the first step in a cascade

A photoisomerization is only the first step in a biochemical cascade, a series of self-triggered biochemical events, called phototransduction. ....

So the greater the light intensity, the more hyperpolarized the photoreceptor becomes. As the flux (number of photons per second per unit area) decreases as light intensity is reduced, the concentration of cGMP recovers through a different enzymatic pathway, the number of open cGMP gated ion channels goes up, and the photocurrent is restored as the inside of the membrane becomes more positive again. The neuron in this case is being depolarized. The effect of a hyperpolerizing photocurrent is a decrease in the amount of neurotransmitters being secreted by the photoreceptors at the chemical connection, the synapse, with the bipolar cell layer of neurons they are in contact with.

The cell doesn't do this the components in the cell perform this cascade as a matter attaining polarity changes resulting in neural transmitter release and communication of photic event with bipolar cells ...

It's really better to include entire references so others don't get the idea you are editing to suit your preferences.

Does the above change the fact that what is sent is a signal from specific photoreceptive cell that it has received light energy to which it is sensitive. Put that cell in concert with similar specific reports from other receptor cells and we wind up with a photo-topic representation of the event ongoing, the identification of relations between locations and sensitivities of cells resulting in availability of a complete pallet of what color (frequencies) of light the eye can display.

Again you resort to cell doing. Cells are machines. They aren't causal agents. They are parts of a biological system that processes information about what's going on inside and outside the being and executes from it's behavioral catalog instructions for behavioral response consequent to what is communicated.

That the behavioral options available are large does mean agency is achieved.

A machine by any other name is a machine.

 

[untermensche]

That is exactly what I said.

The conversion of an opsin molecule does not cause the polarization in itself. Other cellular mechanisms create the polarization.

The salient point in all of this is the brain has no information about energy.

All the cell knows is if a transition has taken place. All the brain knows is the neural signal it gets from the cells.

In no way could the visual experience be directed by external energy.

There is no possible mechanism for that to happen.

The brain creates a color based on neural information using evolved mechanisms.

That is all the brain could possibly do.

You are spewing a bunch of voodoo nonsense. The brain has no understanding of any aspect of energy

Does the above change the fact that what is sent is a signal from specific photoreceptive cell that it has received light energy to which it is sensitive.

The cell is not responding to the energy. A molecule within the cell is reacting to the energy. A class of molecules actually. This gives a variation to the signal. The cell is only responding to the molecular change within it. The cell has no information about the energy. The cell cannot possibly know anything about what caused the molecular transition. At any time in history. The brain has no information about the energy. Color cannot be the brain trying to reproduce some aspect of the energy. Without any information from the energy that is impossible.

To an evolving cell a molecular transition caused by external energy is a miracle. It is just something that happens. There is no possible way for a cell to ever have any understanding or knowledge about what caused the transition.

We as humans understand. Some are trying to pass human understanding about wavelength to the cell. To a molecule. Voodoo biology.

A machine by any other name is a machine.

The brain works reflexively.

The mind has some freedom if it chooses to use it.

The mind knows about things like justice.

The brain does not know anything. It reacts according to it's nature.

 

[untermensche]

Your question has been explained too many times to count. You ignore or reject any and every explanation, just to repeat the question. A question that shows that you have not understood the research or its implications, or you are just not willing to accept it.

Another hint on the nature of decision making: think about the role played by neural architecture and information exchange between cells and structures.

TOTAL DODGE.

You have proven yourself to be worthless.

You did that freely.

Don't blame your brain that is just trying to help a weak mind.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

So says the Master Dodger who ignores evidence...the man who rejects the work of those who are qualified in the field, instead adopting New Age Woo....magic as an explanation of decision making: which according to the evidence is clearly and undeniably the work of the information processing activity of a brain.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

What is this the tenth time you have rudely ignored this question?

I am asking you a specific question.

I do not believe you have any physiological knowledge about the mind.

 

[fromderinside]

All that is needed is the receptor and it's function. Everything else comes by way of referring to previous similar input.

The process of increasing fidelity of perception is a tough barrier for anyone to overcome with some secondary description of what is going on to explain. That is to say do your best to tell us how perception of stimuli gets better with continued exposure to input when that 'creation' is resident in something called experience, disappears when receptors are fatigued, carries information about spectral and change within channel which parallels that of continuous constant signal perception. Yet when those changes delivered separately are perceived differently.

Sorry. A central answer to the existence of color and sound are just not physically possible nor evolutionarily achievable.

No one said the brain 'knows'. The being knows. When are you going to get around your illogical circularity. One is a being. A being understanding she thinks demonstrates nothing other than a capability of a being. It certainly isn't self proof of existence nor self proof of any thing beyond being a being. Now, doesn't that statement look silly? So why do you insist on it?

Given my view of mans relation to information man believes he knows all because what he know is is all that he knows because he senses incompletely.

Sensing incomplete information he only knows what he senses which he believes is all.

Given that is all that is known to him he makes decisions based on the incomplete information formed outcomes previously had.

He has many choices which have little relation to reality. Ergo he exists in a self contained reality in which he has many choices. freedom of choice is a fiction.

 

[DBT]

So says the Master Dodger who ignores evidence...the man who rejects the work of those who are qualified in the field, instead adopting New Age Woo....magic as an explanation of decision making: which according to the evidence is clearly and undeniably the work of the information processing activity of a brain.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

What is this the tenth time you have rudely ignored this question?

I am asking you a specific question.

I do not believe you have any physiological knowledge about the mind.

Your question has been addressed time and time again, descriptions have been provided, articles referenced and evidence supplied. You either don't understand what is being said, or you just refuse to consider the implications of brain agency.

Instead of considering the research, you dismiss it. Instead of dealing with what is being pointed out and described, you put on a display of mock outrage in the pretense that your question is being ignored.

Your wording ''freedom to make truth judgements'' is a Red Herring because decision making is enabled not by ''freedom of will'' but the work of neural networks.

You don't get to choose your neural architecture.

How hard is - ''whatever you can or cannot do'' or ''whatever your decision making ability happens to be, it is the neural networks of your brain brain that enables our abilities'' - to grasp?

 

[untermensche]

So says the Master Dodger who ignores evidence...the man who rejects the work of those who are qualified in the field, instead adopting New Age Woo....magic as an explanation of decision making: which according to the evidence is clearly and undeniably the work of the information processing activity of a brain.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

What is this the tenth time you have rudely ignored this question?

I am asking you a specific question.

I do not believe you have any physiological knowledge about the mind.

Your question has been addressed time and time again, descriptions have been provided, articles referenced and evidence supplied. You either don't understand what is being said, or you just refuse to consider the implications of brain agency.

Instead of considering the research, you dismiss it. Instead of dealing with what is being pointed out and described, you put on a display of mock outrage in the pretense that your question is being ignored.

Your wording ''freedom to make truth judgements'' is a Red Herring because decision making is enabled not by ''freedom of will'' but the work of neural networks.

You don't get to choose your neural architecture.

How hard is - ''whatever you can or cannot do'' or ''whatever your decision making ability happens to be, it is the neural networks of your brain brain that enables our abilities'' - to grasp?

You have never once addressed the question.

Never once approached addressing the question.

It is a question about the mind.

There is no research about the mind.

Nobody has a clue where it is or what it is or what it can do.

I am freely asking it again because you have not addressed it. You have dismissed it with the wave of an unknowing hand.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

You are making claim after claim that things are true. What gives you this ability?

You actually have to think beyond the absurd little box you have placed yourself in to answer it. No known research will help you or can guide you answer it. Answering the question requires this thing we call freely thinking.

We experience freely thinking about so many things it is very easy.

Some freely think Trump is a god.

Nobody forced them to.

 

[untermensche]

All that is needed is the receptor and it's function. Everything else comes by way of referring to previous similar input.

Since the receptor only can possibly respond to one thing, whether or not a molecular conversion has taken place, what do you think the brain can create over time from this binary bit of information?

The brain does not have access to any information from the energy.

So if the brain responds it is responding to millions of (+,-) bits of information. The only information the brain can possibly get is about whether or not a molecular conversion has taken place.

I say the brain constructs a color from this very complex binary information. It is the only information the brain has.

What do you say the brain does with this binary information?

Instead of considering the research, you dismiss it.

If a researcher claims the brain has information about energy they are deluded and lost.

If they claim color is not a construction they are deluded and lost.

Sorry. A central answer to the existence of color and sound are just not physically possible nor evolutionarily achievable.

With something that creates thoughts and pain of course it is.

You are skirting on the so-called "hard" problem of consciousness. Simply the problem of experience. Experience does not seem to be a phenomena we can explain in any way.

How many researchers are looking at the brain and asking where and how is experience created?

How hard is - ''whatever you can or cannot do'' or ''whatever your decision making ability happens to be, it is the neural networks of your brain brain that enables our abilities'' - to grasp?

Exactly what I'm saying.

The brain has evolved mechanisms that convert (+,-) information about a molecular conversion into the experience of color.

Reflexively.

Color only exists as a brain created experience.

 

[fromderinside]

 Signal Detection Theory would blow your mind untermenscehe​.

 

[fromderinside]

Fortunately for humankind we don't have only one receptor nor do we become newborns every time we open our eyes. There are millions and millions of receptors responding to incoming light energy. Sight is desirable since it can process many different frequencies of light, organize the various attributes of that light, light/dark/ VIBGYOR, intensity/brightness, shade/contrast, moving or still, etc, providing the human with a color video over a span of time containing billions of data points each episode.

I can see thousands of ways evolutionary processes could drive this feast of data to relevance for getting by. None of them require the interposition of a mind, self, consciousness, etc.

So when Newton says color is not inherent in light he is not quite right since color and light frequency are just about onto. Vision receptors are differentially sensitive to frequencies of light. The mass of frequencies, over time, can be sorted out by processing them in the brain with respect to location, shape, receptor, and organized in to a color table within memory which remains accessible to other vision processes.

It is in the repetitive massive seeing by these millions of receptors over time that color/frequency is realized and catalogued by sensory processes. I'm pretty sure that at birth humans have had enough experience of color in uterus through photons produced by activity of growth and work striking receptors to pretty clearly establish such a construct as a frequency/color table in appropriate memory. As I put it, you'd have to accept mind is a historical construct to get to creation.

It is not about the creation of color out of whole cloth by a the mind.

That's ridiculous since mind is only a convenient construct through which humans discuss what they do.

It has no material value what so ever.

Attempting to do so would be infinite chasing of shadows obscuring material evidence of how the brain does what it does which is lame enough - thank you very much.

 

[untermensche]

 Signal Detection Theory would blow your mind untermenscehe​.

The cell has mechanisms that respond to a molecular transition.

The cell has no mechanism to respond to energy or know anything about energy.

You have voodoo biology and nothing more.

There are millions and millions of receptors responding to incoming light energy.

The only thing that responds to energy is a molecule. It is a simple trans to cis transition. No magic information about energy is contained within a molecular transformation.

The cell responds to a change in the configuration of a molecule, not energy.

Voodoo biology.

 

[untermensche]

That's ridiculous since mind is only a convenient construct through which humans discuss what they do.

You are a mind.

The word "mind" is a construction but humans didn't invent the mind.

Some understand they are a mind.

What do you think you are with all your claims to truth and knowledge?

How do you have a truth unless you can freely make judgements and decisions about truth?

Is something forcing you to believe what you believe?

 

[DBT]

Your question has been addressed time and time again, descriptions have been provided, articles referenced and evidence supplied. You either don't understand what is being said, or you just refuse to consider the implications of brain agency.

Instead of considering the research, you dismiss it. Instead of dealing with what is being pointed out and described, you put on a display of mock outrage in the pretense that your question is being ignored.

Your wording ''freedom to make truth judgements'' is a Red Herring because decision making is enabled not by ''freedom of will'' but the work of neural networks.

You don't get to choose your neural architecture.

How hard is - ''whatever you can or cannot do'' or ''whatever your decision making ability happens to be, it is the neural networks of your brain brain that enables our abilities'' - to grasp?

You have never once addressed the question.

Never once approached addressing the question.

It is a question about the mind.

There is no research about the mind.

Nobody has a clue where it is or what it is or what it can do.

I am freely asking it again because you have not addressed it. You have dismissed it with the wave of an unknowing hand.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

You are making claim after claim that things are true. What gives you this ability?

You actually have to think beyond the absurd little box you have placed yourself in to answer it. No known research will help you or can guide you answer it. Answering the question requires this thing we call freely thinking.

We experience freely thinking about so many things it is veriy easy.

Some freely think Trump is a god.

Nobody forced them to.

There you go again, just ignoring or dismiss all explanation, all research, all analysis by experts, all evidence for brain agency, architecture and information condition.....and just repeat your unfounded objections and Strawman questions like a Mantra.

The mind is whatever a brain does. Which is why minds and behavioural patterns differ between species and individuals.

 

[DBT]

 Signal Detection Theory would blow your mind untermenscehe​.

The cell has mechanisms that respond to a molecular transition.

The cell has no mechanism to respond to energy or know anything about energy.

You have voodoo biology and nothing more.

There are millions and millions of receptors responding to incoming light energy.

The only thing that responds to energy is a molecule. It is a simple trans to cis transition. No magic information about energy is contained within a molecular transformation.

The cell responds to a change in the configuration of a molecule, not energy.

Voodoo biology.

Explain your theory of mind. Explain the relationship between brain and mind, how mind interacts with brain, the composition of mind, it's origin, etc, with evidence to support your model.

 

[untermensche]

The mind is whatever a brain does...

Says who?

That is religion. Not science.

The brain has no idea what truth is.

Only minds know about truth.