Free Will And Free Choice

[fromderinside]

The idea that you have no mind but also have intellectual positions that involve concepts is a clear contradiction. Concepts and ideas only exist in the mind. Show me the study that has found the cells of the brain where ideas reside. The mind is proposed because ideas exist and ideas are not physical entities.

The idea that the construct of 'mind' a subjective, completely devoid of material evidence supporting it's existence outside of self reporting is necessary to explore thought is ludicrous. The being is equipped with every capability and attribute mind is supposed to present to the being in brain, nervous system, and articulation capabilities.

The physical being thinks, decides, behaves, navigates, acquires, etc. No mind necessary. What the being does with what is there occurs through the being's use of information with has been shown to be consistent with the principles of thermodynamics.

Taking the position that one has mind to defend existence of free will is a non starter. There is no need for other than material structures and activity to describe being. The argument for free will is over since the being can be explained by the laws of nature in concert with the principle of determinism with respect to whatever the being is and does.

That there is uncertainty in our understanding of the laws of nature is not due to there being any doubt about the central position of determinism to laws of nature. That has to do with our inability to resolve the limits of nature. Everything about us operates IAC with determinism.

 

[untermensche]

The idea that the construct of 'mind' a subjective, completely devoid of material evidence supporting it's existence outside of self reporting is necessary to explore thought is ludicrous.

The very notion of "subjective" implies a mind.

What is being subjective if not some thing we call a "mind"?

What has a subjective outlook besides some thing we call a "mind"?

What the hell you mean by "subjective"?

The physical being thinks

The mind (the things actually having this conversation) experiences thoughts.

And the freedom of the mind is shown when the mind thinks.

Taking the position that one has mind to defend existence of free will is a non starter.

One is a mind. Not one has a mind.

One is a mind experiencing thoughts and using the will to drive thoughts around.

What do you call the thing advocating all you are advocating?

Only free minds care about ideas and care about being right.

 

[DBT]

Yet untermensche's position is not supported by science or evidence....which he has repeatedly rejected.

Your position is not supported by any science.

Wild guesses about the timing of invisible events is not science.

Science does not have the slightest clue what the mind is or what it is doing.

You say whatever comes to mind in defense of your incoherent beliefs about the nature of mind/consciousness. I have provided more than enough information, experiments, case studies, the consequences of chemical and/or structural damage to the brain, science, expert analysis, etc, evidence that clearly supports consciousness as being an activity of a brain.

You, someone who is not qualified, simply ignore or dismiss all of this and just assert your own unfounded notions, over and over as if you are making a point. You are not....you really have nothing.

Meanwhile, the actual research;
Decoding the neuroscience of consciousness
''In the 1990s, neuroscientist Melvyn Goodale began to study people with a condition called visual form agnosia. Such individuals cannot consciously see the shape or orientation of objects, yet act as though they can. “If you hold up a pencil in front of them and ask them if it’s horizontal or vertical, they cannot tell you,” says Goodale, founding director of the Brain and Mind Institute at Western University in London, Canada. “But remarkably, they can reach out and grab that pencil, orienting their hand correctly as they reach out to make contact with it.”

''Newly developed techniques for measuring brain activity are enabling scientists to refine their theories about what consciousness is, how it forms in the brain and where the boundaries lie between being conscious and unconscious. And as our understanding of consciousness improves, some researchers are beginning to build strategies for its manipulation, with the possibility of treating brain injuries, phobias and mental-health conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and schizophrenia.''

 

[fromderinside]

The very notion of "subjective" implies a mind.

What is being subjective if not some thing we call a "mind"?

What has a subjective outlook besides some thing we call a "mind"?

What the hell you mean by "subjective"?

The mind (the things actually having this conversation) experiences thoughts.

And the freedom of the mind is shown when the mind thinks.

One is a mind. Not one has a mind.

One is a mind experiencing thoughts and using the will to drive thoughts around.

What do you call the thing advocating all you are advocating?

Only free minds care about ideas and care about being right.

I believe the following about subjective. It's one thing for one to talk about one's own thinking as 'what's on my mind'. It's quite another to build a construct to explain one's view of self determination or will. In either case it's all about a construct to give life to something that is actually just part of being to justify one's view of self determination.

It is completely invalid to say "I think therefore I am." Completely self referent. Of no material value whatever. Dualism is a just finding difference from what is observed in other things by one looking, using oneself, to find self uniqueness.

Yeah, the guy who gave us algebra was full of himself.

 

[DBT]

Yet untermensche's position is not supported by science or evidence....which he has repeatedly rejected.

If you don't want to die you have to become a ghost. I'm not a ghost expert, woo is not one of my strong suits, but I don't think ghosts have physical brains. They have ghost brains. So that ought to settle things in unter's favor.

I guess that some folks just love mysticism and magic over science, research and evidence. Why that is so may be a whole field of study in human psychology.

 

[fromderinside]

I really believe T.G.G. Moody has his tongue firmly planted in his cheek in that post.

 

[untermensche]

The very notion of "subjective" implies a mind.

What is being subjective if not some thing we call a "mind"?

What has a subjective outlook besides some thing we call a "mind"?

What the hell you mean by "subjective"?

The mind (the things actually having this conversation) experiences thoughts.

And the freedom of the mind is shown when the mind thinks.

One is a mind. Not one has a mind.

One is a mind experiencing thoughts and using the will to drive thoughts around.

What do you call the thing advocating all you are advocating?

Only free minds care about ideas and care about being right.

I believe the following about subjective.

Yes. You (a mind) have a subjective opinion.

It's one thing for one to talk about one's own thinking as 'what's on my mind'. It's quite another to build a construct to explain one's view of self determination or will.

Nobody builds a construct.

It is apparent.

I need a new refrigerator.

How do I get one?

I can sit and wait till one shows up or do something. I freely choose to not sit and wait and to do something.

It is completely invalid to say "I think therefore I am." Completely self referent. Of no material value whatever.

What is making this claim to have truth?

No shit it is self referent to say MY existence is proven by MY experience of thoughts. But it is universal because everyone can say it.

Things that don't exist can't experience thoughts. They can't experience anything. They don't exist.

 

[untermensche]

You cannot move me from the absolute truth that I experience thoughts.

Any gibberish you utter will not move me from this absolute truth.

My experiences are absolute truths.

You are something that can be doubted.

 

[untermensche]

I really believe T.G.G. Moody has his tongue firmly planted in his cheek in that post.

That's why I had to smack some sense into him.

 

[untermensche]

Yet untermensche's position is not supported by science or evidence....which he has repeatedly rejected.

If you don't want to die you have to become a ghost. I'm not a ghost expert, woo is not one of my strong suits, but I don't think ghosts have physical brains. They have ghost brains. So that ought to settle things in unter's favor.

I guess that some folks just love mysticism and magic over science, research and evidence. Why that is so may be a whole field of study in human psychology.

You call thinking "mysticism".

You call examining the consequences of ideas "not looking at the research".

At a science fair you may have some value.

In a philosophy forum you have none.

You are claiming that the command to move the hand is given before the mind gives the command and that the mind only thinks it is giving the command.

Therefore something besides the mind is giving the command for the hand to move.

Therefore this thing, not the mind, knows all about the experiment and what is expected by the researchers and complies with the desires of the researchers and commands the hand to move when the researchers want the command to be given.

You are proposing a second mind that understands all about the experiment and tricks the apparent mind into thinking it is giving the command.

And you call me a duelist?

 

[DBT]

I guess that some folks just love mysticism and magic over science, research and evidence. Why that is so may be a whole field of study in human psychology.

You call thinking "mysticism".

You call examining the consequences of ideas "not looking at the research".

At a science fair you may have some value.

In a philosophy forum you have none.

You are claiming that the command to move the hand is given before the mind gives the command and that the mind only thinks it is giving the command.

Therefore something besides the mind is giving the command for the hand to move.

Therefore this thing, not the mind, knows all about the experiment and what is expected by the researchers and complies with the desires of the researchers and commands the hand to move when the researchers want the command to be given.

You are proposing a second mind that understands all about the experiment and tricks the apparent mind into thinking it is giving the command.

And you call me a duelist?

I call your vague references and unsupported claims, being nothing more than a series of proclamations, an example of mysticism. You reject science and research in favour of mystical conjecture.

Meanwhile: Scientists discover a new class of memory cells for remembering faces
''Our brains have sensory cells, which process the faces that we see, and memory cells dedicated to storing data from person encounters. But until now, a hybrid neuron capable of linking vision to memory -- and explaining how we recall familiar faces -- remained elusive.''

''Now, newresearch reveals a class of neurons in the brain's temporal pole region that links face perception to long-term memory. It's not quite the apocryphal grandmother neuron -- rather than a single cell, it's a population of cells that collectively remembers grandma's face. The findings, published in Science, are the first to explain how our brains inculcate the faces of those we hold dear.''

''Now, newresearch reveals a class of neurons in the brain's temporal pole region that links face perception to long-term memory. It's not quite the apocryphal grandmother neuron -- rather than a single cell, it's a population of cells that collectively remembers grandma's face. The findings, published in Science, are the first to explain how our brains inculcate the faces of those we hold dear.''

 

[untermensche]

Yeah.

Now you simply label what you can't deal with "vague references".

There is nothing vague about saying only a free entity can make truth judgements.

You simply have no way to deal with such ideas.

In a philosophy forum you have no use.

As to your research?

It shows nothing about the mind. Explains nothing about the mind.

It doesn't explain memory or give us an understanding of memory.

It is just a study that shows one area of the brain active when a monkey sees a face.

No shit some place is active when you see and recognize a face.

That says nothing about a mind making truth judgements.

Monkeys can recognize faces.

Either that is true or it is not true.

It takes freedom of the mind to know.

You are using your free mind to not make any arguments. You have none.

You are using your free mind to pretend you don't have a free mind that thinks it has intelligence and can read a research paper and make free judgements about it.

You telling me you think a study is valid is you also telling me you think you can make free judgements, as opposed to forced conclusions, about what is true and what is not.

You are hilarious.

Screaming simultaneously "I have the freedom to judge if some research is valid!!!" and "I have no freedom."

 

[DBT]

Yeah.

Now you simply label what you can't deal with "vague references".

It's an observation. You make proclamations but fail to explain or support them, which requires evidence, studies, results, analysis. All of which you dismiss whenever actual science goes against you (practically all the time).

For instance:

The neural basis of consciousness.

'The findings of this study could also help unravel the neural basis of consciousness.

“The most fundamental characteristic of consciousness is its limited capacity. You only can hold a very few thoughts in mind simultaneously,” Miller says. These oscillations may explain why that is: Previous studies have shown that when an animal is holding two thoughts in mind, two different ensembles oscillate in beta frequencies, out of phase with one another.

“That immediately suggests why there’s a limited capacity to consciousness: Only so many balls can be kept in the air at the same time, only a limited amount of information can fit into one oscillatory cycle,” Miller says.

Studies have shown that patients with schizophrenia have reduced beta oscillations, suggesting that disruptions of these oscillations may be involved in such neurological disorders.''

 

[untermensche]

Your link doesn't work.

Now with your will, try to fix it.

The brain is the slave to the mind.

The brain works ceaselessly to give the mind information, like the recognition of faces.

When you recognize a face it is the mind that has the recognition, not the brain.

You see a person from a distance. The brain alerts the mind that there is a possible face. Memory says that face looks familiar. But when you get close the mind says "I don't know that face".

The mind makes the final decision with it's connections to memory.

The brain has no clue a face is out there. It just has evolved mechanisms that reflexively treat possible face information from the cells in the retina in a special way and mechanisms to alert the mind of a possible face.

Thus we see a face on the moon.

The brain reflexively is telling the mind there is a face on that moon.

The mind knows better.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I guess that some folks just love mysticism and magic over science, research and evidence. Why that is so may be a whole field of study in human psychology.

You call thinking "mysticism".

You call examining the consequences of ideas "not looking at the research".

At a science fair you may have some value.

In a philosophy forum you have none.

You are claiming that the command to move the hand is given before the mind gives the command and that the mind only thinks it is giving the command.

Therefore something besides the mind is giving the command for the hand to move.

Therefore this thing, not the mind, knows all about the experiment and what is expected by the researchers and complies with the desires of the researchers and commands the hand to move when the researchers want the command to be given.

You are proposing a second mind that understands all about the experiment and tricks the apparent mind into thinking it is giving the command.

And you call me a duelist?

I call your vague references and unsupported claims, being nothing more than a series of proclamations, an example of mysticism. You reject science and research in favour of mystical conjecture.

Meanwhile: Scientists discover a new class of memory cells for remembering faces
''Our brains have sensory cells, which process the faces that we see, and memory cells dedicated to storing data from person encounters. But until now, a hybrid neuron capable of linking vision to memory -- and explaining how we recall familiar faces -- remained elusive.''

''Now, newresearch reveals a class of neurons in the brain's temporal pole region that links face perception to long-term memory. It's not quite the apocryphal grandmother neuron -- rather than a single cell, it's a population of cells that collectively remembers grandma's face. The findings, published in Science, are the first to explain how our brains inculcate the faces of those we hold dear.''

''Now, newresearch reveals a class of neurons in the brain's temporal pole region that links face perception to long-term memory. It's not quite the apocryphal grandmother neuron -- rather than a single cell, it's a population of cells that collectively remembers grandma's face. The findings, published in Science, are the first to explain how our brains inculcate the faces of those we hold dear.''

That must be a common trait among animals. Think of the penguin who returns from the sea to its colony of ten thousand raucous chicks and goes right to it's chick, who can make out its voice from thousands.

We look at zebras or robins and see clones. But each one is unique and recognizable as an individual if we're one of them. They all look different and sound different, just like humans.

But I suppose we're to assume it's all because of woo. Yes, that's very mature, bring in the woo and pass it around.

 

[untermensche]

That must be a common trait among animals. Think of the penguin who returns from the sea to its colony of ten thousand raucous chicks and goes right to it's chick, who can make out its voice from thousands.

We look at zebras or robins and see clones. But each one is unique and recognizable as an individual if we're one of them. They all look different and sound different, just like humans.

But I suppose we're to assume it's all because of woo. Yes, that's very mature, bring in the woo and pass it around.

There is nobody talking about any woo except for you.

You having a mind that can make decisions is not woo.

It is what you do with your mind everyday.

 

[DBT]

Your link doesn't work.

Now with your will, try to fix it.

It takes more than mere will to make a decision and perform an action. You neglect the sequence of cognitive events; information input via the senses, transmission and processing of information, etc, prior to it being made available to the conscious mind.

You should know this by now. Yet, apparently your filter of faith prevents understanding of the process.

The brain is the slave to the mind.

You ignore all evidence to the contrary, that the mind is whatever a brain is doing.

 

[untermensche]

Your link doesn't work.

Now with your will, try to fix it.

It takes more than mere will to make a decision and perform an action.

Nope.

That's all it takes for a mind to do something.

You simply will your arm to move and it moves. You don't will it to move and it doesn't

The brain is the slave to the mind.

You ignore all evidence to the contrary, that the mind is whatever a brain is doing.

Experience is evidence to the individual mind and therefore you are the one ignoring the evidence.

There is no scientific understanding of the mind. We just know, since we are a mind, it exists.

Brains create minds.

Minds grow and learn and "know" and believe and are mistaken and are corrupted and are clouded by emotions.

Minds are living things.

Not ghosts.

 

[DBT]

Nope.

That's all it takes for a mind to do something.

You simply will your arm to move and it moves. You don't will it to move and it doesn't

You are still making unfounded claims that ignore the mechanisms of thought, decision making and movement.

Meanwhile:


A parietal-premotor network for movement intention and motor awareness
''It is commonly assumed that we are conscious of our movements mainly because we can sense ourselves moving as ongoing peripheral information coming from our muscles and retina reaches the brain.

Recent evidence, however, suggests that, contrary to common beliefs, conscious intention to move is independent of movement execution per se. We propose that during movement execution it is our initial intentions that we are mainly aware of.

Furthermore, the experience of moving as a conscious act is associated with increased activity in a specific brain region: the posterior parietal cortex. We speculate that movement intention and awareness are generated and monitored in this region. We put forward a general framework of the cognitive and neural processes involved in movement intention and motor awareness.''

 

[fromderinside]

I'm back.

That's all it takes for a mind to do something.

You simply will your arm to move and it moves. You don't will it to move and it doesn't

Experience is evidence to the individual mind and therefore you are the one ignoring the evidence.

There is no scientific understanding of the mind. We just know, since we are a mind, it exists.

Brains create minds.

Minds grow and learn and "know" and believe and are mistaken and are corrupted and are clouded by emotions.

Minds are living things.

Not ghosts.

Nine lines of vaporware. Mary a hint of evidence of regarding any of those statements.