Free Will And Free Choice

[untermensche]

At no time did I say or suggest that experience is not a real phenomenon. My contention is purely with your notion of mind being independent from the brain. A notion that has no foundation.

Good.

You understand all my points are based on data then.

I have never said the mind is totally independent.

The mind needs the brain to create it. The mind is a living "thing" that grows and changes. Like a leg.

But once created a mind can over time learn to control the body and thoughts. We learn to control our bodies very early when reflexive movement is replaced with purposeful movement.

It is done so early most do not realize they learned how to control their body with their mind very early. They just do it with ease.

Controlling our thoughts is much harder and many do not get very good at it.

Early learning is deep learning and many minds are indoctrinated to nonsense, like religion, at an early age and are never able to overcome the abuse.

Your claim that the mind is able to act independently of the brain, which is the point of contention, has no foundation.

My opinions are arrived at freely.

Nothing forces me to believe what I believe. You can't demonstrate I am being forced to believe anything.

That is just some delusion you have freely decided to accept.

You think your mind is not free and also can freely decide it is not free.

You think you can freely decide to follow scientific 'evidence' and not some other path but have no freedom.

You are ridiculous.

 

[untermensche]

Your criticisms don't really mean anything.

You think radiant energy has information about color hidden somewhere within it for Pete's sake.

The experience of color is absolute proof of two things.

Minds and experience.

Destroying your hand wave.

 Color#Physics_of_color

Electromagnetic radiation is characterized by its wavelength (or frequency) and its intensity. When the wavelength is within the visible spectrum (the range of wavelengths humans can perceive, approximately from 390 nm to 700 nm), it is known as "visible light".

Physics of color established as frequency and intensity of electromagnetic radiation. Physical basis of color vision are attributes of material responding to light in receptor.

Physical bases established for light color and perception of color.

Your claim there is no material basis for color, mind and experience are necessary humans to 'see' color.

My claim is evolution process provides basis for color perception your claim is magic provides basis for the mind having and experience being color.

Game over. Mind and experience not necessary for brain to process color.

I have said there is a correlation between the energy and the experience.

Only specific energy will cause the molecule to shift from cis to trans.

The entire so-called "visible spectrum" causes the molecule to shift.

So-called "white" light, energy that causes the brain to create the experience of "white", causes the molecule to shift.

So-called "red" light causes the molecule to shift.

The light is doing only one thing to the eye in the entire spectrum. It is causing a molecule to shift.

Surrounding proteins and other factors cause some of the molecules to respond better to certain frequencies within the spectrum and make those frequencies the most likely to trigger the molecular shift.

In this manner the nervous system can differentiate between stimuli. The nervous system has mechanisms based on the molecular shift that differentiate between the stimuli. The nervous system does not learn about frequencies to differentiate between the stimuli.

There is no mechanism for the nervous system to learn about what caused the molecular shift. You have no mechanism and think you are talking about reality.

We know what the energy is specifically doing and what happens to it. There is no possible way it is passing information about itself.

There is a correlation between frequencies and the created experience of color. That is how we can make correlations.

But the correlation does not mean in any way the energy has information about color.

Color is just a specific reflex to a specific stimuli.

 

[fromderinside]

All that and you still haven't acknowledged

Color#Physics_of_color

Electromagnetic radiation is characterized by its wavelength (or frequency) and its intensity. When the wavelength is within the visible spectrum (the range of wavelengths humans can perceive, approximately from 390 nm to 700 nm), it is known as "visible light".

To wit: untermensche wrote:

I have said there is a correlation between the energy and the experience.

Only specific energy will cause the molecule to shift from cis to trans.

The entire so-called "visible spectrum" causes the molecule to shift.

What you write is
1. handwaving, (anyone can say "this correlates with that without offering the specific evidence validating the claim. leaving what is essentially a falsehood standing because you so claim.

2, not true because energy reflects both intensity and frequency which are both known to be energy and it may be one or the other to which the molecule is responsive, not being the entire energy statement made when one says specific energy. Frequency and intensity can be separated by the number of molecules reacting to the input.

Four or five photons can recruit one molecule while twenty or thirty photons can recruit several molecules at the same receptor.

3. not true because the molecule is not sensitive to the entire frequency/intensity of the entire visible spectrum. The molecule is sensitive to a single or few closely related frequencies of the visible spectrum and the number of molecules responding increases as intensity at that frequency increases.

No soup for you.

A receptor can engage one or more neurons and those neurons all of which treat what they receive against several different receptor input from cells sensitive to other frequencies. Having different combinations of neurons responding to various other receptors sensitive to other parts of the spectrum permits the NS to build a model where neural in puts can resolve frequency differences.

 

[DBT]

Your claim that the mind is able to act independently of the brain, which is the point of contention, has no foundation.

My opinions are arrived at freely.

Nothing forces me to believe what I believe. You can't demonstrate I am being forced to believe anything.

That is just some delusion you have freely decided to accept.

You think your mind is not free and also can freely decide it is not free.

You think you can freely decide to follow scientific 'evidence' and not some other path but have no freedom.

You are ridiculous.

Your opinions are formed by your brain. Your unfounded opinion on independence of mind are formed through the neglect of your brain to account for the evidence that shows that all forms of mind experience, vision, hearing, thoughts, feelings decisions, etc, etc, are brain generated.

Meanwhile:
"And the electrical activity in these neurons is known to reflect the delivery of this chemical, dopamine, to the frontal cortex. Dopamine is one of several neurotransmitters thought to regulate emotional response, and is suspected of playing a central role in schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, and drug abuse," Montague says. "We think these dopamine neurons are making guesses at likely future rewards. The neuron is constantly making a guess at the time and magnitude of the reward."

"If what it expects doesn't arrive, it doesn't change its firing. If it expects a certain amount of reward at a particular time and the reward is actually higher, it's surprised by that and increases its delivery of dopamine," he explains. "And if it expects a certain level (of reward) and it actually gets less, it decreases its level of dopamine delivery."

Thus, says Montague, "what we see is that the dopamine neurons change the way they make electrical impulses in exactly the same way the animal changes his behavior. The way the neurons change their predictions correlates with the behavioral changes of the monkey almost exactly."



Whether one feels ''compelled'' or not, the decision making process itself is determined by the immediate condition of the neural circuitry (connectivity) and its own immediate information state (input and memory) in the instance of decision making (neural information processing), and not an act of conscious will. The latter is a consequence of the former condition, and therefore cannot be described as being 'free.'

 

[untermensche]

All that and you still haven't acknowledged

Color#Physics_of_color

Electromagnetic radiation is characterized by its wavelength (or frequency) and its intensity. When the wavelength is within the visible spectrum (the range of wavelengths humans can perceive, approximately from 390 nm to 700 nm), it is known as "visible light".

To wit: untermensche wrote:

I have said there is a correlation between the energy and the experience.

Only specific energy will cause the molecule to shift from cis to trans.

The entire so-called "visible spectrum" causes the molecule to shift.

What you write is
1. handwaving, (anyone can say "this correlates with that without offering the specific evidence validating the claim. leaving what is essentially a falsehood standing because you so claim.

Since there is no mechanism for the cell to know anything about the energy all there could possibly be is a correlation.

You have no valid points.

2, not true because energy reflects both intensity and frequency which are both known to be energy and it may be one or the other to which the molecule is responsive, not being the entire energy statement made when one says specific energy. Frequency and intensity can be separated by the number of molecules reacting to the input.

Energy HAS an intensity and frequency. Humans with their minds have discovered that.

But all the energy is doing is causing a molecule to shift.

It is not passing information about frequency or intensity.

You have no mechanisms.

You are living in a fantasy world.

Four or five photons can recruit one molecule while twenty or thirty photons can recruit several molecules at the same receptor.

Recruit? What are you talking about?

Have you ever studied even basic chemistry?

Photons do not recruit anything.

If they run into a molecule then possibly they can cause it to shift. Photons do nothing else in terms of vision.

Energy causes a molecule to shift which sets off a cellular reflex. End of story for energy.

3. not true because the molecule is not sensitive to the entire frequency/intensity of the entire visible spectrum. The molecule is sensitive to a single or few closely related frequencies of the visible spectrum and the number of molecules responding increases as intensity at that frequency increases.

You don't know what you're talking about.

The only way any energy has any effect on the nervous system is by causing the same molecule to shift.

There is not one molecule for part of the spectrum and another molecule for another part of the spectrum.

It is just one molecule that can shift.

The whole spectrum can make it shift.

A receptor can engage one or more neurons and those neurons all of which treat what they receive against several different receptor input from cells sensitive to other frequencies. Having different combinations of neurons responding to various other receptors sensitive to other parts of the spectrum permits the NS to build a model where neural in puts can resolve frequency differences.

Downstream processing of the (+,-) information about molecular transformations is complex.

But the information used to do all the processing is information about a molecular shift.

There is no information about the energy anywhere in the nervous system.

Color cannot possibly be a feature of energy.

It must be a creation of evolved brains.

Unbelievable the effort I must make to get you to see this absolute fact that is clear and easy to see.

There is no information about the energy anywhere in the nervous system.

There is no mechanism to get that information.

You simply don't care that you have no actual mechanisms.

 

[untermensche]

Your claim that the mind is able to act independently of the brain, which is the point of contention, has no foundation.

My opinions are arrived at freely.

Nothing forces me to believe what I believe. You can't demonstrate I am being forced to believe anything.

That is just some delusion you have freely decided to accept.

You think your mind is not free and also can freely decide it is not free.

You think you can freely decide to follow scientific 'evidence' and not some other path but have no freedom.

You are ridiculous.

Your opinions are formed by your brain. Your unfounded opinion on independence of mind are formed through the neglect of your brain to account for the evidence that shows that all forms of mind experience, vision, hearing, thoughts, feelings decisions, etc, etc, are brain generated

I know what stories you have faith in.

You don't need to keep saying the same thing over and over and saying nothing else. You are a one trick pony.

I understand you think your opinions have not been formed and forged by a rational mind but have been forced upon you, a puppet, to spew.

The only question is: Since you think you (a mind) are nothing but a puppet that is constantly tricked into thinking it is doing things and actually have no power to do anything why do you think any opinion you hold is valid?

 

[fromderinside]

knowing isn't on the table. The cell does, that's all. The cell is capable of responding to both frequency and duration-intensity of frequency because it has many frequency sensitive components so the cell can generate many impulses to a single instance of excitement. No human has discovered anything the cells have not signaled. Receptor cells have developed the capacity to respond to both.

It's not a single molecule it is many molecules where each can impart more information which can be transmitted just as have the other molecules transmitted. Not only that there are a family of receptive elements sensitive to various regions of visible spectrum that operate using essentially the same chemical processes except to different frequency. Within each receptor there are many different sensitive molecules tuned to to a specific frequency. In separate cells molecules sensitive to other frequencies are similarly processing in the eye. Each cell communicate to follow-on cells along with other receptor outputs. Different molecules different reasons for shift. Comparisons between different sensitivity responses provide information about which frequencies are where and how they compare to that or other receptors. Believe me combining and comparing outputs reveals differences in energy via nerve impulse.

Unreasoned denial isn't an argument. Comparator, adder and subtractor cells are abundant. There is no other reason for them to exist than to parse differences among responses. Since at cortex differences are sorted there is no need for a mind to invent what is already known.

Your absolute facts are actually total denial of the processing that goes on in the visual system resolving texture, color, intensity, shade, movement, and shape.

You are in total denial of what the nervous system does with nerve impulses have resolved from difference similarity the features impulses are delivering. You don't care about the research that has revealed these things.

I hear a beat forming from your posts. It goes like this. Dum, dumb dumb dum, de dumb de dumb de dumber, de dumbest. It is a pathetically sad beat. It reflects willful ignorance in favor of a pet unsupported, unsupportable actually, theory.

 

[untermensche]

Cells don't just respond.

They have specific mechanisms that respond to specific things.

Give me mechanisms to support your nonsense.

It's not a single molecule it is many molecules where each can impart more information which can be transmitted just as have the other molecules transmitted.

It is only one kind of molecule.

And the environment of the molecule definitely is involved in the ability to differentiate between level of energy, which correlates to frequency, and intensity.

The nervous system has ways to differentiate stimuli. Ways to respond differently to slightly different stimuli. But the energy is transforming a molecule, the same molecule, in every instance. And it is doing nothing else.

But differentiation of stimuli is not recognition of stimuli or recognition of features of the stimuli.

You can talk until you are blue in the face.

There is no mechanism for the nervous system to get any information about what caused the retinal molecules to shift.

 

[fromderinside]

There is no mechanism for the nervous system to get any information about what caused the retinal molecules to shift.

Not true. The sensory system, vision evolved to take advantage of light information in the environment so the being would be more likely to survive. The mechanism for taking advantage of light information is built into the visual system. It includes three or four different light responsive molecules in the retina which are used to send light information about color and intensity and processes to differentiate between which color processes are located where and how strong they may be along with where and hoe they are oriented in the visual field they exist. Among those processes are comparing, contrasting, and differentiating, orientation and color through analysis of relative location and originating cell.

 

[DBT]

Your opinions are formed by your brain. Your unfounded opinion on independence of mind are formed through the neglect of your brain to account for the evidence that shows that all forms of mind experience, vision, hearing, thoughts, feelings decisions, etc, etc, are brain generated

I know what stories you have faith in.

You don't need to keep saying the same thing over and over and saying nothing else. You are a one trick pony.

I understand you think your opinions have not been formed and forged by a rational mind but have been forced upon you, a puppet, to spew.

The only question is: Since you think you (a mind) are nothing but a puppet that is constantly tricked into thinking it is doing things and actually have no power to do anything why do you think any opinion you hold is valid?

Science is not faith. You ignore the science. I gave you many examples of science. You reject it all in favour of how you feel it works.


Meanwhile:


Principle 1.

''The brain is a physical system whose operation is governed solely by the laws of chemistry and physics. What does this mean? It means that all of your thoughts and hopes and dreams and feelings are produced by chemical reactions going on in your head (a sobering thought). The brain's function is to process information. In other words, it is a computer that is made of organic (carbon-based) compounds rather than silicon chips. The brain is comprised of cells: primarily neurons and their supporting structures. Neurons are cells that are specialized for the transmission of information. Electrochemical reactions cause neurons to fire.

Neurons are connected to one another in a highly organized way. One can think of these connections as circuits -- just like a computer has circuits. These circuits determine how the brain processes information, just as the circuits in your computer determine how it processes information. Neural circuits in your brain are connected to sets of neurons that run throughout your body. Some of these neurons are connected to sensory receptors, such as the retina of your eye. Others are connected to your muscles. Sensory receptors are cells that are specialized for gathering information from the outer world and from other parts of the body. (You can feel your stomach churn because there are sensory receptors on it, but you cannot feel your spleen, which lacks them.) Sensory receptors are connected to neurons that transmit this information to your brain. Other neurons send information from your brain to motor neurons. Motor neurons are connected to your muscles; they cause your muscles to move. This movement is what we call behavior.

In other words, the reason we have one set of circuits rather than another is that the circuits that we have were better at solving problems that our ancestors faced during our species' evolutionary history than alternative circuits were. The brain is a naturally constructed computational system whose function is to solve adaptive information-processing problems (such as face recognition, threat interpretation, language acquisition, or navigation). Over evolutionary time, its circuits were cumulatively added because they "reasoned" or "processed information" in a way that enhanced the adaptive regulation of behavior and physiology.''

 

[fromderinside]

Naw. To many words for the unwashed. Gotta be nine words or less one liners with words of no more than seven letters.

 

[untermensche]

There is no mechanism for the nervous system to get any information about what caused the retinal molecules to shift.

Not true. The sensory system, vision evolved to take advantage of light information in the environment so the being would be more likely to survive.

No it didn't.

Evolution made use of a random event that occurred within a cell.

Energy by sheer chance caused a molecule to shift in a cell.

And evolution made something from it.

Over millions of years.

It all depended on when you hunted.

If you worked during the day evolution turned radiant energy into a visual experience.

If you worked at night. like bats, evolution turned vibrating air into a visual experience.

The experience is totally created.

That is the only way an experience can be.

 

[untermensche]

I know what stories you have faith in.

You don't need to keep saying the same thing over and over and saying nothing else. You are a one trick pony.

I understand you think your opinions have not been formed and forged by a rational mind but have been forced upon you, a puppet, to spew.

The only question is: Since you think you (a mind) are nothing but a puppet that is constantly tricked into thinking it is doing things and actually have no power to do anything why do you think any opinion you hold is valid?

Science is not faith.

It sure is.

There was total faith in Newton until Einstein arrived and now there is faith in Einstein.

Scientific ideas are overturned all the time.

And you have no scientific ideas.

ALL you have is faith in bad conclusions. There is no scientific understanding of the mind. There is a sliver of understanding about how the brain creates the mind and a lot of bad stories based on prejudice.

You ignore the science.

All you give me is your faith in worthless bad conclusions based on no science. There is no objective understanding of the mind and you lie when you say there is. There is only partial understanding, very partial, of how the brain works and zero understanding of the mind. And just because a brain creates a mind that in no way means the mind does not have a nature we experience it as having. The mind is free until there is any real evidence to show otherwise. You have none since you have no objective understanding of the mind. The mind is not in any study you present. Except to give subjective reports. Science has no idea what it is objectively.

Conclusions like subjective guessing about the timing of invisible "urges" can ever be objective data.

Conclusions like: Even though the subject can shut any experiment down at any time and refuse to participate this data never seems to matter to the faithful.

Saying no and refusing to participate is the will in action.

Rejecting your bad unsupported ideas dressed up in worthless "studies" is the informed will in action.

Why did you ignore this question?

Since you think you (a mind) are nothing but a puppet that is constantly tricked into thinking it is doing things and actually have no power to do anything why do you think any opinion you hold is valid?

I know why you did not even try to answer.

It requires more than blind faith to answer. It requires the ability to freely think.

You come to a philosophy forum but show absolutely no interest in defending your faith.

You are the rude Christian butting in thinking they have answers but all they have is faith in stories.

 

[fromderinside]

There is no mechanism for the nervous system to get any information about what caused the retinal molecules to shift.

Not true. The sensory system, vision evolved to take advantage of light information in the environment so the being would be more likely to survive.

No it didn't.

Evolution made use of a random event that occurred within a cell.

Energy by sheer chance caused a molecule to shift in a cell.

And evolution made something from it.

Over millions of years.

It all depended on when you hunted.

If you worked during the day evolution turned radiant energy into a visual experience.

If you worked at night. like bats, evolution turned vibrating air into a visual experience.

The experience is totally created.

That is the only way an experience can be.

I wrote evolution. Whether it takes place via slight changes in one or many cells in each change that persists is called a step in evolution. I some cases it is about changes in cells, in others it is substitution of one group of cells and attributes by gene translocation or mutation via radiation or multiple gene replications or any of the of the known mechanisms for such change.

We are not sure how photosensitive material got into a receptor nor are we sure how that circumstance lead to an energy cascade to an action potential, We know that is what is going on now and we can trace that development across evolutionary time by comparing species and their genetic populations.

Yes it was an accident that vision sense developed, perhaps several times. However vision was probably inevitable determined by the nature of light interacting with the environment in which life exists and the lawful consistencies of the material world. In what we live and how we live it is totally determined by our time, place and path to the time and condition of what is around us. No creation story here. Just a damn good historical novel.

We can speculate about the conditions which lead to our evolution in retrospect guided by what we are finding from our study of the evolution of the earth and of life upon, above, beneath, it.

What you call experience is just another fortuitous adaptation of how we process and interact with what we sense. No magic thing. Just a very reasonable adaptations permitting narrative/visualization/sensing in process.

 

[untermensche]

No it didn't.

Evolution made use of a random event that occurred within a cell.

Energy by sheer chance caused a molecule to shift in a cell.

And evolution made something from it.

Over millions of years.

It all depended on when you hunted.

If you worked during the day evolution turned radiant energy into a visual experience.

If you worked at night. like bats, evolution turned vibrating air into a visual experience.

The experience is totally created.

That is the only way an experience can be.

I wrote evolution.

You wrote:

vision evolved to take advantage of light information

Vision evolved to make use of something light does. There is no light information involved.

We are not sure how photosensitive material got into a receptor

That's an understatement.

But it doesn't matter. We know beyond any doubt no information about light enters the nervous system. There is no mechanism.

We know what the light is doing.

It is not in any way passing information.

It is causing a molecule to shift. It is converted to molecular energy within a molecule that immediately stabilizes and loses a different amount of energy.

 

[fromderinside]

-nm

 

[DBT]

It sure is.

There was total faith in Newton until Einstein arrived and now there is faith in Einstein.

Scientific ideas are overturned all the time.

And you have no scientific ideas.

ALL you have is faith in bad conclusions. There is no scientific understanding of the mind. There is a sliver of understanding about how the brain creates the mind and a lot of bad stories based on prejudice.

You ignore the science.

All you give me is your faith in worthless bad conclusions based on no science. There is no objective understanding of the mind and you lie when you say there is. There is only partial understanding, very partial, of how the brain works and zero understanding of the mind. And just because a brain creates a mind that in no way means the mind does not have a nature we experience it as having. The mind is free until there is any real evidence to show otherwise. You have none since you have no objective understanding of the mind. The mind is not in any study you present. Except to give subjective reports. Science has no idea what it is objectively.

Conclusions like subjective guessing about the timing of invisible "urges" can ever be objective data.

Conclusions like: Even though the subject can shut any experiment down at any time and refuse to participate this data never seems to matter to the faithful.

Saying no and refusing to participate is the will in action.

Rejecting your bad unsupported ideas dressed up in worthless "studies" is the informed will in action.

Why did you ignore this question?

Since you think you (a mind) are nothing but a puppet that is constantly tricked into thinking it is doing things and actually have no power to do anything why do you think any opinion you hold is valid?

I know why you did not even try to answer.

It requires more than blind faith to answer. It requires the ability to freely think.

You come to a philosophy forum but show absolutely no interest in defending your faith.

You are the rude Christian butting in thinking they have answers but all they have is faith in stories.

A mantra of claims and proclamations while denying science. You are the one who gets rude and insulting whenever you get frustrated by your inability to support your claim of mind independence.

It is clear that you reject science while proclaiming your belief in autonomous mind, your dualism.

How many articles have I posted on experiments, results and analysis by researchers? Not once have you made an attempt at addressing anything that has been provided. You reject it all.

 

[untermensche]

One more evasion.

Who cares?

You've never once had anything to say.

 

[fromderinside]

- nm²

 

[DBT]

One more evasion.

Who cares?

You've never once had anything to say.

Evasion? You have been repeatedly asked to explain how mind, according to you, is able to operate independently from the brain....yet after all this time, still no response, only hand waving.

There lies your evasion.