Human Instinct and Free Will

[untermensche]

That has nothing to do with free will.

Free will is the ability to make free choices within the constraints of reality.

Talking about things removed from reality has nothing to do with free will.

Free will isn't constrained because I can't flap my arms and fly.

"within the constraints of reality"... hmm

That's a foreign concept to you?

It is perfectly "real" to be asked or not asked to move one's finger... this is not the same thing as being free to do 'impossible' things.

This barely makes sense, I'll just say being able to move your finger at "will" is a "real" phenomena. Try it.

Are you free to have $200,000 available in your savings account? do it.

Could you possibly be this stupid? What do you not understand about the phrase "Within the constraints of reality"?

 

[ryan]

Unfortunately, freedom means freedom from preplanned intentions, freedom from your earlier self. But then again, some mistakes have better outcomes; that's how we learn.

You appear to be setting your own terms and definitions. What does ''freedom from your earlier self'' even mean?

If mind/self/consciousness is an expression of brain state/condition in any given instance in time, as it appears to be for the given reasons, earlier self is no less an expression of brain state/condition than is current self or future self.

Have you never changed your mind or be conflicted?

Anyways, the quantum cognition research shows how easily one can change answers just by changing the order of questions.

 

[DBT]

What does ''freedom from your earlier self'' even mean?

Are you serious?

Humans have a psychology.

They can suffer from PTSD.

Your reply appears to have little or no relationship to what I said. Selfhood is an ever changing process even though there are traits that persist for a lifetime. You cannot be free from yourself.

 

[DBT]

You appear to be setting your own terms and definitions. What does ''freedom from your earlier self'' even mean?

If mind/self/consciousness is an expression of brain state/condition in any given instance in time, as it appears to be for the given reasons, earlier self is no less an expression of brain state/condition than is current self or future self.

Have you never changed your mind or be conflicted?

Anyways, the quantum cognition research shows how easily one can change answers just by changing the order of questions.

We are constantly changing, moment to moment, day to day, year to year, decade to decade. Change is the only constant,

And as I've already said numerous times, all information input acts upon the system and thereby changing it, thereby changing your mind. You (the brain) may make a decision one moment, only to regret it the next when a fresh memory or input adds new information.

Which is why decision making has nothing to do with 'free will' or even 'will' - which is the drive or impulse to act and not the agency of decision making or actions.

 

[DBT]

This barely makes sense, I'll just say being able to move your finger at "will" is a "real" phenomena. Try it.

Please, please, not that again. It's been shown through numerous experiments that action initiation begins microseconds before awareness of intention to act....in response to some sort stimuli.


You may challenge me to move my finger and moments later I feel the urge to either move my finger or say ''don't be silly'' and resist. I (conscious awareness) don't know what the response will be until it emerges into consciousness, microseconds later, prior to that point, neural information processing either initiated the action, suppressed the action and formed the conscious intention relating to what the response is going to be.

That is the sequence of events beginning with input and ending with the action.

 

[ryan]

Have you never changed your mind or be conflicted?

Anyways, the quantum cognition research shows how easily one can change answers just by changing the order of questions.

We are constantly changing, moment to moment, day to day, year to year, decade to decade. Change is the only constant,

And as I've already said numerous times, all information input acts upon the system and thereby changing it, thereby changing your mind. You (the brain) may make a decision one moment, only to regret it the next when a fresh memory or input adds new information.

But this quantum cognition model uses QM math for the superposition of possible outcomes. And then an actual working model using QM was developed. Face it; this might be the reality.

Which is why decision making has nothing to do with 'free will' or even 'will' - which is the drive or impulse to act and not the agency of decision making or actions.

The will, I suppose, would be the outcome of the decision-making process. Once the decision has been made, I would think that it is the will that executes the decision. I don't see that being a problem for my argument though.

 

[Juma]

But this quantum cognition model uses QM math for the superposition of possible outcomes. And then an actual working model using QM was developed. Face it; this might be the reality.

Yea that would be awesome. But it is as believable as if the ants is directing the airplane traffic: QM works on a much much lesser scale.

 

[DBT]

We are constantly changing, moment to moment, day to day, year to year, decade to decade. Change is the only constant,

And as I've already said numerous times, all information input acts upon the system and thereby changing it, thereby changing your mind. You (the brain) may make a decision one moment, only to regret it the next when a fresh memory or input adds new information.

But this quantum cognition model uses QM math for the superposition of possible outcomes. And then an actual working model using QM was developed. Face it; this might be the reality.

Which is why decision making has nothing to do with 'free will' or even 'will' - which is the drive or impulse to act and not the agency of decision making or actions.

The will, I suppose, would be the outcome of the decision-making process. Once the decision has been made, I would think that it is the will that executes the decision. I don't see that being a problem for my argument though.

Quantum superposition, entanglement or wave function is itself not an information processor or decision maker.

Our conscious will is a part of the process of cognition and only a part of the process of execution. The conscious will to act is not the beginning of the process.

quote;
''Whenever we plan, imagine, or observe someone else performing an action, our own motor system responsible for representing and executing the action are also involved. The higher motor areas, the supplementary motor area and premotor cortex, are thought to play an important role in planning and maintaining readiness for action prior to movement initiation. The inferior parietal cortex and premotor cortex are key parts of a "mirror neuron" system that is thought to link the visual processing of observed actions and the motor system, important for understanding and imitating others' actions.

Research in my lab focuses on the brain processes crucial for planning and representing actions prior to initiation, for imitating actions, and for perceiving and understanding the actions of others.

Attention and the readiness for action.

Activity of premotor and supplementary motor areas begins up to 2 s prior to voluntary movement. We are examining the cognitive and "intentional" processes that precede the initiation of voluntary movement, in readiness for action.

Perception and imitation of others' actions.

The human mirror system is thought to provide a mechanism for directly matching observed actions to equivalent motor representations in the motor system, linking visual and motor areas. We are examining how the observation of others' actions can influence our own motor system and our performance of movement, and how our own plans for action can influence our visual processing and perception of others' actions.''

 

[untermensche]

This barely makes sense, I'll just say being able to move your finger at "will" is a "real" phenomena. Try it.

Please, please, not that again. It's been shown through numerous experiments that action initiation begins microseconds before awareness of intention to act....in response to some sort stimuli.

You may challenge me to move my finger and moments later I feel the urge to either move my finger or say ''don't be silly'' and resist. I (conscious awareness) don't know what the response will be until it emerges into consciousness, microseconds later, prior to that point, neural information processing either initiated the action, suppressed the action and formed the conscious intention relating to what the response is going to be.

That is the sequence of events beginning with input and ending with the action.

A Hard Scientific Quest: Understanding Voluntary Movements

In this review we have focused on the hard scientific questions involved in understanding the seemingly effortless generation of voluntary movements. With respect to the peripheral motor system (spinal cord and muscles), we have pointed out the many difficulties associated with controlling millions of muscle fibers partitioned across dozens of muscles, and described how, through spinal cord modularity, the cns has found a simplifying solution. However, no answers have yet been found to explain how the cortical motor areas of the frontal lobe construct the spatiotemporal patterns of neural activity necessary to activate the spinal cord, enabling it to execute a specific movement. Certainly, we do know that high-level movement goals and attention-related signals are represented in the premotor areas and that the spread of these signals to the primary motor cortex, possibly already primed by afferent information about limb posture, will somehow trigger the retrieval of motor memories and, subsequently, the formation of a signal to the spinal cord. But the detail of this complicated process, which critically involves coordinate and variable transformations from spatial movement goals to muscle activations, needs to be elaborated further. Phrased more fancifully, we have some idea as to the intricate design of the puppet and the puppet strings, but we lack insight into the mind of the puppeteer.

The full text of the article can be downloaded here:

https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/96348

Your erroneous dogmatic conclusions of the Libet experiment have been refuted many times. Here's just one example.

This conclusion assumes that the readiness potential is the signature of the brain planning and preparing to move. “Even people who have been critical of Libet’s work, by and large, haven’t challenged that assumption,” says Aaron Schurger of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research in Saclay, France.

One attempt to do so came in 2009. Judy Trevena and Jeff Miller of the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, asked volunteers to decide, after hearing a tone, whether or not to tap on a keyboard. The readiness potential was present regardless of their decision, suggesting that it did not represent the brain preparing to move. Exactly what it did mean, though, still wasn’t clear.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-stand-in-the-way-of-free-will/

Here's a detailed philosophical refutation.

Does the brain “initiate” freely willed processes? A philosophy of science critique of Libet-type experiments and their interpretation

Abstract

In the extensive, recent debates on free will, the pioneering experiments by Benjamin Libet continue to play a significant role. It is often claimed that these experiments demonstrate the illusory nature of freely willed actions. In this article, we provide a detailed analysis and evaluation of Libet’s experiments from a philosophy of science perspective. Our analysis focuses on Libet’s central notion of the “initiation” of freely willed processes by the brain. We examine four interpretations of the notion of initiation: in terms of a cause, a necessary condition, a correlation, and a regular succession. We argue that none of these four interpretations can be supported by the design and results of Libet’s experiments. In addition, we analyze two recent Libet-type experiments. Our general conclusion is that neither Libet’s original experiments nor later Libet-type experiments can justify the claim that allegedly freely willed processes are in fact initiated by the brain

http://tap.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/15/0959354312460926.full.pdf+html

I certainly don't blame you for your dogmatic conclusions of Libet-type experiments since it is a general dogma shared by many neuroscientists and nothing you would be capable of coming up with yourself.

 

[Malintent]

"within the constraints of reality"... hmm

That's a foreign concept to you?

It is perfectly "real" to be asked or not asked to move one's finger... this is not the same thing as being free to do 'impossible' things.

This barely makes sense, I'll just say being able to move your finger at "will" is a "real" phenomena. Try it.

Are you free to have $200,000 available in your savings account? do it.

Could you possibly be this stupid? What do you not understand about the phrase "Within the constraints of reality"?

we're going in circles... gonna get off the merry-go-round in a sec. but first, I would like to point out that the FDIC insures cash deposit accounts up to $200,000 (that is why I chose that number). I'll refrain from calling you stupid, as you did I, but it seems you think it is outside of reality to deposit $200,000 into a saving account. Can't imagine what you might be thinking..
exercise your "free will" and make it so. Or, agree that "free will" means "able to do the things you are able to do", and nothing more (or, in other words, "exactly nothing").

 

[ryan]

But this quantum cognition model uses QM math for the superposition of possible outcomes. And then an actual working model using QM was developed. Face it; this might be the reality.

Which is why decision making has nothing to do with 'free will' or even 'will' - which is the drive or impulse to act and not the agency of decision making or actions.

The will, I suppose, would be the outcome of the decision-making process. Once the decision has been made, I would think that it is the will that executes the decision. I don't see that being a problem for my argument though.

The conscious will to act is not the beginning of the process.

Doesn't that agree with what I said?

quote;
''Whenever we plan, imagine, or observe someone else performing an action, our own motor system responsible for representing and executing the action are also involved. The higher motor areas, the supplementary motor area and premotor cortex, are thought to play an important role in planning and maintaining readiness for action prior to movement initiation. The inferior parietal cortex and premotor cortex are key parts of a "mirror neuron" system that is thought to link the visual processing of observed actions and the motor system, important for understanding and imitating others' actions.

Research in my lab focuses on the brain processes crucial for planning and representing actions prior to initiation, for imitating actions, and for perceiving and understanding the actions of others.

Attention and the readiness for action.

Activity of premotor and supplementary motor areas begins up to 2 s prior to voluntary movement. We are examining the cognitive and "intentional" processes that precede the initiation of voluntary movement, in readiness for action.

Perception and imitation of others' actions.

The human mirror system is thought to provide a mechanism for directly matching observed actions to equivalent motor representations in the motor system, linking visual and motor areas. We are examining how the observation of others' actions can influence our own motor system and our performance of movement, and how our own plans for action can influence our visual processing and perception of others' actions.''

Since Libet, none of this should be surprising.

 

[DBT]

http://tap.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/15/0959354312460926.full.pdf+html

I certainly don't blame you for your dogmatic conclusions of Libet-type experiments since it is a general dogma shared by many neuroscientists and nothing you would be capable of coming up with yourself.

I stick to whatever the evidence supports, unlike you who makes claims that are not supported by evidence but are based on the subjective experience of consciousness... which has no access to the means of its own production. Nor do you provide descriptions of your proposed model of mind, whatever it is, despite being asked to many times.

As for your link, if there is something in it that is relevant to your claims, you should provide relevant quotes and not just a link.

 

[DBT]

Doesn't that agree with what I said?

If you believe it does agree, what do you think are the consequences of this for your idea of free will?

 

[untermensche]

http://tap.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/15/0959354312460926.full.pdf+html

I certainly don't blame you for your dogmatic conclusions of Libet-type experiments since it is a general dogma shared by many neuroscientists and nothing you would be capable of coming up with yourself.

I stick to whatever the evidence supports, unlike you who makes claims that are not supported by evidence but are based on the subjective experience of consciousness... which has no access to the means of its own production. Nor do you provide descriptions of your proposed model of mind, whatever it is, despite being asked to many times.

As for your link, if there is something in it that is relevant to your claims, you should provide relevant quotes and not just a link.

You are basically saying you will not be moved by anything I provide.

You won't even read it.

That is dogmatism.

Your claims about the Libet experiments are not evidence. They are conclusions. Erroneous conclusions. Despite the fact that they have temporarily become a kind of dogma.

 

[untermensche]

That's a foreign concept to you?

It is perfectly "real" to be asked or not asked to move one's finger... this is not the same thing as being free to do 'impossible' things.

This barely makes sense, I'll just say being able to move your finger at "will" is a "real" phenomena. Try it.

Are you free to have $200,000 available in your savings account? do it.

Could you possibly be this stupid? What do you not understand about the phrase "Within the constraints of reality"?

we're going in circles... gonna get off the merry-go-round in a sec. but first, I would like to point out that the FDIC insures cash deposit accounts up to $200,000 (that is why I chose that number). I'll refrain from calling you stupid, as you did I, but it seems you think it is outside of reality to deposit $200,000 into a saving account. Can't imagine what you might be thinking..
exercise your "free will" and make it so. Or, agree that "free will" means "able to do the things you are able to do", and nothing more (or, in other words, "exactly nothing").

Free will, if there is such a thing, is to be able to make unforced choices within the constraints of reality.

Not just being "able to do the things you are able to do". Which IS nothing.

And of course being able to deposit any amount of money requires first you have it. You can't deposit it just because you "will" it.

 

[Malintent]

That's a foreign concept to you?

It is perfectly "real" to be asked or not asked to move one's finger... this is not the same thing as being free to do 'impossible' things.

This barely makes sense, I'll just say being able to move your finger at "will" is a "real" phenomena. Try it.

Are you free to have $200,000 available in your savings account? do it.

Could you possibly be this stupid? What do you not understand about the phrase "Within the constraints of reality"?

we're going in circles... gonna get off the merry-go-round in a sec. but first, I would like to point out that the FDIC insures cash deposit accounts up to $200,000 (that is why I chose that number). I'll refrain from calling you stupid, as you did I, but it seems you think it is outside of reality to deposit $200,000 into a saving account. Can't imagine what you might be thinking..
exercise your "free will" and make it so. Or, agree that "free will" means "able to do the things you are able to do", and nothing more (or, in other words, "exactly nothing").

Free will, if there is such a thing, is to be able to make unforced choices within the constraints of reality.

Not just being "able to do the things you are able to do". Which IS nothing.

And of course being able to deposit any amount of money requires first you have it. You can't deposit it just because you "will" it.

So then what is at issue about "free will" is what constitutes the "constraints of reality". We clearly live in separate and vastly different realities, when it comes to some things (how much money one can put into savings) and identical in others (gravity exerts a constant force on us, equally).

So some people have more "free will" than others? What free will means then is variable and dynamic. not a very useful term.

 

[untermensche]

So then what is at issue about "free will" is what constitutes the "constraints of reality". We clearly live in separate and vastly different realities, when it comes to some things (how much money one can put into savings) and identical in others (gravity exerts a constant force on us, equally).

So some people have more "free will" than others? What free will means then is variable and dynamic. not a very useful term.

Physical reality, not psychological reality.

 

[fromderinside]

You don't know attention if ....

But of course the surface must be scraped before more can be seen, so there is nothing wrong with it. What is wrong is ...

....you don't know what I know. We don't have the space or the time for time here to tell you what I know about 'attention'.

 

[untermensche]

You don't know attention if ....

But of course the surface must be scraped before more can be seen, so there is nothing wrong with it. What is wrong is ...

....you don't know what I know. We don't have the space or the time for time here to tell you what I know about 'attention'.

What process does the brain use to create the sound a person can attend to?

Not what areas of the brain are involved, as I said that is barely knowing more than the brain does it.

But what specific brain activity becomes sound that a person experiences?

Stop being so sensitive. Nobody is saying you know nothing. You know a little. Yet claim to know all there is to know. Like you have enough information to claim the mind you experience and use doesn't exist.

 

[Juma]

But what specific brain activity becomes sound that a person experiences?

You are unclear.
1. Sound is repeated periodical nondestroying displacements of matter.
2. In the ear these are transformed into "neurosignals".
3. These neurosignals are processed in your brain. Here is what normally are called that you experience the sound.
4. The "I" is made aware of the qualia corresponding to these "neurosignals".

Do you mean 3 or 4?