Human Instinct and Free Will

[Juma]

Meaning is created in interaction and by the need to predict other agents behavior. We project a evil will to a car that wont start. And we project an evil will to a child that wont clean its room. And we project onto our own actions. That is all there is to it. No "unitysame ", no "bind"-problem.

So now there aren't binding and unity problems?! Juma, the people specializing in this field claim these problems exist.

Of course there are something called "the binding problem" but is not a principal problem at all. It is a description of how the brain segregates or combines percepted objects.The same is true of "unified conciousness". Any explanation of coniousness must adhere to these conditions but that doesnt mean that these are the main problems with conciousness or that they have any principal implications at all.

 

[fromderinside]

Then you must falsify or discredit their paper, have it pass peer review and then pull it up out of a credible journal bank to show me. I am not a "peer" who can review your claims. I have no choice but to adhere to recent papers over anything else.

So the aim of the scientific process is to eliminate free will. Yes. Please chant after me "Posner .......... melt ......... yada yada yada ........"

QED

 

[DBT]

Because rational means ''based on or in accordance with reason or logic.'' In other words, a logical response to a given situation.

The response being in related to whatever requires attention or action.

Your random 'could have done otherwise' may have no relationship to the situation being responded to, hence irrational and dysfunctional.

Don't you believe that a person can choose to go on a trip for enjoyment instead of save for the future and not be "dysfunctional"?

Not at all. It may be quite rational to have a holiday in order to recharge,revitalize...or simply enjoy life for a while. Your example assumes that the sole purpose of life is to 'save for the future'

If you were told as a child that you better turn your bedroom lights off to power or else you will have bad karma, you may grow up to believe this. It is irrational, but your brain would be functioning perfectly.

Not the same...but your example does demonstrate that it is indeed information state that determines behavioural output. Not only social conditioning but the state of the architecture, including any quantum function or interference within the system, being non chosen states and conditions.

You are just arguing circularly.

Holy Mackeral, ryan, you are not in a position to talk about circular arguments.

You are saying that if the brain doesn't function the way you assume it does, then the brain must be dysfunctional. But clearly they don't understand exactly how the brain functions.

At no time did I say that, imply it or even suggest it. You are now resorting to misrepresentation of your opponents descriptions and remarks.

Much of brain function is not well understood, but there is enough to clearly show that memory function is absolutely essential to decision making and consciousness in general, providing recognition, etc, without which it all falls apart.

It's obvious that your remark is designed to provide way of avoiding the error you made concerning social conditioning, where you essentially did yourself out of an argument.

 

[ryan]

So now there aren't binding and unity problems?! Juma, the people specializing in this field claim these problems exist.

Of course there are something called "the binding problem" but is not a principal problem at all. It is a description of how the brain segregates or combines percepted objects.The same is true of "unified conciousness". Any explanation of coniousness must adhere to these conditions but that doesnt mean that these are the main problems with conciousness or that they have any principal implications at all.

They are major problems that they have yet to conclusively explain. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[ryan]

Because rational means ''based on or in accordance with reason or logic.'' In other words, a logical response to a given situation.

The response being in related to whatever requires attention or action.

Your random 'could have done otherwise' may have no relationship to the situation being responded to, hence irrational and dysfunctional.

Don't you believe that a person can choose to go on a trip for enjoyment instead of save for the future and not be "dysfunctional"?

Not at all. It may be quite rational to have a holiday in order to recharge,revitalize...or simply enjoy life for a while. Your example assumes that the sole purpose of life is to 'save for the future'

If you were told as a child that you better turn your bedroom lights off to power or else you will have bad karma, you may grow up to believe this. It is irrational, but your brain would be functioning perfectly.

Not the same...but your example does demonstrate that it is indeed information state that determines behavioural output. Not only social conditioning but the state of the architecture, including any quantum function or interference within the system, being non chosen states and conditions.

You are just arguing circularly.

Holy Mackeral, ryan, you are not in a position to talk about circular arguments.

You are saying that if the brain doesn't function the way you assume it does, then the brain must be dysfunctional. But clearly they don't understand exactly how the brain functions.

At no time did I say that, imply it or even suggest it. You are now resorting to misrepresentation of your opponents descriptions and remarks.

Much of brain function is not well understood, but there is enough to clearly show that memory function is absolutely essential to decision making and consciousness in general, providing recognition, etc, without which it all falls apart.

It's obvious that your remark is designed to provide way of avoiding the error you made concerning social conditioning, where you essentially did yourself out of an argument.

No, I gave a perfect example of irrational behavior working in a functional brain, and you just said "not the same". Maybe the kid had a free will choice between believing in karma and not believing in karma. The 50% chance of believing in karma is from his mom and the other 50% is from everything else that contradicts karma. You see; you can have your neural architecture and free will.

 

[DBT]

No, I gave a perfect example of irrational behavior working in a functional brain,

Far from it.

and you just said "not the same". Maybe the kid had a free will choice between believing in karma and not believing in karma. The 50% chance of believing in karma is from his mom and the other 50% is from everything else that contradicts karma. You see; you can have your neural architecture and free will.

I said ''not the same'' and explained why. Basically a software problem, especially if there is no alternative information available, or there is bias at work, it that only body of information that drives decision making and behaviour. Garbage in, garbage out, even though the brain is healthy and fully functional. Decision making being based on information that's available to the system.

In this case it is the 'software' that makes brain output irrational.

Neither architecture or memory content is separable, one doesn't work without the other, faults in either function may be manifested in the form of irrational decision making.

Either way, it still remains that it is the information condition of a brain, both in terms of architecture and memory function/content, that determines output in relation to decisions made and actions taken.

And basically the reason why you have no argument to support the vague notion of 'free will'

 

[Juma]

Of course there are something called "the binding problem" but is not a principal problem at all. It is a description of how the brain segregates or combines percepted objects.The same is true of "unified conciousness". Any explanation of coniousness must adhere to these conditions but that doesnt mean that these are the main problems with conciousness or that they have any principal implications at all.

They are major problems that they have yet to conclusively explain. You don't know what you are talking about.

They are problem of the same dignity as: how do the vision work, how do the memory work.

They are problems to be solved from how we find the brain work. They are not major philosphical problems.

 

[ryan]

Far from it.

The kid does what he was taught. It's irrational within a properly functioning brain.

and you just said "not the same". Maybe the kid had a free will choice between believing in karma and not believing in karma. The 50% chance of believing in karma is from his mom and the other 50% is from everything else that contradicts karma. You see; you can have your neural architecture and free will.

I said ''not the same'' and explained why. Basically a software problem, especially if there is no alternative information available, or there is bias at work, it that only body of information that drives decision making and behaviour. Garbage in, garbage out, even though the brain is healthy and fully functional. Decision making being based on information that's available to the system.

In this case it is the 'software' that makes brain output irrational.

Neither architecture or memory content is separable, one doesn't work without the other, faults in either function may be manifested in the form of irrational decision making.

Either way, it still remains that it is the information condition of a brain, both in terms of architecture and memory function/content, that determines output in relation to decisions made and actions taken.

I would agree if there weren't quantum mechanisms.

 

[ryan]

They are major problems that they have yet to conclusively explain. You don't know what you are talking about.

They are problem of the same dignity as: how do the vision work, how do the memory work.

They are problems to be solved from how we find the brain work. They are not major philosphical problems.

It's a huuuuge philosophical problem of the consciousness (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-unity/ ). In an absolutely brilliant way to explain how a reductionistic theory called Experiential Parts Theory to explain the unity problem James. W from the Stanford link writes,

"Take a sentence of a dozen words, take twelve men, and to each one word. Then stand the men in a row or jam them in a bunch, and let each think of his word as intently as he will; nowhere will there be a consciousness of the whole sentence.".

The sentence in the brain has a consciously unified meaning. But if the neuro processes are causally separated in the brain or like in the case of the 12 men, there is no consciously unified meaning.

It is still a major problem, that I think and found supporting arguments for, can only be physically explained with entanglement. Either entanglement, or a ghost in the machine. Which one do you prefer?

 

[ryan]

DBT, Juma, the more I have been looking into this, the more I find reason to believe that the brain/I could have done differently. I mean everything points in that direction, the need for entanglement, the need to explain QC, quantum microtubules, possible Posner molecules, and a whole slew of new quantum research and theories that have come up in the last 2 years.

Just type in "quantum brain" into the scientific journal search of Google Scholar starting from 2015, http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as_ylo=2015&q=quantum+brain&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 and you will see a long list of new research that uses quantum mechanisms in the brain.

I am done.

 

[Juma]

They are problem of the same dignity as: how do the vision work, how do the memory work.

They are problems to be solved from how we find the brain work. They are not major philosphical problems.

It's a huuuuge philosophical problem of the consciousness (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-unity/ ). In an absolutely brilliant way to explain how a reductionistic theory called Experiential Parts Theory to explain the unity problem James. W from the Stanford link writes,

"Take a sentence of a dozen words, take twelve men, and to each one word. Then stand the men in a row or jam them in a bunch, and let each think of his word as intently as he will; nowhere will there be a consciousness of the whole sentence.".

The sentence in the brain has a consciously unified meaning. But if the neuro processes are causally separated in the brain or like in the case of the 12 men, there is no consciously unified meaning.

It is still a major problem, that I think and found supporting arguments for, can only be physically explained with entanglement. Either entanglement, or a ghost in the machine. Which one do you prefer?

Are you shitting me? Are you seriously bring forward an argument that you cannot get a sentence from some words by physically placing the brains, each thinking of a single word, beside each other?

 

[Juma]

DBT, Juma, the more I have been looking into this, the more I find reason to believe that the brain/I could have done differently. I mean everything points in that direction, the need for entanglement, the need to explain QC, quantum microtubules, possible Posner molecules, and a whole slew of new quantum research and theories that have come up in the last 2 years.

Just type in "quantum brain" into the scientific journal search of Google Scholar starting from 2015, http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as_ylo=2015&q=quantum+brain&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 and you will see a long list of new research that uses quantum mechanisms in the brain.

I am done.

With what? Built your own fortress and digged yourself into the altar if entaglement.

Bye, see you when you has seen reason again.

 

[bilby]

They are problem of the same dignity as: how do the vision work, how do the memory work.

They are problems to be solved from how we find the brain work. They are not major philosphical problems.

It's a huuuuge philosophical problem of the consciousness (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-unity/ ). In an absolutely brilliant way to explain how a reductionistic theory called Experiential Parts Theory to explain the unity problem James. W from the Stanford link writes,

"Take a sentence of a dozen words, take twelve men, and to each one word. Then stand the men in a row or jam them in a bunch, and let each think of his word as intently as he will; nowhere will there be a consciousness of the whole sentence.".

The sentence in the brain has a consciously unified meaning. But if the neuro processes are causally separated in the brain or like in the case of the 12 men, there is no consciously unified meaning.

It is still a major problem, that I think and found supporting arguments for, can only be physically explained with entanglement. Either entanglement, or a ghost in the machine. Which one do you prefer?

I would prefer not to indulge your false dichotomy.

Perhaps a sentence is more than the sum of its parts. Lots of things are.

Studying a carbon atom tells you nothing about whether it is part of a rock, a blade of grass, or a doughnut.

Neither entanglement nor consciousness is needed for a wider view of its surroundings that allows you to tell which it actually is.

This is an imaginary problem.

 

[DBT]

The kid does what he was taught. It's irrational within a properly functioning brain.

Programming is inseparable from the state of a brain with a flawed information base, rendering the brain irrational in spite of functional architecture....as I've already pointed out.

I would agree if there weren't quantum mechanisms.

Quantum mechanisms don't help establish a case for free will in any way, shape or form. Not subject to will or awareness, quantum states are simply an aspect of overall brain architecture and function, which according to architecture (neural networks) and memory ( input, experience, learning whether flawed or sound) determines behavioural output. Hence the failure of your contention.