Human Instinct and Free Will

[untermensche]

No. Consciousness is not a specific dynamic arrangement of matter. The brain is the specific dynamic arrangement of matter.

Consciousness emerges from this dynamic arrangement in combination with stimulation from the world.

And like magnetism and gravity it cannot be composed of matter. It does not have mass.

It is an emergent ability. The ability to experience and be effected by "subconscious programming".

Using Occam's razor reasoning, why can't the consciousness just be something that we already know exists, just a process in the brain without anything emerging? Why do we have to install a new property/entity?

In other words, can't we simplify this and say that you are "process in the brain" instead of a possible redundancy by saying that you are a "mind" as well as "process in the brain"? So the thing we call "mind" can be really just another term for "process in the brain".

If there is a process that creates a mind then there is no redundancy in having a process and a mind.

There is no redundancy by saying the process of internal combustion creates movement.

 

[ryan]

Using Occam's razor reasoning, why can't the consciousness just be something that we already know exists, just a process in the brain without anything emerging? Why do we have to install a new property/entity?

In other words, can't we simplify this and say that you are "process in the brain" instead of a possible redundancy by saying that you are a "mind" as well as "process in the brain"? So the thing we call "mind" can be really just another term for "process in the brain".

If there is a process that creates a mind then there is no redundancy in having a process and a mind.

There is no redundancy by saying the process of internal combustion creates movement.

I am saying that the process may be the mind. Why does anything have to be created?

 

[untermensche]

If there is a process that creates a mind then there is no redundancy in having a process and a mind.

There is no redundancy by saying the process of internal combustion creates movement.

I am saying that the process may be the mind. Why does anything have to be created?

A process can create something besides itself but it cannot be something besides itself.

 

[DBT]

That doesn't actually describe the decision making process. Higher order structures and processing effect changes in structure, connectivity, etc, all the way down to the quantum building 'blocks'

You need whole and complete functional neural architecture in order to process information and generate behaviour.

Quantum effects alone won't work. Add chemical agency and the system and its output is altered...right down the its quantum 'superstructure'

Sever connectivity between synapses and coherent thought is diminished or destroyed, depending on the severity of connectivity breakdown.

You don't consciously choose quantum states even if it effects changes to system function.

There is no escaping the fact, that it is the state of the system in any given moment that's reflected in its output, conscious thoughts, feelings and actions.

But with this new model, there is no single state of decision-making; they are in a mathematical superposition. And then the working model came along, and from what I understand, it gives a mechanical explanation for this using QM.

It's a clear case of Woo. No doubt that underlying quantum effects play a role in brain function, but it is the macro scale structures of the brain that determines behavioural output....which is clearly shown by observing the diversity of animal behaviour in general. Different architectures and states produce their own variations of behaviour relating to species and individuals within a species according to the individuals life experiences encoded in memory...no memory = no functionality.

Here is a reasonable summary by a physicist:

Quote;

''So you tell me if that made any sense or if this person has actually understood QM beyond what he read in a pop-science book. First of all, when wave cancellation occurs, it doesn't "make a smaller wave". It makes NO wave at that instant and time. Secondly, this person is espousing the existence of some kind of a "thought wave" that hasn't been verified, and somehow, the thought waves from the two different prisoners overlap each other (this, BTW, can be described via classical wave pictures, so why quantum picture in invoked here?).

But the fallacy comes in the claim that there is no other way to explain why different people act differently here without invoking quantum effects. Unlike physics systems where we can prepare two systems identically, we can find no such thing in human beings (even with twins!). Two different people have different backgrounds and "baggage". We have different ethics, moral standards, etc. You'll never find two identical systems to test this out. That's why we have 9 judges on the US Supreme Court, and they can have wildly differing opinions on the identical issue! So why can't they use this to explain why people react differently under this same situation? Why can't they find the answer via the human psychology rather than invoking QM?

But it gets worse...


The act of answering a question can move people from wave to particle, from uncertainty to certainty. In quantum physics, the “observer effect” refers to how measuring the state of a particle can change the very state you’re trying to measure. In a similar way, asking someone a question about the state of her mind could very well change it. For example, if I’m telling a friend about a performance review I have coming up, and I’m not sure how I feel about it, if she asks me “Are you nervous?” that might get me thinking about all the reasons I should be nervous. I might not have been nervous before she asked me, but after the question, my answer might become, “Well, I am now!”


Of course, this smacks of the crackpottery done in "The Secret". Let's get this straight first of all, especially those who do not have a formal education in QM. There is no such thing as "wave-particle duality" in QM! QM/QFT etc. describe the system via a single, consistent formulation. We don't switch gears going from "wave" to "particle" and back to "wave" to describe things things. So the system doesn't move "from wave to particle", etc. It is the nature of the outcome that most people consider to be "wave-like" or "particle-like", but these are ALL produced by the same, single, consistent description!

The problem I have with this, and many other areas that tried to incorporate QM, is that they often start with the effects, and then say something like "Oh, it looks very much like a quantum effect". This is fine if there is an underlying, rigorous mathematical description, but often, there isn't! You cannot says that an idea is "complimentary" to another idea the same way position and momentum observables are non-commuting. The latter has a very set of rigorous mathematical rules and description. To argue that "... quantum models were able to predict order effects shown in 70 different national surveys... " is not very convincing because in physics, this would be quite unconvincing. It means that there are other factors that come in that are not predictable and can't be accounted for. What is there to argue that these other factors are also responsible for the outcome?

Again, the inability to test this out using identical systems makes it very difficult to be convincing. Human behavior can be irrational and unpredictable. That is know. Rather than considering this to be the result of quantum effects, why not consider this to be the result of a chaotic behavior over time, i.e. all of the various life experiences that an individual had all conspire to trigger the decision that he/she makes at a particular time. The "butterfly effect" in an individual's time line can easily cause a particular behavior at another time. To me, this is as valid of an explanation as any.''

 

[ryan]

I am saying that the process may be the mind. Why does anything have to be created?

A process can create something besides itself but it cannot be something besides itself.

Okay, so the process becomes the mind, which is just the next stage of a larger process. Therefor the mind can be simplified to the same particles that used to be the process taking on a different configuration.

 

[ryan]

Again, the inability to test this out using identical systems makes it very difficult to be convincing. Human behavior can be irrational and unpredictable. That is know. Rather than considering this to be the result of quantum effects, why not consider this to be the result of a chaotic behavior over time, ...

Or why don't we consider the chance that it could be both? I only ever wanted to argue for the chance of free will using QM.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Your mind seems to know so much stuff my mind is impressed.

I'm not about insight. I'm about truth.
EB

The truth is my mind is something that controls my body, to a degree, and receives information from my body.

It is not my body any more than my bile is my body.

So what truth are you talking about?

I'm talking about the truth I know. I don't know that my mind controls my body. Maybe it's true but I don't know that. You think you know that your mind controls your body and for all I know maybe it's true that you know that but me I don't know that my mind controls my body. I don't even know I have a body. We can speculate of course and I do it as much as anybody else but I like not to be fooled by metaphysical beliefs.
EB

 

[untermensche]

The truth is my mind is something that controls my body, to a degree, and receives information from my body.

It is not my body any more than my bile is my body.

So what truth are you talking about?

I'm talking about the truth I know. I don't know that my mind controls my body. Maybe it's true but I don't know that. You think you know that your mind controls your body and for all I know maybe it's true that you know that but me I don't know that my mind controls my body. I don't even know I have a body. We can speculate of course and I do it as much as anybody else but I like not to be fooled by metaphysical beliefs.
EB

How do you not know your mind moves your body?

Try to move your finger by "willing" it with your mind.

Did anything happen?

- - - Updated - - -

A process can create something besides itself but it cannot be something besides itself.

Okay, so the process becomes the mind, which is just the next stage of a larger process. Therefor the mind can be simplified to the same particles that used to be the process taking on a different configuration.

The mind can't be simplified beyond something that arises as a result of brain activity.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Aren't you at least a little bit moved by the poetic value of a body denying itself?
EB

Yes. Bowls moved.

What about the teacup?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm talking about the truth I know. I don't know that my mind controls my body. Maybe it's true but I don't know that. You think you know that your mind controls your body and for all I know maybe it's true that you know that but me I don't know that my mind controls my body. I don't even know I have a body. We can speculate of course and I do it as much as anybody else but I like not to be fooled by metaphysical beliefs.
EB

How do you not know your mind moves your body?

I don't know (how etc.). I just don't know (that my mind etc.).

Try to move your finger by "willing" it with your mind.

Did anything happen?

I don't know. Something happens but I don't know whether it's actually a finger moving and I don't know if I would have willed it.
EB

 

[untermensche]

How do you not know your mind moves your body?

I don't know (how etc.). I just don't know (that my mind etc.).

Try to move your finger by "willing" it with your mind.

Did anything happen?

I don't know. Something happens but I don't know whether it's actually a finger moving and I don't know if I would have willed it.
EB

WOW!!

You don't know if your finger is moving?

Well, have a good one.

 

[Malintent]

The lack of freedom comes down to the making of the choice. I may have "freedom of movement", but I do not have "freedom to not choose". Since it seems we agree that the mental process of choice is entangled in the "will", this is evidence of a lack of "free will".

This makes no logical sense.

The ability to move or not move is the freedom.

Any freedom exists within a scheme of choices. That is a logical necessity.

So saying that a choice must be made is absurd. Since a free choice can't be made unless a choice in some matter must be made.

I wish to choose to not choose. Explain how I can do that whilst my mind is being manipulated by the environment around me.

 

[untermensche]

This makes no logical sense.

The ability to move or not move is the freedom.

Any freedom exists within a scheme of choices. That is a logical necessity.

So saying that a choice must be made is absurd. Since a free choice can't be made unless a choice in some matter must be made.

I wish to choose to not choose. Explain how I can do that whilst my mind is being manipulated by the environment around me.

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.

 

[fromderinside]

I don't know. Something happens but I don't know whether it's actually a finger moving and I don't know if I would have willed it.
EB

At least when you are out of your comfort area you don't resort to either woo or woo woo. At least I feel comfortable with your philosophical tack. If only believing were knowing explaining would be simple except .......

 

[ryan]

A process can create something besides itself but it cannot be something besides itself.

Okay, so the process becomes the mind, which is just the next stage of a larger process. Therefor the mind can be simplified to the same particles that used to be the process taking on a different configuration.

The mind can't be simplified beyond something that arises as a result of brain activity.

I don't see why not. Why can't the activity be the experience?

 

[fromderinside]

3. Some important articles on the physiology and neurobiology and evolution oc consciousness.
Consciousness and Neuroscience http://authors.library.caltech.edu/40355/1/feature_article.pdf
Speculations on the Evolution of Awareness https://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/Graziano_JCN_2014.pdf
Evolution of Consciousness: Phylogeny, Ontogeny, and Emergence from General Anesthesia http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK231624/
Brain stem reticular formation and activation of the EEG http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0013469449902199
Higher Nervous Functions: The Orienting Reflex http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ph.25.030163.002553?journalCode=physiol

There is no known physiological process that leads to consciousness.

Which makes speculations about the evolution of consciousness amusing.

What's amusing about a science thread asking questions (speculating) when the questions to be answered are visible but not tied down.

Consciousness may very well be a quantum effect. It's absurd to try to make arguments down that empty rat hole at this point, but it may be true.

My point three was an answer to whether there was a physiology of consciousness. Obviously there is such study. Your
Trump-like hand waving offers no information upon which one can respond or inform except to note it as hand waving.

OK. You waved your hands.

As for quantum speculating effects as possible when its obvious that those supposed effects are already accounted in macro deterministic observations you wind up with another hand wave. Its funny that you make fun of your own remark. Definitely Trump-like.

 

[untermensche]

A process can create something besides itself but it cannot be something besides itself.

Okay, so the process becomes the mind, which is just the next stage of a larger process. Therefor the mind can be simplified to the same particles that used to be the process taking on a different configuration.

The mind can't be simplified beyond something that arises as a result of brain activity.

I don't see why not. Why can't the activity be the experience?

For there to be experience there has to be something having the experience.

There can just be experience.

 

[untermensche]

There is no known physiological process that leads to consciousness.

Which makes speculations about the evolution of consciousness amusing.

What's amusing about a science thread asking questions (speculating) when the questions to be answered are visible but not tied down.

Consciousness may very well be a quantum effect. It's absurd to try to make arguments down that empty rat hole at this point, but it may be true.

My point three was an answer to whether there was a physiology of consciousness. Obviously there is such study. Your
Trump-like hand waving offers no information upon which one can respond or inform except to note it as hand waving.

OK. You waved your hands.

As for quantum speculating effects as possible when its obvious that those supposed effects are already accounted in macro deterministic observations you wind up with another hand wave. Its funny that you make fun of your own remark. Definitely Trump-like.

Using the word "Trump" amounts to an argument to some.

Since there is no physical explanation for consciousness I wonder what those people looking at the evolution of consciousness are looking at.

Probably their navels.

 

[Juma]

The truth is my mind is something that controls my body, to a degree, and receives information from my body.

It is not my body any more than my bile is my body.

So what truth are you talking about?

I'm talking about the truth I know. I don't know that my mind controls my body. Maybe it's true but I don't know that. You think you know that your mind controls your body and for all I know maybe it's true that you know that but me I don't know that my mind controls my body. I don't even know I have a body. We can speculate of course and I do it as much as anybody else but I like not to be fooled by metaphysical beliefs.
EB

This is a very strange use of the word "know".

Of course you know you have a body, that is almost all you know. Believing thst you dont have a body is such a weird speculation that it isnt worth thinking of.

 

[ryan]

The mind can't be simplified beyond something that arises as a result of brain activity.

I don't see why not. Why can't the activity be the experience?

For there to be experience there has to be something having the experience.

There can just be experience.

Assuming you meant "There can't just be experience", why not?

Imagine that there is only an experience. What would be different?