Human Instinct and Free Will

[Juma]

If i could defy gravity what would be the difference?

The zombie thought experiment is begging the question.

It is completely possible that such a zoombie could not exist and then your thought experiement is worthless.


I agree with Marvin Minsky as cited by wikipedia in the article on philosophical zoombies:

Marvin Minsky sees the argument as circular. The proposition of the possibility of something physically identical to a human but without subjective experience assumes that the physical characteristics of humans are not what produces those experiences, which is exactly what the argument was claiming to prove.

Some kinds of physicalism allows for the consciousness, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ . This is where the zombie argument is more effective and more possible.

No. The zombie argument is useless. As Minski said: it is circular.

"producing" the consciousness is only half the battle for physicalists; what then? Does this ghostly material then abide by its own free will, can it interact with the body, what is it, how did it emerge and most importantly for the purposes of this discussion can it be separated from the body to make a zombie?

Which is questions for science to discover the answers to by investigating the real world.

Why on earth do you think that discussing totally ill-defined phantasy figures would give you anything?

If there are entities that are exactly like us then they ARE exactly like us by definition.
You cannot just by wim say that they would be different. It is exactly the same as to ponder wombies; entities that are exactly like us but isnt affected by gravity...

 

[ryan]

"producing" the consciousness is only half the battle for physicalists; what then? Does this ghostly material then abide by its own free will, can it interact with the body, what is it, how did it emerge and most importantly for the purposes of this discussion can it be separated from the body to make a zombie?

Which is questions for science to discover the answers to by investigating the real world.

Why on earth do you think that discussing totally ill-defined phantasy figures would give you anything?

If there are entities that are exactly like us then they ARE exactly like us by definition.
You cannot just by wim say that they would be different. It is exactly the same as to ponder wombies that are exactly like us but isnt affected by gravity...

It's not all about science; there is intuition, math, logic, etc. When they thought that the atom was the most fundamental element, there were probably many intuitive minds pondering what mysteries may be solved if there were smaller components. Math tells us that string theory is possible, and it also tells us that black holes, as they are understood, are impossible. Inductive reasoning tells me and probably most of the population that there is something beyond what the observational limit tells us exists.

 

[Juma]

Which is questions for science to discover the answers to by investigating the real world.

Why on earth do you think that discussing totally ill-defined phantasy figures would give you anything?

If there are entities that are exactly like us then they ARE exactly like us by definition.
You cannot just by wim say that they would be different. It is exactly the same as to ponder wombies that are exactly like us but isnt affected by gravity...

It's not all about science; there is intuition, math, logic, etc. When they thought that the atom was the most fundamental element, there were probably many intuitive minds pondering what mysteries may be solved if there were smaller components.

But it was not that speculation that lead to the discovery of the fact that there are atoms. That was done by science (chemistry and radiology)

Math tells us that string theory is possible, and it also tells us that black holes, as they are understood, are impossible.

Math enables an unlimited set of more or leds weird theories. It is empirical science that tells wether these theories are useful in our universe. Nothing else.

yet string theory has not given us any new facts about the universe... To do that we have to wait for empirical confirmations. (If it is at all possible to make any testable hypotesis within string theory)

Inductive reasoning tells me and probably most of the population that there is something beyond what the observational limit tells us exists.

I have no clue to what this is supposed to mean. That haven't discovered everything yet? No shit, sherlock..

 

[ryan]

It's not all about science; there is intuition, math, logic, etc. When they thought that the atom was the most fundamental element, there were probably many intuitive minds pondering what mysteries may be solved if there were smaller components.

But it was not that speculation that lead to the discovery of the fact that there are atoms. That was done by science (chemistry and radiology)

So what, it was still right. Of course science doesn't except anything that is not science.

Math tells us that string theory is possible, and it also tells us that black holes, as they are understood, are impossible.

Math enables an unlimited set of more or leds weird theories. It is empirical science that tells wether these theories are useful in our universe. Nothing else.

yet string theory has not given us any new facts about the universe... To do that we have to wait for empirical confirmations. (If it is at all possible to make any testable hypotesis within string theory)

Math was able to make some key predictions with quantum mechanics. We can't know some things about some simple chemical structures because computers are not powerful enough yet to carry out their Schrodinger equations. The only way we can know this information is with math and computers fast enough to carry out the calculations.

Inductive reasoning tells me and probably most of the population that there is something beyond what the observational limit tells us exists.

I have no clue to what this is supposed to mean. That haven't discovered everything yet? No shit, sherlock..

No, I am talking about obvious answers that science is forced to be mute on. For example, does the consciousness exist? If it does exist, science won't find it because it is a different kind of knowledge.

 

[Juma]

But it was not that speculation that lead to the discovery of the fact that there are atoms. That was done by science (chemistry and radiology)

So what, it was still right. Of course science doesn't except anything that is not science.

Math tells us that string theory is possible, and it also tells us that black holes, as they are understood, are impossible.

Math enables an unlimited set of more or leds weird theories. It is empirical science that tells wether these theories are useful in our universe. Nothing else.

yet string theory has not given us any new facts about the universe... To do that we have to wait for empirical confirmations. (If it is at all possible to make any testable hypotesis within string theory)

Math was able to make some key predictions with quantum mechanics. We can't know some things about some simple chemical structures because computers are not powerful enough yet to carry out their Schrodinger equations. The only way we can know this information is with math and computers fast enough to carry out the calculations.

Inductive reasoning tells me and probably most of the population that there is something beyond what the observational limit tells us exists.

I have no clue to what this is supposed to mean. That haven't discovered everything yet? No shit, sherlock..

No, I am talking about obvious answers that science is forced to be mute on. For example, does the consciousness exist? If it does exist, science won't find it because it is a different kind of knowledge.

The atom theory wasnt right, or even in any useful meaning true, until stökiometri was discovered. Before that it was nothing but speculation (and a lot of very bad speculation)

Math, and fast calculators, can help us where our brains are to weak. That doesnt mean that they actually finds out something new. The scientific models are our "knowledge" of the reality. logic, math and computers just helps us to measure these models. Somewhat like how rulers help the navigator at her map.

Of course conciousness exists. Noone really disputes that we are concious. The question is HOW. And HOW is what science excel at.

 

[DBT]

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.

Will doesn't use anything.

Will is the product of brain activity.

Brain activity is determined by neural architecture.

Neural architecture is effected by many things, underlying structure, including any quantum effects (which is not chosen or controlled by will), chemical balance, etc.

Will is not free from the very things that shape it, form it and give it conscious experience in the form of thought and action.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Will doesn't use anything.

Will is the product of brain activity.

Brain activity is determined by neural architecture.

Neural architecture is effected by many things, underlying structure, including any quantum effects (which is not chosen or controlled by will), chemical balance, etc.

Will is not free from the very things that shape it, form it and give it conscious experience in the form of thought and action.

You are expressing ideas.

Ideas are shaped by a mind interacting with the world.

A brain has no idea an external world exists. It has no ideas at all. It merely reacts to the world in a "programmed" manner.

Only a mind has ideas or knowledge of the world.

Talking about neural architecture is meaningless unless you can explain the relationship between a mind and neural architecture.

 

[DBT]

Talking about neural architecture is meaningless unless you can explain the relationship between a mind and neural architecture.

You simply ignore all the evidence I provide. Experiments that support a sequence of events from inputs via the senses, propagation, memory integration, the role of memory, etc, leading to selective representation of information about the external world in relation to self in conscious form. The effects of chemical and structural changes...all of which is either brushed aside or ignored.

So why don't you have a go at it?

Please describe your own model of mind/consciousness and its relationship to the brain.

 

[untermensche]

Talking about neural architecture is meaningless unless you can explain the relationship between a mind and neural architecture.

You simply ignore all the evidence I provide. Experiments that support a sequence of events from inputs via the senses, propagation, memory integration, the role of memory, etc, leading to selective representation of information about the external world in relation to self in conscious form. The effects of chemical and structural changes...all of which is either brushed aside or ignored.

So why don't you have a go at it?

Please describe your own model of mind/consciousness and its relationship to the brain.

I am not claiming there is no understanding of brain physiology.

But there isn't even a hypothesis on how any of this physiology results in a mind.

And we relate to the world with a mind. We act according to ideas in the mind.

Talking merely about the brain and not the relationship between the mind and the brain is to pretend to understand this notion of "will".

 

[ryan]

So what, it was still right. Of course science doesn't except anything that is not science.

Math tells us that string theory is possible, and it also tells us that black holes, as they are understood, are impossible.

Math enables an unlimited set of more or leds weird theories. It is empirical science that tells wether these theories are useful in our universe. Nothing else.

yet string theory has not given us any new facts about the universe... To do that we have to wait for empirical confirmations. (If it is at all possible to make any testable hypotesis within string theory)

Math was able to make some key predictions with quantum mechanics. We can't know some things about some simple chemical structures because computers are not powerful enough yet to carry out their Schrodinger equations. The only way we can know this information is with math and computers fast enough to carry out the calculations.

Inductive reasoning tells me and probably most of the population that there is something beyond what the observational limit tells us exists.

I have no clue to what this is supposed to mean. That haven't discovered everything yet? No shit, sherlock..

No, I am talking about obvious answers that science is forced to be mute on. For example, does the consciousness exist? If it does exist, science won't find it because it is a different kind of knowledge.

The atom theory wasnt right, or even in any useful meaning true, until stökiometri was discovered. Before that it was nothing but speculation (and a lot of very bad speculation)

Math, and fast calculators, can help us where our brains are to weak. That doesnt mean that they actually finds out something new. The scientific models are our "knowledge" of the reality. logic, math and computers just helps us to measure these models. Somewhat like how rulers help the navigator at her map.

Of course conciousness exists. Noone really disputes that we are concious. The question is HOW. And HOW is what science excel at.

You're not getting the essence of what I am talking about. Philosophy is everything from just thinking to deciding what isn't science. Philosophy is needed when we are forced to guess. It fills in the gaps in order to do science. Scientific realism is a foundation of what to make of scientific advances.

 

[ryan]

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.

Will doesn't use anything.

Will is the product of brain activity.

Brain activity is determined by neural architecture.

Neural architecture is effected by many things, underlying structure, including any quantum effects (which is not chosen or controlled by will), chemical balance, etc.

Will is not free from the very things that shape it, form it and give it conscious experience in the form of thought and action.

Not only do the things that shape and form it have freedom from QM, something selects the will has freedom too. As far as I can tell, will is partially freely made and in many cases freely selected.

 

[Juma]

So what, it was still right. Of course science doesn't except anything that is not science.

Math tells us that string theory is possible, and it also tells us that black holes, as they are understood, are impossible.

Math enables an unlimited set of more or leds weird theories. It is empirical science that tells wether these theories are useful in our universe. Nothing else.

yet string theory has not given us any new facts about the universe... To do that we have to wait for empirical confirmations. (If it is at all possible to make any testable hypotesis within string theory)

Math was able to make some key predictions with quantum mechanics. We can't know some things about some simple chemical structures because computers are not powerful enough yet to carry out their Schrodinger equations. The only way we can know this information is with math and computers fast enough to carry out the calculations.

Inductive reasoning tells me and probably most of the population that there is something beyond what the observational limit tells us exists.

I have no clue to what this is supposed to mean. That haven't discovered everything yet? No shit, sherlock..

No, I am talking about obvious answers that science is forced to be mute on. For example, does the consciousness exist? If it does exist, science won't find it because it is a different kind of knowledge.

The atom theory wasnt right, or even in any useful meaning true, until stökiometri was discovered. Before that it was nothing but speculation (and a lot of very bad speculation)

Math, and fast calculators, can help us where our brains are to weak. That doesnt mean that they actually finds out something new. The scientific models are our "knowledge" of the reality. logic, math and computers just helps us to measure these models. Somewhat like how rulers help the navigator at her map.

Of course conciousness exists. Noone really disputes that we are concious. The question is HOW. And HOW is what science excel at.

You're not getting the essence of what I am talking about. Philosophy is everything from just thinking to deciding what isn't science. Philosophy is needed when we are forced to guess. It fills in the gaps in order to do science. Scientific realism is a foundation of what to make of scientific advances.

Of course we need philosophy.
That is not what we talk about.
You are loosing track of what we are discussing: the zombie argument.

Philosophy cannot establish new facts about the real world. For that purpose we need empirical science.

To solve the problem with conciousness we need to establish new facts.

The zombie argument doesnt give us any new facts since it is circular and thus cannot be used to build falsable hypoteses.

 

[fromderinside]

You can't look at the evolution of something unless you know what it is.

And nobody knows what consciousness is. And your hand waving is evidence.

Of course. Of course. I should have known. You never read physiology. There is a classic prepartation known as the "cerveau isolé" where cats, rats, dogs, humans, go somnolent and quit producintg synchronized eeg. This has been associated with the activation of the Ascending reticular system which today is referred to as ARAS. EN Sokolov developed a theory and model for this system in the late fifties and we've been pursuing wakefulness ever since. Later a second activation system was found originating from locus coeruleus which radiated horizontally through the cortex. This too has been the subject of many studies on awareness and 'conscious activation and orientation.

But hey, there is no study of consciousness in physiology or physiological neuroscience because you say so.

 

[DBT]

Will doesn't use anything.

Will is the product of brain activity.

Brain activity is determined by neural architecture.

Neural architecture is effected by many things, underlying structure, including any quantum effects (which is not chosen or controlled by will), chemical balance, etc.

Will is not free from the very things that shape it, form it and give it conscious experience in the form of thought and action.

Not only do the things that shape and form it have freedom from QM, something selects the will has freedom too. As far as I can tell, will is partially freely made and in many cases freely selected.

What is it that selects will? What is it that selects quantum outcomes?

 

[DBT]

You simply ignore all the evidence I provide. Experiments that support a sequence of events from inputs via the senses, propagation, memory integration, the role of memory, etc, leading to selective representation of information about the external world in relation to self in conscious form. The effects of chemical and structural changes...all of which is either brushed aside or ignored.

So why don't you have a go at it?

Please describe your own model of mind/consciousness and its relationship to the brain.

I am not claiming there is no understanding of brain physiology.

But there isn't even a hypothesis on how any of this physiology results in a mind.

And we relate to the world with a mind. We act according to ideas in the mind.

Talking merely about the brain and not the relationship between the mind and the brain is to pretend to understand this notion of "will".

That's what I'm asking you to explain - this 'we' you talk about as if this 'we' exists independently of the brain and its activity, and - apparently based on what you are saying - somehow orchestrates how the brain makes decisions.

 

[untermensche]

I am not claiming there is no understanding of brain physiology.

But there isn't even a hypothesis on how any of this physiology results in a mind.

And we relate to the world with a mind. We act according to ideas in the mind.

Talking merely about the brain and not the relationship between the mind and the brain is to pretend to understand this notion of "will".

That's what I'm asking you to explain - this 'we' you talk about as if this 'we' exists independently of the brain and its activity, and - apparently based on what you are saying - somehow orchestrates how the brain makes decisions.

What is asking me?

 

[ryan]

So what, it was still right. Of course science doesn't except anything that is not science.

Math tells us that string theory is possible, and it also tells us that black holes, as they are understood, are impossible.

Math enables an unlimited set of more or leds weird theories. It is empirical science that tells wether these theories are useful in our universe. Nothing else.

yet string theory has not given us any new facts about the universe... To do that we have to wait for empirical confirmations. (If it is at all possible to make any testable hypotesis within string theory)

Math was able to make some key predictions with quantum mechanics. We can't know some things about some simple chemical structures because computers are not powerful enough yet to carry out their Schrodinger equations. The only way we can know this information is with math and computers fast enough to carry out the calculations.

Inductive reasoning tells me and probably most of the population that there is something beyond what the observational limit tells us exists.

I have no clue to what this is supposed to mean. That haven't discovered everything yet? No shit, sherlock..

No, I am talking about obvious answers that science is forced to be mute on. For example, does the consciousness exist? If it does exist, science won't find it because it is a different kind of knowledge.

The atom theory wasnt right, or even in any useful meaning true, until stökiometri was discovered. Before that it was nothing but speculation (and a lot of very bad speculation)

Math, and fast calculators, can help us where our brains are to weak. That doesnt mean that they actually finds out something new. The scientific models are our "knowledge" of the reality. logic, math and computers just helps us to measure these models. Somewhat like how rulers help the navigator at her map.

Of course conciousness exists. Noone really disputes that we are concious. The question is HOW. And HOW is what science excel at.

You're not getting the essence of what I am talking about. Philosophy is everything from just thinking to deciding what isn't science. Philosophy is needed when we are forced to guess. It fills in the gaps in order to do science. Scientific realism is a foundation of what to make of scientific advances.

Of course we need philosophy.
That is not what we talk about.
You are loosing track of what we are discussing: the zombie argument.

Philosophy cannot establish new facts about the real world. For that purpose we need empirical science.

To solve the problem with conciousness we need to establish new facts.

The zombie argument doesnt give us any new facts since it is circular and thus cannot be used to build falsable hypoteses.

Well if there is a consciousness, finding it is clearly outside of the scope of science. Let's say we find the exact physical parameter of the process that gives consciousness, how will science, as it is defined by Popper, ever observe or formulate any kind of theory about it? We could only talk about some kind of possible duality.

- - - Updated - - -

Not only do the things that shape and form it have freedom from QM, something selects the will has freedom too. As far as I can tell, will is partially freely made and in many cases freely selected.

What is it that selects will? What is it that selects quantum outcomes?

Me, since the freedom is a part of me.

 

[fromderinside]

Talking about neural architecture is meaningless unless you can explain the relationship between a mind and neural architecture.

I just noticed this little turd you dropped on DBT.

There need be no theory of mind even though there are many theories of mind neuroscience. Neural architecture is what it is. Meaning from it comes in many ways. For instance theories of mind and consciousness in psychiatry, social psychology, personality, etc., are being used as tools as we slowly come to better understand the relation between a couple information use-and-control systems within their domains.

I don't see how the concept of consciousness is meaningful when discussing a brain evolved by situations over long periods of time. Yet using such as mind and conscsiousness in organizing research relating to the from many, if not, infinite number of drivers, derivative constructs like wakefulness, attention, awareness - subdivisions of consciousness theory - are useful in understanding how the structure and function of the brain came about. So even a meaningless construct like consciousness has its place in the development of both neural and evolutionary theory of the animal brain.

Again we see your Trump-like approach to study of neural and endocrine systems leads you to assert blindly "such and such is meaningless unless there is a theory of thus and so". The understanding of what may replace the ancient notion of mind comes from incremental steps testing this and that theory of mind and consciousness even though the end result won't be an integrated singular construct as either either mind or consciousness presumes.

 

[Juma]

Well if there is a consciousness, finding it is clearly outside of the scope of science. Let's say we find the exact physical parameter of the process that gives consciousness, how will science, as it is defined by Popper, ever observe or formulate any kind of theory about it? We could only talk about some kind of possible duality.

Again, that consciousness exists is well established.

How you can know that you dont what it is is unknowable beats me.

But you run from the subject: the zombie argument.

 

[ryan]

Well if there is a consciousness, finding it is clearly outside of the scope of science. Let's say we find the exact physical parameter of the process that gives consciousness, how will science, as it is defined by Popper, ever observe or formulate any kind of theory about it? We could only talk about some kind of possible duality.

Again, that consciousness exists is well established.

How you can know that you dont what it is is unknowable beats me.

But you run from the subject: the zombie argument.

You are all over the place. First I can't talk about zombies because they aren't scientific, yet we can discuss the consciousness (ths noun not the verb) which is not scientific.

I spent years trying to find the need for a consciousness. If the consciousness does exist, enlighten me. Then tell me why you argued against its existence so much in the past.