Human Instinct and Free Will

[Juma]

So let me get this straight. You believe in a ghostly material that science can't say anything about

Eh. No. I made it very clear that I dont believe that conciousness is a thing/sort of matter.

 

[ryan]

So let me get this straight. You believe in a ghostly material that science can't say anything about

Eh. No. I made it very clear that I dont believe that conciousness is a thing/sort of matter.

What? Do you or do you not believe that the consciousness is matter?

 

[Juma]

Eh. No. I made it very clear that I dont believe that conciousness is a thing/sort of matter.

What? Do you or do you not believe that the consciousness is matter?

Conciousness is behaviour of matter, ordinary commonplace matter. Not a specific sort of matter.

 

[ryan]

What? Do you or do you not believe that the consciousness is matter?

Conciousness is behaviour of matter, ordinary commonplace matter. Not a specific sort of matter.

That seems a lot like the scientific term for consciousness and not the consciousness that is composed of things like qualia.

 

[Juma]

Conciousness is behaviour of matter, ordinary commonplace matter. Not a specific sort of matter.

That seems a lot like the scientific term for consciousness and not the consciousness that is composed of things like qualia.

Qualia is how we experience the conciousness.

But enough of that.

Do you agree that philosophical zombies is an useless example of not?

 

[ryan]

That seems a lot like the scientific term for consciousness and not the consciousness that is composed of things like qualia.

Qualia is how we experience the conciousness.

But enough of that.

Do you agree that philosophical zombies is an useless example of not?

No, obviously I don't. It helped me think about the consciousness in a different way, and it still does.

 

[fromderinside]

All you have said is that there is some evidence that consciousness is produced by the brain.

Yet you don't seem to comprehend this is not any explanation of how neural activity becomes consciousness or what specific activity results in consciousness.

I didn't say that.

What I did say was

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 from many to, 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.

So instead of explaining how neural activity becomes consciousness I said one could use the consciousness construct to make operational models against which to explore brain function to better understand it in the areas of wakefulness, attention, and awareness.

As long as science clings to the idea that brain is unitary in nature the idea of consciousness has scientific market value. That is not saying there is or is not consciousness.

 

[Juma]

Qualia is how we experience the conciousness.

But enough of that.

Do you agree that philosophical zombies is an useless example of not?

No, obviously I don't. It helped me think about the consciousness in a different way, and it still does.

How?

 

[DBT]

Ryan, I was responding to you and your use of the term in relation to your idea of consciousness and free will.

I quote:

''The thing that chooses may be my consciousness entangled into this quantum state or it might be the randomness of existence that chooses for me....'' - ryan.

okay

If it truly is 'your' consciousness that chooses, 'you' should be conscious of manipulating quantum states in order to make your desired decision.

I am consciously choosing something from a superposition of choices; that's not just philosophy but science.

But you are not exactly doing that. 'Your' brain weighs options based on past experience with tastes, sounds, rewards, failures, etc, which are related to macro scale objects and their relationships to your (brain) experience with them. Neither 'you' (the brains interface with the world) or the brain itself as an information processor is directly aware of quantum states, superposition, entanglement or anything else...these being common to all matter/energy structures and the brains of all species of animals that have a central nervous system.

 

[untermensche]

You are avoiding your responsibility to provide your own version of mind in relation to brain and brain architecture functions. You are the one dancing, as you have all along by ignoring all evidence for brain generated mind.

Which is it, some brain or something some brain is doing?

Which is having trouble understanding this.

It can't be both.

There is no 'both' - a brain as an information process has evolved for the very purpose of interacting with the external world in order that the organism as a whole survives, thrives even, and perpetuates the species...evolutionary biology/psychology specific to the species (type of brain) and individuals within a species.

Now your turn. Stop avoiding your responsibility for explaining your model of mind.

You are saying nothing.

What is expressing all these ideas?

A brain? Some activity of a brain? Or something some activity of a brain is producing?

Stop dancing.

I wonder why you won't give a straight answer.

I still don't see you offering a working model of mind that supports your contentions, just the irony of your charge of 'dancing' offered by a master dancer.

You ask the same questions over and over, I give you a reply. You ignore what I said just to repeat the same questions.

Meanwhile after answering your questions (what is answering, etc) I ask you a question in turn...to no avail: you offer nothing but the same questions. Talk about dancing.

You have given no reply.

This is the absolute bare bones conception and you avoid it like the plague.

What is consciousness?

Is it the brain? Is it some activity of the brain? Or is it something that arises out of some activity of the brain?

This is the starting point of any discussion about consciousness.

So stop dancing and just give one straight answer without all the handwaving.

Which of these is it? Just tell me which of the three it is. I don't need a dance.

 

[untermensche]

I didn't say that.

What I did say was

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 from many to, 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.

So instead of explaining how neural activity becomes consciousness I said one could use the consciousness construct to make operational models against which to explore brain function to better understand it in the areas of wakefulness, attention, and awareness.

As long as science clings to the idea that brain is unitary in nature the idea of consciousness has scientific market value. That is not saying there is or is not consciousness.

You really don't comprehend that you have said absolutely NOTHING about consciousness?

I don't see how the concept of consciousness is meaningful when discussing a brain evolved by situations over long periods of time.

Then you are very blind.

Because consciousness is a clear phenomena in the world. Pretending it doesn't exist is not an answer to anything.

Yet using such as mind and conscsiousness in organizing research relating to from many to, if not, infinite number of drivers, derivative constructs like wakefulness, attention, awareness - subdivisions of consciousness theory

Yes it is complex. Saying it is complex is just another dodge from acknowledgement of a clear observable phenomena.

Your words are empty nothingness and not an explanation or a coherent position.

If you didn't have a mind you could not understand what I am saying or try to form a response. Words and ideas are not fragments of some fragmented process. They are whole entities that must arise out of something capable of constructing and understanding them. We call that a mind.

Playing ostrich with it's head in the sand and pretending minds don't exist is not a logical position.

It is avoiding having one and then pretending avoidance is an answer.

 

[ryan]

No, obviously I don't. It helped me think about the consciousness in a different way, and it still does.

How?

Think about it. A zombie makes you wonder if there is a difference between a certain process in the brain (body) and the consciousness (body). If they are the same thing, then we don't have both at the same time; we have one or the other. Consciousness would be just an extra name; and therefor is unnecessary.

 

[ryan]

okay

If it truly is 'your' consciousness that chooses, 'you' should be conscious of manipulating quantum states in order to make your desired decision.

I am consciously choosing something from a superposition of choices; that's not just philosophy but science.

But you are not exactly doing that. 'Your' brain weighs options based on past experience with tastes, sounds, rewards, failures, etc, which are related to macro scale objects and their relationships to your (brain) experience with them. Neither 'you' (the brains interface with the world) or the brain itself as an information processor is directly aware of quantum states, superposition, entanglement or anything else...these being common to all matter/energy structures and the brains of all species of animals that have a central nervous system.

But I am the superposition. That's like saying that the bottle doesn't hold up the water; but instead it's the glass holding it up.

 

[Juma]

How?

Think about it. A zombie makes you wonder if there is a difference between a certain process in the brain (body) and the consciousness (body). If they are the same thing, then we don't have both at the same time; we have one or the other. Consciousness would be just an extra name; and therefor is unnecessary.

When a road changed direction we call that a "curve" but according to your reasoning above we have both the curve and the road at the sane time; Curve would be just an extra nsme and therefore is unnecessary.

Do you realize how weird your wording sounds? When there is a feature of the road that we call curve, it is in no way unnecessary. In the same way there is a feature of the brain called consciousness, it is in no way unnecessary.

 

[DBT]

okay

If it truly is 'your' consciousness that chooses, 'you' should be conscious of manipulating quantum states in order to make your desired decision.

I am consciously choosing something from a superposition of choices; that's not just philosophy but science.

But you are not exactly doing that. 'Your' brain weighs options based on past experience with tastes, sounds, rewards, failures, etc, which are related to macro scale objects and their relationships to your (brain) experience with them. Neither 'you' (the brains interface with the world) or the brain itself as an information processor is directly aware of quantum states, superposition, entanglement or anything else...these being common to all matter/energy structures and the brains of all species of animals that have a central nervous system.

But I am the superposition. That's like saying that the bottle doesn't hold up the water; but instead it's the glass holding it up.

Ryan, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Macro scale objects such as you as a biological organism are not in superposition. Interaction with macro scale objects causes wave collapse, Copenhagen interpretation...or a time line/event split, aka, many worlds interpretation, amongst at least ten different interpretations of quantum wave function that I can think of offhand.

You don't choose wave collapse, you are not aware of the state of fundamental particles/waves.....your brain is presented with macro scale objects, relationships and selections such as choosing a partner, friends, buying this or that article, etc, all of which involves past experience with these things, this tasted better than that, this looks more attractive and so on...a brain evaluating cost to benefit ratios. Sometimes considering that it may be better to forgo immediate gratification for the prospect of greater reward in the future.

Your idea of superposition enabling 'free will' has no merit. Sorry.

 

[DBT]

You are avoiding your responsibility to provide your own version of mind in relation to brain and brain architecture functions. You are the one dancing, as you have all along by ignoring all evidence for brain generated mind.

Which is it, some brain or something some brain is doing?

Which is having trouble understanding this.

It can't be both.

There is no 'both' - a brain as an information process has evolved for the very purpose of interacting with the external world in order that the organism as a whole survives, thrives even, and perpetuates the species...evolutionary biology/psychology specific to the species (type of brain) and individuals within a species.

Now your turn. Stop avoiding your responsibility for explaining your model of mind.

You are saying nothing.

What is expressing all these ideas?

A brain? Some activity of a brain? Or something some activity of a brain is producing?

Stop dancing.

I wonder why you won't give a straight answer.

I still don't see you offering a working model of mind that supports your contentions, just the irony of your charge of 'dancing' offered by a master dancer.

You ask the same questions over and over, I give you a reply. You ignore what I said just to repeat the same questions.

Meanwhile after answering your questions (what is answering, etc) I ask you a question in turn...to no avail: you offer nothing but the same questions. Talk about dancing.

You have given no reply.

This is the absolute bare bones conception and you avoid it like the plague.

What is consciousness?

Is it the brain? Is it some activity of the brain? Or is it something that arises out of some activity of the brain?

This is the starting point of any discussion about consciousness.

So stop dancing and just give one straight answer without all the handwaving.

Which of these is it? Just tell me which of the three it is. I don't need a dance.

There you go again, ignoring everything that I have said and provided, including evidence that it is indeed the brain that is generating mind/consciousness, which is accepted by practically all who work in the field.

Recall the sequence of events beginning with sensory input, the roles of neuronal structures, the consequences of chemical and structural changes and so on, for which I provided case studies and experiments....so even though it is not understood how the brain forms its internally generated conscious experience of the world, it is clear that the brain is doing it based on the available evidence.


You completely ignore all research, all evidence, that support brain agency and just assert your own version, whatever that happens to be because even when you are repeatedly asked to explain you ignore the requests, only to reset back to the start.

Now, once again; can you or can you not provide an explanation of your alternative model of mind?

 

[ryan]

Think about it. A zombie makes you wonder if there is a difference between a certain process in the brain (body) and the consciousness (body). If they are the same thing, then we don't have both at the same time; we have one or the other. Consciousness would be just an extra name; and therefor is unnecessary.

When a road changed direction we call that a "curve" but according to your reasoning above we have both the curve and the road at the sane time; Curve would be just an extra nsme and therefore is unnecessary.

Do you realize how weird this sounds? There is a feature of the road that we call curve, it is in no way unnecessary. In the same way there is a feature of the brain called consciousness, it is in no way unnecessary.
And: we still dont know how it works.

Sure, in the scientific sense, there is a body and a consciousness. Nobody is going to argue with that because it's just a scientific term for a common human feature: Doctor asks me my name, where I am, date of birth, and if I answer coherently, check, I am conscious. This is the consciousness that nobody is arguing whether or not exists.

But then there is the philosophy of what the consciousness is:

"The Descriptive Question: What is consciousness? What are its principal features? And by what means can they be best discovered, described and modeled?

The Explanatory Question: How does consciousness of the relevant sort come to exist? Is it a primitive aspect of reality, and if not how does (or could) consciousness in the relevant respect arise from or be caused by nonconscious entities or processes?

The Functional Question: Why does consciousness of the relevant sort exist? Does it have a function, and if so what it is it? Does it act causally and if so with sorts of effects? Does it make a difference to the operation of systems in which it is present, and if so why and how?".

from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

 

[ryan]

Macro scale objects such as you as a biological organism are not in superposition.

According to the working model, my choices are.

Interaction with macro scale objects causes wave collapse, ...

But where does it collapse and why? If there is no reason for it to collapse to one choice over the other, then that is the freedom.

You don't choose wave collapse, you are not aware of the state of fundamental particles/waves.....

If I am given option A or option B, and I choose A when I could have chosen B, then I exercised free will. It's that simple.

... your brain is presented with macro scale objects, relationships and selections such as choosing a partner, friends, buying this or that article, etc, all of which involves past experience with these things, this tasted better than that, this looks more attractive and so on...a brain evaluating cost to benefit ratios. Sometimes considering that it may be better to forgo immediate gratification for the prospect of greater reward in the future.

You just refuse to accept the quantum cognition model, or you refuse to read it. It answers these concerns of yours. I am not going to post it anymore.

 

[DBT]

According to the working model, my choices are.

There is no working model that allows mind consciousness to manipulate quantum states at will. It doesn't happen. You, your mind or brain is not aware of quantum states.

But where does it collapse and why? If there is no reason for it to collapse to one choice over the other, then that is the freedom.

That's the reason why there are at least ten different interpretations of quantum wave function. In some there is no collapse, MW, in others collapse is due to macro scale interactions, gravity, etc. If that wasn't the case, nothing would have formed in the early stages of the BB, no particles, no stars, galaxies, planets, life on Earth.

According to the working model, my choices are.

If I am given option A or option B, and I choose A when I could have chosen B, then I exercised free will. It's that simple.

If it was that simple we would not have centuries of debate on the subject of free will. The fact is, you the conscious self do not choose anything, it is specifically a brain that processes information and selects options based on its own information condition in any given moment, and nothing to do with 'will' or wave function.

You just refuse to accept the quantum cognition model, or you refuse to read it. It answers these concerns of yours. I am not going to post it anymore.

It's not a matter of refusing to accept it, or not reading it, I have. The reason being that QM alone cannot explain decision making as a function of the architecture of the brain as a whole. QM is not the ToE.

 

[ryan]

There is no working model that allows mind consciousness to manipulate quantum states at will. It doesn't happen. You, your mind or brain is not aware of quantum states.

It's almost as if you are disputing the coherence of terms like "we" make decisions or "I" make decisions in general. In other words, you should have the same argument whether the will is free or not.

But where does it collapse and why? If there is no reason for it to collapse to one choice over the other, then that is the freedom.

That's the reason why there are at least ten different interpretations of quantum wave function. In some there is no collapse, MW, in others collapse is due to macro scale interactions, gravity, etc. If that wasn't the case, nothing would have formed in the early stages of the BB, no particles, no stars, galaxies, planets, life on Earth.

Even heat collapses wave functions, but it doesn't get to choose where on the volume of probability densities.

According to the working model, my choices are.

If I am given option A or option B, and I choose A when I could have chosen B, then I exercised free will. It's that simple.

If it was that simple we would not have centuries of debate on the subject of free will. The fact is, you the conscious self do not choose anything, it is specifically a brain that processes information and selects options based on its own information condition in any given moment, and nothing to do with 'will' or wave function.

According to some compatibilists, it's even easier. At least I am trying to use a more personal and empowering approach.

You just refuse to accept the quantum cognition model, or you refuse to read it. It answers these concerns of yours. I am not going to post it anymore.

It's not a matter of refusing to accept it, or not reading it, I have. The reason being that QM alone cannot explain decision making as a function of the architecture of the brain as a whole. QM is not the ToE.

My argument is only about the possibility of free will, not that it must exist.