Human Instinct and Free Will

[ryan]

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?

But we already discussed Libet/readiness potential. Since most of my decisions are what my consciousness wanted, it would seem as though my unconscious brain activity is an extension of me. Or is my unconsciousness just my consciousness without the expression?

We also have to understand the role that the consciousness plays. If it is physical, surely it affects what I choose one way or another.

 

[DBT]

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

But we already discussed Libet/readiness potential. Since most of my decisions are what my consciousness wanted, it would seem as though my unconscious brain activity is an extension of me.

How can you say that. That's not how it works. Not at all. What you say here implies that prior processing and readiness potential serves you, your consciousness and what you want....as if these have an independent existence to the processing activity that shapes and forms you, including what you want. It's all a part and parcel of the same activity, self identity, self awareness, awareness of the world and its options, hopes, wants, desires, fears, all formed by brain activity. Not to serve you, but to generate you and 'your' conscious life.

Or is my unconsciousness just my consciousness without the expression?

We also have to understand the role that the consciousness plays. If it is physical, surely it affects what I choose one way or another.

But it's not actually your unconscious activity....you the conscious self are not even aware of it....it being unconscious activity.

It is the unconscious activity of the brain, not you the conscious self.

You the conscious self being the conscious activity of the brain.

 

[DBT]

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.

No, I expect you to provide relevant descriptions, arguments or quotes to support your claims....not just post a link.

I know that there have been critiques of Libet's results but from what I've seen, they have little merit.

If you think there is something worthwhile in your link, you should post a quote of what you believe is relevant to your positon, at least.

The time lapse between information input via the senses followed by conscious perception of some of that information (selected unconsciously) feelings followed by thoughts and actions is based on physics....the latter cannot precede the former. It's a process of cognition that has been confirmed by several research institutes, Max Planck, etc.

And you are not the one who should be even mentioning dogma. You don't provide anything in the way of a description for your version of mind (whatever that is), evidence or anything else. Posting a link is an extremely poor effort.

 

[ryan]

But we already discussed Libet/readiness potential. Since most of my decisions are what my consciousness wanted, it would seem as though my unconscious brain activity is an extension of me.

How can you say that. That's not how it works. Not at all. What you say here implies that prior processing and readiness potential serves you, your consciousness and what you want....as if these have an independent existence to the processing activity that shapes and forms you, including what you want. It's all a part and parcel of the same activity, self identity, self awareness, awareness of the world and its options, hopes, wants, desires, fears, all formed by brain activity. Not to serve you, but to generate you and 'your' conscious life.

There is miscommunication here. I meant that since my unconscious and conscious self are connected on an unconscious level and are usually in "agreement", then can't I consider my unconsciousness "me" too? Unconsciousness might be just as much as "me" as my consciousness.

Or, if you don't buy the above, how do you know that there is no feedback from the consciousness after the unconsciousness makes a decision. For example, as a kid, I slowly learnt what flavors of the many flavors of Jelly Belly I liked. My unconsciousness may have chosen for me at first based on whatever. But then when each flavor trigger my conscious taste sensations, there is either a negative or a positive sensation, and different levels of which. Is it a coincidence that my unconsciousness began to choose what "satisfies" my conscious taste sensations the most? Clearly there may be some feedback back to my unconsciousness.

 

[DBT]

How can you say that. That's not how it works. Not at all. What you say here implies that prior processing and readiness potential serves you, your consciousness and what you want....as if these have an independent existence to the processing activity that shapes and forms you, including what you want. It's all a part and parcel of the same activity, self identity, self awareness, awareness of the world and its options, hopes, wants, desires, fears, all formed by brain activity. Not to serve you, but to generate you and 'your' conscious life.

There is miscommunication here. I meant that since my unconscious and conscious self are connected on an unconscious level and are usually in "agreement", then can't I consider my unconsciousness "me" too? Unconsciousness might be just as much as "me" as my consciousness.

If 'me' in this instance refers to body as a whole, yes, you could say that.

But the problem for 'free will' lies in your experience as a conscious entity, which has no access to the biological process/activity that brings you into existence, unconscious activity, which forms your perceptions, thoughts, feelings and carries out your actions.

Actions that were formed in the same sequence of events as 'your' conscious thoughts and 'your' will to carry them out. Which, ultimately, is all brain agency.

Or, if you don't buy the above, how do you know that there is no feedback from the consciousness after the unconsciousness makes a decision. For example, as a kid, I slowly learnt what flavors of the many flavors of Jelly Belly I liked. My unconsciousness may have chosen for me at first based on whatever. But then when each flavor trigger my conscious taste sensations, there is either a negative or a positive sensation, and different levels of which. Is it a coincidence that my unconsciousness began to choose what "satisfies" my conscious taste sensations the most? Clearly there may be some feedback back to my unconsciousness.

There is constant feedback throughout the system, senses (external input) internal feedback from organs, nerves, memory feedback loops and so on, throughout the central nervous system. Consciousness plays its own role as a 'global workspace' where information comes together in order to facilitate complex response rather than each system doing its own thing.

Even so, the brain being modular, different regions compete for inclusion.....''I'd like to scoff a tub of chocolate/I shouldn't have it because it isn't good for me....oh, a little bit won't hurt... it's just a small treat.''

 

[untermensche]

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.

No, I expect you to provide relevant descriptions, arguments or quotes to support your claims....not just post a link.

I know that there have been critiques of Libet's results but from what I've seen, they have little merit.

If you think there is something worthwhile in your link, you should post a quote of what you believe is relevant to your positon, at least.

The time lapse between information input via the senses followed by conscious perception of some of that information (selected unconsciously) feelings followed by thoughts and actions is based on physics....the latter cannot precede the former. It's a process of cognition that has been confirmed by several research institutes, Max Planck, etc.

And you are not the one who should be even mentioning dogma. You don't provide anything in the way of a description for your version of mind (whatever that is), evidence or anything else. Posting a link is an extremely poor effort.

It's not worth my effort. There is nothing that will move you. I provided you with some of the information I use to make my conclusions. Read it or don't. I find it amazing you say you care about this issue but won't read serious materials provided to you.

Just stop trying to tell me there is any proof a person can not move at "will".

There is experiential evidence and no scientific evidence saying otherwise.

A buildup of electrical energy in some muscle is just evidence of a mind preparing to act. And the fact that the energy can be shut off is evidence of a mind in action.

 

[fromderinside]

....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.

An example of an aspect of what I said.

Sound is created by appreciating a kind of energy. If that energy form is relevant it makes sense that biological organisms will adapt (evolve) to process it. In the case of sound there are at least three forms which can be appreciated, mechanical generated by the being, external felt over some range of surface area, and external transmitted through air to a structure suited for processing a range of acoustic input. Organisms over time developed cells and systems through which they could make use of these energy manifestations impinging on their being.

Starting there we find a consistent evolution of two different processes in living things adapted to sense and process this energy, sensors localized to detect and process a range of acoustic stimuli and cells and systems situated where acoustic energy is created within or on the being to aid in the use of such as joint motion and rapid changes in local pressure.

Humans have both and their functions are clearly adaptations from earlier manifestations in earlier organisms. The systems underlying these systems are also either identical or adapted from earlier beings.

How these systems are connected and how these systems impact or lead to behavior are similarly related to previous beings.

Now the study begins.

Let's take classical sound rather than joint perception capabilities since it is the most interesting route showing greatest changes in capability of acoustic processing systems are found here in humans.

I propose we take the physical relationships and functions first. The ear has specialized into two related sensing systems for processing complete sound events. Systems from the ears have also specialized to deal with useful aspects of acoustic signals arriving at the being. At the most primitive level of sound, its onset, processing systems have developed at the most distal from central processes brain structures. Physiologists would call this the most local signals since there occur nearest to reception.

These onsets are used to detect both the existence and onset of acoustic signals by the being. As little as one tenth of a millisecond difference of the arrival signal by the two ears are functionally detectable. These inputs are directed to loci where orienting of other sensor functions take place and used to point such as eyes and ears toward the direction of the source. The processes to achieve such results are well understood as are their impacts on acoustic and sound source signal processing.

What is heard is a click which becomes less noticable as the signal continues its time course.

End of page one of thousands.

 

[untermensche]

Sound is created by appreciating a kind of energy.

Appreciating energy? Couldn't be less explanatory if you tried in terms of brain physiology.

You make my point well.

 

[ryan]

Or, if you don't buy the above, how do you know that there is no feedback from the consciousness after the unconsciousness makes a decision. For example, as a kid, I slowly learnt what flavors of the many flavors of Jelly Belly I liked. My unconsciousness may have chosen for me at first based on whatever. But then when each flavor trigger my conscious taste sensations, there is either a negative or a positive sensation, and different levels of which. Is it a coincidence that my unconsciousness began to choose what "satisfies" my conscious taste sensations the most? Clearly there may be some feedback back to my unconsciousness.

There is constant feedback throughout the system, senses (external input) internal feedback from organs, nerves, memory feedback loops and so on, throughout the central nervous system. Consciousness plays its own role as a 'global workspace' where information comes together in order to facilitate complex response rather than each system doing its own thing.

Even so, the brain being modular, different regions compete for inclusion.....''I'd like to scoff a tub of chocolate/I shouldn't have it because it isn't good for me....oh, a little bit won't hurt... it's just a small treat.''

Using my example, shouldn't the consciousness be included in with decision making since it sets up what future choices will be?

 

[Malintent]

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.

another circle... it is physically possible to deposit a large sum of money into your savings account. no laws of the universe prevent this... only the rules of economics. Will it so, then. Alternatively, make the choice to not consider making the choice (which I purport to be impossible, since I suggested it).

 

[untermensche]

Physical reality, not psychological reality.

another circle... it is physically possible to deposit a large sum of money into your savings account. no laws of the universe prevent this... only the rules of economics. Will it so, then. Alternatively, make the choice to not consider making the choice (which I purport to be impossible, since I suggested it).

It takes having the large sum to deposit it.

 

[DBT]

No, I expect you to provide relevant descriptions, arguments or quotes to support your claims....not just post a link.

I know that there have been critiques of Libet's results but from what I've seen, they have little merit.

If you think there is something worthwhile in your link, you should post a quote of what you believe is relevant to your positon, at least.

The time lapse between information input via the senses followed by conscious perception of some of that information (selected unconsciously) feelings followed by thoughts and actions is based on physics....the latter cannot precede the former. It's a process of cognition that has been confirmed by several research institutes, Max Planck, etc.

And you are not the one who should be even mentioning dogma. You don't provide anything in the way of a description for your version of mind (whatever that is), evidence or anything else. Posting a link is an extremely poor effort.

It's not worth my effort. There is nothing that will move you. I provided you with some of the information I use to make my conclusions. Read it or don't. I find it amazing you say you care about this issue but won't read serious materials provided to you.

Just stop trying to tell me there is any proof a person can not move at "will".

There is experiential evidence and no scientific evidence saying otherwise.

A buildup of electrical energy in some muscle is just evidence of a mind preparing to act. And the fact that the energy can be shut off is evidence of a mind in action.

I'm quite aware of what the critiques of Libet's experiments are, but I don't know what precisely you believe supports your own position. Nor do I know what your model of mind is as you have never offered a rudimentary description despite numerous requests.

Saying - ''A buildup of electrical energy in some muscle is just evidence of a mind preparing to act. And the fact that the energy can be shut off is evidence of a mind in action'' - for example says nothing whatsoever about the nature of mind according to your beliefs.

 

[untermensche]

It's not worth my effort. There is nothing that will move you. I provided you with some of the information I use to make my conclusions. Read it or don't. I find it amazing you say you care about this issue but won't read serious materials provided to you.

Just stop trying to tell me there is any proof a person can not move at "will".

There is experiential evidence and no scientific evidence saying otherwise.

A buildup of electrical energy in some muscle is just evidence of a mind preparing to act. And the fact that the energy can be shut off is evidence of a mind in action.

I'm quite aware of what the critiques of Libet's experiments are, but I don't know what precisely you believe supports your own position. Nor do I know what your model of mind is as you have never offered a rudimentary description despite numerous requests.

Saying - ''A buildup of electrical energy in some muscle is just evidence of a mind preparing to act. And the fact that the energy can be shut off is evidence of a mind in action'' - for example says nothing whatsoever about the nature of mind according to your beliefs.

I don't know what you mean by "model of the mind"?

Nobody has a "model of the mind" in terms of how activity of the brain is translated into a mind and translated into the things a mind can be aware of.

Nobody has even a hypothesis for how this happens.

So asking me to do what nobody has done is pretty ridiculous.

 

[fromderinside]

Sound is created by appreciating a kind of energy.

Appreciating energy? Couldn't be less explanatory if you tried in terms of brain physiology.

You make my point well.

Well there you go again Mr. Trump. Obviously one such as yourself has never heard that appreciate and detect can be interchangeable.

Oh, you had a point? Really? The one on your broken pencil perhaps?

Had you attempted the sciences you would have failed first term. So go back to your reading of debate or philosophy, whichever your vanity requires, and continue your fruitless life.

But thanks for trying anyway.

 

[untermensche]

Appreciating energy? Couldn't be less explanatory if you tried in terms of brain physiology.

You make my point well.

Well there you go again Mr. Trump. Obviously one such as yourself has never heard that appreciate and detect can be interchangeable.

Oh, you had a point? Really? The one on your broken pencil perhaps?

Had you attempted the sciences you would have failed first term. So go back to your reading of debate or philosophy, whichever your vanity requires, and continue your fruitless life.

But thanks for trying anyway.

I have a PharmD.

There is a bit of science involved.

My problem is not that you said something inaccurate. My problem is you have said absolutely nothing about how a brain turns "appreciated energy" into the experience of sound.

 

[fromderinside]

Well there you go again Mr. Trump. Obviously one such as yourself has never heard that appreciate and detect can be interchangeable.

Oh, you had a point? Really? The one on your broken pencil perhaps?

Had you attempted the sciences you would have failed first term. So go back to your reading of debate or philosophy, whichever your vanity requires, and continue your fruitless life.

But thanks for trying anyway.

I have a PharmD.

There is a bit of science involved.

My problem is not that you said something inaccurate. My problem is you have said absolutely nothing about how a brain turns "appreciated energy" into the experience of sound.

Baby steps, sir, baby steps. My impression is that we remember some of what we experience. Those things pass through language and association filters and processors leading to an 'experience' of sound. To get there one needs to take what I started through the thousands of pages I reference to come to a model which 'explains' your thingie. Each of the elements in those thousands of pages are just as deterministic as are those in the little tidbit I dropped on acoustic driven orienting for your enjoyment in that first page.

My response is most certainly unsatisfying since it requires an objective observable outcome.

 

[untermensche]

I have a PharmD.

There is a bit of science involved.

My problem is not that you said something inaccurate. My problem is you have said absolutely nothing about how a brain turns "appreciated energy" into the experience of sound.

Baby steps, sir, baby steps. My impression is that we remember some of what what we experience. Those things pass through language and association filters and processors leading to an 'experience' of sound. To get there one needs to take what I started through the thousands of pages I reference to come to a model which 'explains' your thingie. Each of the elements in those thousands of pages are just as deterministic as are those in the little tidbit I dropped on acoustic driven orienting for your enjoyment in that first page.

That is what I said. Your knowledge is just a scraping of the surface.

Far too little to make any conclusions about things like minds.

And what do you mean by "language"? What is that?

 

[DBT]

I'm quite aware of what the critiques of Libet's experiments are, but I don't know what precisely you believe supports your own position. Nor do I know what your model of mind is as you have never offered a rudimentary description despite numerous requests.

Saying - ''A buildup of electrical energy in some muscle is just evidence of a mind preparing to act. And the fact that the energy can be shut off is evidence of a mind in action'' - for example says nothing whatsoever about the nature of mind according to your beliefs.

I don't know what you mean by "model of the mind"?

Nobody has a "model of the mind" in terms of how activity of the brain is translated into a mind and translated into the things a mind can be aware of.

A 'model' or 'work model' simply refers to a description, theory or hypothesis in relation to how something works...attributes, features, functions, abilities, mechanisms and so on. But you already know this. Your game is all about avoiding to give any sort of description, model or mechanism of mind.....yet continue to make the same claims over and over.....'I can move my finger at will'' - meanwhile ignoring actual experiments that show that multiple systems are involved in both movement intention and their associated motor actions.

Nobody has even a hypothesis for how this happens.

So asking me to do what nobody has done is pretty ridiculous.

So why are you making any claims about mind, conscious intention and motor action whatsoever? You obviously have no idea. And worse, you ignore any understanding of the roles of various systems regarding mind/brain/volition that neuroscience has to offer.

 

[DBT]

Using my example, shouldn't the consciousness be included in with decision making since it sets up what future choices will be?

Why do you say ''consciousness sets up what future choices will be'' and not that it is the brain which sets up both the choices being made according to the state of its information base in that instance and the conscious representation of these choices in the form of conscious thoughts and deliberation in its global work space, while consciousness is being formed and generated? Which is a far more accurate description.

 

[fromderinside]

And what do you mean by "language"? What is that?

Presume for a moment that the thousands of pages to which I refer is thirty thousand. The mechanisms for relating to language begin to come up around page 28500. One way to look at things is as a physiologist. If language is considered then those antecedents processes necessary for those in language need be explained first since they occur between 6 and 10 synapses from sensors. We know much, but, a deterministic model for language is fraught with uncertainties. Those processes take place far away from what we can directly measure, the first three or four synapses from transducer.