Human Instinct and Free Will

[untermensche]

You haven't shown me anything about what happens in a person that just decides to move their finger at will.

You have shown me what happens to people when they are anticipating having to move in the near future in some artificial setting.

And your depiction of the mind as a vague notion is laughable.

As I said it is the thing a human knows best.

And you completely ignore what you (your mind) want to ignore, like this:

This conclusion assumes that the readiness potential is the signature of the brain planning and preparing to move. “Even people who have been critical of Libet’s work, by and large, haven’t challenged that assumption,” says Aaron Schurger of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research in Saclay, France.

One attempt to do so came in 2009. Judy Trevena and Jeff Miller of the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, asked volunteers to decide, after hearing a tone, whether or not to tap on a keyboard. The readiness potential was present regardless of their decision, suggesting that it did not represent the brain preparing to move. Exactly what it did mean, though, still wasn’t clear.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-stand-in-the-way-of-free-will/

You don't realise that your quote actually supports all that I have been saying about the sequence of events leading to conscious report?

And yes, sure, there are people who are trying to salvage the notion of free will regardless of the evidence stacked up against it....but the best that can be achieved is a purely semantic construct.

You could say ''free will is the ability to move your finger at will'' - which is what you do - ''I can move my finger at will, therefore free will exists'' - which is what you do.

But this means nothing because your definition does not take the actual process of agency into account. You only consider conscious experience and ignore its means of production; the state and condition of the brain producing you and your experience.

That is where any claim to free will fails to establish anything more than a word salad, a game of semantics. The moon is yellow, cheese is yellow, therefore the moon is made of cheese....

First of all the study totally contradicts what you have been trying to pass off as "knowledge".

And all I have said is I can use my mind to move my finger at "will". The quotes mean something when I use them.

And I have gone on to say that until we know what a mind is, in physiological terms, we have no idea if it "free" or "unfree".

 

[ryan]

I didn't say that it had to be independent from the brain. I am assuming that the consciousness is a part of the brain. It seems that you are the one separating the consciousness from the brain.

You didn't say it was independent, but it was implied in what you said. As for the latter, I have no idea how you come to think that, considering what I have said about brain agency. You must be joking.

I took your meaning of "independent" as "a ghost in the machine". But if you meant it in a mechanical way, then I would say that every atom or group of atoms in the brain have a certain degree of independence. A quark particle, on the other hand, is not independent; it goes where the other quark particles in the nucleus goes as well as any electrons.

 

[fromderinside]

I rank Chomsky right down there with Gould for being political animals. They aren't right but they enlist the left to support their views. Its a bit like that Marin county gang that is hard over against vaccinations because it's chic to do so. Baloney slipped into a sausage skin is still baloney.

I didn't argue, BTW, that language evolved for communication. I wrote it is used for communication. Big difference. So when I link reflexes to sound stimuli as categorical metaphor for what happens when one isn't talking to oneself I'm just illustrating the reflexive nature of that process. You're still a toddler aren't you.

Aside: Science doesn't attribute purpose. Science is used to organize data into explanations that are verifiable through experiment. Both Gould and Chomsky fall into the purpose trap which makes them experimental religionists.

 

[untermensche]

I rank Chomsky right down there with Gould for being political animals. They aren't right but they enlist the left to support their views. Its a bit like that Marin county gang that is hard over against vaccinations because it's chic to do so. Baloney slipped into a sausage skin is still baloney.

You've said this before. Of course Chomsky is a political animal. He is one of the leading political dissidents in terms of US policy in the word. But it has absolutely nothing to do with his science, which is linguistics, and you have never shown what the hell you're talking about with ONE real example.

And Gould was very political as well. He was a leading spokesman against those who wanted to introduce creationism into the schools. But again it had absolutely NOTHING to do with his science. Gould was a real scientist and studied the evolution of snails as well as a writer who was able to explain evolutionary principles to laymen.

You make these charges with nothing but hand waving. I have trouble believing you ever studied logic or logical argument.

I didn't argue, BTW, that language evolved for communication. I wrote it is used for communication. Big difference.

No doubt. But humans communicate with many things, with dress and facial expressions and posture and of course with the movement of the hands in the deaf. A hat turned to the side is a form of communication. So saying language can be used for communication is not that surprising.

Aside: Science doesn't attribute purpose.

Chomsky would say that there is no specific purpose to any biological phenomena. He uses the example of the spine which does many things, it supports and protects and allows movement and other things. You can't assign a specific purpose to it.

Chomsky believes and he gives many reasons for believing that language arose as a means for thinking but it has many purposes.

You make these charges without example or evidence or logic.

Therefore nobody should take a word of it seriously.

 

[DBT]

You haven't shown me anything about what happens in a person that just decides to move their finger at will.

You have shown me what happens to people when they are anticipating having to move in the near future in some artificial setting.

And your depiction of the mind as a vague notion is laughable.

As I said it is the thing a human knows best.

And you completely ignore what you (your mind) want to ignore, like this:

This conclusion assumes that the readiness potential is the signature of the brain planning and preparing to move. “Even people who have been critical of Libet’s work, by and large, haven’t challenged that assumption,” says Aaron Schurger of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research in Saclay, France.

One attempt to do so came in 2009. Judy Trevena and Jeff Miller of the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, asked volunteers to decide, after hearing a tone, whether or not to tap on a keyboard. The readiness potential was present regardless of their decision, suggesting that it did not represent the brain preparing to move. Exactly what it did mean, though, still wasn’t clear.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-stand-in-the-way-of-free-will/

You don't realise that your quote actually supports all that I have been saying about the sequence of events leading to conscious report?

And yes, sure, there are people who are trying to salvage the notion of free will regardless of the evidence stacked up against it....but the best that can be achieved is a purely semantic construct.

You could say ''free will is the ability to move your finger at will'' - which is what you do - ''I can move my finger at will, therefore free will exists'' - which is what you do.

But this means nothing because your definition does not take the actual process of agency into account. You only consider conscious experience and ignore its means of production; the state and condition of the brain producing you and your experience.

That is where any claim to free will fails to establish anything more than a word salad, a game of semantics. The moon is yellow, cheese is yellow, therefore the moon is made of cheese....

First of all the study totally contradicts what you have been trying to pass off as "knowledge".

Not at all. As I've already pointed out, there must necessarily be a time lag between information input from the sense to conscious representation of that information with associated feelings, thoughts and related actions (in that sequence)

That is what Libets results represent, and which has been confirmed by several research institutes.

The significance of this being brain agency and not your unsupported notion of independent, autonomous mind....which you can't define, describe or supply evidence for but instead repeat the mantra 'I can move my finger' - meanwhile ignoring the fundamental laws of physics, time and evidence that brain is the agent of mind and not vice versa.

And all I have said is I can use my mind to move my finger at "will". The quotes mean something when I use them.

That, indeed, is all you have said. Meanwhile still ignoring the evidence for brain agency, not 'you' as a conscious entity (being a manifestation of brain activity) or your notion of autonomous mind, which you don't describe because you can't.

Nor does the experimental evidence in your quotes or articles support your claims.

If you think they do, you need to describe your connection and not just repeat ''I can move my finger''

 

[DBT]

You didn't say it was independent, but it was implied in what you said. As for the latter, I have no idea how you come to think that, considering what I have said about brain agency. You must be joking.

I took your meaning of "independent" as "a ghost in the machine". But if you meant it in a mechanical way, then I would say that every atom or group of atoms in the brain have a certain degree of independence. A quark particle, on the other hand, is not independent; it goes where the other quark particles in the nucleus goes as well as any electrons.

Sure, that's true to a point, but particle/waves, neurons, receptors, glial cells, synapses, dendrites, axons, etc, etc, cannot perform the role of the brain as a whole, if taken in isolation. Without a functioning brain as working unit, there is no higher order information processing, consciousness, mind, self awareness, thoughts or decision making.

 

[untermensche]

First of all the study totally contradicts what you have been trying to pass off as "knowledge".

Not at all. As I've already pointed out, there must necessarily be a time lag between information input from the sense to conscious representation of that information with associated feelings, thoughts and related actions (in that sequence)

This doesn't address that study in any way. Did you read it?

You're just repeating barely coherent gibberish.

...asked volunteers to decide, after hearing a tone, whether or not to tap on a keyboard. The readiness potential was present regardless of their decision, suggesting that it did not represent the brain preparing to move.

So whether they decide (in their mind) to tap or not tap a so-called "readiness potential" is present.

Why is a so-called "readiness potential" present when they decide to not tap?

What is it readying for? A nothing? A lack of movement? There is no need to ready for a lack of movement.

Try to actually address the study.

 

[Juma]

Not at all. As I've already pointed out, there must necessarily be a time lag between information input from the sense to conscious representation of that information with associated feelings, thoughts and related actions (in that sequence)

This doesn't address that study in any way. Did you read it?

You're just repeating barely coherent gibberish.

...asked volunteers to decide, after hearing a tone, whether or not to tap on a keyboard. The readiness potential was present regardless of their decision, suggesting that it did not represent the brain preparing to move.

So whether they decide (in their mind) to tap or not tap a so-called "readiness potential" is present.

Why is a so-called "readiness potential" present when they decide to not tap?

What is it readying for? A nothing? A lack of movement? There is no need to ready for a lack of movement.

Try to actually address the study.

It doesnt matter. What is important is that there is a readiness potentianand that it precedes the concious choice.

 

[DBT]

Not at all. As I've already pointed out, there must necessarily be a time lag between information input from the sense to conscious representation of that information with associated feelings, thoughts and related actions (in that sequence)

This doesn't address that study in any way. Did you read it?

I've read the study, and many more like it. I subscribe to the magazine. There have been many articles by different authors over the years putting forward their own ideas.

From the article;
''Spontaneous brain activity“Libet argued that our brain has already decided to move well before we have a conscious intention to move,” says Schurger. “We argue that what looks like a pre-conscious decision process may not in fact reflect a decision at all. It only looks that way because of the nature of spontaneous brain activity.”

Now the nature of this ''spontaneous brain activity” of decision making is such that conscious representation of information simply cannot precede or be synonymous with input and processing that must necessarily precede conscious thought and action.

Not to mention that it is necessarily the state and condition of the brain that not only decides but forms the conscious experience of the subjects responding to the stimuli and giving their report...and not your undefinable magical mind.

You're just repeating barely coherent gibberish.

No, that's you. Even when the articles you quote don't even support what you have claimed.....which are based on brain agency and not an autonomous mind as you imply.

So whether they decide (in their mind) to tap or not tap a so-called "readiness potential" is present.

All conscious experience has its neural information processing antecedents, without exception. It's not your magical mind they are talking about.

Why is a so-called "readiness potential" present when they decide to not tap?

Because that too is a decision made by the brain. A decision not to tap that has, like all mental phenomena, has its prior processing in order to achieve readiness potential and conscious representation.

What is it readying for? A nothing? A lack of movement? There is no need to ready for a lack of movement.

Try to actually address the study.

OMG, what a poor grasp of the subject matter! Perception and thought does not necessarily need a physical response. The decision not to tap is no less a decision than it is too tap. Two options being presented, with nature of the options and the outcome processed microseconds before being brought to consciousness.

Also from your article;

Cognitive neuroscientist Anil Seth of the University of Sussex in Brighton, UK, is impressed by the work, but also circumspect about what it says about free will. “It’s a more satisfying mechanistic explanation of the readiness potential. But it doesn’t bounce conscious free will suddenly back into the picture,” he says. “Showing that one aspect of the Libet experiment can be open to interpretation does not mean that all arguments against conscious free will need to be ejected.”

According to Seth, when the volunteers in Libet’s experiment said they felt an urge to act, that urge is an experience, similar to an experience of smell or taste. The new model is “opening the door towards a richer understanding of the neural basis of the conscious experience of volition”, he says.

Feeling the 'urge to act' is what I have been referring to throughout this thread.

 

[DBT]

More on brain agency:

''The new study builds on that work and says that the brain rewrites history when it makes its choices, changing our memories so that we believe we wanted to do something before it happened.

In one of the studies undertaken by Adam Bear and Paul Bloom, of Yale University, the test subjects were shown five white circles on a computer monitor. They were told to choose one of the circles before one of them lit up red.

The participants were then asked to describe whether they’d picked the correct circle, another one, or if they hadn’t had time to actually pick one.

Statistically, people should have picked the right circle about one out of every five times. But they reported getting it right much more than 20 per cent of the time, going over 30 per cent if the circle turned red very quickly.

The scientists suggest that the findings show that the test subjects’ minds were swapping around the order of events, so that it appeared that they had chosen the right circle – even if they hadn’t actually had time to do so.''

 

[ryan]

I took your meaning of "independent" as "a ghost in the machine". But if you meant it in a mechanical way, then I would say that every atom or group of atoms in the brain have a certain degree of independence. A quark particle, on the other hand, is not independent; it goes where the other quark particles in the nucleus goes as well as any electrons.

Sure, that's true to a point, but particle/waves, neurons, receptors, glial cells, synapses, dendrites, axons, etc, etc, cannot perform the role of the brain as a whole, if taken in isolation. Without a functioning brain as working unit, there is no higher order information processing, consciousness, mind, self awareness, thoughts or decision making.

The point was that my consciousness affects the outcome the way that my consciousness wanted. If my consciousness weren't there, things would have been different, if we are talking about a physical consciousness. It somehow gets what it wants by being there, quite interesting.

 

[untermensche]

Now the nature of this ''spontaneous brain activity” of decision making is such that conscious representation of information simply cannot precede or be synonymous with input and processing that must necessarily precede conscious thought and action.

You merely want it both ways. Like a religious adherent. The so-called "readiness potential" or Bereitschaftspotential is supposedly evidence of a "decision" that has already been made by the brain. It occurs in the motor cortex so allegedly it represents the brain getting ready to send information to muscles because the brain has made a "decision" before a "conscious decision" has been made. If the brain has decided to not move there is no need to send any information to any muscle. So it clearly does not represent some "decision" by the brain to send information to the muscles. What it is is unknown.

...conscious representation of information simply cannot precede or be synonymous with input and processing that must necessarily precede conscious thought and action.

This is merely a dogmatic statement that coincides with your prejudices and it is not supported by any evidence. Saying what must happen when you don't even know what is happening is just pretending to know something.

Why is a so-called "readiness potential" present when they decide to not tap?

Because that too is a decision made by the brain. A decision not to tap that has, like all mental phenomena, has its prior processing in order to achieve readiness potential and conscious representation.

If a brain has made a "decision" to not move there is no need to excite any areas in the motor cortex. Your conclusion makes no sense.

The Libet experiment says nothing about "brains making decisions". It merely reveals a completely unexplained phenomena in the brain. Like the phenomena of consciousness arising out of brain activity.

Those that make dogmatic statements from it are merely pretending to understand something.

 

[untermensche]

It doesnt matter. What is important is that there is a readiness potentianand that it precedes the concious choice.

There is unexplained brain activity labeled a "readiness potential".

And it coincides with a mind preparing to make a decision. Obviously one must prepare to make a decision before one actually makes one.

 

[DBT]

Sure, that's true to a point, but particle/waves, neurons, receptors, glial cells, synapses, dendrites, axons, etc, etc, cannot perform the role of the brain as a whole, if taken in isolation. Without a functioning brain as working unit, there is no higher order information processing, consciousness, mind, self awareness, thoughts or decision making.

The point was that my consciousness affects the outcome the way that my consciousness wanted.

But it's not like that.

All evidence points to state of the brain as the shaper and former of consciousness. What consciousness wants is determined by brain state in the instance of conscious activity.

You are still implying that consciousness has some degree of autonomy from the brain and what the brain is doing to generate conscious activity.

If my consciousness weren't there, things would have been different, if we are talking about a physical consciousness. It somehow gets what it wants by being there, quite interesting.

When you say ''my consciousness' it implies that an autonomous 'you' has possession of something called consciousness. That is not so.

If the state of the brain had been different, consciousness would of course have been different. Just as each moment in time the brain is different, fresh inputs, chemistry, memory content, and shall never be the same at any time, place or or circumstance.

Time and change marches on.

 

[DBT]

You merely want it both ways. Like a religious adherent. The so-called "readiness potential" or Bereitschaftspotential is supposedly evidence of a "decision" that has already been made by the brain. It occurs in the motor cortex so allegedly it represents the brain getting ready to send information to muscles because the brain has made a "decision" before a "conscious decision" has been made. If the brain has decided to not move there is no need to send any information to any muscle. So it clearly does not represent some "decision" by the brain to send information to the muscles. What it is is unknown.

I say one thing and without fail you throw something back at me that bears no resemblance or relationship to what I said.

I can't possibly 'want it both ways' when the simple fact is that brain state in any given instance equates to behavioural output in that instance.

Consciousness or 'mind' cannot possibly do anything that the brain is not doing.

How can it. Mind is the activity of the brain and however the mind is manifested in terms of perceptions, feelings thoughts and actions, it is the brain that is doing it.


Now that picture has no 'want it both ways' within it. There is no possibility of 'having it both ways' when the brain is the sole agent of mind/consciousness.


On the contrary, it you with your position and your assertions that want it both ways. You use sources and quotes that clearly support brain agency...yet you have always implied some undefinable autonomy of mind, which you can't explain and go to great lengths to avoid dealing with.

This is merely a dogmatic statement that coincides with your prejudices and it is not supported by any evidence. Saying what must happen when you don't even know what is happening is just pretending to know something.

No, all the evidence supports brain as the agent of mind formation. You won't find a single reputable source within the field of neuroscience that claims otherwise.

It is your position on the nature and role of mind that has no foundation.

If a brain has made a "decision" to not move there is no need to excite any areas in the motor cortex. Your conclusion makes no sense.

If the motor cortex was 'excited' in the sense that an action must take place, a motor action would take place. The activity most probably preparatory, there because the situation of yes or no, click or don't click response demands a possible motor action at any second...which is suppressed when the response is not required.

This is a part of unconscious preparation....and of course, reflex response bypasses higher order processing and deliberation altogether in order to speed up response times. Move first, think later.

The Libet experiment says nothing about "brains making decisions". It merely reveals a completely unexplained phenomena in the brain. Like the phenomena of consciousness arising out of brain activity.

Those that make dogmatic statements from it are merely pretending to understand something.

There is nothing else present within the skull that has the ability to process information and select options on the basis of any given criteria other than the neural networks and structures of the brain as an information processor.

Your idea of autonomous mind (your homunculus) - which you won't describe or explain because you can't - is a fantasy that nobody in the field of neuroscience shares.

 

[untermensche]

I say one thing and without fail you throw something back at me that bears no resemblance or relationship to what I said.

I can't possibly 'want it both ways' when the simple fact is that brain state in any given instance equates to behavioural output in that instance.

Consciousness or 'mind' cannot possibly do anything that the brain is not doing.

How can it. Mind is the activity of the brain and however the mind is manifested in terms of perceptions, feelings thoughts and actions, it is the brain that is doing it.

At least you have started asking questions instead of just giving dogmatic pronouncements. Even if you proceed it with two dogmatic bits of faith.

Since nobody has a clue what "mind" is beyond something they experience, or the practically meaningless, something that occurs in the brain, no dogmatic statements beyond the truisms of experience have any validity.

A truism like: I have two different drinks in the refrigerator, iced tea and apple juice, and I am thirsty.

The brain supplies the sensation of thirst but the mind decides which it wants now.

Why does the brain care? As far as the brain is concerned they are both the same thing, some needed water and glucose.

You have to explain why the brain cares which source of water and glucose I drink, how does it acquire this preference now? I like the taste of both.

The theory that the brain decides needs to explain why the brain cares. It's the same brain always deciding. Why does it not pick the same thing every time?

You use sources and quotes that clearly support brain agency...yet you have always implied some undefinable autonomy of mind, which you can't explain and go to great lengths to avoid dealing with.

Total "Brain agency" is a hypothesis, not a proven fact.

Of course the brain does many things "under the scenes" that the mind has no awareness of. The language capacity is a clear example. Without some underlying capacity to acquire language humans never would.

To say the mind has no agency, beyond the moral and criminal justice implications, is to say it serves no useful purpose to the animal. It is there yet it serves the animal in no way.

If the brain is deciding why does it turn light energy into something a mind can comprehend? Why all this unneeded effort? The brain could just turn it into something a brain understands, which is what happens at the eye anyway, so that is already done. Why this unnecessary step of creating some representation for a mind? The brain can make the same calculations from the information it receives from the retina as it can from the information it assembles for the mind since it is the same "calculating device".

If a brain has made a "decision" to not move there is no need to excite any areas in the motor cortex. Your conclusion makes no sense.

If the motor cortex was 'excited' in the sense that an action must take place, a motor action would take place. The activity most probably preparatory, there because the situation of yes or no, click or don't click response demands a possible motor action at any second...which is suppressed when the response is not required.

You can just say it is the mind preparing and still fit the time frame. You have not removed agency from the mind therefore.

 

[Malintent]

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.

right.. you are "free to do what you are free to do".. The supposed notion of "free will" adds nothing.

 

[untermensche]

It takes having the large sum to deposit it.

right.. you are "free to do what you are free to do".. The supposed notion of "free will" adds nothing.

Free to do what is possible within the constraints of reality.

Saying you cannot "will" money into existence is to say nothing about free will.

 

[ryan]

The point was that my consciousness affects the outcome the way that my consciousness wanted.

But it's not like that.

All evidence points to state of the brain as the shaper and former of consciousness. What consciousness wants is determined by brain state in the instance of conscious activity.

You are still implying that consciousness has some degree of autonomy from the brain and what the brain is doing to generate conscious activity.

How do you know it doesn't? If you consider the possibility that QM plays a role in the conscious process, then it wouldn't be only the brain that shapes the consciousness. It is still very early in the development of a working model regarding QM decision-making. Much more needs to be done.

If my consciousness weren't there, things would have been different, if we are talking about a physical consciousness. It somehow gets what it wants by being there, quite interesting.

When you say ''my consciousness' it implies that an autonomous 'you' has possession of something called consciousness. That is not so.

You could turn this into a semantic nightmare, but I think you know what I mean; right? But anyways, I am assuming monism for the purposes of this argument.

 

[Juma]

If you consider the possibility that QM plays a role in the conscious process, then it wouldn't be only the brain that shapes the consciousness.

If, and that is a very big if, QM has a signigicant role, it is still the brain.