Human Instinct and Free Will

[ryan]

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.

which is also me

 

[Juma]

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

which is also me

Which is still nothing but the brain.

 

[ryan]

which is also me

Which is still nothing but the brain.

Okay, you call it brain, and I call the same thing me. What's the problem?

 

[Juma]

Which is still nothing but the brain.

Okay, you call it brain, and I call the same thing me. What's the problem?

Ok. But that was not what wrote in the post that started this subdiscusdion, and that I cited, yesterday. So either you miswrote or you have changed your mind?

 

[DBT]

Which is still nothing but the brain.

Okay, you call it brain, and I call the same thing me. What's the problem?

Most of the activity of the brain is unconscious. Brain also forms its conscious self identity which it calls 'me' while disconnecting the means of production from its 'me' thereby giving its own sense of 'me' an impression of autonomy.

A false sense of autonomy. The illusion of conscious agency when it is in fact the underlying activity that's doing the actual work.

 

[DBT]

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.

You claim to know that the 'mind' is something other than what the brain is doing regardless of all evidence to the contrary.

Which you reject out of hand, despite the fact that it is universally accepted by researches....except maybe a small percentage of dreamers who envisage non material mind or quantum mind regardless of the absence of evidence for these ideas.

You of course can't explain your own contentions in any way except repeating - 'I can move my finger' - which would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

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?

I have described memory based experience of experiences that offer reward versus experiences to be avoided, ad nauseam. Decision making as a cost to benefit ratio....sometimes better to sacrifice now for greater reward in the future...to repeat again and again, just to be ignored and the same questions raised.

Yet the numerous times I ask you to explain your notion of non brain activity mind, you never do. You avoid it like the plague.

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

The whole body of evidence proves brain agency. Any significant change that overwhelms plasticity effects the brains expression of mind.

You can prove it yourself easily enough. Drink a bottle of whisky and experience what it does to your mind.

The physical molecules of alcohol changing the physical chemistry of the brain which in turn effect the physical activity of mind formation by the brain.

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.

OMFG.

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.

Nobody has said that it serves no purpose. I have even described global work space model as information coming together in order to enable higher order processing and response with sensory imagery, feelings, etc, a virtual representation of self and environment. Which has its obvious advantages. So with its virtual imagery of the world and its position in it, any form of ambulatory organism doesn't have to blunder through life deaf, dumb and blind. That is a huge advantage.

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

There is not one single example of 'mind' without the related presence of a functional brain and its mind forming activity.

The state of the brain is the state of the mind, according to all available evidence....now go get that bottle of whisky and prove it for yourself and stop making silly claims.

 

[DBT]

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.

All brains, chickens, mice, rats, dogs, cats, birds, crocodiles, etc, etc, etc, have the same underlying quantum substrata, yet the behaviour, thoughts, perceptions of the world, and so on, is specific to the brains of species and to some extent specific to the brain of each individual member of a species...according to its personal experiences encoded as memory.

Now where do you see QM as a factor in relation to doing something that the architecture of a brain doesn't do?

Can a mouse learn calculus? Can horse learn to speak Mandarin? Can a cat learn to read music and play piano?

 

[ryan]

Okay, you call it brain, and I call the same thing me. What's the problem?

Ok. But that was not what wrote in the post that started this subdiscusdion, and that I cited, yesterday. So either you miswrote or you have changed your mind?

I am including the consciousness as a mechanism in the brain. The consciousness being a physical part of the brain.

The brain definitely forms at least some of the consciousness.

 

[ryan]

Okay, you call it brain, and I call the same thing me. What's the problem?

Most of the activity of the brain is unconscious.

I agree. I read studies suggesting this.

Brain also forms its conscious self identity which it calls 'me' while disconnecting the means of production from its 'me' ...

I highly doubt this DBT. Read,

"'Where in the Brain Is Consciousness Located?' UCSB's Michael Gazzaniga says that's a trick question: Consciousness is a flexible and ever-changing process. Part 3 of Unlocking the Secrets and Powers of the Brain, sponsored by the NSF, The Franklin Institute, and DISCOVER magazine"

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf7JUXub5pA

Please also watch at least the first 1:30 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iONlo9WcKgQ .

They simply don't know what, where and how the consciousness exists.

 

[ryan]

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.

All brains, chickens, mice, rats, dogs, cats, birds, crocodiles, etc, etc, etc, have the same underlying quantum substrata, yet the behaviour, thoughts, perceptions of the world, and so on, is specific to the brains of species and to some extent specific to the brain of each individual member of a species...according to its personal experiences encoded as memory.

Now where do you see QM as a factor in relation to doing something that the architecture of a brain doesn't do?

Can a mouse learn calculus? Can horse learn to speak Mandarin? Can a cat learn to read music and play piano?

So first of all, QM says that a mouse could learn calculus tomorrow, incredibly improbable but still possible. Second, and more realistically, we seem to only choose between a very limited number of choices. Do I wake up at 6:00 or 6:15; should I have an apple or banana; do I keep studying for 5 more minutes or should I call my friend; etc.

I agree with you that the brain is "hardwired" to a certain extent as an input-output processor, but instead of there being only a one-to-one correlation between input/output, QM mechanisms may allow one of a possible number of outputs for a single input.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

I've followed different trails. Anyone who has watched children or experts (pilots primarily) train should understand the value of adjusting one's capabilities to the task overtime. This is a general behavioral aspect and languages seems no different beyond the the fact there are critical periods associated with that process. As for adjusting one's capabilities to the tasks I'm inclined to concentrate on the human hand. Tool making and language co-evolved it appears. Our ability to articulate was driven by this combining of capabilities.

First hands were most apt as signaling socially and that's where humans began to develop language separate from facial and simple body language. Other species have capabilities related to language and memory connected by their having a suite of genes around FoxP2. What this leads to is a system of behaviors which extract relevant information from tasks which has been demonstrated for a variety of preferred behaviors

To wit: Neuroscientists identify key role of language gene http://news.mit.edu/2014/language-gene-0915

Researchers from MIT and several European universities have shown that the human version of a gene called Foxp2 makes it easier to transform new experiences into routine procedures. When they engineered mice to express humanized Foxp2, the mice learned to run a maze much more quickly than normal mice.

What I'm reacting to about Chomsky is that he appears to believe there's hard genetic code for thinking. Its way simpler just to assume that a suite of behaviors are favored which permit one to get to thinking and language and complex task performance and this suite is enhanced with those things triggered by activation of FoxP2 complex within the target species. Instead of generating something new what already exists, which is in tune with the brain being basically the same architecture over most of vertebrate evolution, is adjusted to the ends met by the species. Now we begin to understand why some birds code, some rodents use tools, etc.

 

[Malintent]

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.

It says volumes on it's limitations... limitations that make it meaningless to say. I am not saying you don't have "free will" (to do the things you can do)... I am saying that it is meaningless to state it. It is a tautology.

 

[untermensche]

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.

It says volumes on it's limitations... limitations that make it meaningless to say. I am not saying you don't have "free will" (to do the things you can do)... I am saying that it is meaningless to state it. It is a tautology.

It is not meaningless to say I will choose to study some particular thing, or marry some particular person and have a certain number of children.

Humans have compulsions in these directions but not absolute orders.

So going down these paths are free (not forced) decisions.

And they make a big difference.

 

[fromderinside]

It says volumes on it's limitations... limitations that make it meaningless to say. I am not saying you don't have "free will" (to do the things you can do)... I am saying that it is meaningless to state it. It is a tautology.

It is not meaningless to say I will choose to study some particular thing, or marry some particular person and have a certain number of children.

Humans have compulsions in these directions but not absolute orders.

So going down these paths are free (not forced) decisions.

And they make a big difference.

But, does saying one makes a choice out of free will actually guide the person down the more or less compulsive path?

I think not. Therein lies the tautology. Having a brain fart is not self decided change or execution of behavior. It is a brain fart, after Shakespeare, signifying nothing.

 

[untermensche]

I've followed different trails. Anyone who has watched children or experts (pilots primarily) train should understand the value of adjusting one's capabilities to the task overtime. This is a general behavioral aspect and languages seems no different beyond the the fact there are critical periods associated with that process. As for adjusting one's capabilities to the tasks I'm inclined to concentrate on the human hand. Tool making and language co-evolved it appears. Our ability to articulate was driven by this combining of capabilities.

I don't think the hand had anything to do with the emergence of human tools.

Tool emergence had everything to do with the emergence of the language capacity. The hand just gave the mind with the language capacity a tool to make tools. I suspect though if humans did not have hands they would have been able to make tools from their feet.

And hands and brains actually change through experience, even in just part of one lifetime.

So a carpenter will have both a different hand and a different brain if he starts early enough and works long enough than if he had not done the work.

And I suspect the shape of the hand has been subjected to sexual selection so it has probably changed a lot since early humans, while the language capacity has not changed at all, at least since humans migrated out of Africa.

First hands were most apt as signaling socially and that's where humans began to develop language separate from facial and simple body language.

Hands and gestures and facial expression are enough for normal human language. Sound is not even necessary. It adds nothing.

But a child must be raised with hand gestures and hand movements during the language acquisition phase. Then they will be as fluent with that as somebody is with sound.

The language capacity is some capacity in the brain. It is that which allows a child to acquire language and allows people to use language.

The language capacity evolved, Chomsky believes it probably arose immediately in one individual by some mutation. A single mutation that was so beneficial it eventually dominated or allowed the group that had it to not die off.

And of course the science you produce supports this view by Chomsky.

 

[Malintent]

It says volumes on it's limitations... limitations that make it meaningless to say. I am not saying you don't have "free will" (to do the things you can do)... I am saying that it is meaningless to state it. It is a tautology.

It is not meaningless to say I will choose to study some particular thing, or marry some particular person and have a certain number of children.

Humans have compulsions in these directions but not absolute orders.

So going down these paths are free (not forced) decisions.

And they make a big difference.

Yes. It is good to be able to do the things that you are able to do <rolleyes>. Do all humans have free will? or just those with the resources to marry and have children, for example? Can a starving Ethiopian choose between dying of thirst or dying of hunger, and we call that free will? They are not free to walk down to the local grocery store and put $5 of food on their credit cards, are they? Are you? so you have free will and they don't?

I really think this idea of free will is complete nonsense that your particular brand of privilege grants you.

You say you are free to decide to have kids or not. so, your wife becomes pregnant... and she decides to not have the child. where is your free will there? will you backpedal to the "freedom" you had when you chose to marry her? why not backpedal all the way to your birth... was that an act of your free will?

I have no doubt that you are free to do the things that society, family, government, and the universe ALLOW you to do. If that is free will then I again say, "so what. you are free to do the things that you are free to do". Also, in other news, "you are as black as the black in you is" and "you are the tallest person you can be".. oh oh oh... and "you are the richest person inside of your skin". Isn't that all so wonderful!!??!

 

[untermensche]

It is not meaningless to say I will choose to study some particular thing, or marry some particular person and have a certain number of children.

Humans have compulsions in these directions but not absolute orders.

So going down these paths are free (not forced) decisions.

And they make a big difference.

But, does saying one makes a choice out of free will actually guide the person down the more or less compulsive path?

I think not. Therein lies the tautology. Having a brain fart is not self decided change or execution of behavior. It is a brain fart, after Shakespeare, signifying nothing.

There is no compulsive path towards a specific person.

There is just the compulsion to find some person.

The person found and agreed to is the free choice.

 

[untermensche]

It is not meaningless to say I will choose to study some particular thing, or marry some particular person and have a certain number of children.

Humans have compulsions in these directions but not absolute orders.

So going down these paths are free (not forced) decisions.

And they make a big difference.

Yes. It is good to be able to do the things that you are able to do <rolleyes>. Do all humans have free will? or just those with the resources to marry and have children, for example? Can a starving Ethiopian choose between dying of thirst or dying of hunger, and we call that free will? They are not free to walk down to the local grocery store and put $5 of food on their credit cards, are they? Are you? so you have free will and they don't?

You are making the exact same argument. Right after it was shown to be irrational.

Saying that a person cannot change the laws of the universe with their will is not a rational objection.

Saying you cannot perform miracles with your will is not a rational objection.

Free will is deciding between two or more possibilities. Not between impossibilities.

 

[DBT]

All brains, chickens, mice, rats, dogs, cats, birds, crocodiles, etc, etc, etc, have the same underlying quantum substrata, yet the behaviour, thoughts, perceptions of the world, and so on, is specific to the brains of species and to some extent specific to the brain of each individual member of a species...according to its personal experiences encoded as memory.

Now where do you see QM as a factor in relation to doing something that the architecture of a brain doesn't do?

Can a mouse learn calculus? Can horse learn to speak Mandarin? Can a cat learn to read music and play piano?

So first of all, QM says that a mouse could learn calculus tomorrow, incredibly improbable but still possible.

Show me where QM says this, ryan.

 

[DBT]

Most of the activity of the brain is unconscious.

I agree. I read studies suggesting this.

Brain also forms its conscious self identity which it calls 'me' while disconnecting the means of production from its 'me' ...

I highly doubt this DBT. Read,

"'Where in the Brain Is Consciousness Located?' UCSB's Michael Gazzaniga says that's a trick question: Consciousness is a flexible and ever-changing process. Part 3 of Unlocking the Secrets and Powers of the Brain, sponsored by the NSF, The Franklin Institute, and DISCOVER magazine"

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf7JUXub5pA

Please also watch at least the first 1:30 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iONlo9WcKgQ .

They simply don't know what, where and how the consciousness exists.

Conscious activity may be distributed but this doesn't mean the brain is not doing it. Gazzaniga does not support quantum consciousness, as far as what I have read, or heard from him in interviews.

Gazzaniga does talk about narrator function, a conscious report of what is occurring in relation to actions taken....which can be separated from so called conscious agency. It is all brain agency, not quantum alone and certainly not conscious will, which emerges somewhere around mid process.