Humans really don't know what they're doing?

[ruby sparks]

I'm only saying that internal processes are physical and must always follow the event, the egg slipping from your fingers, etc, and the internal processes themselves, being physical, must also have a progression, albeit measured in microseconds and not being linear, the brain being a parallel rather that a linear information processor.

Yeah. It was just that you only mentioned external, visual stimuli in your initial post.

To explore it a bit further (and I do not know where it is going) the egg doesn't have to be dropped. You could, while picking it out of its carton, briefly imagine it dropping, in your 'mind's eye', and this would (seem to) result in you being more careful while handling it, so that it didn't in fact drop (like it did the last time you made an omelette). This conscious reminder would come, very briefly, to the 'cartesian theatre experience' from memory, of course, and I'm not saying it's free will, obviously, and I'm setting aside whether or not thoughts are physical etc. But (and this may overlap with at least one other thread topic, possibly two) did the imagining in any way affect how you handled the egg?

We could say that for a practiced omelette-making-chef, the reminder from memory might not have to pass through consciousness, it could have been learned sufficiently often to mean that he or she will handle a raw egg with extra care 'automatically', so let's say you're more or less a complete novice at egg-handling, such as a small child.

 

[ruby sparks]

I've said it before, but not for a while: for most people a belief in freewill is actually a belief that their beliefs (and other such intentional states) are causal. It's only from that context that things like akrasia make sense.

Yes, most people seem to think that not only is there a homunculus, but that it's the theatre director, not a mere spectator, whereas the two would be separate roles.

As to akrasia, I get this every time I give in to having a cigarette.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I've said it before, but not for a while: for most people a belief in freewill is actually a belief that their beliefs (and other such intentional states) are causal. It's only from that context that things like akrasia make sense.

It's a new word for me, one that's helpful. Thanks!

What strikes me in this respect is the neat distinction we make between rational thoughts and thoughts that don't seem rational. A rational thought comes at the end of a conscious deliberation, seemingly as a result of it, and seemingly consistent with it. In a way, there's the same neat distinction here as there is between the subjective and the objective, even though your rational thoughts are essentially your own and therefore subjective. Yet, you can share rational thoughts and modify them through debate with other people, which makes somehow the result objective.

I suspect that our notion of free will comes with our ability to entertain rational thoughts and thereby anticipate the course of at least some of our actions. Whatever we do on the spur of the moment, as a result, or seemingly as a result, of our emotions, doesn't seem to me to belong to the category of things we do according to our free will. Free will seems to imply deliberation. And according to this, I would take akrasia, i.e. doing something against one's better judgement, as a possibility. Most of the time, we do things without any deliberation because it's just routine actions. When on occasions we do deliberate, I would assume that we do whatever we've bothered to deliberate we should do. I don't think we would want to spend time, energy and brain ressources to identify what we should do and yet not do it. Still, there are such things as laziness and procrastination, and also things like emotional reaction, obsessive behaviour, compulsive act and what not, things that clearly seem to defeat the power of our best judgement, were we to bother in these cases. Akrasia would apply to these situations, which I guess are fairly common occurrences.


So, I guess, claiming free will doesn't exist or is an illusion, is just claiming that whatever reasoning we do is not the real thing that determines our actions, even actions planned in advance. The explanation, I would assume, would be to say that our reasoning and the actions that appear to be the result of our deliberations are all, somehow, the manifestation of whatever goes on deep inside our brain.

OK, I'm just trying here.

Well, if this isn't good enough, maybe somebody articulate enough could try to give a sensible account of the view that free will doesn't exist or is an illusion. Unfortunately, those few people around here who are of this opinion also seem unable to articulate anything properly. We're stuck.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

As to akrasia, I get this every time I give in to having a cigarette.

There you are! Absolutely no free will! QED.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes, most people seem to think that not only is there a homunculus, but that it's the theatre director, not a mere spectator, whereas the two would be separate roles.

Actually, the metaphor of the theatre director seems apt. He gives "directions" but then leaves it to others to actually do whatever he's asking. And sometimes they just don't.

So, yeah, it seems we're both of these two characters.

But anyway, it will be our brain which will really decide which one of them we are at any given moment and what really happens to us.
EB

 

[DBT]

There is no consciousness without brain activity. There is no decision making without brain activity. Face the facts.

Consciousness is a subsection of brain activity.

And as brain activity it makes decisions based on the objects of the mind, not some kind of programming. Ideas have power. Literally.

That is how humans have done what they have done. With ideas and the conscious will.

A dumb brain might build the same nest over and over.

You still imply and assert autonomy of consciousness, a 'smart' homunculus within a 'dumb' brain. There is no evidence for such a notion. The idea was refuted by science long ago.

Consciousness is whatever the brain is doing. Nor is only a matter of 'programming' - the brain is an intelligent adaptive system.

 

[untermensche]

There is no consciousness without brain activity. There is no decision making without brain activity. Face the facts.

Consciousness is a subsection of brain activity.

And as brain activity it makes decisions based on the objects of the mind, not some kind of programming. Ideas have power. Literally.

That is how humans have done what they have done. With ideas and the conscious will.

A dumb brain might build the same nest over and over.

You still imply and assert autonomy of consciousness, a 'smart' homunculus within a 'dumb' brain. There is no evidence for such a notion. The idea was refuted by science long ago.

Consciousness is whatever the brain is doing. Nor is only a matter of 'programming' - the brain is an intelligent adaptive system.

A controlling mind is not a homunculus.

It is a controlling mind.

The homunculus argument is about the worst argument that exists. Nobody thinks the mind is a little man.

It is an incredible decision making device that arose via evolution. And the reason it makes decisions is so it can tell the brain and therefore the body to do things.

Like build a better spear.

Your conception of consciousness has no reason to exist. It serves no purpose at all. A brain that controls everything would have no use for something aware of the tree if the brain was aware of the tree.

But of course there is clearly something aware of the tree. And the slave brain even colors it for that thing aware of the tree.

You have things absolutely up-side-down.

The brain serves the mind and is it's willing slave.

And that is why we have a world created by minds not brains. That is why we are using our minds to communicate not our dumb spastic brains.

Growing is the mind learning to better and better control the brain. At least it can be. Learning to better move the body. Learning to talk better. Learning to control the emotions. Learning to express ideas.

 

[DBT]

You still imply and assert autonomy of consciousness, a 'smart' homunculus within a 'dumb' brain. There is no evidence for such a notion. The idea was refuted by science long ago.

Consciousness is whatever the brain is doing. Nor is only a matter of 'programming' - the brain is an intelligent adaptive system.

A controlling mind is not a homunculus.

It is a controlling mind.

It is a homunculus (not literally) if as you claim, mind/consciousness has autonomy from the brain. Your so called smart consciousness as an independent decision maker operating within a ''dumb brain'' (your words).

The homunculus argument is about the worst argument that exists. Nobody thinks the mind is a little man.

Nobody says that it is literally a little man inside the skull. It is a sarcastic metaphor for an independent agent operating within the brain.

A metaphor is not to be taken literally, in case you don't know.

Your autonomous consciousness idea has no merit, hence the sarcastic metaphor of homunculus....in case you didn't realize.

 

[DBT]

I'm only saying that internal processes are physical and must always follow the event, the egg slipping from your fingers, etc, and the internal processes themselves, being physical, must also have a progression, albeit measured in microseconds and not being linear, the brain being a parallel rather that a linear information processor.

Yeah. It was just that you only mentioned external, visual stimuli in your initial post.

I can't include everything, time, effort, etc. Whatever is missed in any given post is not necessarily being disregarded or rejected, just omitted in that particular post.

To explore it a bit further (and I do not know where it is going) the egg doesn't have to be dropped. You could, while picking it out of its carton, briefly imagine it dropping, in your 'mind's eye', and this would (seem to) result in you being more careful while handling it, so that it didn't in fact drop (like it did the last time you made an omelette).

Sure, we have experience with eggs and understand what happens if they are dropped. It's in the moment of inattention or distraction that accidents happen, and of course physical conditions, motor neuron problems and so on.

This conscious reminder would come, very briefly, to the 'cartesian theatre experience' from memory, of course, and I'm not saying it's free will, obviously, and I'm setting aside whether or not thoughts are physical etc. But (and this may overlap with at least one other thread topic, possibly two) did the imagining in any way affect how you handled the egg?

We could say that for a practiced omelette-making-chef, the reminder from memory might not have to pass through consciousness, it could have been learned sufficiently often to mean that he or she will handle a raw egg with extra care 'automatically', so let's say you're more or less a complete novice at egg-handling, such as a small child.

Yes, indeed.

 

[untermensche]

It is a homunculus (not literally) if as you claim, mind/consciousness has autonomy from the brain.

No it is not.

It is not a complete little man if it is only a decision making device. A part of the brain designed to make decisions.

And the only reason to have a decision making device is if those decisions can initiate action.

There are still reflexes underneath.

Like the fear reflexes which can take over if the mind senses danger.

In your model the brain creates consciousness, some thing with awareness, only to trick it into believing things. An absurd bunch of nonsense.

It is a sarcastic metaphor for an independent agent operating within the brain.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/homunculus?s=t

You are the one claiming that a brain is making decisions.

Therefore brain activity is capable of making decisions.

Consciousness is brain activity.

Therefore according to YOUR ideas it is also capable of making decisions.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that brain activity can make decisions and also claim that some subset of brain activity that is also just brain activity can't make decisions as well.

Either brain activity can make decisions or it can't.

 

[DBT]

No it is not.

It is not a complete little man if it is only a decision making device. A part of the brain designed to make decisions.

And the only reason to have a decision making device is if those decisions can initiate action.

There are still reflexes underneath.

Like the fear reflexes which can take over if the mind senses danger.

In your model the brain creates consciousness, some thing with awareness, only to trick it into believing things. An absurd bunch of nonsense.



View attachment 15510



http://www.dictionary.com/browse/homunculus?s=t

Sigh, I said that I used the term 'homunculus' as a sarcastic metaphor for the given reasons, not that the term itself is a ''sarcastic metaphor''

You are the one claiming that a brain is making decisions.

Therefore brain activity is capable of making decisions. Consciousness is brain activity.

Sure, that was the point....but not as you claim; 'smart consciousness' making decisions within a 'dumb brain' This being the point of contention.

 

[untermensche]

If brain activity can make decisions that means consciousness can make decisions.

And it makes them using ideas.

And the word homunculus does not mean what you claim it means. You are not using the word in a way that has meaning. You are not making any argument by using the word badly.

 

[Subsymbolic]

If brain activity can make decisions that means consciousness can make decisions.

And it makes them using ideas.

And the word homunculus does not mean what you claim it means. You are not using the word in a way that has meaning. You are not making any argument by using the word badly.

It's a word that has taken on a very specific definition within the technical language agreed amongst those who study the brain. There's a folk version which you found in your dictionary study but that's not the way the term is being used here. Here, homuncular theories are theories that propose an agent or agents to explain the abilities of agents. This, obviously, leads to a regress. Some cognitive scientists have no problem with hierarchies of ever dumber homunculi until they are grounded out in biology, i.e. in capabilities that we know that are within the reach of neurons or clusters of neurons.

 

[Subsymbolic]

If brain activity can make decisions that means consciousness can make decisions.

And it makes them using ideas.

And the word homunculus does not mean what you claim it means. You are not using the word in a way that has meaning. You are not making any argument by using the word badly.

Yeah, and Dennett was silenced by Dyson. There's a point beyond which it's hard to know what to say.

 

[untermensche]

If brain activity can make decisions that means consciousness can make decisions.

And it makes them using ideas.

And the word homunculus does not mean what you claim it means. You are not using the word in a way that has meaning. You are not making any argument by using the word badly.

Yeah, and Dennett was silenced by Dyson. There's a point beyond which it's hard to know what to say.

No you have things wrong.

Dennett was shown up by the quiet unassuming Dyson.

But he didn't understand it.

 

[untermensche]

If brain activity can make decisions that means consciousness can make decisions.

And it makes them using ideas.

And the word homunculus does not mean what you claim it means. You are not using the word in a way that has meaning. You are not making any argument by using the word badly.

It's a word that has taken on a very specific definition within the technical language agreed amongst those who study the brain. There's a folk version which you found in your dictionary study but that's not the way the term is being used here. Here, homuncular theories are theories that propose an agent or agents to explain the abilities of agents. This, obviously, leads to a regress. Some cognitive scientists have no problem with hierarchies of ever dumber homunculi until they are grounded out in biology, i.e. in capabilities that we know that are within the reach of neurons or clusters of neurons.

It is a worthless argument.

Nobody claims the mind is a little fully formed human.

So saying the mind is not a homunculus is meaningless stupidity.

 

[DBT]

If brain activity can make decisions that means consciousness can make decisions.

And it makes them using ideas.

And the word homunculus does not mean what you claim it means. You are not using the word in a way that has meaning. You are not making any argument by using the word badly.

Consciousness is brain activity. Your error lies in you attempt at assigning some degree of autonomy to consciousness.

 

[Subsymbolic]

If brain activity can make decisions that means consciousness can make decisions.

And it makes them using ideas.

And the word homunculus does not mean what you claim it means. You are not using the word in a way that has meaning. You are not making any argument by using the word badly.

Yeah, and Dennett was silenced by Dyson. There's a point beyond which it's hard to know what to say.

No you have things wrong.

Dennett was shown up by the quiet unassuming Dyson.

But he didn't understand it.

Perhaps you can explain how exactly Dennett was shown up? Because in that video all i saw was a dualist look stupid. Like so:

"Healing and self repair, I means that's a dif... That's an entirely... As if... I would think... A much more... Mechanical, in the old fashioned sense, process."

Followed by:

You may very well be right, I don't know anything about the process of neurological repair...

That's what I call showing up.

Anyway, as I pointed out, Dyson is a religious dualist. Why is it that you keep bringing up these superannuated God botherers? Do you think that God has a role to play in understanding the mind?

 

[untermensche]

No you have things wrong.

Dennett was shown up by the quiet unassuming Dyson.

But he didn't understand it.

Perhaps you can explain how exactly Dennett was shown up? Because in that video all i saw was a dualist look stupid. Like so:

"Healing and self repair, I means that's a dif... That's an entirely... As if... I would think... A much more... Mechanical, in the old fashioned sense, process."

Followed by:

You may very well be right, I don't know anything about the process of neurological repair...

That's what I call showing up.

Anyway, as I pointed out, Dyson is a religious dualist. Why is it that you keep bringing up these superannuated God botherers? Do you think that God has a role to play in understanding the mind?

Yes Dyson actually has some humility and understands the limits of his knowledge.

Something the bag of wind Dennett is completely oblivious to.

Dennett talks of self repair as if he actually understands what is going on. He also compares it to consciousness as if they are related in some way. His ignorance of biology is amusing.

He is just a bag of wind with bad ideas. Ideas that in the decades since that video have yielded no greater understanding than when it was made. His ideas have been proven by time to be worthless.

He has no more understanding of the consciousness than any person with one. He has no objective knowledge of consciousness. Not one iota.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Yes Dyson actually has some humility and understands the limits of his knowledge.

Does he? It looked like he didn't realise until Dennett pointed it out and Gould pinned him down.

Something the bag of wind Dennett is completely oblivious to.

So you say, but so far all you have done is slag him down, you haven't engaged with a single one of his arguments. You'd be so much more convincing if you could engage with the arguments rather than just slag down the person.

Dennett talks of self repair as if he actually understands what is going on.

Really? Because I think you don't understand why Dennett asked that question or why it was so problematic for Dyson. Perhaps you can demonstrate that you understand why Dennett asked the question, with reference to Dyson's, what shall we call it? Theological argument for how we connect to the mind of God via quantum effects? More amusingly, do you agree with Dyson that we are conscious because we are part of the mind of God?

He also compares it to consciousness as if they are related in some way. His ignorance of biology is amusing.

Bollocks does he: Here's literally all he says on the matter of consciousness and repair:

"What about healing and self repair? would you think it would be unlikely that healing and self repair could be explained without bodies making some use of the more startling properties at the quantum level."

and:

"so...You don't think what would be difficult?"

and finally:

"I wonder, I mean it's a non trivial..."

There's no comparison there. What there is, is Dennett's usual total grasp of someone else's theory, that allows him to pick the weak spot and pull. You don't even know what Dyson's theory is, let alone what strengths and weaknesses it has. Face it, you demonstrably cannot even listen to a few seconds of video without fantasising things that have not happened.

He is just a bag of wind with bad ideas.

Explain a central idea of Dennett's. Just one.

Ideas that in the decades since that video have yielded no greater understanding than when it was made. His ideas have been proven by time to be worthless.

That's odd, amongst those of us who have actually worked in the field Dennett does and who are qualified to comment, we are pretty unanimously of the opinion that whether we agree with him or not he's been vastly influential. Perhaps a scintilla of evidence for this daft claim?

He has no more understanding of the consciousness than any person with one.

And your evidence for this claim? It's really easy to say things. It's much harder to provide any evidence.

He has no objective knowledge of consciousness. Not one iota.

Oh dear. So after rubbing your nose in your hilarious inconsistency about this, you still insist on trying this move. I would say that it would cause people to take you less seriously, but...