The human mind

[DBT]

That's the Strawman you like to use. Your favourite. You use it time and time again. It doesn't work. The reasons that it doesn't work have been patiently explained to you, over and over.

It is no strawman.

It is beyond question.

You simply do not have a mind that can comprehend it.

That's the thing about minds. They have the autonomy to believe things but they also have limitations based on abilities to understand.

You are the one that presented the study where subjects were asked to guess about the timing of voluntary movements.

Inherent to that endeavor is the ability of people to make autonomous guesses about the timing of things.

But you don't understand that.

It's a Strawman.

 

[untermensche]

That's the Strawman you like to use. Your favourite. You use it time and time again. It doesn't work. The reasons that it doesn't work have been patiently explained to you, over and over.

It is no strawman.

It is beyond question.

You simply do not have a mind that can comprehend it.

That's the thing about minds. They have the autonomy to believe things but they also have limitations based on abilities to understand.

You are the one that presented the study where subjects were asked to guess about the timing of voluntary movements.

Inherent to that endeavor is the ability of people to make autonomous guesses about the timing of things.

But you don't understand that.

It's a Strawman.

So you claim.

Total bullshit. But so you claim.

If a study uses a human guess as data it is inherently saying humans can make autonomous guesses.

 

[DBT]

It's a Strawman.

So you claim.

Total bullshit. But so you claim.

If a study uses a human guess as data it is inherently saying humans can make autonomous guesses.

Your Strawman is expressed in your remark....the implication that all studies on the brain and cognition are based human guesses. That is so far from the truth to be ludicrous. If you don't imply that all studies on the brain and cognition are based on human guesses, then your remark is misleading, you are ignoring a whole range of studies and experiments that do not include comments or guesses by subjects. If a subject is asked to push a button upon making a decision, that is not a guess.

So, yes, you are heavily reliant on Strawman claims.

 

[fromderinside]

Obviously my post went over your head. Complexity does not autonomy make.

No, but the purposeful design of anything does.

So the creationist finally rises up and chirps utter nonsense.

Just so thinking does not change complexity resulting from processes of evolution to purposeful design either.

Natural selection is not a purposefulness mechanism. It is just process through which competition for local resources leads to those best able to do so as most likely to produce reproducing offspring. Kind of a Bayesian thing yano.

 

[untermensche]

Obviously my post went over your head. Complexity does not autonomy make.

No, but the purposeful design of anything does.

So the creationist finally rises up and chirps utter nonsense.

Just so thinking does not change complexity resulting from processes of evolution to purposeful design either.

Natural selection is not a purposefulness mechanism. It is just process through which competition for local resources leads to those best able to do so as most likely to produce reproducing offspring. Kind of a Bayesian thing yano.

Evolution is not the same process as wilful design by an organism.

Evolution is design by very small change over vast amounts of time.

Design by a human is something very different.

Human design is goal oriented design.

Evolution 101 for the novices: Evolution is not goal oriented. Variable success and an imperfect reproduction system is enough to drive design.

 

[fromderinside]

The poiint isn't the difference between intentional design by a human and complex design. it is complexity is no autonomy. Sine the machine can make 'decisions like a man makes decisions it cannot be presumed that the man is somehow different in design.

You cannot bridge that point. Yet you ague that because a man can move his arm he does it autonomously whilst the machine lifting its arm cannot be doing it autonomously because it was clearly designed by a man.

I argue that evolution is process that can produce complex systems including man not by design but by existing conditions. Since both the man and the machine are both complex systems the origin of its actions from complexity cannot be presumed different in kind for their similar capabilities. If the man's complexity provides the appearance of autonomy it is because it it is complex rather than it having some emergent quality arising out of complexity.

You without support presume through self testimony your actions can be considered as autonomous, self generated by will. That's a lot of supposition. Since animals often exhibit similar capabilities but don't report the origin of their actions scientists often report their behavior is instinctive or some such meaning the result of genetic based behavioral tendencies.

It's a shame that humans in their arrogance presume they are outside mechanistic cause.

Genetic variation does not design. The process produces results based on what options are available and what conditions exist. There is no choosing this or that option or this or that outcome is the result of chance under pressure of conditions extant which are guided IAC with entropy conservation. Design is an inappropriate labeling of fitness selection.

 

[DBT]

Regarding Mr Untermensche's claim of autonomy of mind. How would autonomy of mind even evolve? How would what something that is an activity of a brain, being generated by the brain, fed information by the brains neural networks and information processing, gain control of the brain with a will of its own?

 

[untermensche]

The poiint isn't the difference between intentional design by a human and complex design. it is complexity is no autonomy.

That is not a point.

In one case the complexity come's about because of very slow processes and needs vast amounts of time. AND THERE ARE NO GOALS.

The other complexity comes about because a goal is desired and designs are made to meet some predetermined goal.

In you have goal driven unique complexity then you must have the autonomy to follow a predetermined goal.

A nest is goal driven complexity but it is the same complexity over and over.

The autonomy is demonstrated by unique complexity.

- - - Updated - - -

How would autonomy of mind even evolve?

The creationist asking: How could an eye evolve?

 

[untermensche]

It's a Strawman.

So you claim.

Total bullshit. But so you claim.

If a study uses a human guess as data it is inherently saying humans can make autonomous guesses.

Your Strawman is expressed in your remark....the implication that all studies on the brain and cognition are based human guesses....

They are the studies morons use to conclude humans don't move autonomously.

They are inherently irrational.

They first claim that human guesses about the timing of thoughts is an autonomous activity and it counts as objective data.

Then because they see a few spikes here and there conclude based on no understanding of the mind that the mind does not act autonomously.

Emperor's new clothes nonsense.

 

[fromderinside]

Obviously my post went over your head. Complexity does not autonomy make.

No, but the purposeful design of anything does.

Here is where you shifted focus and your argument left the rails.

The demonstration you made was complex systems act as if they had autonomy if one self analyzes them. However the one who claims self analyzing is just a complex system that works in the same way as a gun system with memory does to solve problems. There is no emergence in evolutionary processes, a determined process, just as there is no emergence in complex system just because they are too complex for one to define all interactions.

You impute purpose because you self analyzed rather than investigate all interactions possible in a complex system.

Lets get back to basics here. The total of a system is always equal to the sum of parts. One can't conduct physics if one presumes otherwise.

 

[untermensche]

Obviously my post went over your head. Complexity does not autonomy make.

No, but the purposeful design of anything does.

Here is where you shifted focus and your argument left the rails.

There is no shift from "goal oriented" to "purposefully designed".

Nothing about evolution is either.

The demonstration you made was complex systems act as if they had autonomy if one self analyzes them.

Are you just acting as if you have chosen your opinions autonomously?

In other words, they are not worth shit?

 

[DBT]

The creationist asking: How could an eye evolve?

False analogy. The eye has no autonomy from the brain. The eye has no independent will. The eye cannot direct the brain to act according to its own will.

That is what you are claiming for conscious mind, that conscious mind, which is an activity of the brain has somehow achieved autonomy from the very thing that is generating it: the brain.

 

[DBT]

Your Strawman is expressed in your remark....the implication that all studies on the brain and cognition are based human guesses....

They are the studies morons use to conclude humans don't move autonomously.

They are inherently irrational.

They first claim that human guesses about the timing of thoughts is an autonomous activity and it counts as objective data.

Then because they see a few spikes here and there conclude based on no understanding of the mind that the mind does not act autonomously.

Emperor's new clothes nonsense.

Again. A large percentage of available evidence does not rely on subject report. You still dance around the fact that cognition, just like all physical process, has a sequence of events before information is brought to consciousness. Most our sensory input is not brought to attention. The brain determines what is or what is not brought to mind.

 

[fromderinside]

Are you just acting as if you have chosen your opinions autonomously?

In other words, they are not worth shit?

I'm saying self analysis does not provide evidence. Your claim is pure fluff. I'm sure those who felt the effects of gun sighting processes don't think what they received was not worth shit. All you do is shift goal posts. Never do you supply evidence. Just grand statements based on self based testimony and shifted targets.

 

[fromderinside]

Again. A large percentage of available evidence does not rely on subject report.

Subjective response under controlled conditions to carefully designed signals are legitimate inputs suitable for using in scientific reports. Stimulus, response interval and elements of response are carefully controlled and not under the whim of the observer. Those who persist in trying to respond as they deem fit are removed from the experiment. The notion of these experiments it to use to observer as a switch in response to a presented signals to the observers sensory and response equipment.

 

[DBT]

Again. A large percentage of available evidence does not rely on subject report.

Subjective response under controlled conditions to carefully designed signals are legitimate inputs suitable for using in scientific reports. Stimulus, response interval and elements of response are carefully controlled and not under the whim of the observer. Those who persist in trying to respond as they deem fit are removed from the experiment. The notion of these experiments it to use to observer as a switch in response to a presented signals to the observers sensory and response equipment.

Hopefully our Mr Untermensche will take note......

 

[untermensche]

The creationist asking: How could an eye evolve?

False analogy. The eye has no autonomy from the brain. The eye has no independent will. The eye cannot direct the brain to act according to its own will.

That is what you are claiming for conscious mind, that conscious mind, which is an activity of the brain has somehow achieved autonomy from the very thing that is generating it: the brain.

So what?

You are just claiming you can't understand how something could have evolved.

Your argument is the argument of the creationist.

And the only way your argument has any meaning is if you have the autonomy to believe what you want to believe based on criteria you choose to have meaning.

 

[untermensche]

Again. A large percentage of available evidence does not rely on subject report.

Subjective response under controlled conditions to carefully designed signals are legitimate inputs suitable for using in scientific reports. Stimulus, response interval and elements of response are carefully controlled and not under the whim of the observer. Those who persist in trying to respond as they deem fit are removed from the experiment. The notion of these experiments it to use to observer as a switch in response to a presented signals to the observers sensory and response equipment.

It depends on the report.

If I stick a needle in you and you cry out the report has some meaning.

If I ask you to guess about the timing of thoughts they are meaningless.

 

[fromderinside]

No one asks the timing thoughts question especially not Libet. He asked for reports of urge to make a movement in reference to present time - a clock was readily visible to observers - and compared that with the occurrence of readiness potential, an EEG potential index established as occurring reliably prior to making particular movements.

Now we can argue about whether sensing an urge is the same thing as a thought until hell freezes over. I prefer to think of an urge as reporting on a feeling, emotional state, rather than a thought.

 

[untermensche]

There is no urge to move the arm.

There is the desire then the command.

The urge is the thirst.

The solution of picking up the cup is part of knowledge not an unexpected urge.