The objective mind

[untermensche]

Calling the ability to move the arm at will "silly" when you don't understand the phenomena is ignorance.

Avoiding all questions is ignorance.

You have nothing to say in this thread.

You do not have the slightest clue what the objective mind is and can't discuss anything about it.

You think the subjective mind arises without some specific objective activity creating it, "The objective mind"

You believe in magic.

Your claims are flawed.

Nobody denies that we have the ability to move our limbs at will.

The issue here being the mechanisms and means by which this ability is enabled.

This has been explained to you numerous times, case studies, experiments and evidence given, yet you continue to misrepresent what I say, continue to ignore the research and continue to repeat unfounded claims; autonomy of mind, a smart mind operating a dumb brain.

Every study you have shown or could show uses subjective reports to understand what is happening in the mind. None know what the mind is.

If subjective reports are used to understand the mind then those that give the reports must have autonomy to give them.

Otherwise the reports are meaningless. If the subjective reports are not freely made then there is no reason to believe them.

Your position is absurd.

Your position is that subjective reports are believed yet they are not freely made. And your conclusions about everything are not freely made.

It is worse than absurd. It is stupidity.

 

[DBT]

Calling the ability to move the arm at will "silly" when you don't understand the phenomena is ignorance.

Avoiding all questions is ignorance.

You have nothing to say in this thread.

You do not have the slightest clue what the objective mind is and can't discuss anything about it.

You think the subjective mind arises without some specific objective activity creating it, "The objective mind"

You believe in magic.

Your claims are flawed.

Nobody denies that we have the ability to move our limbs at will.

The issue here being the mechanisms and means by which this ability is enabled.

This has been explained to you numerous times, case studies, experiments and evidence given, yet you continue to misrepresent what I say, continue to ignore the research and continue to repeat unfounded claims; autonomy of mind, a smart mind operating a dumb brain.

Every study you have shown or could show uses subjective reports to understand what is happening in the mind. None know what the mind is.

If subjective reports are used to understand the mind then those that give the reports must have autonomy to give them.

Otherwise the reports are meaningless. If the subjective reports are not freely made then there is no reason to believe them.

Your position is absurd.

Your position is that subjective reports are believed yet they are not freely made. And your conclusions about everything are not freely made.

It is worse than absurd. It is stupidity.

It is your assessment of the studies I refer to, if you have even read them, that is flawed. You ignore anything and everything that does not suit your beliefs, and just keep asserting them regardless of all evidence to the contrary.


Abstract

''In this article, we argue that motor and cognitive processes are functionally related and most likely share a similar evolutionary history. This is supported by clinical and neural data showing that some brain regions integrate both motor and cognitive functions. In addition, we also argue that cognitive processes coincide with complex motor output. Further, we also review data that support the converse notion that motor processes can contribute to cognitive function, as found by many rehabilitation and aerobic exercise training programs. Support is provided for motor and cognitive processes possessing dynamic bidirectional influences on each other.''



Introduction

The association between motor function and cognition can be understood, in part, in the context of the evolution of human bipedalism. Bipedalism served as a significant basis for the evolution of the human neocortex as it is among the most complex and sophisticated of all movements. It is characteristically human (even though birds on the ground, some mammals, and primates possess that function as well); thus, humans are dedicated to this mode of locomotion. Birds have a larger encephalization index than do their reptile cousins, with that difference being explainable, in part, by bipedalism (1). Bipedalism in humans is both constant and employs an upright spine, unlike other organisms with that skill. On this basis, we can conclude that the development of the large brain of humans was associated with bipedalism’s development.''

 

[untermensche]

There is no understanding of the mind in that study.

Show me where the mind is in that study.

I know that minds wrote it.

The dirty little secret of the neurosciences is that there is no understanding of the mind.

And for some when they don't understand something they pretend it doesn't even exist.

This pretending the mind doesn't exist is evidence of a mind that is lost.

A mind could not be more lost than to doubt it's own existence.

Or doubt it can move the arm any time it chooses.

Nowhere and Everywhere: The Causal Origin of Voluntary Action

Abstract

The idea that intentions make the difference between voluntary and non-voluntary behaviors is simple and intuitive. At the same time, we lack an understanding of how voluntary actions actually come about, and the unquestioned appeal to intentions as discrete causes of actions offers little if anything in the way of an answer. We cite evidence suggesting that the origin of actions varies depending on context and effector, and argue that actions emerge from a causal web in the brain, rather than a central origin of intentional action. We argue that this causal web need not be confined to the central nervous system, and that proprioceptive feedback might play a counterintuitive role in the decision process. Finally we argue that the complex and dynamic origins of voluntary action and their interplay with the brain’s propensity to predict the immediate future are better studied using a dynamical systems approach.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13164-014-0223-2

There is no understanding of how the command to move the arm is initiated.

Because we have no idea what the mind is.

And many have stopped looking for it pretending no such thing exists and it is a primitive idea.

 

[DBT]

There is no understanding of the mind in that study.

Show me where the mind is in that study.

I know that minds wrote it.

The dirty little secret of the neurosciences is that there is no understanding of the mind.

And for some when they don't understand something they pretend it doesn't even exist.

This pretending the mind doesn't exist is evidence of a mind that is lost.

A mind could not be more lost than to doubt it's own existence.

Or doubt it can move the arm any time it chooses.

Nowhere and Everywhere: The Causal Origin of Voluntary Action

Abstract

The idea that intentions make the difference between voluntary and non-voluntary behaviors is simple and intuitive. At the same time, we lack an understanding of how voluntary actions actually come about, and the unquestioned appeal to intentions as discrete causes of actions offers little if anything in the way of an answer. We cite evidence suggesting that the origin of actions varies depending on context and effector, and argue that actions emerge from a causal web in the brain, rather than a central origin of intentional action. We argue that this causal web need not be confined to the central nervous system, and that proprioceptive feedback might play a counterintuitive role in the decision process. Finally we argue that the complex and dynamic origins of voluntary action and their interplay with the brain’s propensity to predict the immediate future are better studied using a dynamical systems approach.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13164-014-0223-2

There is no understanding of how the command to move the arm is initiated.

Because we have no idea what the mind is.

And many have stopped looking for it pretending no such thing exists and it is a primitive idea.

Understanding how intentions come about is related to how the brain generates consciousness.

How a brain generates conscious experience, including intention is not understood

It doesn't mean that nothing is understood. It doesn't mean that autonomy of mind should be assumed. Nobody does that except for of minority of fringe dwellers, purveyors of Woo.


The articles I provided represent research into the motor functions of the brain, not mind as an autonomous agency.

That is merely your assumption.

 

[untermensche]

Understanding how intentions come about is related to how the brain generates consciousness...

Another word for consciousness is "mind".

Definitely intention is related to a mind that commands the arm to move.

Voluntary movement involves two things.

The intention from the mind and the reflex from the brain.

We know some things about the reflex from the brain. We know areas of activity. We do not understand how the brain synchronizes anything or how it "knows" what to do when the mind commands.

We know nothing about the mind that intends.

Except our subjective knowledge.

 

[PyramidHead]

Understanding how intentions come about is related to how the brain generates consciousness...

Another word for consciousness is "mind".

Definitely intention is related to a mind that commands the arm to move.

Voluntary movement involves two things.

The intention from the mind and the reflex from the brain.

We know some things about the reflex from the brain. We know areas of activity. We do not understand how the brain synchronizes anything or how it "knows" what to do when the mind commands.

We know nothing about the mind that intends.

Except our subjective knowledge.

What would it subjectively feel like if the brain were causing your mind to initiate the movement of your arm, such that it seemed like you were consciously initiating the movement? By definition, it would feel exactly like you were in control, wouldn't it? So, how can the subjective impression of seeming to initiate its movement be evidence of actually doing so, when it would feel that way even if the brain initiated both the movement and the subjective impression of control?

 

[untermensche]

What would it subjectively feel like if the brain were causing your mind to initiate the movement of your arm...

It would be an entirely passive experience.

The arm would just move on it's own and the mind would experience that.

As opposed to only moving when the mind commands.

As opposed to an active process.

The reason the term "voluntary movement" was invented was because the experience is not a passive experience.

 

[Elixir]

What would it subjectively feel like if the brain were causing your mind to initiate the movement of your arm...

The arm would just move on it's own

... because it's not connected to the brain, right.
Speaking for yourself, apparently. Kinda like how your fingers type these posts...

 

[untermensche]

What would it subjectively feel like if the brain were causing your mind to initiate the movement of your arm...

The arm would just move on it's own

... because it's not connected to the brain, right.
Speaking for yourself, apparently. Kinda like how your fingers type these posts...

So no matter the experience you conclude the mind has no part?

You have made a conclusion based entirely on a prejudice absent any evidence for it.

 

[DBT]

Understanding how intentions come about is related to how the brain generates consciousness...

Another word for consciousness is "mind".

Sure, but consciousness is a broad term that encompasses a wide range of cognitive abilities, some of which do not entail thought or agency......you can't turn off your hearing, for example.

Definitely intention is related to a mind that commands the arm to move.

Voluntary movement involves two things.

The intention from the mind and the reflex from the brain.

We know some things about the reflex from the brain. We know areas of activity. We do not understand how the brain synchronizes anything or how it "knows" what to do when the mind commands.

We know nothing about the mind that intends.

Except our subjective knowledge.

You continue to meticulously ignore the underlying mechanisms and means of your conscious experience and mind.

 

[untermensche]

You do not know the mechanisms of intention.

All you know is what happens after an intention has acted. You know the reflexive part, not the intentional part.

You have no clue how an intention arises. Because it arises in the mind.

And with your mind you conclude the mind has nothing to do with it for some strange reason.

 

[DBT]

Rinse and repeat.

 

[WAB]

Rinse and repeat.

Brain - Objective
Mind - Subjective

 

[untermensche]

Rinse and repeat.

You do not know the mechanisms of intention.

All you know is what happens after an intention has acted. You know the reflexive part, not the intentional part.

You have no clue how an intention arises. Because it arises in the mind.

And with your mind you conclude the mind has nothing to do with it for some strange reason.

Dodge of the truth.

You have no understanding of intention.

But you know you must do something with your mind to get you arm to pick up your coffee.

Smell the coffee.

- - - Updated - - -

Rinse and repeat.

Brain - Objective
Mind - Subjective

The brain is an object.

And you can have a brain without a mind.

So the mind is not an object.

Is color an object?

 

[DBT]

You have no truth. You have assertions. Assertions you repeat incessantly in the hope of......what? That someone will be convinced?

 

[WAB]

Dodge of the truth.

You have no understanding of intention.

But you know you must do something with your mind to get you arm to pick up your coffee.

Smell the coffee.

- - - Updated - - -

Rinse and repeat.

Brain - Objective
Mind - Subjective

The brain is an object.

And you can have a brain without a mind.

So the mind is not an object.

Is color an object?

NM

 

[untermensche]

You have no truth. You have assertions. Assertions you repeat incessantly in the hope of......what? That someone will be convinced?

It is an absolute truth that I must do something with my mind to move my arm.

It is absolute truth the arm does not move on it's own.

It is absolute truth you know no more about intention than I do.

 

[WAB]

untermensche:

You've spoken of having worked with stroke victims. I work in healthcare and have known and worked with many stroke victims as well (though not on a professional level).

Common in stroke victims is the complete lack of ability to use or feel one side of the body. Let's focus on the arm. A resident at an assisited living facility I know very well (she is friends on Facebook), and worked with for years, is a stroke victim who has had to become left-handed because the right side of her body is inoperable. She cannot move her right arm at all, and has limited movement throughout the whole right side.

Now, I know Bonnie has a mind, and a very sharp one at that. She is a proud mother and grandmother, has a wickedly ribald sense of humor, and is an over-all win as a human being. However, despite the sharpness of her mind, she cannot command her right arm to move. No matter how she might try, that function is lost to her, and impossible.

The fact is, the damage to her brain is what results in her incapacity to give a command to move her right arm. It is a problem in her brain, not her mind, that causes this incapacity.

Her mind is fine. It is her brain that is damaged, and it is this very damage that causes her inability to use her mind to move her right arm.

 

[untermensche]

untermensche:

You've spoken of having worked with stroke victims. I work in healthcare and have known and worked with many stroke victims as well (though not on a professional level).

Common in stroke victims is the complete lack of ability to use or feel one side of the body. Let's focus on the arm. A resident at an assisited living facility I know very well (she is friends on Facebook), and worked with for years, is a stroke victim who has had to become left-handed because the right side of her body is inoperable. She cannot move her right arm at all, and has limited movement throughout the whole right side.

Now, I know Bonnie has a mind, and a very sharp one at that. She is a proud mother and grandmother, has a wickedly ribald sense of humor, and is an over-all win as a human being. However, despite the sharpness of her mind, she cannot command her right arm to move. No matter how she might try, that function is lost to her, and impossible.

The fact is, the damage to her brain is what results in her incapacity to give a command to move her right arm. It is a problem in her brain, not her mind, that causes this incapacity.

Her mind is fine. It is her brain that is damaged, and it is this very damage that causes her inability to use her mind to move her right arm.

Yeah?

The stroke victim's mind is functioning.

It is commanding the brain to move the limbs the brain can still move.

But the brain is damaged and cannot control some parts of the body.

A mind needs a functioning brain to control the arm.

It doesn't move the arm by magic.

It moves the arm by giving the brain a command. The brain does the rest.

And if you practice and practice and practice, like a musician practices their instrument the mind learns how to give better and more precise commands.

 

[WAB]

In other words, it is the brain that causes the efficacy (or lack thereof) of the command given by the mind.

There is no magic involved, and I wonder why you keep using the word?