The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[ryan]

I have my reasons why I believe dualism exists, but you are going to have to do a lot better than this if you are going end one of the biggest questions in philosophy.

Why the evasion? And my position is we can't address the philosophical question until we know what a mind is.

My position is not that I have answered anything. I am merely pointing out the situation as it exists.

We make decisions with our minds.

The argument against the mind is that it is the same thing as the brain. Monists will claim that they are the same thing. You have to give a reason why the brain and the mind are not just different labels for the same thing.

 

[untermensche]

Why the evasion? And my position is we can't address the philosophical question until we know what a mind is.

My position is not that I have answered anything. I am merely pointing out the situation as it exists.

We make decisions with our minds.

The argument against the mind is that it is the same thing as the brain. Monists will claim that they are the same thing. You have to give a reason why the brain and the mind are not just different labels for the same thing.

I don't think anybody makes that argument.

Is the magnet the same thing as magnetism?

 

[ryan]

The argument against the mind is that it is the same thing as the brain. Monists will claim that they are the same thing. You have to give a reason why the brain and the mind are not just different labels for the same thing.

I don't think anybody makes that argument.

Really? Then why is monism vs duality, especially when it comes to mind/matter, such a large philosophical topic?

 

[untermensche]

I don't think anybody makes that argument.

Really? Then why is monism vs duality, especially when it comes to mind/matter, such a large philosophical topic?

Is a magnet the same thing as magnetism?

A mind might be the product of brain activity. But a thing and a product of it's activity are not the same thing.

 

[bilby]

You just described what would happen from the POV of both sets of observers; Where's the problem? I see no problem here at all, much less a 'major' problem. We can use our theory to predict exactly what each set of observers will see/experience; Unless we have (or obtain) experimental evidence that contradicts the predictions of the theory, there's no problem here at all.

The paradox is that 2 different realities happen. One happens, but the other never happens.

No, both are descriptions of the same events as viewed by different observers. There's no paradox.

 

[fromderinside]

Well If my wife and I were the observers there would be a pairo'docs.

 

[ryan]

Really? Then why is monism vs duality, especially when it comes to mind/matter, such a large philosophical topic?

Is a magnet the same thing as magnetism?

We can observe magnetism. The mind is much harder to observe even though we observe through the very thing you say exists.

A mind might be the product of brain activity.

It might be, but you still have to explain why we need more than a process in the brain.

But a thing and a product of it's activity are not the same thing.

no argument here

 

[ryan]

The paradox is that 2 different realities happen. One happens, but the other never happens.

No, both are descriptions of the same events as viewed by different observers. There's no paradox.

For one observer X happens. For a different observer X cannot happen.

Nothing can ever reach the black hole, yet if you are that thing, you reach the black hole.

 

[untermensche]

Is a magnet the same thing as magnetism?

We can observe magnetism. The mind is much harder to observe even though we observe through the very thing you say exists.

This is an evasion.

The mind is apparent. It is such a thing that can only be apparent from the inside though.

Are you claiming your mind is not apparent to you?

A mind might be the product of brain activity.

It might be, but you still have to explain why we need more than a process in the brain.

"Process" is just a word put in because we don't have a clue. It is pretending to know something.

But a thing and a product of it's activity are not the same thing.

no argument here

Are you saying you have no argument here?

Is the activity of ants the same thing as the ants themselves?

What does the activity of the ants weigh?

 

[bilby]

No, both are descriptions of the same events as viewed by different observers. There's no paradox.

For one observer X happens. For a different observer X cannot happen.

Nothing can ever reach the black hole, yet if you are that thing, you reach the black hole.

That's just a disagreement between observers about the measurement of time, which we already know experimentally is a real effect when two observers accelerate differently. The atomic clocks on GPS satellites run detectably more slowly than atomic clocks on the ground, for this reason; and they do so as predicted by relativity.

An observer on a spaceship that is accelerating sees his atomic clock telling him that he reaches a given location in space at T+x seconds, while the observers on the ground see this happening later, at T+y seconds - we can demonstrate this to be true, and it conforms with the theoretical prediction. When the observer and the spacecraft move together, x = y, and y - x = 0; as the spacecraft accelerates, y increases, and so y - x also increases - the difference between when the pilot of the spacecraft thinks the mission reaches a given location, and when the observer in mission control thinks this has occurred increases.

If one of a pair of twins joins the space program and gets to go on a trip to a distant star at a sizable fraction of c, then when he gets home, he will find that his brother is far older than him - that y - x >> 0. That's not a paradox; it's a straightforward consequence of relativity, and is confirmed by experiment.

In the case of a spacecraft falling into a black hole, the vessel crosses the event horizon at T+x seconds as observed by the doomed pilot; and at T+y seconds as observed by mission control back on Earth - and in this case, because for a black hole, V_e = c, the theory tells us that in this case, y = ∞; and so y - x = ∞; so mission control won't see the spacecraft cross the event horizon until the year ∞. There's no paradox here; it's simple mathematics. For any point arbitrarily close to the event horizon, y - x is an arbitrarily large number, so at any given point in time, the spacecraft can be observed by mission control as being closer to the event horizon than it was at any earlier time (although the brightness with which it can be imaged may well rapidly fall below any possible ability to detect it).

 

[ryan]

We can observe magnetism. The mind is much harder to observe even though we observe through the very thing you say exists.

This is an evasion.

The mind is apparent. It is such a thing that can only be apparent from the inside though.

Why does there have to be a mind inside anything; why can't there just be a process?

Are you claiming your mind is not apparent to you?

How do I know that the thing I am apparent of is not just a typical chemical process in the brain?

A mind might be the product of brain activity.

It might be, but you still have to explain why we need more than a process in the brain.

"Process" is just a word put in because we don't have a clue. It is pretending to know something.

I meant a chemical/biological process. Something that follows the laws of physics and is made of the particles of the standard model.

no argument here

Are you saying you have no argument here?

Is the activity of ants the same thing as the ants themselves?

What does the activity of the ants weigh?

I meant that I agree.

 

[ryan]

For one observer X happens. For a different observer X cannot happen.

Nothing can ever reach the black hole, yet if you are that thing, you reach the black hole.

That's just a disagreement between observers about the measurement of time, which we already know experimentally is a real effect when two observers accelerate differently. The atomic clocks on GPS satellites run detectably more slowly than atomic clocks on the ground, for this reason; and they do so as predicted by relativity.

An observer on a spaceship that is accelerating sees his atomic clock telling him that he reaches a given location in space at T+x seconds, while the observers on the ground see this happening later, at T+y seconds - we can demonstrate this to be true, and it conforms with the theoretical prediction. When the observer and the spacecraft move together, x = y, and y - x = 0; as the spacecraft accelerates, y increases, and so y - x also increases - the difference between when the pilot of the spacecraft thinks the mission reaches a given location, and when the observer in mission control thinks this has occurred increases.

If one of a pair of twins joins the space program and gets to go on a trip to a distant star at a sizable fraction of c, then when he gets home, he will find that his brother is far older than him - that y - x >> 0. That's not a paradox; it's a straightforward consequence of relativity, and is confirmed by experiment.

In the case of a spacecraft falling into a black hole, the vessel crosses the event horizon at T+x seconds as observed by the doomed pilot; and at T+y seconds as observed by mission control back on Earth - and in this case, because for a black hole, V_e = c, the theory tells us that in this case, y = ∞; and so y - x = ∞; so mission control won't see the spacecraft cross the event horizon until the year ∞. There's no paradox here; it's simple mathematics. For any point arbitrarily close to the event horizon, y - x is an arbitrarily large number, so at any given point in time, the spacecraft can be observed by mission control as being closer to the event horizon than it was at any earlier time (although the brightness with which it can be imaged may well rapidly fall below any possible ability to detect it).

The year infinity comes for one observer, but it never comes for the other observer.

 

[Juma]

Relativity already uses time in a static sense. Time is just another dimension in relativity.

Really? Where is this dimension? As far as I can tell its measuring change in matter confounded with place. Time dilatation problem? Get rid of time. Substitute change in minimum size application of energy. As matter gets near black hole now (minimum size) becomes very large.

Ever heard if spacetime? That is how relativity referes to these four dimensions.
The lorentz transformations are rotations in these four dimensions with the detail that time is (mathematically) imaginary.

That is no news at all.

 

[bilby]

That's just a disagreement between observers about the measurement of time, which we already know experimentally is a real effect when two observers accelerate differently. The atomic clocks on GPS satellites run detectably more slowly than atomic clocks on the ground, for this reason; and they do so as predicted by relativity.

An observer on a spaceship that is accelerating sees his atomic clock telling him that he reaches a given location in space at T+x seconds, while the observers on the ground see this happening later, at T+y seconds - we can demonstrate this to be true, and it conforms with the theoretical prediction. When the observer and the spacecraft move together, x = y, and y - x = 0; as the spacecraft accelerates, y increases, and so y - x also increases - the difference between when the pilot of the spacecraft thinks the mission reaches a given location, and when the observer in mission control thinks this has occurred increases.

If one of a pair of twins joins the space program and gets to go on a trip to a distant star at a sizable fraction of c, then when he gets home, he will find that his brother is far older than him - that y - x >> 0. That's not a paradox; it's a straightforward consequence of relativity, and is confirmed by experiment.

In the case of a spacecraft falling into a black hole, the vessel crosses the event horizon at T+x seconds as observed by the doomed pilot; and at T+y seconds as observed by mission control back on Earth - and in this case, because for a black hole, V_e = c, the theory tells us that in this case, y = ∞; and so y - x = ∞; so mission control won't see the spacecraft cross the event horizon until the year ∞. There's no paradox here; it's simple mathematics. For any point arbitrarily close to the event horizon, y - x is an arbitrarily large number, so at any given point in time, the spacecraft can be observed by mission control as being closer to the event horizon than it was at any earlier time (although the brightness with which it can be imaged may well rapidly fall below any possible ability to detect it).

The year infinity comes for one observer, but it never comes for the other observer.

No it doesn't. Neither observer ever experiences the year infinity; The pilot likely dies fairly young, and the mission controller lives a normal human lifespan - during which time he never sees the spacecraft cross the event horizon. Even his distant decendants never see that happen. Because it never does happen IN THEIR FRAME OF REFERENCE.

There is no paradox here.

 

[untermensche]

This is an evasion.

The mind is apparent. It is such a thing that can only be apparent from the inside though.

Why does there have to be a mind inside anything; why can't there just be a process?

You are trying to pretend your experience of a mind doesn't exist. Saying it is apparent from the inside is just poetry. How we experience our mind is beyond words. It is an experience. You can't experience anything by talking about it.

I meant a chemical/biological process. Something that follows the laws of physics and is made of the particles of the standard model.

The chemical part of neural activity is the release of neurotransmitters and the binding of those neurotransmitters to receptors.

It is very unlikely this kind of activity could generate anything like a mind.

The activity that probably gives rise to a mind is the electrical activity that occurs as a result of this chemical activity. But it is probably a combination of electrical and magnetic activity. It has to be something very stable because consciousness is very stable for a lifetime, unless dementia sets in.

But saying it is electromagnetic activity is really to say nothing. It explains nothing.

 

[ryan]

The year infinity comes for one observer, but it never comes for the other observer.

No it doesn't. Neither observer ever experiences the year infinity; The pilot likely dies fairly young, and the mission controller lives a normal human lifespan - during which time he never sees the spacecraft cross the event horizon. Even his distant decendants never see that happen. Because it never does happen IN THEIR FRAME OF REFERENCE.

There is no paradox here.

Okay maybe it's just troubling. Because, for the people passing through the horizon, the universe outside of the black hole would be infinitely old. They would have exhausted an infinite amount of time external to them. It's just disturbing.

 

[DBT]

Please don't twist what I say. I said that we don't have to understand everything about the brain to understand something. We understand something, but not everything....we do not understand how the brain forms mental imagery/consciousness.

That is not understood.

This does not mean that nothing is understood. It does not mean that it is not clear that the brain is indeed forming and generating consciousness. That is clear, and of course more, the roles of the senses, stuctures, etc.

We don't understand ONE THING about how the activity of nerve cells becomes something like a mind.

Not ONE CLUE. We don't even know where to begin.

That wasn't the point. As you yourself imply dualism, I pointed out that we do not need to know how cellular activity forms mental imagery, only that it does. Many drivers have no understanding of how an internal combustion engine works, that does not mean they don't know what part of the car powers the drive train, or what the steering wheel and pedals do....

So, again, we do not know how the brain forms the mental imagery of conscious experience, but it is quite clear that - based on the available evidence - that it does. It is quite clear that chemical or structural changes to the brain alter consciousness, often in predictable ways, anaesthetic, etc.

So therefore we don't have the slightest clue about the mechanism that choices are made with. The mind.

Oh, come on...we know that decision making disintegrates with memory function loss, neural tangles, the failure of connectivity, which is a failure to integrate information and form coherent thoughts and decisions. Which is the physical activity of neural networks.

Decision making;
When it comes to the human brain, even the simplest of acts can be counter-intuitive and deceptively complicated. For example, try stretching your arm.

Nerves in the limb send messages back to your brain, but the subjective experience you have of stretching isn't due to these signals. The feeling that you willed your arm into motion, and the realisation that you moved it at all, are both the result of an area at the back of your brain called the posterior parietal cortex. This region helped to produce the intention to move, and predicted what the movement would feel like, all before you twitched a single muscle.

Michel Desmurget and a team of French neuroscientists arrived at this conclusion by stimulating the brains of seven people with electrodes, while they underwent brain surgery under local anaesthetic. When Desmurget stimulated the parietal cortex, the patients felt a strong desire to move their arms, hands, feet or lips, although they never actually did. Stronger currents cast a powerful illusion, convincing the patients that they had actually moved, even though recordings of electrical activity in their muscles said otherwise.

But when Desmurget stimulated a different region - the premotor cortex - he found the opposite effect. The patients moved their hands, arms or mouths without realising it. One of them flexed his left wrist, fingers and elbow and rotated his forearm, but was completely unaware of it. When his surgeons asked if he felt anything, he said no. Higher currents evoked stronger movements, but still the patients remained blissfully unaware that their limbs and lips were budging.

 

[ryan]

Why does there have to be a mind inside anything; why can't there just be a process?

You are trying to pretend your experience of a mind doesn't exist.

No, I believe in the experience before anything else.

Let me explain from the opposite point of view, and you may see that monism is possible. We get firsthand knowledge of the inner workings, but why can't that be all there is? Why do we have to call it a process in the brain"? Can't it just be one kind of thing? We experience the radiation of other people's experiences, but that is not to say that we know that there is a process in addition to qualia.

As much as I have fought, and will continue to fight, physicalism, there is a kind of Occam kind of simplicity to it.

I meant a chemical/biological process. Something that follows the laws of physics and is made of the particles of the standard model.

The chemical part of neural activity is the release of neurotransmitters and the binding of those neurotransmitters to receptors.

It is very unlikely this kind of activity could generate anything like a mind.

The activity that probably gives rise to a mind is the electrical activity that occurs as a result of this chemical activity. But it is probably a combination of electrical and magnetic activity. It has to be something very stable because consciousness is very stable for a lifetime, unless dementia sets in.

But saying it is electromagnetic activity is really to say nothing. It explains nothing.

The functionality of the brain is closely correlated to its mental states. If there is a mind as well as brain processes, then one is a "shadow" of the other. One maps to the other.

 

[untermensche]

We don't understand ONE THING about how the activity of nerve cells becomes something like a mind.

Not ONE CLUE. We don't even know where to begin.

That wasn't the point. As you yourself imply dualism, I pointed out that we do not need to know how cellular activity forms mental imagery, only that it does. Many drivers have no understanding of how an internal combustion engine works, that does not mean they don't know what part of the car powers the drive train, or what the steering wheel and pedals do....

Who is this "we" that does not need to know things to understand them?

Is the mind something generated by the brain or received by the brain in some way?

Who does not need to know what a mind is to answer this?

Oh, come on...we know that decision making disintegrates with memory function loss, neural tangles, the failure of connectivity, which is a failure to integrate information and form coherent thoughts and decisions. Which is the physical activity of neural networks.

Non sequitur.

The brain does not make decisions. The mind does.

Sure the process ages as the body ages.

But that doesn't say one thing about whether decisions are "free" or "forced".

...This region helped to produce the intention to move...

As worthless a statement as you will ever find.

Equivalent to. The brain helps to produce the intention to move. A statement that says nothing about intention or what intention is.

 

[untermensche]

You are trying to pretend your experience of a mind doesn't exist.

No, I believe in the experience before anything else.

Let me explain from the opposite point of view, and you may see that monism is possible. We get firsthand knowledge of the inner workings, but why can't that be all there is? Why do we have to call it a process in the brain"? Can't it just be one kind of thing? We experience the radiation of other people's experiences, but that is not to say that we know that there is a process in addition to qualia.

As much as I have fought, and will continue to fight, physicalism, there is a kind of Occam kind of simplicity to it.

You betray the lunacy of your position with one word "We".

What is this "we" that gets things?