The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[untermensche]

It is simple logic.

If there is an experience there is both that which is experienced and that which experiences it.

Something can have an experience, not nothing.

A pure substance would have only itself. The mind might be of this purity.

That sounds like mumbo jumbo.

Do you agree there is experience?

If there is then as I said there must be 2 elements. That which is experienced and that which experiences.

You can't evade this by saying the word "purity".

 

[ryan]

A pure substance would have only itself. The mind might be of this purity.

That sounds like mumbo jumbo.

Do you agree there is experience?

Yes, I believe in experiences before anything else.

If there is then as I said there must be 2 elements. That which is experienced and that which experiences.

You can't evade this by saying the word "purity".

Okay, I am willing to try this out. Can the two elements come together to form a single new element, namely the experience, instead of a 3rd element emerging from the two other elements?

 

[untermensche]

That sounds like mumbo jumbo.

Do you agree there is experience?

Yes, I believe in experiences before anything else.

That's Descartes.

'I think' can be; I experience thoughts.

If there is then as I said there must be 2 elements. That which is experienced and that which experiences.

You can't evade this by saying the word "purity".

Okay, I am willing to try this out. Can the two elements come together to form a single new element, namely the experience, instead of a 3rd element emerging from the two other elements?

No. That is not experience. Experience means for something to experience something else.

 

[ryan]

Yes, I believe in experiences before anything else.

That's Descartes.

'I think' can be; I experience thoughts.

If there is then as I said there must be 2 elements. That which is experienced and that which experiences.

You can't evade this by saying the word "purity".

Okay, I am willing to try this out. Can the two elements come together to form a single new element, namely the experience, instead of a 3rd element emerging from the two other elements?

No. That is not experience. Experience means for something to experience something else.

Are you saying that when two elements A and B come together, there is A, B and C, where C = experience?

 

[untermensche]

Are you saying that when two elements A and B come together, there is A, B and C, where C = experience?

No.

There is A, that which is capable of experiencing things. That which we call "I" in language.

And there are B-Z, all the things that can be experienced.

Experience is not a separate entity.

You can break a molecule with water and it is called hydrolysis.

The molecule and water are entities but hydrolysis is not.

 

[DBT]

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?

It can apply to anybody. As I said, a driver need not necessarily understand how his car's engine or computer works in order to drive the car.

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

The evidence, which I've provided, supports the proposition that mind is an activity of the brain. No brain activity, no evidence of mind being present and active.

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

The word mind refers to the experienced phenomenon of sight, sound, smell, touch, taste, associated feelings and thoughts, which are all attributes of the central nervous system, eyes, ears, etc, and the processing ability of a active brain.

Non sequitur.

No it's not.

The brain does not make decisions. The mind does.

Not according to the evidence...a failure of connectivity/memory entails a failure of mind, you can't remember something, you can't think of what you wanted to say, etc.

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.

It may appear worthless if you miss the point, failing to consider the evidence as a whole. Cherry picking a isolated sentence does not represent the article or the evidence it provides.

 

[untermensche]

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

The evidence, which I've provided, supports the proposition that mind is an activity of the brain. No brain activity, no evidence of mind being present and active.

Everything you've shown would be just as true if the brain were some "receiver" of the mind as opposed to being generated by the brain. An intact brain would be necessary for proper reception.

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

The word mind refers to the experienced phenomenon of sight, sound, smell, touch, taste, associated feelings and thoughts, which are all attributes of the central nervous system, eyes, ears, etc, and the processing ability of a active brain.

Those are the "objects" of consciousness. The things the mind is capable of being aware of.

The mind is something else entirely. It is that which is aware of those things. It is the "I" when one says "I see" or "I hear".

And using the "Homunculus Evasion" isn't an explanation.

 

[Malintent]

A pure substance would have only itself. The mind might be of this purity.

That sounds like mumbo jumbo.

Do you agree there is experience?

If there is then as I said there must be 2 elements. That which is experienced and that which experiences.

You can't evade this by saying the word "purity".

This is an "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" question.

 

[Juma]

The evidence, which I've provided, supports the proposition that mind is an activity of the brain. No brain activity, no evidence of mind being present and active.

Everything you've shown would be just as true if the brain were some "receiver" of the mind as opposed to being generated by the brain. An intact brain would be necessary for proper reception.

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

The word mind refers to the experienced phenomenon of sight, sound, smell, touch, taste, associated feelings and thoughts, which are all attributes of the central nervous system, eyes, ears, etc, and the processing ability of a active brain.

Those are the "objects" of consciousness. The things the mind is capable of being aware of.

What a cooncidence that what your "mind" is aware of is exactly what we know that the brain handles...

Your fantasy that the brain is simply a connector has been shot down long ago.

Damage to the brain damages the I itself, not the connection.

 

[ryan]

Are you saying that when two elements A and B come together, there is A, B and C, where C = experience?

No.

There is A, that which is capable of experiencing things. That which we call "I" in language.

And there are B-Z, all the things that can be experienced.

Experience is not a separate entity.

You can break a molecule with water and it is called hydrolysis.

The molecule and water are entities but hydrolysis is not.

In order for hydrolysis to occur, something has to change for the molecule but not so much for the water. Hydrolysis can be physically defined as the physical substances decompose due to energy transfers, positioning, intermolecular bonding, etc. It is unnecessary in practical chemistry, but one could make an exact qualitative and even quantitative definition for hydrolysis. The water has to break up into smaller portions, and the molecule is no longer the molecule. So for A = water, B = molecule and C = hydrolysis, we could say that A + B = A + C + other products.

So are the experiencer and the entity to be experienced preserved in this regard, A + B = A + B + C? Or are they not preserved as in A + B = C + other products during time of experience?

 

[fromderinside]

You would never be asked to design for Buick if you don't know that form follows function.

Non sequitur.

The brain and whatever it generates are two different things.

The wheels and movement are two different things.

Really?

So cars designed to reduce turbulence and optimize air flow around them look just like cars which are pretty. There is no connection? They are not views of essentially the same thing from differing perspectives? The engineer and the artist don't both get their jollies by seeing this car for essentially the same reasons? Wow.

 

[untermensche]

Non sequitur.

The brain and whatever it generates are two different things.

The wheels and movement are two different things.

Really?

So cars designed to reduce turbulence and optimize air flow around them look just like cars which are pretty. There is no connection? They are not views of essentially the same thing from differing perspectives? The engineer and the artist don't both get their jollies by seeing this car for essentially the same reasons? Wow.

Of course there is a connection. That's why I made the analogy

When the wheels turn you have movement.

But the wheel and movement are two separate things.

How much does the movement weigh? What color is it?

 

[ryan]

Really?

So cars designed to reduce turbulence and optimize air flow around them look just like cars which are pretty. There is no connection? They are not views of essentially the same thing from differing perspectives? The engineer and the artist don't both get their jollies by seeing this car for essentially the same reasons? Wow.

Of course there is a connection. That's why I made the analogy

When the wheels turn you have movement.

But the wheel and movement are two separate things.

How much does the movement weigh?

The mass of the movement of the wheel minus the rest mass of the wheel (treating it as a particle) equals some nonzero mass.

Energy and mass are scalar quantities and we can identify them in similar ways.

 

[untermensche]

Of course there is a connection. That's why I made the analogy

When the wheels turn you have movement.

But the wheel and movement are two separate things.

How much does the movement weigh?

The mass of the movement of the wheel minus the rest mass of the wheel (treating it as a particle) equals some nonzero mass.

Energy and mass are scalar quantities and we can identify them in similar ways.

Yes, movement can be measured.

That doesn't mean the wheel and the movement of the wheel are the same thing. The wheel is one thing and movement is something else entirely.

 

[ryan]

The mass of the movement of the wheel minus the rest mass of the wheel (treating it as a particle) equals some nonzero mass.

Energy and mass are scalar quantities and we can identify them in similar ways.

Yes, movement can be measured.

That doesn't mean the wheel and the movement of the wheel are the same thing. The wheel is one thing and movement is something else entirely.

Movement of the wheel is just the wheel + kinetic energy with a direction. The energy and direction are the differences while the wheel is preserved.

Think about it fundamentally. A moving wheel is at rest relative to its own frame of reference. Any apparent direction is an extrinsic property; likewise, any kinetic energy is a relative property, also an extrinsic property. For an observer of the moving wheel at some inertial frame of reference, the movement only needs to be described as a quantity of kinetic energy and the direction of the wheel. Whether or not the wheel is moving depends on the frame of reference. Its direction and its kinetic energy are extrinsic properties that rely on its surroundings.

Of course this is all just the philosophy scientific realism. But SR is hard to avoid because it does such a good job of describing reality.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, movement can be measured.

That doesn't mean the wheel and the movement of the wheel are the same thing. The wheel is one thing and movement is something else entirely.

Movement of the wheel is just the wheel + kinetic energy with a direction. The energy and direction are the differences while the wheel is preserved.

You're just pointing out how they are different.

Don't get too deep into analogies. You lose the forest for the trees.

The activity of a brain is not movement.

And it is not the brain. It is something the brain creates.

The artist is not the same thing as the painting.

 

[ryan]

Movement of the wheel is just the wheel + kinetic energy with a direction. The energy and direction are the differences while the wheel is preserved.

You're just pointing out how they are different.

Don't get too deep into analogies. You lose the forest for the trees.

The activity of a brain is not movement.

And it is not the brain. It is something the brain creates.

The artist is not the same thing as the painting.

Okay, so does the experiencer + the object being experienced = experience? Or does experiencer + the object being experienced = experience + experiencer + the object being experienced. Essentially, does A + B = C,
or does A + B = A + B + C?

 

[untermensche]

You're just pointing out how they are different.

Don't get too deep into analogies. You lose the forest for the trees.

The activity of a brain is not movement.

And it is not the brain. It is something the brain creates.

The artist is not the same thing as the painting.

Okay, so does the experiencer + the object being experienced = experience? Or does experiencer + the object being experienced = experience + experiencer + the object being experienced. Essentially, does A + B = C,
or does A + B = A + B + C?

Experience is when that which can experience is "presented with" that which can be experienced.

No new entity grows from this interaction.

Anymore than a new entity grows because a wheel is moving.

 

[ryan]

Okay, so does the experiencer + the object being experienced = experience? Or does experiencer + the object being experienced = experience + experiencer + the object being experienced. Essentially, does A + B = C,
or does A + B = A + B + C?

Experience is when that which can experience is "presented with" that which can be experienced.

No new entity grows from this interaction.

Anymore than a new entity grows because a wheel is moving.

So then did the experience exist before the interaction?

 

[untermensche]

Experience is when that which can experience is "presented with" that which can be experienced.

No new entity grows from this interaction.

Anymore than a new entity grows because a wheel is moving.

So then did the experience exist before the interaction?

The experience has no existence.

It can't exist before or after anything.

What has existence is that which experiences and that which it experiences.