The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[ryan]

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.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as an experience?

 

[untermensche]

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.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as an experience?

It is not a thing in itself.

It is a word we give to an interaction.

 

[ryan]

Are you saying that there is no such thing as an experience?

It is not a thing in itself.

It is a word we give to an interaction.

When I experience an image, it is very unique, very discrete and at least its existence is self-evident. It seems more like a thing than anything else. That's why sometimes it seems to me like matter is a property of the mind, but I am not entirely sure how that would work.

 

[bilby]

'Unique' means 'The only one of its kind'.

'Very unique' would mean 'Very the only one of its kind', which is obviously nonsense; so 'Very unique' actually conveys 'I do not know what the word 'unique' means, but I used it anyway'. It does not inspire confidence in a person's arguments when they include such clear indications that they are using words the meanings of which they do not know.

/grammarnazi

 

[untermensche]

It is not a thing in itself.

It is a word we give to an interaction.

When I experience an image, it is very unique, very discrete and at least its existence is self-evident. It seems more like a thing than anything else. That's why sometimes it seems to me like matter is a property of the mind, but I am not entirely sure how that would work.

The experience is unique because the interaction is always unique.

You cannot put your foot into the same river twice and all that.

 

[ryan]

When I experience an image, it is very unique, very discrete and at least its existence is self-evident. It seems more like a thing than anything else. That's why sometimes it seems to me like matter is a property of the mind, but I am not entirely sure how that would work.

The experience is unique because the interaction is always unique.

You cannot put your foot into the same river twice and all that.

The point that I was trying to make is that experience seems to be a very real entity. It has a quality or at least channels quality in such a discrete and pure way.

 

[untermensche]

The experience is unique because the interaction is always unique.

You cannot put your foot into the same river twice and all that.

The point that I was trying to make is that experience seems to be a very real entity. It has a quality or at least channels quality in such a discrete and pure way.

So when you look at a chair you think a chair is created and perceived by the brain, not a representation of the chair?

Experience is being aware of the representation.

Being aware of a representation does not create some third entity.

 

[ryan]

The point that I was trying to make is that experience seems to be a very real entity. It has a quality or at least channels quality in such a discrete and pure way.

So when you look at a chair you think a chair is created and perceived by the brain, not a representation of the chair?

Experience is being aware of the representation.

Being aware of a representation does not create some third entity.

I strongly disagree. The only entity that I am sure exists is my awareness, whether the awareness is an illusion or not. Whether I am a brain in a vat or something else entirely, I maintain that experience exists and the rest is philosophy.

 

[ryan]

I should add that scientific realism is a close 2nd to idealism, for me.

 

[DBT]

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.

What reason is there to consider the brain to be a receiver rather than the agent of consciousness?

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

Not really, if the objects are not present, there is nothing to be conscious of. In cases of sensory deprivation the brain resorts to hallucinations based on memory function, memory being the record of past input being rehashed as dreams and visions. Either way, consciousness and its content are inseparable.

Considering what happens during extended periods of sensory deprivation, it is quite clear that it is the brain that is forming experience on the basis of its available information....if sensory input is not available, then memory based hallucinations are generated.

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".

Sorry, wrong. Even self awareness and self identity falls apart when memory function fails.

Quote;
''People suffering from Alzheimer's disease are not only losing their memory, but they are also losing their personality. In order to understand the relationship between personality and memory, it is important to define personality and memory. Personality, as defined by some neurobiologists and psychologists, is a collection of behaviors, emotions, and thoughts that are not controlled by the I-function. Memory, on the other hand, is controlled and regulated by the I-function of the neocortex. It is a collection of short stories that the I-function makes-up in order to account for the events and people. Memory is also defined as the ability to retain information, and it is influenced by three important stages. The first stage is encoding and processing the information, the second stage is the storing of the memory, and the third stage is memory retrieval. There are also the different types of memories like sensory, short-term, and long-term memory. The sensory memory relates to the initial moment when an event or an object is first detected. Short-term memories are characterized by slow, transient alterations in communication between neurons and long-term memories (1). Long-term memories are marked by permanent changes to the neural structure''


The terminal Stages of the disease, and the consequences of such a profound memory loss being; Symptoms:

''Can't recognize family or image of self in mirror.
Loses weight even with good diet.
Little capacity for self-care.
Can't communicate with words.
May put everything in mouth or touch everything.
Can't control bowels, bladder.
May have seizures, experience difficulty swallowing, skin infections.

Examples:
Looks in mirror and talks to own image.
Needs help with bathing, dressing, eating and toileting.
May groan, scream or make grunting sounds.
May try to suck on everything. ''

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

Evasion? That is what you imply by your remarks - It is the "I" when one says "I see" or "I hear" - which strongly suggests a separate entity, a homunculus.

 

[untermensche]

So when you look at a chair you think a chair is created and perceived by the brain, not a representation of the chair?

Experience is being aware of the representation.

Being aware of a representation does not create some third entity.

I strongly disagree. The only entity that I am sure exists is my awareness, whether the awareness is an illusion or not. Whether I am a brain in a vat or something else entirely, I maintain that experience exists and the rest is philosophy.

You are sure you are aware of things.

So you are sure there is you and you are sure there are the things you are aware of.

 

[untermensche]

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.

What reason is there to consider the brain to be a receiver rather than the agent of consciousness?

That is not the point. The point is we don't really know. And the reason we don't know is because we don't know what the mind is.

We know what neurons are. We know what electricity is. We know what magnetism is.

But we don't know what a mind is.

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

Not really, if the objects are not present, there is nothing to be conscious of. In cases of sensory deprivation the brain resorts to hallucinations based on memory function, memory being the record of past input being rehashed as dreams and visions. Either way, consciousness and its content are inseparable.

A hallucination is just something to be aware of.

If I imagine a square it is something to be aware of. An object of consciousness I can create at "will".

And you are just logically wrong. If there is consciousness there is that which is conscious AND there is that which it is conscious of.

It has to be this way. You can't wipe it away simply by mentioning the word "Homunculus". What I call the "Homunculus Evasion".

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".

Sorry, wrong. Even self awareness and self identity falls apart when memory function fails.

There is still awareness even without self awareness.

And if there is awareness there is that which is aware and that which it is aware of.

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

Evasion? That is what you imply by your remarks - It is the "I" when one says "I see" or "I hear" - which strongly suggests a separate entity, a homunculus.

Yes evasion. It is not a homunculus. It is a mind.

Whatever that is?

 

[ryan]

I strongly disagree. The only entity that I am sure exists is my awareness, whether the awareness is an illusion or not. Whether I am a brain in a vat or something else entirely, I maintain that experience exists and the rest is philosophy.

You are sure you are aware of things.

So you are sure there is you and you are sure there are the things you are aware of.

No, I am sure of my awareness.

 

[untermensche]

You are sure you are aware of things.

So you are sure there is you and you are sure there are the things you are aware of.

No, I am sure of my awareness.

But that is awareness.

You being aware of things.

 

[DBT]

What reason is there to consider the brain to be a receiver rather than the agent of consciousness?

That is not the point. The point is we don't really know. And the reason we don't know is because we don't know what the mind is.

The word 'mind' as I've said, refers to our conscious experience of the world and self, thoughts, feelings, decisions and conscious actions.

That is what the word 'mind' represents. That is what people think of when the word is used. Without the presence of conscious experience of the world and self, thoughts, feelings, decisions and conscious actions, there is no 'mind' there is nothing else that qualifies as 'mind' --- what we don't know is how 'mind' is being generated.

The evidence we have supports the proposition that mind is the work of a brain, for the numerous reasons I've already given: memory function loss destroys consciousness/mind, specific damage to neural structures effect mind in specific ways, chemicals may be 'mind altering, and so on.

We know what neurons are. We know what electricity is. We know what magnetism is.

Makes not the slightest difference to the fact that we use electricity and magnetism, that we construct and use computers....just like it makes no difference that we don't know how a brain generates 'mind' but that to all indications, it does just that. That apparently being the evolved function of brains of a certain order.

 

[DBT]

There is still awareness even without self awareness.

And if there is awareness there is that which is aware and that which it is aware of.

The brain forms awareness, which falls apart when connectivity fails or ingested chemicals alter the physical activity of awareness and of course mind, ie, mind altering substances. The substance of the 'mind' - electrochemical activity, ion flow, molecules attached to receptors, etc - being altered by substances called 'chemicals'

 

[DrZoidberg]

Do you believe that free will can be scientifically explained? Why or why not?

Step one, define it.

1) What is free?
2) How is it free?
3) What is it free from?

The entire free will debate is a bullshit debate. The goalposts aren't just being moved around, they're on wheels. No matter what position you have you can prove it's correct. Simply because the terminology of free will is so vague. How the fuck are you planing on using science to explore anything as vague as that?

 

[untermensche]

That is not the point. The point is we don't really know. And the reason we don't know is because we don't know what the mind is.

The word 'mind' as I've said, refers to our conscious experience of the world and self, thoughts, feelings, decisions and conscious actions.

You think attaching labels is the same thing as understanding.

We don't understand one thing about the Moon by attaching a label to it. We don't know what it is or how it came to be simply by putting a label on it.

The same is true of the mind.

We don't understand it merely by using other labels to describe it. Or by talking about aspects of it.

The concept of "mind" is the same as the concept of "consciousness" or "awareness" or "having thoughts". Saying the mind "refers to conscious experience" is to say nothing. It explains nothing. It is just attaching a different label. One that is just as without explanation.

And an aspect of the mind is that it is "conscious of", it is "aware of" things like thoughts and emotions and sensations and memories. But that in no way explains what a mind is.

And a mind is not aware of decisions. It makes them. The mind decides I will have Greek for lunch. Or better I use my mind to make the decision.

And again, unless we know what the mind is we have no way of knowing if that decision is "free" or "forced".

 

[untermensche]

There is still awareness even without self awareness.

And if there is awareness there is that which is aware and that which it is aware of.

The brain forms awareness, which falls apart when connectivity fails or ingested chemicals alter the physical activity of awareness and of course mind, ie, mind altering substances. The substance of the 'mind' - electrochemical activity, ion flow, molecules attached to receptors, etc - being altered by substances called 'chemicals'

Awareness is for something to be aware of something else.

The brain creates the things the mind is aware of.

And most likely the brain also creates the mind.

So the brain is doing two things in this process. Creating that which is aware and creating the things it is aware of.

And that which is aware is also that which we use to make decisions.

So to know anything about decisions we have to understand the mechanism we use to make them. The mind.

 

[fromderinside]

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?

So we're talking at cross purposes again. form, function. Wheel, movement. If the Wheel is four sided how much movement and of what quality is it? What would an engineer say about a four sided wheel? What would an artist see in it? If you're going to analogize carry it through.