The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[fromderinside]

No, I am sure of my awareness.

But that is awareness.

You being aware of things.

We're pretty sure rays are aware of things. They can differentiate form from noise, they can select specific forms which they follow as food source.

Does the ray have a mind? Or, is it just an elasmobranch that has equipment in its tegmentum capable of defining form from randomness. I'm pretty sure most multi-cellular organisms with neural tissue can distinguish form from randomness else why would they have eyes and how would they find food. Remember one of the primary features of neural tissue is that it has the capacity, when integrated with other neural tissue, to define edges. This is basic neural information processing.

Can you not see that building up from stuff like this takes away the need for mind?

 

[untermensche]

But that is awareness.

You being aware of things.

We're pretty sure rays are aware of things. They can differentiate form from noise, they can select specific forms which they follow as food source.

Does the ray have a mind? Or, is it just an elasmobranch that has equipment in its tegmentum capable of defining form from randomness. I'm pretty sure most multi-cellular organisms with neural tissue can distinguish form from randomness else why would they have eyes and how would they find food. Remember one of the primary features of neural tissue is that it has the capacity, when integrated with other neural tissue, to define edges. This is basic neural information processing.

Can you not see that building up from stuff like this takes away the need for mind?

Sure. It has the mind of a ray.

There is that of the ray which is aware and that which it is aware of.

That is awareness. 2 things.

But in the human awareness is not reflex. I am aware of the two shirts in my closet, and I choose which one to wear based on many factors. I chose with my mind which is more than the mind of a ray. It is not forced upon me. It is not reflex.

 

[ryan]

No, I am sure of my awareness.

But that is awareness.

You being aware of things.

No, because how can I be absolutely sure that I am aware of things instead of the quality of the awareness itself. Maybe all that exists is my consciousness and whatever my consciousness decides to be, i.e. solipsism.

 

[ryan]

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?

If you go through the discussion that I had in this thread with DBT, then you will see where we are at.

 

[untermensche]

But that is awareness.

You being aware of things.

No, because how can I be absolutely sure that I am aware of things instead of the quality of the awareness itself. Maybe all that exists is my consciousness and whatever my consciousness decides to be, i.e. solipsism.

Even if it were just your mind it would be the same thing.

There would be that which is aware and that which it is aware of.

It can be no other way.

If there is awareness there must both be that which is aware and that which it is aware of.

You can't talk this truism away.

 

[ryan]

No, because how can I be absolutely sure that I am aware of things instead of the quality of the awareness itself. Maybe all that exists is my consciousness and whatever my consciousness decides to be, i.e. solipsism.

Even if it were just your mind it would be the same thing.

There would be that which is aware and that which it is aware of.

It can be no other way.

If there is awareness there must both be that which is aware and that which it is aware of.

You can't talk this truism away.

But what if it is just that my awareness is changing? There would be things, but they would only come in and out of existence for me to be aware of, i.e. presentism. There would only be one thing, an experience.

 

[ryan]

It seems as though the dualism that is in a more realistic reality would be the property of observing, and the property of being observable.

Does this mean the same thing as what you are saying, untermensche?

 

[Kharakov]

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?

If you go through the discussion that I had in this thread with DBT, then you will see where we are at.

It's 40 pages long. Just have a ready made definition available.

 

[ryan]

If you go through the discussion that I had in this thread with DBT, then you will see where we are at.

It's 40 pages long. Just have a ready made definition available.

I do, and I have repeated it many times on this thread.

I am also so addicted to this. Any will that I can muster up to not start new conversations is a miracle.

Also, when someone comes with that kind of an attitude, it is rare that the discussion will be pleasant.

 

[ryan]

If DrZoidberg was like: Hello ryan. I am interested in how you would define free will for the purposes of science. Any information that you could provide would be appreciated as I don't know you and I am asking you to do something for me.

Have a great day ryan.

Okay, it doesn't have to be quite that.

 

[DBT]

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.

That's not what I said. I said the word 'mind' represents our conscious experience and all that experience entails. That is not 'a label' It is a communication of meaning. It communicates what people (English speakers) think of when the thing called 'mind' is being discussed.

We don't understand one thing about the Moon by attaching a label to it.

For heavens sake! We know something about the moon and the word 'moon' is used as means of reference to the object we see in the sky at night, that goes through phases, has a distinctive appearance, etc, having describable qualities.

Nor have you addressed my question on what reason there is to think the brain is a receiver of 'mind' rather than its agent.

Can you explain the reasoning? Simply repeating 'we know nothing about mind' over and over does nothing to explain the reason to make such an assumption.

 

[ryan]

50% of TF: Hey mutha f***a, how is your dumb ass defining that s***?

Other 50%: Can you please tell me how you are defining free will?

 

[untermensche]

Even if it were just your mind it would be the same thing.

There would be that which is aware and that which it is aware of.

It can be no other way.

If there is awareness there must both be that which is aware and that which it is aware of.

You can't talk this truism away.

But what if it is just that my awareness is changing? There would be things, but they would only come in and out of existence for me to be aware of, i.e. presentism. There would only be one thing, an experience.

Nothing you say about awareness will change the fact that if there is awareness then there is both that which is aware and that which it is aware of.

That is awareness.

 

[untermensche]

You think attaching labels is the same thing as understanding.

That's not what I said. I said the word 'mind' represents our conscious experience and all that experience entails. That is not 'a label' It is a communication of meaning. It communicates what people (English speakers) think of when the thing called 'mind' is being discussed.

You are merely playing with undefined labels and not explaining anything.

Saying that "mind" represents "conscious" experience is to say nothing because "mind" and "consciousness" are just 2 words for the same thing. And that thing is completely undefined.

We don't understand one thing about the Moon by attaching a label to it.

For heavens sake! We know something about the moon and the word 'moon' is used as means of reference to the object we see in the sky at night, that goes through phases, has a distinctive appearance, etc, having describable qualities.

The point sails past you.

I said attaching a label gives us no understanding. This is a fact.

Yes we know more about the moon than it's label but we do not know more about the mind than it's label or some other label like "conscious experience".

Nor have you addressed my question on what reason there is to think the brain is a receiver of 'mind' rather than its agent.

That is merely to illustrate that we don't know what the mind is.

Is it something generated by a brain or something received by a brain?

 

[Juma]

That's not what I said. I said the word 'mind' represents our conscious experience and all that experience entails. That is not 'a label' It is a communication of meaning. It communicates what people (English speakers) think of when the thing called 'mind' is being discussed.

You are merely playing with undefined labels and not explaining anything.

Saying that "mind" represents "conscious" experience is to say nothing because "mind" and "consciousness" are just 2 words for the same thing. And that thing is completely undefined.

We don't understand one thing about the Moon by attaching a label to it.

For heavens sake! We know something about the moon and the word 'moon' is used as means of reference to the object we see in the sky at night, that goes through phases, has a distinctive appearance, etc, having describable qualities.

The point sails past you.

I said attaching a label gives us no understanding. This is a fact.

Yes we know more about the moon than it's label but we do not know more about the mind than it's label or some other label like "conscious experience".

Nor have you addressed my question on what reason there is to think the brain is a receiver of 'mind' rather than its agent.

That is merely to illustrate that we don't know what the mind is.

Is it something generated by a brain or something received by a brain?

Generated. As running computer program processes are "generated" by computers.

FFS. You redefine "mind" to make the concept fit what you want to believe in: a soul.

 

[DBT]

That's not what I said. I said the word 'mind' represents our conscious experience and all that experience entails. That is not 'a label' It is a communication of meaning. It communicates what people (English speakers) think of when the thing called 'mind' is being discussed.

You are merely playing with undefined labels and not explaining anything.

Good grief, you are the one who mentioned a point sailing past! Please pay attention. As I pointed out that the word 'mind' represents our conscious experience and all that experience entails, this does not mean the word 'mind' is undefined: it is defined by our direct everyday experience of seeing, hearing, feeling, thinking, deciding and consciously acting. That is what defines the word 'mind' for the reader or the listener in the English language.

Saying that "mind" represents "conscious" experience is to say nothing because "mind" and "consciousness" are just 2 words for the same thing. And that thing is completely undefined.

That's not what I said. I'm talking about words as symbols for communicating information...so when the words 'mind' or 'consciousness' are used, the reader or listener understands what these words refer to and represent in terms of their own daily experience of perception, thought, etc, etc.

The point sails past you.

Oh, the irony, the irony.

That is merely to illustrate that we don't know what the mind is.

We know something about the attributes of mind, its abilities, features, what effects the mind and what destroys the mind. That is not nothing. It is something. It is information that tells us how the mind is informed by the information from the senses interacting with neural networks and memory function, which enables recognition and coherent decision making. Without which, there is no experience of mind.

Is it something generated by a brain or something received by a brain?

Which proposition does the evidence support?

 

[untermensche]

You are merely playing with undefined labels and not explaining anything.

Saying that "mind" represents "conscious" experience is to say nothing because "mind" and "consciousness" are just 2 words for the same thing. And that thing is completely undefined.

We don't understand one thing about the Moon by attaching a label to it.

For heavens sake! We know something about the moon and the word 'moon' is used as means of reference to the object we see in the sky at night, that goes through phases, has a distinctive appearance, etc, having describable qualities.

The point sails past you.

I said attaching a label gives us no understanding. This is a fact.

Yes we know more about the moon than it's label but we do not know more about the mind than it's label or some other label like "conscious experience".

Nor have you addressed my question on what reason there is to think the brain is a receiver of 'mind' rather than its agent.

That is merely to illustrate that we don't know what the mind is.

Is it something generated by a brain or something received by a brain?

Generated. As running computer program processes are "generated" by computers.

FFS. You redefine "mind" to make the concept fit what you want to believe in: a soul.

It is a question to illustrate how little we know.

It is not a theory.

Generated is what I believe but since I don't know what a mind is it could be something received by the brain from some invisible dimension.

To demonstrate it is not would require demonstrating what a mind is.

Not merely saying it is something the brain generates and talking about all the things it can be aware of.

 

[Juma]

You are merely playing with undefined labels and not explaining anything.

Saying that "mind" represents "conscious" experience is to say nothing because "mind" and "consciousness" are just 2 words for the same thing. And that thing is completely undefined.

We don't understand one thing about the Moon by attaching a label to it.

For heavens sake! We know something about the moon and the word 'moon' is used as means of reference to the object we see in the sky at night, that goes through phases, has a distinctive appearance, etc, having describable qualities.

The point sails past you.

I said attaching a label gives us no understanding. This is a fact.

Yes we know more about the moon than it's label but we do not know more about the mind than it's label or some other label like "conscious experience".

Nor have you addressed my question on what reason there is to think the brain is a receiver of 'mind' rather than its agent.

That is merely to illustrate that we don't know what the mind is.

Is it something generated by a brain or something received by a brain?

Generated. As running computer program processes are "generated" by computers.

FFS. You redefine "mind" to make the concept fit what you want to believe in: a soul.

It is a question to illustrate how little we know.

It is not a theory.

Generated is what I believe but since I don't know what a mind is it could be something received by the brain from some invisible dimension.

To demonstrate it is not would require demonstrating what a mind is.

Not merely saying it is something the brain generates and talking about all the things it can be aware of.

Since YOU dont know it could be received from an invisible dimension?

That is just argument from ignorance.

And: you make it clearthat you dont know what you mean by "mind"..

 

[ryan]

But what if it is just that my awareness is changing? There would be things, but they would only come in and out of existence for me to be aware of, i.e. presentism. There would only be one thing, an experience.

Nothing you say about awareness will change the fact that if there is awareness then there is both that which is aware and that which it is aware of.

That is awareness.

Are you essentially saying that the mind observes and everything that is not the mind is observable?

 

[untermensche]

You are merely playing with undefined labels and not explaining anything.

Saying that "mind" represents "conscious" experience is to say nothing because "mind" and "consciousness" are just 2 words for the same thing. And that thing is completely undefined.

We don't understand one thing about the Moon by attaching a label to it.

For heavens sake! We know something about the moon and the word 'moon' is used as means of reference to the object we see in the sky at night, that goes through phases, has a distinctive appearance, etc, having describable qualities.

The point sails past you.

I said attaching a label gives us no understanding. This is a fact.

Yes we know more about the moon than it's label but we do not know more about the mind than it's label or some other label like "conscious experience".

Nor have you addressed my question on what reason there is to think the brain is a receiver of 'mind' rather than its agent.

That is merely to illustrate that we don't know what the mind is.

Is it something generated by a brain or something received by a brain?

Generated. As running computer program processes are "generated" by computers.

FFS. You redefine "mind" to make the concept fit what you want to believe in: a soul.

It is a question to illustrate how little we know.

It is not a theory.

Generated is what I believe but since I don't know what a mind is it could be something received by the brain from some invisible dimension.

To demonstrate it is not would require demonstrating what a mind is.

Not merely saying it is something the brain generates and talking about all the things it can be aware of.

Since YOU dont know it could be received from an invisible dimension?

That is just argument from ignorance.

And: you make it clearthat you dont know what you mean by "mind"..

I'm not trying to make the argument.

I'm saying that since we don't know what a mind is we can't rule it out.

Is a mind electricity, some kind of unknown electrical activity? Is it magnetism, magnetic activity? Is it some quantum effect? It is some signal from another dimension?

We know what the mind can be aware of. But we don't know what it is.