The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[untermensche]

What does it mean to be aware of awareness?

What color is awareness?

Maybe my awareness, which would be a sense of individuality, interacts with a different awareness to form a new awareness such as greenness. Then I will have a green awareness/quale for that moment. If the awareness is something else, then maybe I am aware of a smell. We can simplify this by letting everything be just experiences.

You can't combine being aware of things with something else. One is either aware of things or one is not aware of things.

It makes no sense to talk about combining being aware of things.

 

[ryan]

Maybe my awareness, which would be a sense of individuality, interacts with a different awareness to form a new awareness such as greenness. Then I will have a green awareness/quale for that moment. If the awareness is something else, then maybe I am aware of a smell. We can simplify this by letting everything be just experiences.

You can't combine being aware of things with something else. One is either aware of things or one is not aware of things.

It makes no sense to talk about combining being aware of things.

Well it happens in chemistry. Two different liquids can combine and then separate. It shouldn't be a stretch that two experiences can combine to create a different experience.

 

[untermensche]

You can't combine being aware of things with something else. One is either aware of things or one is not aware of things.

It makes no sense to talk about combining being aware of things.

Well it happens in chemistry. Two different liquids can combine and then separate. It shouldn't be a stretch that two experiences can combine to create a different experience.

You can combine things that are distinct entities.

But being aware of things is not an entity.

It is an ability.

Arising from the separation of reality between that which is aware and all it is aware of, which are all constructs of the brain.

 

[DBT]

What the brain is doing is, as I mentioned, gathering information via it's senses, senses being structures that have evolved to detect wavelength of light, airborne molecules, pressure waves, etc, and represents this information in the form of sight, sound, smell and so on. That it does this is well supported by evidence, the question is not the former but the latter; the how of mental representation.

You don't make any comment on a word I said.

My comments are directly related to what you say. If you mean something other than what you are saying, your composition and your wording is not representative of your intended meaning.

I wonder why you are saying these things that are very general and not explanatory?

Explanatory of what?.....that all of the available evidence supports the proposition that it is the brain that forms 'mind' through electrochemical activity? That it is the state of the brain that determines conscious experience/mind? That 'mind' is altered through physical means, chemical input, physical changes to neural networks and that this is reflected in the state of the mind. That all of these things are well understood, and that all of these things demonstrate the physical nature of mind? All of this is supported by evidence. So to claim that we know nothing about the attributes and features of conscious experience/mind is false. We know something. Something is not nothing.

 

[ryan]

Well it happens in chemistry. Two different liquids can combine and then separate. It shouldn't be a stretch that two experiences can combine to create a different experience.

You can combine things that are distinct entities.

But being aware of things is not an entity.

It is an ability.

If we assume a static time dimension, then even an apple falling from a tree is an object/entity.

Arising from the separation of reality between that which is aware and all it is aware of, which are all constructs of the brain.

I am suggesting that the non-thinking part of the brain is also a mental substance.

 

[untermensche]

Explanatory of what?.....that all of the available evidence supports the proposition that it is the brain that forms 'mind' through electrochemical activity?

Saying the words "electrochemical activity" explains nothing.

What do you mean? Electrical activity? Chemical activity?

What chemical activity is involved in the creation of a mind? In what lab are we creating minds because we understand how they arise?

That it is the state of the brain that determines conscious experience/mind?

The state of what in the brain? The state of the blood?

Again saying the magic words "state of the brain" explains absolutely nothing about the mind.

That 'mind' is altered through physical means, chemical input, physical changes to neural networks and that this is reflected in the state of the mind.

If I damage my computer it doesn't work right.

That isn't an explanation for how my computer works.

 

[untermensche]

You can combine things that are distinct entities.

But being aware of things is not an entity.

It is an ability.

If we assume a static time dimension, then even an apple falling from a tree is an object/entity.

Static time dimension? That's a contradiction of terms. Time = the absence of stasis. Where is there stasis?

Arising from the separation of reality between that which is aware and all it is aware of, which are all constructs of the brain.

I am suggesting that the non-thinking part of the brain is also a mental substance.

I wouldn't call it a substance any more than I would call magnetism a substance.

 

[ryan]

If we assume a static time dimension, then even an apple falling from a tree is an object/entity.

Static time dimension? That's a contradiction of terms. Time = the absence of stasis. Where is there stasis?

not necessarily https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_spacetime

 

[Juma]

Static time dimension? That's a contradiction of terms. Time = the absence of stasis. Where is there stasis?

not necessarily https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_spacetime

That article is about "static spacetime" not about "static time dimension" (whatever that is supposed to mean)

 

[DBT]

Saying the words "electrochemical activity" explains nothing.

What do you mean? Electrical activity? Chemical activity?

What chemical activity is involved in the creation of a mind? In what lab are we creating minds because we understand how they arise?

Why do you keep repeating the strawman of 'how they arise' when I have repeatedly said that how consciousness/mind is formed/arises is not understood (there is a hypothesis of patterns of firings), so the issue is not how the brain does it, but that it does....that the state of the brain is reflected in the state of the mind is the relevant part, which you ignore in favour of your 'nobody knows how' - which is irrelevant to the fact that the brain is the sole agency.

The state of what in the brain? The state of the blood?

Again saying the magic words "state of the brain" explains absolutely nothing about the mind.

Oh, come on! That objection again in spite of numerous references to the state of the brain as a whole, functioning structure? Mind altering substances tell us something about the nature of mind, memory function loss tells us something about the nature of mind, structural changes to the brain tell us something about the nature of the mind...not how it forms but how the mind functions and what alters the mind. Which you ignore in favour of 'we know nothing'

If something is understood, what alters the mind, what destroys the mind and so on, this is not 'nothing' - it is something. Something about the mind is understood; what effects it, how various conditions effect mind and what destroys mind.

Which is something rather than nothing.

If I damage my computer it doesn't work right.

That isn't an explanation for how my computer works.

If you damage your computer in some way, how you damaged it and the effect this has on your computer tells you something about the way your computer works, the condition it needs to be in and that it is indeed the function of the mechanism as a working unit (that it is not a receiver for something external and independent) that enables it to function normally, as designed.

 

[untermensche]

Static time dimension? That's a contradiction of terms. Time = the absence of stasis. Where is there stasis?

not necessarily https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_spacetime

As I said. Nothing is static. Not even so-called Static Spacetime.

But there is no way to make any kind of logical connection between this obscure mathematical concept and awareness.

 

[untermensche]

Why do you keep repeating the strawman of 'how they arise' when I have repeatedly said that how consciousness/mind is formed/arises is not understood (there is a hypothesis of patterns of firings), so the issue is not how the brain does it, but that it does....that the state of the brain is reflected in the state of the mind is the relevant part, which you ignore in favour of your 'nobody knows how' - which is irrelevant to the fact that the brain is the sole agency.

Why do you keep repeating worthless generalizations that explain nothing?

Tell me about these "patterns of firings".

Give me one specific "pattern" that corresponds to some aspect of the mind.

And you can't even tell me with absolute assurance that the brain is what generates the mind. As I said it may merely be some kind of receiver.

And if you don't know that you really don't know one thing about the mind.

Stop pretending you do.

If I damage my computer it doesn't work right.

That isn't an explanation for how my computer works.

If you damage your computer in some way, how you damaged it and the effect this has on your computer tells you something about the way your computer works, the condition it needs to be in and that it is indeed the function of the mechanism as a working unit (that it is not a receiver for something external and independent) that enables it to function normally, as designed.

If the brain were a receiver then damage to it would also effect the mind. The brain would not be getting proper reception.

Stop pretending you know one thing about what a mind is beyond saying that damage to the brain can sometimes result in a change of function. Which doesn't tell us one thing about what a mind is or whether it is being generated or received.

 

[fast]

I guess concepts are created by minds too then.

Where did you think they came from?

Brain development.

 

[Juma]

If the brain were a receiver then damage to it would also effect the mind. The brain would not be getting proper reception.

If the brain were a receiver then damage to the brain would not affect specific functions of the mind.

 

[untermensche]

If the brain were a receiver then damage to it would also effect the mind. The brain would not be getting proper reception.

If the brain were a receiver then damage to the brain would not affect specific functions of the mind.

Sure it would.

Those are the specific parts of the brain that translate or process the reception.

 

[untermensche]

Where did you think they came from?

Brain development.

Which concept arises from brain development?

What are you talking about?

Concepts are defined by language. To have a functioning language ability requires learning the words, the labels.

You won't have concepts just by having a fully developed brain.

 

[fast]

Brain development.

Which concept arises from brain development?

What are you talking about?

Concepts are defined by language. To have a functioning language ability requires learning the words, the labels.

You won't have concepts just by having a fully developed brain.

I was just answering your question. There's been some discussions regarding childhood development and where along the process concepts arise. I didn't mean to argue a case--just saying what I thought.

 

[untermensche]

Which concept arises from brain development?

What are you talking about?

Concepts are defined by language. To have a functioning language ability requires learning the words, the labels.

You won't have concepts just by having a fully developed brain.

I was just answering your question. There's been some discussions regarding childhood development and where along the process concepts arise. I didn't mean to argue a case--just saying what I thought.

Do concepts arise in the child or does the child grow to understand concepts?

 

[Juma]

If the brain were a receiver then damage to the brain would not affect specific functions of the mind.

Sure it would.

Those are the specific parts of the brain that translate or process the reception.

That is contradicted by the fact that brain damages can make people change personality.

You see, today we know that everything that is supposed to be "in the mind" is really functions of the the brain.

The only thing uncounted for is the experience per se.

 

[ryan]

not necessarily https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_spacetime

As I said. Nothing is static. Not even so-called Static Spacetime.

But there is no way to make any kind of logical connection between this obscure mathematical concept and awareness.

In relativity, time is like a 4th spatial dimension. Things extend through time. A frog jumping is a static object. A change in position would just be an illusion.