The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[ryan]

I am not sure, of course. All three options seem possible.

What is your answer to your question?

I think when you "will" your arm to move your mind is influencing your brain.

That is my whole thesis.

Mind as mechanism.

So if the mind is a mechanism, does it follow known laws of physics? And if it does follow known laws, then what is the difference between an already known mechanism in the brain and your idea of a mind?

 

[untermensche]

I think when you "will" your arm to move your mind is influencing your brain.

That is my whole thesis.

Mind as mechanism.

So if the mind is a mechanism, does it follow known laws of physics? And if it does follow known laws, then what is the difference between an already known mechanism in the brain and your idea of a mind?

The mind cannot break the "laws of physics".

But until we know what it is we can't say whether or not it follows some "known" law of physics.

 

[ryan]

So if the mind is a mechanism, does it follow known laws of physics? And if it does follow known laws, then what is the difference between an already known mechanism in the brain and your idea of a mind?

The mind cannot break the "laws of physics".

But until we know what it is we can't say whether or not it follows some "known" law of physics.

In the case that the mind mechanism is a previously known process in the brain, such as neurotransmissions, then would you say that there is no need for an extra entity called the mind?

 

[Juma]

The mind cannot break the "laws of physics".

Exactly.
And your "receiver" theory does just that.

If the brain is a receiver, then the mind is elsewhere communication through some medium that can transport the energy of the messages needed.
But there is no such medium. We know there are no forces other than elctro, gravity, strong nuclear and weak nuclear that can act on our everyday scale. (Every force has a particle representing the interaction and a unkown particke must be very energeric, massive , to not have been found yet that its corresponding force is extremely weak.)

We also know that specific parts of our brain is responsible for specific parts of our mind.
To make your "receiving brain" theory work with that knowledge the mind must be received as each function separately but what is more important: the original mind does not seem to be aware about these function from the beginning. If we looseoir memories then they are gone from our mind too etc.

If we separate the brain we get two, not one, minds. Where did that extra mind come from?

 

[untermensche]

The mind cannot break the "laws of physics".

But until we know what it is we can't say whether or not it follows some "known" law of physics.

In the case that the mind mechanism is a previously known process in the brain, such as neurotransmissions, then would you say that there is no need for an extra entity called the mind?

No.

If it is neurotransmissions or anything else that creates a mind that means there is a mind.

 

[untermensche]

The mind cannot break the "laws of physics".

Exactly.
And your "receiver" theory does just that.

If the brain is a receiver, then the mind is elsewhere communication through some medium that can transport the energy of the messages needed.
But there is no such medium. We know there are no forces other than elctro, gravity, strong nuclear and weak nuclear that can act on our everyday scale. (Every force has a particle representing the interaction and a unkown particke must be very energeric, massive , to not have been found yet that its corresponding force is extremely weak.)

We also know that specific parts of our brain is responsible for specific parts of our mind.
To make your "receiving brain" theory work with that knowledge the mind must be received as each function separately but what is more important: the original mind does not seem to be aware about these function from the beginning. If we looseoir memories then they are gone from our mind too etc.

If we separate the brain we get two, not one, minds. Where did that extra mind come from?

With the receiver theory memory still exists somewhere in the brain.

Memories are needed to allow the full expression of the "mind transmission". Just as words and concepts are needed for the full expression of the language ability.

You can't get around this until you know exactly what a mind is.

 

[ryan]

In the case that the mind mechanism is a previously known process in the brain, such as neurotransmissions, then would you say that there is no need for an extra entity called the mind?

No.

If it is neurotransmissions or anything else that creates a mind that means there is a mind.

But if the mind is a mechanism, why does it have to be so exotic and mysterious; why can't it just be a mechanism in the brain that we have already observed or theorized about?

 

[Juma]

Exactly.
And your "receiver" theory does just that.

If the brain is a receiver, then the mind is elsewhere communication through some medium that can transport the energy of the messages needed.
But there is no such medium. We know there are no forces other than elctro, gravity, strong nuclear and weak nuclear that can act on our everyday scale. (Every force has a particle representing the interaction and a unkown particke must be very energeric, massive , to not have been found yet that its corresponding force is extremely weak.)

We also know that specific parts of our brain is responsible for specific parts of our mind.
To make your "receiving brain" theory work with that knowledge the mind must be received as each function separately but what is more important: the original mind does not seem to be aware about these function from the beginning. If we looseoir memories then they are gone from our mind too etc.

If we separate the brain we get two, not one, minds. Where did that extra mind come from?

With the receiver theory memory still exists somewhere in the brain.

Memories are needed to allow the full expression of the "mind transmission". Just as words and concepts are needed for the full expression of the language ability.

You can't get around this until you know exactly what a mind is.

Interesting how you dodged the other points.

1) your "remote mind" is unphysicalic: it requires a particle that doesnt exist.
2) splitting the brain would require the creation of a new "remote mind"

 

[DBT]

This is not an aspect of the mind. It is an aspect of something the mind is aware of.

The information content of mind, what the mind is aware of, is inseparable from the from what the mind is and what the mind does, its funnction.

The evolved function of the brain is to enable conscious representation/awareness of the external world and the benefits that awareness provides the organism.

That it is the brain that forms mind from its information base, and that awareness is specific to the brain and its senses, shows that the brain is not a receiver tuned to some undefinable, non detectable entity called 'mind'. Duality was rejected long ago.

The mind is that which is aware. Not the "objects" it is aware of.

It is both: the mechanism/apparatus that enables awareness and macro scale matter/energy structures and their relationships (people, houses, tees, animals, mountains, etc0 which mind/brain is able to be aware of according to the nature of the senses and processing...some animals see further into the UV spectrum and so on.

And consciousness, when awake, is an unbroken whole and very static and durable during a lifetime. It is incredibly unlikely this can be generated by some "pattern" that must be repeated over and over non-stop.

Consciousness is not a single entity, it is composed of many features, some may break down while others remain functional, attention is very focused and varies constantly, as does self awareness. You need to brush up on the actual research.

Since what the mind is is completely unknown this cannot be ruled out.

There it is again - 'completely unknown' - is false. We know that mind entails the ability to see, hear, feel, think, decide, act cosciously etc....this is not a case of nothing is known (completely unknown). Something is known.

You may as well say, because we essentially don't know what matter/energy is, atoms does not tell us, vibrating strings does not tell us, we don't know anything about physics, the world, the universe or anything composed of stuff, matter/energy, we know nothing about.

Which is not true, because we do not essentially know what matter/energy is does not mean that we know nothing about its characteristics or how it behaves, or to make use of it.

When you damage the receiver the reception is disrupted.

This is not different from concluding the brain generates the mind based on the fact that damage to the brain disrupts generation.

And of course there is evidence.

When you damage the receiver the reception is disrupted.

This is not different from concluding the brain generates the mind based on the fact that damage to the brain disrupts generation.

You need to show evidence for the presence of a transmitter of mind before you claim that the brain is receiver. As it is, there is nothing to suggest that mind is being beamed to all the brains on the planet...with each brain receiving just the type of information it needs to negotiate the objects and events of its environment.

It's absurd.

 

[DBT]

These are fascinating but only so much can be concluded from damage studies.

What it shows is that a brain is a modular organ where its structures have defined roles to play for the formation of mind/consciousness.
That mind is not a single indivisible entity, that mind is composed of all the features and attributes that the modular brain and the architecture of its senses allow. Nothing more, nothing less. Mind at large, or mind being beamed to brain does not account for specific relationship between mind as its consciously experienced and the immediate information state of brain as the agency of mind...a specific failure of connectivity being experienced as an inability to remember a name, which may pop to mind a few seconds later when the synapses 'mesh' successfully.

 

[untermensche]

No.

If it is neurotransmissions or anything else that creates a mind that means there is a mind.

But if the mind is a mechanism, why does it have to be so exotic and mysterious; why can't it just be a mechanism in the brain that we have already observed or theorized about?

There is no theory of how a brain creates a mind or what a mind actually is.

Again, is a mind some electrical pattern, a magnetic pattern, an electrical effect of some kind, a magnetic effect, a quantum effect? A transmission from another dimension?

What is it?

We can't even begin to talk about mind as mechanism until we know what a mind is. But we do know we use our mind as a mechanism when we make choices with our mind.

 

[untermensche]

These are fascinating but only so much can be concluded from damage studies.

What it shows is that a brain is a modular organ where its structures have defined roles to play for the formation of mind/consciousness.
That mind is not a single indivisible entity, that mind is composed of all the features and attributes that the modular brain and the architecture of its senses allow. Nothing more, nothing less. Mind at large, or mind being beamed to brain does not account for specific relationship between mind as its consciously experienced and the immediate information state of brain as the agency of mind...a specific failure of connectivity being experienced as an inability to remember a name, which may pop to mind a few seconds later when the synapses 'mesh' successfully.

Saying the brain is modular does not make explaining what a mind is easier. It makes it harder.

And the mind is singular in the intact brain. You don't explain how an intact brain works by looking at a broken one.

That's why people say "I chose to go to the store".

It is a decision made by a single entity.

 

[untermensche]

With the receiver theory memory still exists somewhere in the brain.

Memories are needed to allow the full expression of the "mind transmission". Just as words and concepts are needed for the full expression of the language ability.

You can't get around this until you know exactly what a mind is.

Interesting how you dodged the other points.

1) your "remote mind" is unphysicalic: it requires a particle that doesnt exist.
2) splitting the brain would require the creation of a new "remote mind"

Who said anything about a particle?

And the brain itself is the receiver. Each half can receive the signal.

You are wasting your time arguing against something I am not trying to prove but using to make a point.

You don't have a clue what a mind is.

If you did you could tell me.

Is a mind some electrical pattern, a magnetic pattern, an electrical effect of some kind, a magnetic effect, a quantum effect? A transmission from another dimension?

What is it?

 

[untermensche]

The information content of mind, what the mind is aware of, is inseparable from the from what the mind is and what the mind does, its funnction.

Nonsense.

If there is awareness, if there is consciousness, there must always be a split.

There must always be a split between that which is aware, that which is conscious, and the things it is aware of or conscious of.

You can't by some magic just remove this logical truism.

Consciousness is not a single entity, it is composed of many features, some may break down while others remain functional, attention is very focused and varies constantly, as does self awareness. You need to brush up on the actual research.

It is a whole. There can be no fraction.

One is either aware or one is not aware.

Even if one is aware of a delusion or partially aware due to some drug one is still aware.

And if one is aware one can be aware of many things. But a divide always exists between what one is aware of and being aware of them.

You may as well say, because we essentially don't know what matter/energy is, atoms does not tell us, vibrating strings does not tell us, we don't know anything about physics, the world, the universe or anything composed of stuff, matter/energy, we know nothing about.

What you're saying is we know what matter is without knowing what matter is.

We don't.

We have some models that work under some conditions. But that doesn't tell us what matter is.

And we know less about what a mind is than we know what matter is.

You need to show evidence for the presence of a transmitter of mind before you claim that the brain is receiver. As it is, there is nothing to suggest that mind is being beamed to all the brains on the planet...with each brain receiving just the type of information it needs to negotiate the objects and events of its environment.

Not trying to prove it. Saying you can't disprove it.

And the reason you can't disprove it is because you don't know what a mind is. All you know is some anatomy and physiology of the brain.

 

[Juma]

Who said anything about a particle?

I did. If you had had the decency to read the previous post you had known.
It shows that there is no "mind-field".

And the brain itself is the receiver. Each half can receive the signal.

Then how can there be two separate minds?
If the brain are a receiver of the mind (the "I" as you say) then where comes this new adult "I" from?

 

[untermensche]

I did. If you had had the decency to read the previous post you had known.
It shows that there is no "mind-field".

Your position is merely; "We know everything".

That is not a rational position.

And the brain itself is the receiver. Each half can receive the signal.

Then how can there be two separate minds?
If the brain are a receiver of the mind (the "I" as you say) then where comes this new adult "I" from?

I don't understand what you're saying nor why you are wasting your time.

You won't explain one thing about the mind with your imagination.

Again what is it?

Is it an electrical pattern? Is it a magnetic pattern? Is it some kind of electrical activity? Magnetic activity? Some quantum effect? Some completely unknown effect we haven't discovered yet?

Nobody knows.

 

[Juma]

Your position is merely; "We know everything".

That is not a rational position.

No, that is not what I say. I say: we know something. And to work from there is the rational position.

As I said: we know a lot of what forces are possible. Ignoring that is just to make a fool of yourself.

And the brain itself is the receiver. Each half can receive the signal.

I don't understand what you're saying nor why you are wasting your time.

You won't explain one thing about the mind with your imagination.

Again what is it?

Is it an electrical pattern? Is it a magnetic pattern? Is it some kind of electrical activity? Magnetic activity? Some quantum effect? Some completely unknown effect we haven't discovered yet?

Nobody knows.

Your position is to close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and blabber "we know nothing, we know nothing" for ever, standing still while the rest of the world advances.

 

[untermensche]

Your position is to close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and blabber "we know nothing, we know nothing" for ever, standing still while the rest of the world advances.

Is it an electrical pattern? Is it a magnetic pattern? Is it some kind of electrical activity? Magnetic activity? Some quantum effect? Some completely unknown effect we haven't discovered yet?

Which one is it?

Your position is just to pretend you know what you don't.

 

[ryan]

But if the mind is a mechanism, why does it have to be so exotic and mysterious; why can't it just be a mechanism in the brain that we have already observed or theorized about?

There is no theory of how a brain creates a mind or what a mind actually is.

Again, is a mind some electrical pattern, a magnetic pattern, an electrical effect of some kind, a magnetic effect, a quantum effect? A transmission from another dimension?

What is it?

We can't even begin to talk about mind as mechanism until we know what a mind is. But we do know we use our mind as a mechanism when we make choices with our mind.

If the mind is a magnetic pattern, or something we already know about, then the magnetic pattern is the mechanism and the thing you call mind. Why do we need two different names for one thing?

 

[untermensche]

There is no theory of how a brain creates a mind or what a mind actually is.

Again, is a mind some electrical pattern, a magnetic pattern, an electrical effect of some kind, a magnetic effect, a quantum effect? A transmission from another dimension?

What is it?

We can't even begin to talk about mind as mechanism until we know what a mind is. But we do know we use our mind as a mechanism when we make choices with our mind.

If the mind is a magnetic pattern, or something we already know about, then the magnetic pattern is the mechanism and the thing you call mind. Why do we need two different names for one thing?

You're avoiding the question.

What is it?

That is the question that should stop you in your tracks.

If it is the result of some magnetic effect then it is something we don't know about yet.

We have no idea how a magnetic effect can produce a conscious mind.