The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[ryan]

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.

I am getting to that.

I was trying to show that in this instance, there wouldn't be a mind mechanism. The mechanism would just be magnetism, right?

 

[Kharakov]

Why would you think that magnetism isn't the product of conscious minds? You're assuming that on some level, what does stuff lacks consciousness, but still reacts to stuff around it.

Whence the belief in non-conscious reaction?

 

[untermensche]

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.

I am getting to that.

I was trying to show that in this instance, there wouldn't be a mind mechanism. The mechanism would just be magnetism, right?

No the mechanism would be some kind of magnetic effect.

The brain is not a magnet and magnetism is not consciousness or seemingly related to it in any way.

The same can be said for electricity. Electricity is not consciousness or seemingly related to it in any way. This is not to say there is not electrical activity in the brain, only that as far as we know electrical activity relates to consciousness in no way. We know of no way to use electricity to produce consciousness.

 

[ryan]

Why would you think that magnetism isn't the product of conscious minds? You're assuming that on some level, what does stuff lacks consciousness, but still reacts to stuff around it.

Whence the belief in non-conscious reaction?

Who is this post for?

 

[ryan]

I am getting to that.

I was trying to show that in this instance, there wouldn't be a mind mechanism. The mechanism would just be magnetism, right?

No the mechanism would be some kind of magnetic effect.

The brain is not a magnet and magnetism is not consciousness or seemingly related to it in any way.

The same can be said for electricity. Electricity is not consciousness or seemingly related to it in any way. This is not to say there is not electrical activity in the brain, only that as far as we know electrical activity relates to consciousness in no way. We know of no way to use electricity to produce consciousness.

But then that would mean that the magnetism is not working as expected. There would have to be an undetectable effect from the magnetism if the mind is going to play a mechanical role, right?

 

[untermensche]

No the mechanism would be some kind of magnetic effect.

The brain is not a magnet and magnetism is not consciousness or seemingly related to it in any way.

The same can be said for electricity. Electricity is not consciousness or seemingly related to it in any way. This is not to say there is not electrical activity in the brain, only that as far as we know electrical activity relates to consciousness in no way. We know of no way to use electricity to produce consciousness.

But then that would mean that the magnetism is not working as expected. There would have to be an undetectable effect from the magnetism if the mind is going to play a mechanical role, right?

It means we don't have a clue what is going on or where to begin.

We don't know how the activity of cells could give rise to what we experience as consciousness. And nobody has a clue how to even begin to address it.

 

[Kharakov]

Why would you think that magnetism isn't the product of conscious minds? You're assuming that on some level, what does stuff lacks consciousness, but still reacts to stuff around it.

Whence the belief in non-conscious reaction?

Who is this post for?

Who is arguing that magnetism is not consciousness or seemingly related to it in any way?

You could say what you like though ryan, I'm interested in your thoughts on magnetism.

 

[ryan]

But then that would mean that the magnetism is not working as expected. There would have to be an undetectable effect from the magnetism if the mind is going to play a mechanical role, right?

It means we don't have a clue what is going on or where to begin.

There is no need for a mental mechanism if magnetism and its effects in the brain are described by physics already.

We don't know how the activity of cells could give rise to what we experience as consciousness. And nobody has a clue how to even begin to address it.

Science is doing a very good job in explaining the brain without the need for a mind that can intervene on the brain.

 

[ryan]

Who is this post for?

Who is arguing that magnetism is not consciousness or seemingly related to it in any way?

Is this a rhetorical question, or has somebody blocked you from their posts, or ...?

You could say what you like though ryan, I'm interested in your thoughts on magnetism.

Kharakov, I have no idea what is going on here. Why do you want my thoughts on magnetism?

 

[untermensche]

It means we don't have a clue what is going on or where to begin.

There is no need for a mental mechanism if magnetism and its effects in the brain are described by physics already.

It can't be simply magnetism. All magnetism does is repel and attract.

It has to be some new undiscovered effect that magnetism in a certain arrangement can create. If it is a magnetic effect. And the fact that we don't know if it is or is not a magnetic effect shows we don't have any idea what it is.

We don't know how the activity of cells could give rise to what we experience as consciousness. And nobody has a clue how to even begin to address it.

Science is doing a very good job in explaining the brain without the need for a mind that can intervene on the brain.

No. Science is doing a poor job of finding out what a mind is.

The 1990's was the decade of the brain.

We are no closer to understanding what a mind is than we were in 1990.

We do know a whole lot more about the brain though.

You can't simply wipe the mind away with the sweep of a hand.

What would you be using to reach that conclusion?

You can't say it's the brain because if it were the brain everybody would reach the same conclusions.

 

[ryan]

There is no need for a mental mechanism if magnetism and its effects in the brain are described by physics already.

It can't be simply magnetism. All magnetism does is repel and attract.

On a side note: isn't that much of what we do in our minds is want and not want, like and dislike, etc?

Science is doing a very good job in explaining the brain without the need for a mind that can intervene on the brain.

No. Science is doing a poor job of finding out what a mind is.

That's a straw man. I said the need to incorporate a mental intervention.

The 1990's was the decade of the brain.

We are no closer to understanding what a mind is than we were in 1990.

We do know a whole lot more about the brain though.

You can't simply wipe the mind away with the sweep of a hand.

What would you be using to reach that conclusion?

You can't say it's the brain because if it were the brain everybody would reach the same conclusions.

The philosophical zombie idea is a really interesting way to show no need for a mind. The zombies could be clones of us having this exact same conversation without minds. There is no reason to incorporate a mind into the universe.

 

[untermensche]

It can't be simply magnetism. All magnetism does is repel and attract.

On a side note: isn't that much of what we do in our minds is want and not want, like and dislike, etc?

You are mingling a physical effect with something far more complicated, a human decision.

It is not rational. It is like saying there is a positive and negative charge therefore we see where the sexes came from.

No. Science is doing a poor job of finding out what a mind is.

That's a straw man. I said the need to incorporate a mental intervention.

Do you have a mind or not? What do you think you are using to draw these conclusions?

The 1990's was the decade of the brain.

We are no closer to understanding what a mind is than we were in 1990.

We do know a whole lot more about the brain though.

You can't simply wipe the mind away with the sweep of a hand.

What would you be using to reach that conclusion?

You can't say it's the brain because if it were the brain everybody would reach the same conclusions.

The philosophical zombie idea is a really interesting way to show no need for a mind. The zombies could be clones of us having this exact same conversation without minds. There is no reason to incorporate a mind into the universe.

You have to make a specific argument.

You can't just throw out a research project.

Again, irrational.

How can there be consciousness without both that which is conscious and that which it is conscious of?

This is a very simple question and not a research project.

 

[ryan]

On a side note: isn't that much of what we do in our minds is want and not want, like and dislike, etc?

You are mingling a physical effect with something far more complicated, a human decision.

It is not rational. It is like saying there is a positive and negative charge therefore we see where the sexes came from.

If you walk over to a garbage can to throw out an apple core, it physically happened mostly because the electromagnetic forces added up to a net force in the form of a net acceleration vector towards the garbage can. You may think that you wanted to walk there and had achieved your intention.

That's a straw man. I said the need to incorporate a mental intervention.

Do you have a mind or not? What do you think you are using to draw these conclusions?

Of course, I believe in the mind before all else. But I also think that the mind is likely just another term for processes in the brain.

The 1990's was the decade of the brain.

We are no closer to understanding what a mind is than we were in 1990.

We do know a whole lot more about the brain though.

You can't simply wipe the mind away with the sweep of a hand.

What would you be using to reach that conclusion?

You can't say it's the brain because if it were the brain everybody would reach the same conclusions.

The philosophical zombie idea is a really interesting way to show no need for a mind. The zombies could be clones of us having this exact same conversation without minds. There is no reason to incorporate a mind into the universe.

You can't just throw out a research project.

Again, irrational.

Research project? It is a really good thought experiment.

How can there be consciousness without both that which is conscious and that which it is conscious of?

This is a very simple question and not a research project.

That assumes that there is a consciousness. Consciousness could be just another term for physical interaction.

I am not totally against your theory. In fact most of this thread has been me defending certain aspects of it mixed with a scientific explanation. But as for your argument in particular, maybe some particles or processes have mental properties, but these properties probably don't intervene on physics; they would just be parallel (parallelism) to brain processes.

 

[untermensche]

That assumes that there is a consciousness.

Yes it assumes a fact.

Are you conscious of anything? I don't care what you think you are conscious of.

If so you have consciousness of it. You have consciousness.

Consciousness could be just another term for physical interaction.

No it can't. To be conscious means there is that which is conscious and that which it is conscious of.

That is not an interaction. It is a separation.

I am not totally against your theory. In fact most of this thread has been me defending certain aspects of it mixed with a scientific explanation. But as for your argument in particular, maybe some particles or processes have mental properties, but these properties probably don't intervene on physics; they would just be parallel (parallelism) to brain processes.

My theory is that the mind is a mechanism and we can't say one thing about whether decisions are "free" or "forced", the only two possibilities, until we know what a mind is and how it works.

Research project? It is a really good thought experiment.

Then make the salient points derived from it.

 

[ryan]

Yes it assumes a fact.

Are you conscious of anything? I don't care what you think you are conscious of.

If so you have consciousness of it. You have consciousness.

When I say "that assumes there is a consciousness", I mean something more than one kind of substance. Call it what you want I guess.

Consciousness could be just another term for physical interaction.

No it can't. To be conscious means there is that which is conscious and that which it is conscious of.

That is not an interaction. It is a separation.

Why can't we just say that we were affected by something instead of being conscious of something?

How do you know that there is a difference between being affected by something and being conscious of something?

Research project? It is a really good thought experiment.

Then make the salient points derived from it.

Imagine two clones of us arguing about this without minds. You would claim to have a mind, but you wouldn't have one nor need one to do everything that you could normally do.

The substance you think of as the mind is default substance for everything until we know otherwise.

 

[untermensche]

Why can't we just say that we were affected by something instead of being conscious of something?

That doesn't describe the situation.

We are conscious of things. They are apparent to us.

We don't crash our cars continually because we are conscious of the road and the other cars. We choose which way to turn with our minds. If we didn't we wouldn't get where we wanted to go.

How do you know that there is a difference between being affected by something and being conscious of something?

That's like asking how do I know there is a difference between hearing and vision.

Being conscious of something is one thing. Being affected by it is another.

Imagine two clones of us arguing about this without minds.

So we begin by pretending a mind can be done away with.

You would claim to have a mind, but you wouldn't have one nor need one to do everything that you could normally do.

And then instantly conclude a mind can be done away with.

Starting with your conclusion is not any kind of argument.

 

[Juma]

That doesn't describe the situation.

We are conscious of things. They are apparent to us.

We don't crash our cars continually because we are conscious of the road and the other cars. We choose which way to turn with our minds. If we didn't we wouldn't get where we wanted to go.

So does the google car...

Seems that your concept of being "conscious" isnt what you think it is.

 

[ryan]

That doesn't describe the situation.

We are conscious of things. They are apparent to us.

We don't crash our cars continually because we are conscious of the road and the other cars. We choose which way to turn with our minds. If we didn't we wouldn't get where we wanted to go.

We have an internal model that we use to navigate with.

Being conscious of something is one thing. Being affected by it is another.

How? I would argue that being conscious of something implies being affected by it, directly or indirectly. Then it begs the question of what the difference is between being affected and being conscious of something.

Imagine two clones of us arguing about this without minds.

So we begin by pretending a mind can be done away with.

You would claim to have a mind, but you wouldn't have one nor need one to do everything that you could normally do.

And then instantly conclude a mind can be done away with.

Starting with your conclusion is not any kind of argument.

It is a conclusion that science is narrowing in on. Its models without a variable of a mind are becoming more and more accurate.

 

[untermensche]

That doesn't describe the situation.

We are conscious of things. They are apparent to us.

We don't crash our cars continually because we are conscious of the road and the other cars. We choose which way to turn with our minds. If we didn't we wouldn't get where we wanted to go.

So does the google car...

Seems that your concept of being "conscious" isnt what you think it is.

No. The google car does not use it's mind to decide where to go.

It requires a mind to initiate things and create a plan.

 

[DBT]

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

It's not that I say the brain is modular, it has distinct structures with definable cognitive roles to play, sos it is modular.

This does't make it harder to define the attributes of the experience we call 'mind' - it makes it easier: visual experience relating to the brains eyes and visual cortex, auditory experience relating to the brains ears and auditory cortex and so on. Any of these attributes of mind/conscious experience may be lost without the loss of mind in total.

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.

People say "I chose to go to the store" because the brain generated the thought and bought it to consciousness.

Prior to that the senses gathered information, wavelength, etc, which was converted to nerve impulses, transmitted to the related structures, visual cortex, etc, propagated, integrated with memory function and achieving readiness potential, represented in conscious form.

This does not relate to the notion of duality, mind somehow existing in a separate plane which the brain receives.