The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[untermensche]

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

If so then we are aware of the model in some way. There is the model and there is being aware of the model.

You can't eliminate the split.

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.

I look down at my keyboard. I am aware of it.

How am I being affected by it?

It is a conclusion that science is narrowing in on.

No it is not.

Science is not near explaining what a mind is. It doesn't even know which way to go.

Again, is a mind an electrical pattern? A magnetic pattern? Some electrical effect? A magnetic effect? Some kind of quantum effect? Some kind of combination of these effects?

Science is not narrowing in on answering these questions. It is completely baffled and unable to proceed.

 

[DBT]

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

We don't.

But that is not what I said. Nor do I imply it. We know enough about physics, the attributes of matter/energy in order to construct power stations, utilize electricity, nuclear power, solar energy and so on without actually understanding what matter/energy is at the very most fundamental level.

In other words, we understand something, however little that something may be. Something is not nothing.

 

[untermensche]

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

Therefore you say it is modular. But that does not get you one step closer to understanding what a mind is. What that thing that experiences and remembers and plans and changes is.

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.

These are the "objects" the mind is aware of. The mind is aware of the end products of the visual system. It is not the visual system. It is not the end products of the visual system. It is aware of the end products of the visual system.

But the mind is not modular. It is a complete experience. There are no gaps.

That is not to say the mind is aware of everything but if the mind is aware of the spoon it is aware of the spoon. Even if the spoon is an hallucination or the product of some pathology. There is no gap.

The idea of a gap and the experience of the mind makes no sense.

So talking about a modular brain does not make explaining the mind easier. It makes it harder.

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.

Yes the brain brought it to that singular entity. What you here call consciousness.

That which is aware as opposed to that which it is aware of.

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

You have not ruled it out by talking about what cells do and not explaining what a mind is.

 

[untermensche]

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

We don't.

But that is not what I said. Nor do I imply it. We know enough about physics, the attributes of matter/energy in order to construct power stations, utilize electricity, nuclear power, solar energy and so on without actually understanding what matter/energy is at the very most fundamental level.

In other words, we understand something, however little that something may be. Something is not nothing.

Having good enough models to make use of something is not understanding what it is.

It is knowing how it behaves.

We know a lot about how the brain behaves but have no model that transforms any of this behavior into the experience of a mind.

Not one.

 

[DBT]

But that is not what I said. Nor do I imply it. We know enough about physics, the attributes of matter/energy in order to construct power stations, utilize electricity, nuclear power, solar energy and so on without actually understanding what matter/energy is at the very most fundamental level.

In other words, we understand something, however little that something may be. Something is not nothing.

Having good enough models to make use of something is not understanding what it is.

We don't have to know everything about how an internal combustion engine works in order to know that the engine itself that is producing energy, and not that it is a receiver for universal energy being 'received' by the engine

We understand enough about the function of the brain to understand that it is the brain that forms mind on the basis of its inputs, architecture and memory function....and that the expression of each and every mind is specific to that brain and its condition.

We know a lot about how the brain behaves but have no model that transforms any of this behavior into the experience of a mind.

Not one.

Subjects report their thoughts and feelings while an fMRI catalogues the images of brain activity related to the reported sensations. This has progressed to the point where researchers are able to predict decisions before the subject is aware of the decision they are going to make purely on the underlying activity leading to the conscious experience of making the decision.

The brain is clearly the agency of consciousness, and not a receiver for some nebulous notion of 'mind' independent from brain.

 

[DBT]

That which is aware as opposed to that which it is aware of.
.

This makes no sense. Self awareness is to be aware of something. To be aware of awareness also entails context, and does not occur in a mental vacuum.


You cannot separate awareness from an object of awareness. Try it if you like, give one clear and concise example.

 

[untermensche]

Having good enough models to make use of something is not understanding what it is.

We don't have to know everything about how an internal combustion engine works in order to know that the engine itself that is producing energy, and not that it is a receiver for universal energy being 'received' by the engine

Humans designed and built the entire thing. They know exactly what it is.

As opposed to a mind.

We understand enough about the function of the brain to understand that it is the brain that forms mind on the basis of its inputs, architecture and memory function....and that the expression of each and every mind is specific to that brain and its condition.

No we don't.

We know about cells and electrical activity and blood and neurotransmitters and receptors that initiate or decrease things in the cells.

But we don't have a clue what a mind is.

If we did you could tell me.

Is it an electrical pattern? A magnetic pattern? Some electrical effect? A magnetic effect? Some kind of quantum effect? Is the movement of the blood involved? Some kind of reception? Some combination of these things?

Subjects report their thoughts and feelings while an fMRI catalogues the images of brain activity related to the reported sensations. This has progressed to the point where researchers are able to predict decisions before the subject is aware of the decision they are going to make purely on the underlying activity leading to the conscious experience of making the decision.

The brain is clearly the agency of consciousness, and not a receiver for some nebulous notion of 'mind' independent from brain.

Show me this study where researchers predict decisions.

 

[untermensche]

That which is aware as opposed to that which it is aware of.

This makes no sense. Self awareness is to be aware of something. To be aware of awareness also entails context, and does not occur in a mental vacuum.

You cannot separate awareness from an object of awareness. Try it if you like, give one clear and concise example.

Awareness always involves that which is aware and the things it is aware of.

There must be a separation of this kind for there to be awareness.

I am aware of the ball therefore the ball and that which is aware of the ball (my mind) are not the same thing.

I am aware of my anger therefore the feelings of anger and that which is aware of the anger (my mind) are not the same thing.

 

[Juma]

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.

No. Just goals and wants. And they are as inate in us as when a google car has got its drive order.

 

[untermensche]

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.

No. Just goals and wants. And they are as inate in us as when a google car has got its drive order.

That is your opinion.

But as I keep saying, choices (goals and wants) are made with the mind. That is the mechanism used.

Something a google car does not have and needs from a human to be of any practical use.

 

[Juma]

No. Just goals and wants. And they are as inate in us as when a google car has got its drive order.

That is your opinion.

But as I keep saying, choices (goals and wants) are made with the mind. That is the mechanism used.

Something a google car does not have and needs from a human to be of any practical use.

No, you dont need any mind to have wants and goals.

Your concept of "mind" is a hypotesis that, like the hypotesis of a god, we dont need.

 

[untermensche]

That is your opinion.

But as I keep saying, choices (goals and wants) are made with the mind. That is the mechanism used.

Something a google car does not have and needs from a human to be of any practical use.

No, you dont need any mind to have wants and goals.

Your concept of "mind" is a hypotesis that, like the hypotesis of a god, we dont need.

Who says there is no mind necessary to have wants and goals?

What has goals without a mind somewhere in the picture?

Goals involve planning and choosing. Not just reacting.

And the mind is clearly apparent to the possessor of a mind. It is not hidden somewhere like a god. To dispense with it is to dispense with something clearly apparent. Like dispensing with matter because you don't like it. Absurd.

 

[Juma]

No, you dont need any mind to have wants and goals.

Your concept of "mind" is a hypotesis that, like the hypotesis of a god, we dont need.

Who says there is no mind necessary to have wants and goals?

What has goals without a mind somewhere in the picture?

Goals involve planning and choosing. Not just reacting.

Planning and choosing is nothing but complex reactions.

And the mind is clearly apparent to the possessor of a mind. It is not hidden somewhere like a god. To dispense with it is to dispense with something clearly apparent. Like dispensing with matter because you don't like it. Absurd.

Its not apparent at all. All that is apparent is just the apparition, the experience, the movie on the inner screen. (All with enormous citation marks)

 

[untermensche]

Planning and choosing is nothing but complex reactions.

A plan is by it's nature an action, not a reaction. It is what separates the mind of the human from other minds. The extent to which we can plan.

Reaction would be to move around with no plan.

And the mind is clearly apparent to the possessor of a mind. It is not hidden somewhere like a god. To dispense with it is to dispense with something clearly apparent. Like dispensing with matter because you don't like it. Absurd.

Its not apparent at all. All that is apparent is just the apparition, the experience, the movie on the inner screen. (All with enormous citation marks)

Your mind is not apparent to you?

Is that you are reduced to trying to say?

 

[Juma]

A plan is by it's nature an action, not a reaction. It is what separates the mind of the human from other minds. The extent to which we can plan.

Reaction would be to move around with no plan.

And the mind is clearly apparent to the possessor of a mind. It is not hidden somewhere like a god. To dispense with it is to dispense with something clearly apparent. Like dispensing with matter because you don't like it. Absurd.

Its not apparent at all. All that is apparent is just the apparition, the experience, the movie on the inner screen. (All with enormous citation marks)

Your mind is not apparent to you?

Is that you are reduced to trying to say?

How could it be? You "hear" your inner voice, you hve feelings" etc. All of this is just experience. The machinery behind is hidden to us.

 

[untermensche]

A plan is by it's nature an action, not a reaction. It is what separates the mind of the human from other minds. The extent to which we can plan.

Reaction would be to move around with no plan.

Its not apparent at all. All that is apparent is just the apparition, the experience, the movie on the inner screen. (All with enormous citation marks)

Your mind is not apparent to you?

Is that you are reduced to trying to say?

How could it be? You "hear" your inner voice, you hve feelings" etc. All of this is just experience. The machinery behind is hidden to us.

The machinery is hidden and not understood in terms of the creation of a mind.

But the mind is aware of what it hears.

This being aware of things beyond itself and even from hidden "places" is entirely apparent.

I know for a fact I can hear things. Even if they are hallucinations or some creation of a mad scientist somewhere in a matrix I know I hear things. This is indisputable.

 

[Treedbear]

...
Who says there is no mind necessary to have wants and goals?

What has goals without a mind somewhere in the picture?

Goals involve planning and choosing. Not just reacting.

And the mind is clearly apparent to the possessor of a mind. It is not hidden somewhere like a god. To dispense with it is to dispense with something clearly apparent. Like dispensing with matter because you don't like it. Absurd.

Is it the mind that is aware, or "the possessor" of the mind?

,,,
Your mind is not apparent to you?

Is that you are reduced to trying to say?

If I can be aware of my mind then what function does the mind provide? I don't necessarily reject the idea but I need to ask. Am I what I do or am I what I have (e.g.; mind)?

 

[Juma]

A plan is by it's nature an action, not a reaction. It is what separates the mind of the human from other minds. The extent to which we can plan.

Reaction would be to move around with no plan.

Its not apparent at all. All that is apparent is just the apparition, the experience, the movie on the inner screen. (All with enormous citation marks)

Your mind is not apparent to you?

Is that you are reduced to trying to say?

How could it be? You "hear" your inner voice, you hve feelings" etc. All of this is just experience. The machinery behind is hidden to us.

The machinery is hidden and not understood in terms of the creation of a mind.

But the mind is aware of what it hears.

This being aware of things beyond itself and even from hidden "places" is entirely apparent.

I know for a fact I can hear things. Even if they are hallucinations or some creation of a mad scientist somewhere in a matrix I know I hear things. This is indisputable.

Yes. So? You still says nothing more I said.

 

[untermensche]

A plan is by it's nature an action, not a reaction. It is what separates the mind of the human from other minds. The extent to which we can plan.

Reaction would be to move around with no plan.

Its not apparent at all. All that is apparent is just the apparition, the experience, the movie on the inner screen. (All with enormous citation marks)

Your mind is not apparent to you?

Is that you are reduced to trying to say?

How could it be? You "hear" your inner voice, you hve feelings" etc. All of this is just experience. The machinery behind is hidden to us.

The machinery is hidden and not understood in terms of the creation of a mind.

But the mind is aware of what it hears.

This being aware of things beyond itself and even from hidden "places" is entirely apparent.

I know for a fact I can hear things. Even if they are hallucinations or some creation of a mad scientist somewhere in a matrix I know I hear things. This is indisputable.

Yes. So? You still says nothing more I said.

So what's your point?

 

[Juma]

A plan is by it's nature an action, not a reaction. It is what separates the mind of the human from other minds. The extent to which we can plan.

Reaction would be to move around with no plan.

Its not apparent at all. All that is apparent is just the apparition, the experience, the movie on the inner screen. (All with enormous citation marks)

Your mind is not apparent to you?

Is that you are reduced to trying to say?

How could it be? You "hear" your inner voice, you hve feelings" etc. All of this is just experience. The machinery behind is hidden to us.

The machinery is hidden and not understood in terms of the creation of a mind.

But the mind is aware of what it hears.

This being aware of things beyond itself and even from hidden "places" is entirely apparent.

I know for a fact I can hear things. Even if they are hallucinations or some creation of a mad scientist somewhere in a matrix I know I hear things. This is indisputable.

Yes. So? You still says nothing more I said.

So what's your point?

The "mind" is nothing but the inner experience. Everything the mind is aware of is created by the brain. Including the "I".