The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[DBT]

The consensus in neuroscience is that the brain is the processor and therefore the decision maker....that there is no mind separate from the architecture and activity of a brain. Hence the decisions/behaviour of animals, cats, dogs, sheep, people, is specific to the species and the individuals of that species.

I'm not that impressed by what you claim is some consensus. They are desperate to understand one thing about the mind but must settle with vague generalities about the brain.

Nobody is desperate. The evidence does not support dualism. There is not a single example of mind activity without the presence of an active brain. Thoughts, feelings and actions can even be stimulated by electrical brain stimulation, Delgado, et al.

 

[untermensche]

Why should I post things if you don't read them?

This is right from above:

Libet's proposal of veto function is not a solution. I've addressed veto several times in this thread in response to Ryan.

Conscious veto implies duality where duality does not exist. Decisions may be vetoed if there is sufficient time between the point of a decision being carried out, motor actions, words spoken, etc, but conscious veto is subject to precisely the same build up of underlying activity to the point of readiness potential....the brain being a parallel processor.

Conscious veto is produced in the same way as all conscious experience/mind and provides no solution in terms of an independent agent as the orchestrator of the brain.

On the contrary, veto function, like all cognitive abilities in either conscious or unconscious form disintegrates with the failure of connectivity and memory function.

There is no opening. The state of the brain determines how conscious mind is experienced by that brain and not some external agent being received by the brain.

And as I've pointed out, even if the brain happened to be a receiver, it is still the state of the receiver that determines the experience of conscious mind.

There lies the failure of your proposition.

You keep talking about "duality" but I don't think you know what it means.

The theory of duality is that the mind is some special substance apart from the brain.

It is not the theory that the brain gives rise to the mind, or that the mind can influence the brain.

Just as the magnet giving rise to magnetism is not duality.

And there is no need for any solution because there is no problem to address.

The mind readies for a decision THEN we see brain activity. THEN the mind makes a decision and we see further brain activity. The mind leads and the brain follows.

 

[untermensche]

I'm not that impressed by what you claim is some consensus. They are desperate to understand one thing about the mind but must settle with vague generalities about the brain.

Nobody is desperate. The evidence does not support dualism. There is not a single example of mind activity without the presence of an active brain. Thoughts, feelings and actions can even be stimulated by electrical brain stimulation, Delgado, et al.

No, there is absolute desperation.

All this work and not one step closer to understanding how a brain gives rise to an active mind.

And in this desperation some are even pretending there is no mind.

 

[Juma]

Just as the magnet giving rise to magnetism is not duality.

Magnets is not what "gives rise to" magnetism. The correct answer is photons.
And as I have pointed out earler there cannot be any unknown "mind"- particle.

 

[untermensche]

Just as the magnet giving rise to magnetism is not duality.

Magnets is not what "gives rise to" magnetism. The correct answer is photons.
And as I have pointed out earler there cannot be any unknown "mind"- particle.

Are you trying to claim that magnetism is not a property of magnets?

And nobody is claiming there is a mind particle.

What is claimed is the mind exists and we make decisions with our minds, not our brains.

It is our mind that has an understanding of the world, not our brain.

 

[Juma]

Are you trying to claim that magnetism is not a property of magnets?

Magnetism is a property of the electromagnetic field.
Everything in your macroscopic world are really electromagnetic fields.
Defining magnetism as a property of magnets is ... misleading... to say the least

And nobody is claiming there is a mind particle.

So which field are the mind using to communicate with the brain?

 

[untermensche]

Magnetism is a property of the electromagnetic field.
Everything in your macroscopic world are really electromagnetic fields.

The magnet gives rise to the field. Just as the brain gives rise to the mind.

And nobody is claiming there is a mind particle.

So which field are the mind using to communicate with the brain?

Who knows what is going on? We need to know what a mind is first.

But we know for certain we have minds. So they have to be something.

 

[Juma]

The magnet gives rise to the field. Just as the brain gives rise to the mind.

You dont need magnets to get a magnetic field.

You need a brain to get a mind.

 

[untermensche]

The magnet gives rise to the field. Just as the brain gives rise to the mind.

You dont need magnets to get a magnetic field.

You need a brain to get a mind.

What is a mind?

Not some useless information like it is the product of brain activity or cellular activity.

What specifically is it?

An electrical pattern? A magnetic pattern? Some electrical effect? A magnetic effect? Some kind of quantum effect? Some unknown effect?

What specifically are you talking about when you say a brain is necessary?

 

[fromderinside]

No I gave you a chance. To try to relate what you say to logic.

To transfer requires 3 things. That which gives. That which receives. That which is transferred.

This is simple logic and is insurmountable.

Assume I was presuming what you say is true for a moment. At what level is that which gives, that which receives, and that which is transferred.

If you look at my response transfer occurs at many levels simultaneously. Subtexts abound. Is it primarily electrical or is is chemical evidenced by electrical analogue or is mechanical or it something else entirely. Is the appropriate response neural or informational? Since conditions need come into existence for such transfers to take place is that the proper way to look at it, the polarity change permitting channels to permit ion flow. Or do you have another approach to the problem of transferring information to mind?

The issue raised in my response is what is transferred. You say that which receives is the mind. Yet, the mind, not being physical needs a level for representing transfer. I presented a smorgie of options. Choose one and illustrate the transfer.

 

[untermensche]

No I gave you a chance. To try to relate what you say to logic.

To transfer requires 3 things. That which gives. That which receives. That which is transferred.

This is simple logic and is insurmountable.

Assume I was presuming what you say is true for a moment. At what level is that which gives, that which receives, and that which is transferred.

If you look at my response transfer occurs at many levels simultaneously. Subtexts abound. Is it primarily electrical or is is chemical evidenced by electrical analogue or is mechanical or it something else entirely. Is the appropriate response neural or informational? Since conditions need come into existence for such transfers to take place is that the proper way to look at it, the polarity change permitting channels to permit ion flow. Or do you have another approach to the problem of transferring information to mind?

The issue raised in my response is what is transferred. You say that which receives is the mind. Yet, the mind, not being physical needs a level for representing transfer. I presented a smorgie of options. Choose one and illustrate the transfer.

Tell me what a mind is first.

 

[Juma]

You dont need magnets to get a magnetic field.

You need a brain to get a mind.

What specifically are you talking about when you say a brain is necessary?

Without a brain - no mind.

 

[untermensche]

What specifically are you talking about when you say a brain is necessary?

Without a brain - no mind.

You don't seem to comprehend the word "specifically".

What specifically is the brain doing that gives rise to a mind?

Specifically does not mean worthless generality.

 

[Juma]

Without a brain - no mind.

You don't seem to comprehend the word "specifically".

What specifically is the brain doing that gives rise to a mind?

Specifically does not mean worthless generality.

It maintains the centras for speech, vision etc and allows them to interact via interconnecting neurons.

 

[untermensche]

You don't seem to comprehend the word "specifically".

What specifically is the brain doing that gives rise to a mind?

Specifically does not mean worthless generality.

It maintains the centras for speech, vision etc and allows them to interact via interconnecting neurons.

I specifically said not some worthless generalities.

What specifically is it?

Some electrical pattern? A magnetic pattern? An electrical effect? A magnetic effect? A quantum effect of some kind? A cellular effect? Some unknown effect?

Please be specific.

Saying the words interaction or interconnected is just hand waving.

 

[Juma]

It maintains the centras for speech, vision etc and allows them to interact via interconnecting neurons.

I specifically said not some worthless generalities.

What specifically is it?

Some electrical pattern? A magnetic pattern? An electrical effect? A magnetic effect? A quantum effect of some kind? A cellular effect? Some unknown effect?

Please be specific.

Saying the words interaction or interconnected is just hand waving.

I'm not here to educate you. You have to find yourself some schoolbook in the matter.

 

[ryan]

You dont need magnets to get a magnetic field.

You need a brain to get a mind.

What is a mind?

Not some useless information like it is the product of brain activity or cellular activity.

What specifically is it?

An electrical pattern? A magnetic pattern? Some electrical effect? A magnetic effect? Some kind of quantum effect? Some unknown effect?

Suppose that the mind is an electrical effect from a certain electrical process. Imagine that we isolate this electrical process, which, say, is the experience of green. Now why can't that thing just be the experience of green? Why does there need to be a generator and a generation?

Wouldn't matter and mind as the same thing be a simpler solution, and thus the more likely solution?

 

[untermensche]

I specifically said not some worthless generalities.

What specifically is it?

Some electrical pattern? A magnetic pattern? An electrical effect? A magnetic effect? A quantum effect of some kind? A cellular effect? Some unknown effect?

Please be specific.

Saying the words interaction or interconnected is just hand waving.

I'm not here to educate you. You have to find yourself some schoolbook in the matter.

You couldn't educate me about anything here.

You know nothing about what a mind actually is.

Nobody does.

 

[untermensche]

What is a mind?

Not some useless information like it is the product of brain activity or cellular activity.

What specifically is it?

An electrical pattern? A magnetic pattern? Some electrical effect? A magnetic effect? Some kind of quantum effect? Some unknown effect?

Suppose that the mind is an electrical effect from a certain electrical process. Imagine that we isolate this electrical process, which, say, is the experience of green. Now why can't that thing just be the experience of green? Why does there need to be a generator and a generation?

Wouldn't matter and mind as the same thing be a simpler solution, and thus the more likely solution?

You can't just have the experience of green.

Something has to have the experience.

 

[fromderinside]

Assume I was presuming what you say is true for a moment. At what level is that which gives, that which receives, and that which is transferred.

If you look at my response transfer occurs at many levels simultaneously. Subtexts abound. Is it primarily electrical or is is chemical evidenced by electrical analogue or is mechanical or it something else entirely. Is the appropriate response neural or informational? Since conditions need come into existence for such transfers to take place is that the proper way to look at it, the polarity change permitting channels to permit ion flow. Or do you have another approach to the problem of transferring information to mind?

The issue raised in my response is what is transferred. You say that which receives is the mind. Yet, the mind, not being physical needs a level for representing transfer. I presented a smorgie of options. Choose one and illustrate the transfer.

Tell me what a mind is first.

Not my job. I haven't measured one. So, as far as I'm concerned ,there is no mind.