The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[ryan]

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

You had mentioned that to me, but I still have yet to find any information that supports it. In fact, from everything I have read, there is no readiness potential or any kind of preparation observed yet.

You have to provide the information instead of just saying it.

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 are just reassuring your own claim. Please find the necessary information to support your argument.

 

[ryan]

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.

If an experience is the effect of an electrical process, or any other matter/energy you want, then wouldn't the electrical process be having the experience?

 

[untermensche]

You can't just have the experience of green.

Something has to have the experience.

If an experience is the effect of an electrical process, or any other matter/energy you want, then wouldn't the electrical process be having the experience?

Only a mind can experience color.

 

[Juma]

If an experience is the effect of an electrical process, or any other matter/energy you want, then wouldn't the electrical process be having the experience?

Only a mind can experience color.

The mind could be an electrical process.

 

[untermensche]

Only a mind can experience color.

The mind could be an electrical process.

It could be no known electrical process.

 

[ryan]

If an experience is the effect of an electrical process, or any other matter/energy you want, then wouldn't the electrical process be having the experience?

Only a mind can experience color.

Okay, then just replace "experience" with "mind" in my past two posts.

For whatever it's worth, here's what a person with credentials has to say about this, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ciousness/201101/mind-brain-and-consciousness .

 

[untermensche]

Only a mind can experience color.

Okay, then just replace "experience" with "mind" in my past two posts.

For whatever it's worth, here's what a person with credentials has to say about this, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ciousness/201101/mind-brain-and-consciousness .

Yes, dualism is the idea that the mind is a unique unknown substance.

It has never been proven to be wrong.

Because nobody knows what a mind is.

People like that doctor know what the brain is, and they know that damage to the brain, or even drugs acting on the brain, can make changes to the mind.

But that is not an understanding of what the mind is or what it is made of.

He may be a doctor but he does not know logical reasoning. His conclusions are not logically made with his observations.

If the radio is damaged it will not perform correctly. That doesn't make the radio and what it is working with the same thing.

 

[ryan]

Okay, then just replace "experience" with "mind" in my past two posts.

For whatever it's worth, here's what a person with credentials has to say about this, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ciousness/201101/mind-brain-and-consciousness .

Yes, dualism is the idea that the mind is a unique unknown substance.

It has never been proven to be wrong.

Because nobody knows what a mind is.

People like that doctor know what the brain is, and they know that damage to the brain, or even drugs acting on the brain, can make changes to the mind.

But that is not an understanding of what the mind is or what it is made of.

He may be a doctor but he does not know logical reasoning. His conclusions are not logically made with his observations.

If the radio is damaged it will not perform correctly. That doesn't make the radio and what it is working with the same thing.

I don't think it's that he doesn't believe in a mental field; it's just that it isn't required to explain anything. There isn't a need to go beyond biology. Why bring in more than you need to explain something?

 

[untermensche]

Yes, dualism is the idea that the mind is a unique unknown substance.

It has never been proven to be wrong.

Because nobody knows what a mind is.

People like that doctor know what the brain is, and they know that damage to the brain, or even drugs acting on the brain, can make changes to the mind.

But that is not an understanding of what the mind is or what it is made of.

He may be a doctor but he does not know logical reasoning. His conclusions are not logically made with his observations.

If the radio is damaged it will not perform correctly. That doesn't make the radio and what it is working with the same thing.

I don't think it's that he doesn't believe in a mental field; it's just that it isn't required to explain anything. There isn't a need to go beyond biology. Why bring in more than you need to explain something?

Since the mind has not been explained you can't say what is or isn't necessary to explain it.

 

[ryan]

I don't think it's that he doesn't believe in a mental field; it's just that it isn't required to explain anything. There isn't a need to go beyond biology. Why bring in more than you need to explain something?

Since the mind has not been explained you can't say what is or isn't necessary to explain it.

But you are starting with an assumption that mind and body are two different things, then you say that we don't know anything about the mind.

It's as if you are assuming that a ghost is in your house when there is no reason to assume so.

 

[untermensche]

Since the mind has not been explained you can't say what is or isn't necessary to explain it.

But you are starting with an assumption that mind and body are two different things, then you say that we don't know anything about the mind.

That's not where I start.

I start by saying we don't know what a mind is beyond the experience of our own minds.

I start by saying the anatomy and physiology of the brain is understood to a great extent.

But we have no understanding of how any of the many activities we see in the brain could create a mind.

We have no theory.

It's as if you are assuming that a ghost is in your house when there is no reason to assume so.

I really have no interest in introducing ghosts. I only do it to try to show how little we really know. A completely unexplained phenomena that is apparent to everyone is no ghost. But if we want to know if a mind can make "free" choices as opposed to "forced" choices then we have to know what it is.

 

[ryan]

But you are starting with an assumption that mind and body are two different things, then you say that we don't know anything about the mind.

That's not where I start.

I start by saying we don't know what a mind is beyond the experience of our own minds.

I start by saying the anatomy and physiology of the brain is understood to a great extent.

The gap is closing in.

But we have no understanding of how any of the many activities we see in the brain could create a mind.

Of course we don't if we start off with the assumption that they are two different things. It's like saying that we don't know how moving water and its foundation gives rise to a river. If we assume that the water and the river are two different things, then the same kind of problem arises.

 

[untermensche]

That's not where I start.

I start by saying we don't know what a mind is beyond the experience of our own minds.

I start by saying the anatomy and physiology of the brain is understood to a great extent.

The gap is closing in.

But we have no understanding of how any of the many activities we see in the brain could create a mind.

Of course we don't if we start off with the assumption that they are two different things. It's like saying that we don't know how moving water and its foundation gives rise to a river. If we assume that the water and the river are two different things, then the same kind of problem arises.

A brain is a bunch of cells.

A mind is being aware of things and understanding things and not understanding things and being in control of things.

How could you possibly say they are the same thing?

Moving water is moving water. Call it what you want. It is just moving water.

 

[ryan]

The gap is closing in.

But we have no understanding of how any of the many activities we see in the brain could create a mind.

Of course we don't if we start off with the assumption that they are two different things. It's like saying that we don't know how moving water and its foundation gives rise to a river. If we assume that the water and the river are two different things, then the same kind of problem arises.

A brain is a bunch of cells.

A mind is being aware of things and understanding things and not understanding things and being in control of things.

How could you possibly say they are the same thing?

Everything that we know about the brain is not the actual brain. We only get signals from other minds/brans; and even then, we still have to process those signals. How could we possibly know that a brain is not a mind when we can only observe it from a distance using a medium?

I actually have my own reasons about why the brain and mind might not be the same thing.

 

[DBT]

You had mentioned that to me, but I still have yet to find any information that supports it. In fact, from everything I have read, there is no readiness potential or any kind of preparation observed yet.

You have to provide the information instead of just saying it.

I have provided the information over and over. There is no instantaneous action in the form of conscious veto, there is no evidence for it. It was just a proposal made by Libet with no explanation for how it may work.


As I explained, cognition is a physical process, beginning with inputs, propagation, integration with memory function, then conscious experience. The proposed veto cannot occur by magic, bypassing the very process that forms perception, thought and decision making

Veto is just another decision that follows the same rules as all other decisions, except its a decision to change a prior decision. This can only occur if the timing is right.

If new information in the form of veto comes too late, you simply regret the decision that was made a moment ago, but too late to change the words that you said or the action that was taken, only regret is left.

You are just reassuring your own claim. Please find the necessary information to support your argument.

I'm not reassuring anything. I'm pointing out how the process of cognition works according to the evidence...which I have provided: fMRI studies, decisions predicted, time lag between input and perception, brain/mind altered by chemical and structural changes, electrical brain stimulation, Delgado et al.

All of which falls apart, mind, decision making, veto, recognition with the failure of memory function. Mind lost even while the body is alive.

All of which you have apparently ignored in order to ask the same questions over and over, never accepting what the evidence tells you.

What the evidence tells you that it is the state of the brain that determines the state of the mind, these being inseparable.

This holds true regardless of the proposal that the brain is a receiver. Receiver or generator, information condition determines conscious output.

You cannot alter the facts. There are too many case studies to support this.

 

[DBT]

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.

You are a funny fellow. I don't think you know what you talking about. You yourself imply that mind is something separate from the brain (yet something you say is unknown) which implies duality. That mind is somehow, inexplicably , independent from the brain...including your numerous references to the brain as receiver.

All the while ignoring that as far as the experience of mind/consciousness goes, it is still the physical condition of the brain that determines your experience, self identity, language, mental abilities and so on.

 

[untermensche]

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

You are a funny fellow. I don't think you know what you talking about. You yourself imply that mind is something separate from the brain (yet something you say is unknown) which implies duality. That mind is somehow, inexplicably , independent from the brain...including your numerous references to the brain as receiver.

All the while ignoring that as far as the experience of mind/consciousness goes, it is still the physical condition of the brain that determines your experience, self identity, language, mental abilities and so on.

If you damage a radio will you damage it's performance?

Have you damaged the transmission it is receiving?

 

[Juma]

You are a funny fellow. I don't think you know what you talking about. You yourself imply that mind is something separate from the brain (yet something you say is unknown) which implies duality. That mind is somehow, inexplicably , independent from the brain...including your numerous references to the brain as receiver.

All the while ignoring that as far as the experience of mind/consciousness goes, it is still the physical condition of the brain that determines your experience, self identity, language, mental abilities and so on.

If you damage a radio will you damage it's performance?

Have you damaged the transmission it is receiving?

If you damage a radio you wont change the content of the program.

 

[untermensche]

If you damage a radio will you damage it's performance?

Have you damaged the transmission it is receiving?

If you damage a radio you wont change the content of the program.

If the content the mind experiences from the brain is faulty and the control mechanisms the mind has on the brain are faulty it may appear the mind is faulty when it is intact.

 

[fromderinside]

Only a mind can experience color.

Really? I suspect you use mind as an intervening, unmeasured, variable. In other words, you follow dualism, which as far as I can tell, has no experimental justification (my turf).

Now that mind is back in your court, what is mind?