• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

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 you are going to use action potential as an argument, then the ability to veto renders your argument incomplete. The veto leaves the question of free will open.

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.

You and I left off in a much different argument about free will. I was not asking questions over and over again. We left off with me giving a new explanation for the time lag, but you never responded.

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.
This has nothing to do with the argument between you and I.
 
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?

What besides a mind "experiences" color?

Should be easy since it is your turf.
 
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.

So the content of the mind is in the brain?

Look at something like vision.

The brain creates a visual representation of the world that the mind experiences.

If the brain were damaged the representation could be distorted somehow.

But not necessarily that which experiences it.
 
So the content of the mind is in the brain?

Look at something like vision.

The brain creates a visual representation of the world that the mind experiences.

If the brain were damaged the representation could be distorted somehow.

But not necessarily that which experiences it.

Do you know anything at all about the brain and our neurosystem? To me it seems that you just make this up as you go...
 
Look at something like vision.

The brain creates a visual representation of the world that the mind experiences.

If the brain were damaged the representation could be distorted somehow.

But not necessarily that which experiences it.

Do you know anything at all about the brain and our neurosystem? To me it seems that you just make this up as you go...

I feel the same way about the things you say.

Do you have a mind?

Do you know how a mind arises?

Not hand waving. How it actually arises? Not something so vague it is meaningless. How it actually arises?

Because it makes no difference how much one knows about the anatomy of the brain. If they don't know how a mind arises they don't know what it is.
 
Because it makes no difference how much one knows about the anatomy of the brain. If they don't know how a mind arises they don't know what it is.

So how are you going to find out? By ignoring all we actually know about the brain?
You are a fool in this. There is only one way to get results here: learn how the brain works.
 
Because it makes no difference how much one knows about the anatomy of the brain. If they don't know how a mind arises they don't know what it is.

So how are you going to find out? By ignoring all we actually know about the brain?
You are a fool in this. There is only one way to get results here: learn how the brain works.

What do you think you know that I don't? I went to both physical therapy school and pharmacy school. I have a lot of education in the anatomy and physiology of the human nervous system.

That is a cop out because you have no more arguments.

Of course it will be found out by looking at the brain in some way.

But not in the ways we are looking at it now.

We look at areas of "activity" then make up stories about what the "activity" means.

It is all we have but it is not an explanation of anything.
 
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?


Which, assuming the brain is a receiver, as I've pointed out, changes nothing in terms of behavioral output, be it conscious or unconscious. It still remains that the unchosen condition of the brain as the receiver determines what it received and how it is expressed.

But to assume the brain is a receiver of some non definable mind when in fact the brain has senses, a central nervous system that detects information from the external world in order to negotiate and interact with it, does not indicate an independent non detectable, non definable mind.

Have you damaged the transmission it is receiving?

What is being received is light, airborne molecules, pressure waves, etc, which the brain interprets as objects, colour, sound and so on. Not some vague undefinable transmission we call 'mind' --transmitted from what? Transmitted from where? Quantum mind is being proposed?
 
So how are you going to find out? By ignoring all we actually know about the brain?
You are a fool in this. There is only one way to get results here: learn how the brain works.

What do you think you know that I don't? I went to both physical therapy school and pharmacy school. I have a lot of education in the anatomy and physiology of the human nervous system.
Hmm. What does "a lot" mean? 3 weeks?


That is a cop out because you have no more arguments.

Of course it will be found out by looking at the brain in some way.

But not in the ways we are looking at it now.

It seems you have no idea what an intelligent agent actually do. You seem to think that whats going in our mind doesnt require hardware. It does. It need structures to be able tio function and what we find in how the brain works fits very well.
There is only one really unexplained thing, and its not the "mind". Its the inner experience, the "cartesian theater".
 
If you damage a radio will you damage it's performance?

Which, assuming the brain is a receiver, as I've pointed out, changes nothing in terms of behavioral output, be it conscious or unconscious. It still remains that the unchosen condition of the brain as the receiver determines what it received and how it is expressed.

It is a question you seem to have a lot of difficulty with.

I wonder why?

And I am assuming nothing. I am simply trying to get you to open your eyes and understand something.

If it can't be absolutely ruled out, and it can't, then you can't say you understand one thing about what a mind is. Or what it means to be conscious in the world with a mind.

Is it an electrical pattern? A magnetic pattern? An electrical effect of some kind? A magnetic effect? A quantum effect of some kind? A cellular effect? Is the blood involved? Is it some combination of these effects? Is it some unknown effect? A reception of some kind?

If you can't say with absolute assurance which of these gives rise to a mind then you can't say you know anything about what a mind is. All you know is part of what a brain is doing. The uninteresting part.
 
If you are going to use action potential as an argument, then the ability to veto renders your argument incomplete. The veto leaves the question of free will open.

But I just finished explaining why it doesn't!! It doesn't because veto is subject to exactly the same limitations that any decision is subject to. Veto is just fresh information being fed into conscious activity updating as it progresses. Veto choices emerge from unconscious processing into awareness after the decision to be vetoed has been made, but fresh information informs consciousness that the decision is not ideal and should be changed to x, or dropped....but only if there is sufficient time. If fresh information cannot alter the bad decision it is regret that is experienced.

You and I left off in a much different argument about free will. I was not asking questions over and over again. We left off with me giving a new explanation for the time lag, but you never responded.

Other issues got in the way. Time is tight. Repost your new explanation and I'll be sure to respond.

This has nothing to do with the argument between you and I.

I pointed it out regardless. I think it is relevant.
 
What do you think you know that I don't? I went to both physical therapy school and pharmacy school. I have a lot of education in the anatomy and physiology of the human nervous system.
Hmm. What does "a lot" mean? 3 weeks?

Ignorance noted.

There is no natural division between the occipital lobe and the sensory nerves of the great toe. It is all one functional organ with internal areas of specialization. But out of it a mind arises in some way. And we use this mind to move around and satisfy needs and wants.

There is only one really unexplained thing, and its not the "mind". Its the inner experience, the "cartesian theater".

That is the mind. That is awareness. That is not one little thing. It is everything important in terms of intention and "free" choice.
 
Which, assuming the brain is a receiver, as I've pointed out, changes nothing in terms of behavioral output, be it conscious or unconscious. It still remains that the unchosen condition of the brain as the receiver determines what it received and how it is expressed.

It is a question you seem to have a lot of difficulty with.

I wonder why?


From my perspective, it is you who is having great difficulty comprehending that all the evidence supports the brain as being the sole agency of conscious experience/mind, that there is no evidence for brain as a receiver of 'mind transmission' ----from where? God? Quantum mind? The galactic federation?

And I am assuming nothing. I am simply trying to get you to open your eyes and understand something.

You are proposing something that has no indication of reality. If you mean that we (neuroscience and everyone else) don't know how mind is formed, that is a given. I have said it repeatedly.

If it can't be absolutely ruled out, and it can't, then you can't say you understand one thing about what a mind is. Or what it means to be conscious in the world with a mind.

Rule out what? Something, mind transmission, that shows no indication of being a viable hypothesis.

Where is your evidence? Where is your working model? Where is the research? Testing? Making prediction based on an available body of information?


If you can't say with absolute assurance which of these gives rise to a mind then you can't say you know anything about what a mind is.


That's much the same as what theists say about the existence of their god.

All you know is part of what a brain is doing. The uninteresting part

What the brain is doing is the only known source of mind/consciousness. If you have another source, please provide the relevant information.
 
What the brain is doing is the only known source of mind/consciousness. If you have another source, please provide the relevant information.

You seem to think I am trying to prove the brain is not giving rise to the mind.

I am trying to demonstrate that we don't have the slightest idea what about the brain is giving rise to the mind. And therefore we don't know what the mind is. And therefore we can't speak to what it can and can't do.

This is why you ignore this question every time I write it.

Is it an electrical pattern? A magnetic pattern? An electrical effect of some kind? A magnetic effect? A quantum effect of some kind? A cellular effect? Is the blood involved? Is it some combination of these effects? Is it some unknown effect? A reception of some kind?

Tell me. What specifically is the mind? Not vague uselessness "something the brain is doing".

What is the brain doing that becomes a mind? Specifically. Just throwing out some activity of the cells is not in any way relating it to the production of a mind.

And you talk about all those studies but what they clearly show is a mind influences the brain. Something we clearly sense as well. Our mind "tells" the arm to rise and it does.
 
You seem to think I am trying to prove the brain is not giving rise to the mind.

I am trying to demonstrate that we don't have the slightest idea what about the brain is giving rise to the mind. And therefore we don't know what the mind is. And therefore we can't speak to what it can and can't do.

This is why you ignore this question every time I write it.

No, I'm pointing out that it is quite clear that the activity of a functional brain is the source of mind, for the reasons I've been giving

The experience of consciousness/ mind being species related, cat range of behaviour, dog range of behaviour, human range of behavior and so on, with individual variability due to the individual experiences of each individual encoded in memory.

Quote;
''Instead of arguing whether a particular brain area or group of neurons contributes to consciousness or not, their strategy is to characterize the kinds of neural processes that might account for key properties of conscious experience. The authors emphasize two properties: conscious experience is integrated (each conscious scene is unified) and at the same time it is highly differentiated (within a short time, one can experience any of a huge number of different conscious states). Neurobiological data indicates that neural processes associated with conscious experience are highly integrated and highly differentiated.

Consciousness, as William James pointed out, is not a thing, but a process or stream that is changing on a time scale of fractions of seconds. As he emphasized, a fundamental aspect of the stream of consciousness is that it is highly unified or integrated. Integration is a property shared by every conscious experience irrespective of its specific content: Each conscious state comprises a single "scene" that cannot be decomposed into independent components (5). Integration is best appreciated by considering the impossibility of conceiving of a conscious scene that is not integrated, that is, one which is not experienced from a single point of view. A striking demonstration is given by split-brain patients performing a spatial memory task in which two independent sequences of visuospatial positions were presented, one to the left and one to the right hemisphere. In these patients, each hemisphere perceived a separate, simple visual problem and the subjects were able to solve the double task well. Normal subjects could not treat the two independent visual sequences as independent, parallel tasks. Instead, they combined the visual information into a single conscious scene and into a single, large problem that was much more difficult to solve.

In summary: Conventional approaches to understanding consciousness are generally concerned with the contribution of specific brain areas or groups of neurons. By contrast, the authors consider what kinds of neural processes can account for key properties of conscious experience. Applying measures of neural integration and complexity, together with an analysis of extensive neurological data, leads to a testable proposal -- the dynamic core hypothesis -- about the properties of the neural substrate of consciousness.''


Quote;
''Due to the intrinsic electrical properties and the connectivity of thalamic neurones two groups of corticothalamic loops are generated, which resonate at a frequency of 40 Hz. The specific thalamo-cortical loops give the content of cognition and the no specific loop, the temporal binding required for the unity of the cognitive experience. Consciousness is then, a product of the resonant thalamo-cortical activity, and the dialogue between the thalamus and cortex, the process that generates subjectivity, the unique experience we all recognized as the existence of the "self".

Tell me. What specifically is the mind? Not vague uselessness "something the brain is doing".

What the brain is doing is forming a virtual representation of an interaction between sensory inputs, wavelength, pressure waves, etc, and memory through the means of neural structures and their information processing ability, hence the conscious experience of a cat is different to that of a human.

This virtual representation is composed of multiple attributes and features - as pointed out in the article above - vision, hearing, feelings, thoughts and decisions....all specific to the brain in question, human, cat, dog, mouse....

What is not understood is how the brain generates its virtual representation of sensory information and memory in conscious mental form: mind.

That is not understood. But that does not mean we should be running through the woods proclaiming that nothing is understood and because nothing is understood, the mind is probably not generated by the brain. This is not warranted given that something is understood, some things may be tested: mind altering substances, the consequences of structural failure and memory failure.

You claim that this may mean the brain is a receiver, but we don't have a single example of disembodied mind to study, therefore not a single example of mind at large beaming information into brains, information that, strangely, is specific to each and every individual brain.

Apply Occam's Razor.


And you talk about all those studies but what they clearly show is a mind influences the brain. Something we clearly sense as well. Our mind "tells" the arm to rise and it does.


They do no such thing. It is always the state of the brain that is reflected in the expression of its mind, motor actions may be separated from conscious report of an intended action, and the connection may be severed altogether, involuntary movements, switches, jerks and so on.


The fundamentals of Cognition.
1) ''Neurons [/url]are nerve cells (neurocytes), which, together with neuroglial cells, comprise the nervous tissue making up the nervous system. The neuron is the integral element of our five senses and of countless other physical, regulatory, and mental faculties, including memory and consciousness. A neuron consists of a nerve cell body (or soma), an elongated projection (axon), and short branching fibers (called dendrites). Neurons receive nerve signals (action potentials), integrate action potentials, and transmit these signals to other neurons or effector organs, such as muscles and glands. The structure and function of neurons is essentially the same in all animals, although the human nervous system is much more specialized and complicated than that of lower animals.''

''At the axon hillock, chemical signals received by the dendrites may reach a threshold level to cause a wave of electrical depolarization and hyperpolarization of the axon cell membrane. The net movements of ions across the cell membrane are responsible for these changes that move down the axon to the axon terminus as an action potential. At the axon terminus, neurotransmitters are released into the synaptic gap. Through synaptic gaps, a typical neuron may interconnect with thousands and tens of thousands of other neurons. Axon terminals have knob-like swellings at the very end called synaptic knobs or end buttons. Each synaptic knob communicates with a dendrite or cell body of another neuron, the point of contact being a synapse.''

Memory is physically formed within neurons and neural pathways, shapes of proteins and - ''during the habitution of a repeated action, excitatory synapses from the sensory neurons onto motor neurons and interneurons undergo depression''' (well worn neural pathways facilitate a quick and well 'learnt' response) and sensory impulses travelling along pathways are modified by these memory 'markers' - which in turn stimulate the neural cell to respond in a particular way, signaling the production of seratonin, glandular secretions, and motor neuron functions, consciously perceived as feelings, etc...neurons do not make conscious choices, yet a response is achieved according to the stimulus that is applied to the neuron by the kind of input it receives, which means the response may, as mentioned above, entail a release of neurochemicals and a motor responses. Again, according to the nature of the stimulus that is applied by input to the cells, networks and structures and not by an action of 'conscious will'

''Among the brain's modular processors, some do not extract and process signals from the environment, but rather from the subject's own body and brain. Each brain thus contains multiple representations of itself and its body at several levels'' (Damasio,1999).

''The physical location of our body is encoded in continuously updated somatic, kinesthetic, and motor maps. Its biochemical homeostasis is represented in various subcortical and cortical circuits controlling our drives and emotions. We also represent ourselves as a person with an identity (presumably involving face and person-processing circuits of the inferior and anterior temporal lobes) and an autobiography encoded in episodic memory. Finally, at a higher cognitive level, the action perception, verbal reasoning, and `theory of mind' modules that we apply to interpret and predict other people's actions may also help us make sense of our own behavior
Once mobilized into the conscious workspace, the activity of those `self-coding' circuits would be available for inspection by many other processes, thus providing a putative basis for reflexive or higher-order consciousness.'' (Fletcher et al., 1995; Gallese, Fadiga, Fogassi, & Rizzolatti, 1996; Weiskrantz, 1997)''.


More;
''To successfully interact with objects in the environment, sensory evidence must be continuously acquired, interpreted, and used to guide appropriate motor responses. For example, when driving, a red light should motivate a motor command to depress the brake pedal. Single-unit recording studies have established that simple sensorimotor transformations are mediated by the same neurons that ultimately guide the behavioral response. However, it is also possible that these sensorimotor regions are the recipients of a modality-independent decision signal that is computed elsewhere. Here, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging and human observers to show that the time course of activation in a subregion of the right insula is consistent with a role in accumulating sensory evidence independently from the required motor response modality (saccade vs manual). Furthermore, a combination of computational modeling and simulations of the blood oxygenation level-dependent response suggests that this region is not simply recruited by general arousal or by the tonic maintenance of attention during the decision process. Our data thus raise the possibility that a modality-independent representation of sensory evidence may guide activity in effector-specific cortical areas before the initiation of a behavioral response''.

Perceptual processing - Superior colliculus

Modulation of cognition (memory, attention) - Cingulate cortex Hippocampus Basal forebrain

Representation of emotional response -Somatosensory-related cortices

Representation of perceived action - Left frontal operculum, Superior temporal gyrus

Motivational evaluation - Amygdala, Orbitofrontal cortex

Social reasoning - Prefrontal cortex

In other words:
''The brain is a physical system whose operation is governed solely by the laws of chemistry and physics. What does this mean? It means that all of your thoughts and hopes and dreams and feelings are produced by chemical reactions going on in your head (a sobering thought). The brain's function is to process information. In other words, it is a computer that is made of organic (carbon-based) compounds rather than silicon chips. The brain is comprised of cells: primarily neurons and their supporting structures. Neurons are cells that are specialized for the transmission of information. Electrochemical reactions cause neurons to fire. ''

''Neurons are connected to one another in a highly organized way. One can think of these connections as circuits -- just like a computer has circuits. These circuits determine how the brain processes information, just as the circuits in your computer determine how it processes information. Neural circuits in your brain are connected to sets of neurons that run throughout your body. Some of these neurons are connected to sensory receptors, such as the retina of your eye. Others are connected to your muscles. Sensory receptors are cells that are specialized for gathering information from the outer world and from other parts of the body.''
 
No, I'm pointing out that it is quite clear that the activity of a functional brain is the source of mind, for the reasons I've been giving

You offer nothing but the most vague generalities. You have no real explanations of the mind. You merely have some knowledge about "areas of activity". You can't point to any specific activity and say "this is what generates a mind".

The experience of consciousness/ mind being species related, cat range of behaviour, dog range of behaviour, human range of behavior and so on, with individual variability due to the individual experiences of each individual encoded in memory.

And there is an example of your useless generalities.

Do you actually think you have said anything here? Beyond saying humans, dogs and cats have minds, even though you don't have the slightest clue what a mind is, and this other thing you can't explain, memory, is involved?

Do you read what you write? Can you not see how vacuous it is?

I'm not interested in every little tidbit of unrelated information about the brain you have. I've been exposed to it all. I simply understand the difference between what is known and what is not.

You have no explanation for the mind and therefore have no idea what it is or what it can do.

What the brain is doing is forming a virtual representation of an interaction between sensory inputs, wavelength, pressure waves, etc, and memory through the means of neural structures and their information processing ability, hence the conscious experience of a cat is different to that of a human.

Vacuous, so vague it is worthless. There is nothing specific I could look for with this generality.

This and other worthless generalities are all you have.

And a blindness to the fact that it is all you have.

They do no such thing. It is always the state of the brain that is reflected in the expression of its mind...

This is religious dogma. It is clear from the studies you mentioned that brain activity takes place AFTER decisions are made. Yes there is activity before and what that is is highly disputed, but there also is clearly brain activity after a decision is made. The mind is what has an understanding of the world, a knowledge of history and how things work. The brain knows none of this. The brain cannot act in the world. It needs a mind to do so and inform it with decisions to real world problems.

It is clear that decisions made with the mind have an effect on the brain.

To deny it means throwing out all this research you claim tells us something.

And if you think you have a specific answer to this question I await it.

Is the mind an electrical pattern? A magnetic pattern? An electrical effect of some kind? A magnetic effect? A quantum effect of some kind? A cellular effect? Is the blood involved? Is it some combination of these effects? Is it some unknown effect? A reception of some kind?

How many times will you completely ignore this question? I'm beginning to think you don't care.
 
Last edited:
You offer nothing but the most vague generalities. You have no real explanations of the mind. You merely have some knowledge about "areas of activity". You can't point to any specific activity and say "this is what generates a mind".

The experience of consciousness/ mind being species related, cat range of behaviour, dog range of behaviour, human range of behavior and so on, with individual variability due to the individual experiences of each individual encoded in memory.

And there is an example of your useless generalities.

Do you actually think you have said anything here? Beyond saying humans, dogs and cats have minds, even though you don't have the slightest clue what a mind is, and this other thing you can't explain, memory, is involved?

Do you read what you write? Can you not see how vacuous it is?

I'm not interested in every little tidbit of unrelated information about the brain you have. I've been exposed to it all. I simply understand the difference between what is known and what is not.

You have no explanation for the mind and therefore have no idea what it is or what it can do.

What the brain is doing is forming a virtual representation of an interaction between sensory inputs, wavelength, pressure waves, etc, and memory through the means of neural structures and their information processing ability, hence the conscious experience of a cat is different to that of a human.

Vacuous, so vague it is worthless. There is nothing specific I could look for with this generality.

This and other worthless generalities are all you have.

And a blindness to the fact that it is all you have.

They do no such thing. It is always the state of the brain that is reflected in the expression of its mind...

This is religious dogma. It is clear from the studies you mentioned that brain activity takes place AFTER decisions are made. Yes there is activity before and what that is is highly disputed, but there also is clearly brain activity after a decision is made. The mind is what has an understanding of the world, a knowledge of history and how things work. The brain knows none of this. The brain cannot act in the world. It needs a mind to do so and inform it with decisions to real world problems.

It is clear that decisions made with the mind have an effect on the brain.

To deny it means throwing out all this research you claim tells us something.

And if you think you have a specific answer to this question I await it.

Is the mind an electrical pattern? A magnetic pattern? An electrical effect of some kind? A magnetic effect? A quantum effect of some kind? A cellular effect? Is the blood involved? Is it some combination of these effects? Is it some unknown effect? A reception of some kind?

How many times will you completely ignore this question? I'm beginning to think you don't care.

But for fuck sake! We know that what goes on in the mind is goverened by the brain!

That we dont know how the "inner theater" effect is created is not something that changes that.

Sigh. I really must remember that your opinion in this matter is of no importance whatever...
 
But for fuck sake! We know that what goes on in the mind is goverened by the brain!

That we dont know how the "inner theater" effect is created is not something that changes that.

Sigh. I really must remember that your opinion in this matter is of no importance whatever...

What you call "inner theater" is experience. A huge subject. And it encompasses everything from the visual experience to the experience of sadness. It is the crucial part of having a human mind.

But the mind is more than experience. It is intention and "will" as well.

We use our minds to navigate around, not our brains.

We make real world decisions with our minds, not our brains.

And in matters of simple logic my opinions are obviously better than others here.
 
But for fuck sake! We know that what goes on in the mind is goverened by the brain!

That we dont know how the "inner theater" effect is created is not something that changes that.

Sigh. I really must remember that your opinion in this matter is of no importance whatever...

What you call "inner theater" is experience. A huge subject. And it encompasses everything from the visual experience to the experience of sadness. It is the crucial part of having a human mind.

Yes, and all that are orchestrated by the brain: the sounds, the images, the thoughts, the feelings, the only thing we dont account for yet is the canvas itself.
 
Back
Top Bottom