The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[Treedbear]

...
Your computer does not "know" who the president is.

It knows how to handle data in a very unbrainlike manner.

What do you mean by "know"? I realize that computer circuits behave differently than neural circuits in that they are electronic rather than electro-chemical and are mainly sequential rather than massively parallel. But is that all? Knowledge is still held in the inter-relatedness of perceptions, concepts, ideas, etc.

 

[fromderinside]

You can't just do away with the mind by talking about the activity of cells.

The mind is what knows Obama is the president of the US.

Not some cell or bunch of cells somewhere.

It is fruitless for the following reasons. Evolution doesn't develop with purpose nor foresight. So to develop a theory of mind which has a purpose from such a jumble of things that tend to work together that have been acquired and developed over millions of years more or less by chance is just kind of wasted effort.

Thus Gould's spandrels and contingencies.

Of course evolution did not create the ability of humans to learn mathematics. There is no evolutionary pressure to do so. They never used it for most of their history.

So having the mathematical ability which serves a purpose can arise merely by chance.

The same could be true of any aspect of the human mind.

With a final woo woo I wish you well in your quest for God.

Bye-ee

 

[untermensche]

You can't just do away with the mind by talking about the activity of cells.

The mind is what knows Obama is the president of the US.

Not some cell or bunch of cells somewhere.



Thus Gould's spandrels and contingencies.

Of course evolution did not create the ability of humans to learn mathematics. There is no evolutionary pressure to do so. They never used it for most of their history.

So having the mathematical ability which serves a purpose can arise merely by chance.

The same could be true of any aspect of the human mind.

With a final woo woo I wish you well in your quest for God.

Bye-ee

I love it.

If you can't refute it you call it woo woo and pretend it isn't there. The mathematical ability exists despite there being no evolutionary pressure to create it.

You fail.

You have not convinced me with your mind you do not have one.

You merely have very bad ideas. The same kind of trap humans have been stuck in before. Alas all you have is a human mind.

Pretending to know something and really knowing nothing.

 

[beero1000]

I see that untermensche's Grand Proclamations of Obvious Truth^TM are still going strong. There are a few doozies in this thread, and from past experience there is very little hope of him doing anything but doubling down on them, no matter what. I especially like the juxtaposition of his simultaneous claims that "we don't know anything about how the mind works" and "this is obviously what the mind does". Puts things in perspective.

 

[untermensche]

I see that untermensche's Grand Proclamations of Obvious Truth^TM are still going strong. There are a few doozies in this thread, and from past experience there is very little hope of him doing anything but doubling down on them, no matter what. I especially like the juxtaposition of his simultaneous claims that "we don't know anything about how the mind works" and "this is obviously how the mind works". Puts things in perspective.

I notice you avoid anything resembling substance.

A third rate opinion.

But again evidence of a mind. Not a very good one but one none the less.

 

[ryan]

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.

There is evidence for unconscious decision-making, but there is no evidence for an unconscious veto of the decision, at least not that I can find anywhere.

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.

The point was that the unconscious decision might be a decision that I made but don't remember making.

 

[ryan]

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

There's an inner theater in my brain?

Now you're a dualist and I am the physicalist!

Now I get to ask, where is this theater. Or better yet, does the little person watching look like me?

 

[Juma]

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

There's an inner theater in my brain?

Now you're a dualist and I am the physicalist!

Now I get to ask, where is this theater. Or better yet, does the little person watching look like me?

No. i have never said that there is an inner theater. I mentioned the "inner theater" EFFECT. Sorry if that confused you.

 

[ryan]

There's an inner theater in my brain?

Now you're a dualist and I am the physicalist!

Now I get to ask, where is this theater. Or better yet, does the little person watching look like me?

No. i have never said that there is an inner theater. I mentioned the "inner theater" EFFECT. Sorry if that confused you.

How do you know this "effect" exists? How is this any different that untermensche's argument?

 

[Juma]

No. i have never said that there is an inner theater. I mentioned the "inner theater" EFFECT. Sorry if that confused you.

How do you know this "effect" exists? How is this any different that untermensche's argument?

I infer that everybody else experiences this effect because
1) they are the same species as I am.
2) we are all related.
3) people say things that make me beleive that they have this experience.
4) i have it.

The difference between what i say and what untermensch say is that he includes the mechanism behind the action on the screen. (Memory, vision, thought etc) which I see as rather trivial problems. Those are a more of a software problem.
No the real problem is the first person perspective in itself, or as I wrote allegorically: the "inner theater".

 

[ryan]

How do you know this "effect" exists? How is this any different that untermensche's argument?

I infer that everybody else experiences this effect because
1) they are the same species as I am.
2) we are all related.
3) people say things that make me beleive that they have this experience.
4) i have it.

The difference between what i say and what untermensch say is that he includes the mechanism behind the action on the screen. (Memory, vision, thought etc) which I see as rather trivial problems. Those are a more of a software problem.
No the real problem is the first person perspective in itself, or as I wrote allegorically: the "inner theater".

Subjectivity? The interaction of one thing with another is the movie. The brain and the outside world interact to create the movie, but nobody needs to be watching. Why does there have to be a movie and someone watching the movie? The movie exists the way the movie exists.

 

[DBT]

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".

That's not true. I have given descriptions of brain function that is related to the various features and aspects of what we call mind.

And that is far more detail than you have provided....which is none.

From the descriptions I have provided it's quite clear that it is the brain that's responsible for producing vision, hearing, smell, touch, taste through the means of its senses. To which it responds with thoughts, feelings, decisions - both conscious and unconscious - followed by actions.

All of this enabled by memory function and changed or destroyed by its loss, or mind altering substances, or lobotomy or electrical brain stimulation....all which can be expanded on in detail with case studies and experiments.

All of this shows that the brain is responsible, but we don't yet understand precisely how it does it.

Repeating ''useless generalities'' over and over is not an argument, nor does it help your case.

The same with repeating 'we know nothing about mind' therefore 'the brain is probably a receiver' - which is about as vague as it gets.

 

[DBT]

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.

No.

Your mind controls your brain.

You tell your arm to raise and it does.

Try it.

You still ignore all evidence to the contrary and just repeat your experience, an experience being generated by various regions of the brain working in concert to form conscious report of decisions and impending actions.


Quote;
When it comes to the human brain, even the simplest of acts can be counter-intuitive and deceptively complicated. For example, try stretching your arm.

Nerves in the limb send messages back to your brain, but the subjective experience you have of stretching isn't due to these signals. The feeling that you willed your arm into motion, and the realisation that you moved it at all, are both the result of an area at the back of your brain called the posterior parietal cortex. This region helped to produce the intention to move, and predicted what the movement would feel like, all before you twitched a single muscle.

Michel Desmurget and a team of French neuroscientists arrived at this conclusion by stimulating the brains of seven people with electrodes, while they underwent brain surgery under local anaesthetic. When Desmurget stimulated the parietal cortex, the patients felt a strong desire to move their arms, hands, feet or lips, although they never actually did. Stronger currents cast a powerful illusion, convincing the patients that they had actually moved, even though recordings of electrical activity in their muscles said otherwise.

But when Desmurget stimulated a different region - the premotor cortex - he found the opposite effect. The patients moved their hands, arms or mouths without realising it. One of them flexed his left wrist, fingers and elbow and rotated his forearm, but was completely unaware of it. When his surgeons asked if he felt anything, he said no. Higher currents evoked stronger movements, but still the patients remained blissfully unaware that their limbs and lips were budging.

 

[DBT]

There is evidence for unconscious decision-making, but there is no evidence for an unconscious veto of the decision, at least not that I can find anywhere.

A veto is a decision. A decision to alter a decision made milliseconds prior to new information feed rendering the first draft redundant, but only if the timing is right. If not, you feel regret at having made a bad decision. Regret you did not consciously choose to feel.

The point was that the unconscious decision might be a decision that I made but don't remember making.

The underlying information processing is unconscious up to the point that a thought or decision is made conscious: readiness potential.

 

[Juma]

I infer that everybody else experiences this effect because
1) they are the same species as I am.
2) we are all related.
3) people say things that make me beleive that they have this experience.
4) i have it.

The difference between what i say and what untermensch say is that he includes the mechanism behind the action on the screen. (Memory, vision, thought etc) which I see as rather trivial problems. Those are a more of a software problem.
No the real problem is the first person perspective in itself, or as I wrote allegorically: the "inner theater".

Subjectivity? The interaction of one thing with another is the movie. The brain and the outside world interact to create the movie, but nobody needs to be watching. Why does there have to be a movie and someone watching the movie? The movie exists the way the movie exists.

No, not the interaction. Just the pure experience of it.

 

[untermensche]

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".

That's not true. I have given descriptions of brain function that is related to the various features and aspects of what we call mind.

You have said there are "regions" that have "activity".

About as vague an answer as humanly possible.

A real answer would be to describe the specific cellular arrangement and what specifically it is doing to contribute to the mind, and how this "activity" differs from other "regions".

A real explanation would tell me if the mind is an electrical pattern, or a magnetic pattern, or some electrical effect, or a magnetic effect, or some quantum effect, or some kind of cellular effect or a combination of these effects somehow.

I know you are limited because we do not know this.

But honesty demands we admit it.

And if we don't know the specific answer to the questions above we can't say we know what a mind is.

And that is far more detail than you have provided....which is none.

I can talk all day about the nervous system. I worked for over 20 years with stroke patients. I can talk all day about the effects of brain damage.

But there is nothing to say about the human mind except we experience it and if the brain is damaged it will possibly have observable effects on the mind, but not always.

We have no real testable hypothesis for how a bunch of cells generates a mind. We are completely in the dark and may never figure it out.

From the descriptions I have provided it's quite clear that it is the brain that's responsible for producing vision, hearing, smell, touch, taste through the means of its senses. To which it responds with thoughts, feelings, decisions - both conscious and unconscious - followed by actions.

You say the brain is responsible and think you have explained something.

If I stub my toe my toe hurts. The damage to the toe is as responsible for the pain as my brain.

But the pain is something experienced which is not part of the brain or the toe.

And to experience pain requires that which experiences it. The mind.

All of this enabled by memory function and changed or destroyed by its loss, or mind altering substances, or lobotomy or electrical brain stimulation....all which can be expanded on in detail with case studies and experiments.

Again, nothing but damage studies. Which only tell you something is missing but don't tell you what or why.

Yes damage to the brain has an effect on memory, sometimes, but that is not an explanation of memory or a million miles away from an explanation of memory.

All of this shows that the brain is responsible, but we don't yet understand precisely how it does it.

If you don't know how a brain generates a mind you don't know what a mind is and you can make no statements about what the mind can do.

You cannot say if the mind acts "freely" or is "forced" in some way to do all the things it does. The only two possibilities.

 

[ryan]

A veto is a decision. A decision to alter a decision made milliseconds prior to new information feed rendering the first draft redundant, but only if the timing is right. If not, you feel regret at having made a bad decision. Regret you did not consciously choose to feel.

Unless you can find research that I can't find, there is still no physical evidence of readiness potential for the veto decision; it still appears to be free.

The point was that the unconscious decision might be a decision that I made but don't remember making.

The underlying information processing is unconscious up to the point that a thought or decision is made conscious: readiness potential.

Yes, and the readiness potential might have freely made the decision if QM is involved. Also, the readiness potential might be the same thing as the conscious "I" making it, except without recollection of making it.

 

[ryan]

Subjectivity? The interaction of one thing with another is the movie. The brain and the outside world interact to create the movie, but nobody needs to be watching. Why does there have to be a movie and someone watching the movie? The movie exists the way the movie exists.

No, not the interaction. Just the pure experience of it.

What? Everything experienced is in a constant interaction with something. The experience is the movie, but why does somebody/something have to be watching it?

 

[Juma]

No, not the interaction. Just the pure experience of it.

What? Everything experienced is in a constant interaction with something. The experience is the movie, but why does somebody/something have to be watching it?

So what? What is your point?

 

[ryan]

What? Everything experienced is in a constant interaction with something. The experience is the movie, but why does somebody/something have to be watching it?

So what? What is your point?

Answer the question, and you will see my point.