The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[Juma]

So what? What is your point?

Answer the question, and you will see my point.

Wtf? I'm not playing some fucking game here! What is your point?

 

[ryan]

Answer the question, and you will see my point.

Wtf? I'm not playing some fucking game here! What is your point?

Arrr

Why does something have to be observing the Cartesian theatre? If nobody watches the play, it doesn't mean that the play isn't happening. There is an experience of greenness regardless of whether or not something is observing it.

 

[Juma]

Wtf? I'm not playing some fucking game here! What is your point?

Arrr

Why does something have to be observing the Cartesian theatre? If nobody watches the play, it doesn't mean that the play isn't happening. There is an experience of greenness regardless of whether or not something is observing it.

The experience of greeness is the observation so wtf?

 

[ryan]

Arrr

Why does something have to be observing the Cartesian theatre? If nobody watches the play, it doesn't mean that the play isn't happening. There is an experience of greenness regardless of whether or not something is observing it.

The experience of greeness is the observation so wtf?

My mother f***ing idea is that greenness just exists as it is. Why do we need a f***ing homunculus?

 

[bilby]

The experience of greeness is the observation so wtf?

My mother f***ing idea is that greenness just exists as it is. Why do we need a f***ing homunculus?

If you two agree with each other any more forcefully, there will be blood on the floor.

Why can't you just agree to agree?

 

[fromderinside]

... there will be blood on the floor.

It's redwood mix fertilizer actually. Used for walkways and setting off green things.

 

[Juma]

My mother f***ing idea is that greenness just exists as it is. Why do we need a f***ing homunculus?

If you two agree with each other any more forcefully, there will be blood on the floor.

Why can't you just agree to agree?

That is exactly what I do, I dont know why ryan continues to make me a dualist.

 

[DBT]

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

I said far, far more than that. And provided about as much detail as needed to show that mind is the work of a brain.

But of course you aren't interested in the actual research on the relationship between neural structures, their connections and electrochemical information processing activity. Which is imaged and related to the conscious report of a subject which provides a brain map of thoughts associated with that activity.

You would rather repeat - ''we know nothing about mind, therefore the brain is a receiver'' - and you talk about vague!

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".

Which I have done, but it appears to have been ignored. Just ask all my requests for a detailed explanation for your beliefs. Which you never explain, instead just repeating the mantra, 'we know nothing about mind therefore the brain is a probably a receiver''

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.

How many times does it have to be explained that nobody knows how the brain forms its subjective mental experience of mind, being composed of vision, hearing, smell, touch, etc, with the associated thoughts, feelings, decisions and actions.

We don't know how, but it is clear that the brain is in fact doing it in response to its stimuli.

You can even generate perceptions, thoughts and feeling by applying electrical current to various regions of the brain. Which does not indicate disembodied mind beaming into a brain.

Quote;
Dr. Delgado's contention that brain research has reached a stage of refinement where it can contribute to the solution of some of these problems is based, he said, on many of his own experiments. These have shown, he explained, that "functions traditionally related to the psyche, such as friendliness, pleasure or verbal expression, can be induced, modified and inhibited by direct electrical stimulation of the brain."

For example, he has been able to "play" monkeys and cats 'like little electronic toys" that yawn, hide, fight, play, mate and go to sleep on command. And with humans under treatment for epilepsy, he has increased word output sixfold in one person, has produced severe anxiety in another, and in several others has induced feelings of profound friendliness—all by electrical stimulation of various specific regions of their brain.''

''An 11-year old boy underwent a partial change of identity upon remote stimulation of his brain electrode: Electrical stimulation of the superior temporal convolution induced confusion about his sexual identity. These effects were specific, reliable, and statistically significant. For example, the patient said, 'I was thinking whether I was a boy or a girl,' and 'I'd like to be a girl.'" After one of the stimulations the patient suddenly began to discuss his desire to marry the male interviewer. Temporal-lobe stimulation produced in another patient open manifestations and declarations of pleasure, accompanied by giggles and joking with the therapist. In two adult female patients stimulation of the same region was followed by discussion of marriage and expression of a wish to marry the therapist.''

 

[DBT]

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.

There is no research on veto function because the idea of non caused veto is bogus. It was a desperate attempt to salvage the idea of free will from the rubble of the research that dismantled it.

Veto is simply what I described, the ongoing activity of feeding and updating conscious experience with information. If a decision looks bad with fresh input, it is altered or dropped...if the timing allows it. If not, regret at having made a poor decision is experienced instead of 'veto'

There is no magical free agent roaming the system like a white knight freely editing what the brain is doing. The brain is doing it all on the basis of architecture, inputs and memory. If any of these fail, it's the end of mind.

 

[untermensche]

I said far, far more than that. And provided about as much detail as needed to show that mind is the work of a brain.

But of course you aren't interested in the actual research on the relationship between neural structures, their connections and electrochemical information processing activity. Which is imaged and related to the conscious report of a subject which provides a brain map of thoughts associated with that activity.

You would rather repeat - ''we know nothing about mind, therefore the brain is a receiver'' - and you talk about vague!

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".

Which I have done, but it appears to have been ignored. Just ask all my requests for a detailed explanation for your beliefs. Which you never explain, instead just repeating the mantra, 'we know nothing about mind therefore the brain is a probably a receiver''

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.

How many times does it have to be explained that nobody knows how the brain forms its subjective mental experience of mind, being composed of vision, hearing, smell, touch, etc, with the associated thoughts, feelings, decisions and actions.

We don't know how, but it is clear that the brain is in fact doing it in response to its stimuli.

You can even generate perceptions, thoughts and feeling by applying electrical current to various regions of the brain. Which does not indicate disembodied mind beaming into a brain.

Quote;
Dr. Delgado's contention that brain research has reached a stage of refinement where it can contribute to the solution of some of these problems is based, he said, on many of his own experiments. These have shown, he explained, that "functions traditionally related to the psyche, such as friendliness, pleasure or verbal expression, can be induced, modified and inhibited by direct electrical stimulation of the brain."

For example, he has been able to "play" monkeys and cats 'like little electronic toys" that yawn, hide, fight, play, mate and go to sleep on command. And with humans under treatment for epilepsy, he has increased word output sixfold in one person, has produced severe anxiety in another, and in several others has induced feelings of profound friendliness—all by electrical stimulation of various specific regions of their brain.''

''An 11-year old boy underwent a partial change of identity upon remote stimulation of his brain electrode: Electrical stimulation of the superior temporal convolution induced confusion about his sexual identity. These effects were specific, reliable, and statistically significant. For example, the patient said, 'I was thinking whether I was a boy or a girl,' and 'I'd like to be a girl.'" After one of the stimulations the patient suddenly began to discuss his desire to marry the male interviewer. Temporal-lobe stimulation produced in another patient open manifestations and declarations of pleasure, accompanied by giggles and joking with the therapist. In two adult female patients stimulation of the same region was followed by discussion of marriage and expression of a wish to marry the therapist.''

Yes, the brain is involved in some way. It would be just as involved if the mind was some "reception".

But this is a thread about "free will".

And to know if a mind can have an effect on the brain requires knowing what the mind is.

And there is a lot of evidence the mind can effect the brain. We see time and time again brain activity following some voluntary decision.

You really can't add anything about the mind here.

That would require knowing what it is.

 

[ryan]

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.

There is no research on veto function because the idea of non caused veto is bogus. It was a desperate attempt to salvage the idea of free will from the rubble of the research that dismantled it.

My argument uses an uncaused QM effect.

Veto is simply what I described, the ongoing activity of feeding and updating conscious experience with information. If a decision looks bad with fresh input, it is altered or dropped...if the timing allows it. If not, regret at having made a poor decision is experienced instead of 'veto'

But without any scientific evidence, you can't just use this argument to fill the gap and force your conclusion.

 

[fromderinside]

There is no research on veto function because the idea of non caused veto is bogus. It was a desperate attempt to salvage the idea of free will from the rubble of the research that dismantled it.

My argument uses an uncaused QM effect.

Remove time. No effect.

 

[Kharakov]

If you two agree with each other any more forcefully, there will be blood on the floor.

Why can't you just agree to agree?

That is exactly what I do, I dont know why ryan continues to make me a dualist.

It's an obvious reference to the fine tuning argument.

 

[DBT]

There is no research on veto function because the idea of non caused veto is bogus. It was a desperate attempt to salvage the idea of free will from the rubble of the research that dismantled it.

My argument uses an uncaused QM effect.

Which, as has been pointed out in several threads, has nothing to do with information processing and rational decision making...not being subject to what you may want or why you want it.

But without any scientific evidence, you can't just use this argument to fill the gap and force your conclusion.

That is funny, given the claims you make about uncaused QM effects. What I said, that brain state equates to output is well supported. I have given links and quotes to the research.

 

[DBT]

I said far, far more than that. And provided about as much detail as needed to show that mind is the work of a brain.

But of course you aren't interested in the actual research on the relationship between neural structures, their connections and electrochemical information processing activity. Which is imaged and related to the conscious report of a subject which provides a brain map of thoughts associated with that activity.

You would rather repeat - ''we know nothing about mind, therefore the brain is a receiver'' - and you talk about vague!




Which I have done, but it appears to have been ignored. Just ask all my requests for a detailed explanation for your beliefs. Which you never explain, instead just repeating the mantra, 'we know nothing about mind therefore the brain is a probably a receiver''

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.

How many times does it have to be explained that nobody knows how the brain forms its subjective mental experience of mind, being composed of vision, hearing, smell, touch, etc, with the associated thoughts, feelings, decisions and actions.

We don't know how, but it is clear that the brain is in fact doing it in response to its stimuli.

You can even generate perceptions, thoughts and feeling by applying electrical current to various regions of the brain. Which does not indicate disembodied mind beaming into a brain.

Quote;
Dr. Delgado's contention that brain research has reached a stage of refinement where it can contribute to the solution of some of these problems is based, he said, on many of his own experiments. These have shown, he explained, that "functions traditionally related to the psyche, such as friendliness, pleasure or verbal expression, can be induced, modified and inhibited by direct electrical stimulation of the brain."

For example, he has been able to "play" monkeys and cats 'like little electronic toys" that yawn, hide, fight, play, mate and go to sleep on command. And with humans under treatment for epilepsy, he has increased word output sixfold in one person, has produced severe anxiety in another, and in several others has induced feelings of profound friendliness—all by electrical stimulation of various specific regions of their brain.''

''An 11-year old boy underwent a partial change of identity upon remote stimulation of his brain electrode: Electrical stimulation of the superior temporal convolution induced confusion about his sexual identity. These effects were specific, reliable, and statistically significant. For example, the patient said, 'I was thinking whether I was a boy or a girl,' and 'I'd like to be a girl.'" After one of the stimulations the patient suddenly began to discuss his desire to marry the male interviewer. Temporal-lobe stimulation produced in another patient open manifestations and declarations of pleasure, accompanied by giggles and joking with the therapist. In two adult female patients stimulation of the same region was followed by discussion of marriage and expression of a wish to marry the therapist.''

Yes, the brain is involved in some way. It would be just as involved if the mind was some "reception".

Well, why not explain your proposition in some detail?

How is the brain involved? If mind exists independently of the brain, what need for the highly intricate wiring, specialist cells, synapses, dendrites, axons, chemical messengers, electrical signals, senses wired to processor structures and so on?

How does this relate to a receiver rather than what in appears to be, a collector and processor of information from the external world?

Can you offer an explanation?

 

[ryan]

My argument uses an uncaused QM effect.

Remove time. No effect.

That's a pretty big if, and my argument is only that it is scientifically and logically possible.

 

[ryan]

My argument uses an uncaused QM effect.

Which, as has been pointed out in several threads, has nothing to do with information processing and rational decision making...not being subject to what you may want or why you want it.

How quick you forget, https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf

But without any scientific evidence, you can't just use this argument to fill the gap and force your conclusion.

That is funny, given the claims you make about uncaused QM effects. What I said, that brain state equates to output is well supported. I have given links and quotes to the research.

I clearly meant that the action potential of the veto is still nonscientific.

 

[DBT]

Which, as has been pointed out in several threads, has nothing to do with information processing and rational decision making...not being subject to what you may want or why you want it.

How quick you forget, https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf

Nothing forgotten. It doesn't support your claim. You didn't succeed with it the last time it was brought up. Sorry.

I clearly meant that the action potential of the veto is still nonscientific.

Veto was just a word/concept used in an attempt to salvage the poorly defined notion of free will. Veto is itself a poorly defined notion.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, the brain is involved in some way. It would be just as involved if the mind was some "reception".

Well, why not explain your proposition in some detail?

How is the brain involved? If mind exists independently of the brain, what need for the highly intricate wiring, specialist cells, synapses, dendrites, axons, chemical messengers, electrical signals, senses wired to processor structures and so on?

How does this relate to a receiver rather than what in appears to be, a collector and processor of information from the external world?

Can you offer an explanation?

Well the neurons in unison create an incredibly intricate magnetic effect that attracts a mind transmission.

It's right there in the brain. Magnetic effects.

But if you damage the brain in any way you disrupt the transmission or the processing of the "mind transmission".

This has as much validity as your explanation for the generation of the mind. All you have is the knowledge that damage disrupts the process. You have no idea what a mind is.

 

[ryan]

How quick you forget, https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf

Nothing forgotten. It doesn't support your claim. You didn't succeed with it the last time it was brought up. Sorry.

Do you not believe that QM has any effect on what the neurons do?

I clearly meant that the action potential of the veto is still nonscientific.

Veto was just a word/concept used in an attempt to salvage the poorly defined notion of free will. Veto is itself a poorly defined notion.

A veto is a real thing; it is when people change their decision. I can't find any references supporting readiness potential for a veto.