The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[ryan]

Not a concern in your example, but feedback loops still happen, even by a computer screen. It just isn't noticeable at the macro scale until the computer heats up too much. The second law of thermodynamics practically guarantees some kind of feedback.

Or try running an unbroken stream of water onto your hand. You might see water ripples actually go up from your hand to the spout, which sometimes after a while will actually change the way the water comes out of the spout.

So you are saying a computer screen pixel pattern display has the ability to direct how the computer processes information and feeds into that display and effects what images are on the screen?

The EM radiation from the screen will affect the computer.

You are saying that conscious representation being generated and sustained by information input from various regions of the brain into its 'global workspace' has the autonomy and the ability to direct the information flow that is generating it?

If the consciousness is a physical entity that requires much of the cerebral cortex, how could it not have some kind of an effect on what the unconsciousness decides?

No, but there might be certain filtered effects going out of the system and returning to the system.

Like what? What certain filtered effects? Is there a director of these proposed effects?

I said "filter", and you say "director". You are still thinking in terms of mind-body duality. My argument does not require a mind. Just think about it all in pure physical terms, and try not to let the mind be a part of my argument.

 

[fromderinside]

Maybe. However it's beyond measure.

Now don't go saying "Its possible then". If its beyond measure it's beyond detection by a sensor including the mind.

But the "cognitive feedback" from choices is much much much more significant and effective. The feedback is a reflection of our choices.

(no-op) loop.

Let me emphasize!!

 

[ryan]

But the "cognitive feedback" from choices is much much much more significant and effective. The feedback is a reflection of our choices.

(no-op) loop.

Let me emphasize!!

Let's not speak in mental terms, only physical, or we won't be able to communicate properly. I will put a bracket for the dual meaning for mental terms for each physical term.

If we take a part of the brain (mind) to be a physical object/process like everything else, we know it detects (knows) what the output is (the unconscious decision). As Libet showed, the output (the unconscious decision) makes its way to a different part of the cerebral cortex (consciousness) where, assuming monism, there must be a physical interaction. And this physical interaction must give off physical feedback that is detected (consciously or unconsciously) and may be reprocessed (vetoed by unconscious decision-making) accordingly. So it is the consciousness that would cause the decision to be vetoed depending on how it reacts with the output (decision).

I ague to DBT that the feedback might be a physical explanation to the veto instead of some invisible overseer directing what the physical brain does.

Whatever is being vetoed might mentally be what we call morals, such as vetoing the idea to steal. That's the mental explanation. The physical explanation would look like any physical feedback loop we would expect with the physical laws.

 

[fromderinside]

Let me emphasize!!

Let's not speak in mental terms, only physical, or we won't be able to communicate properly. I will put a bracket for the dual meaning for mental terms for each physical term.

If we take a part of the brain (mind) to be a physical object/process like everything else, we know it detects (knows) what the output is (the unconscious decision). As Libet showed, the output (the unconscious decision) makes its way to a different part of the cerebral cortex (consciousness) where, assuming monism, there must be a physical interaction. And this physical interaction must give off physical feedback that is detected (consciously or unconsciously) and may be reprocessed (vetoed by unconscious decision-making) accordingly. So it is the consciousness that would cause the decision to be vetoed depending on how it reacts with the output (decision).

I ague to DBT that the feedback might be a physical explanation to the veto instead of some invisible overseer directing what the physical brain does.

Whatever is being vetoed might mentally be what we call morals, such as vetoing the idea to steal. That's the mental explanation. The physical explanation would look like any physical feedback loop we would expect with the physical laws.

...and your fictional setup is related to natural science how? BTW: My view on morality is that it is built up justification augmented by social reinforcement for impulses to act other than what is expected in one's culture. Not based on reality, in any case, certainly not something of the brain.

 

[ryan]

Let's not speak in mental terms, only physical, or we won't be able to communicate properly. I will put a bracket for the dual meaning for mental terms for each physical term.

If we take a part of the brain (mind) to be a physical object/process like everything else, we know it detects (knows) what the output is (the unconscious decision). As Libet showed, the output (the unconscious decision) makes its way to a different part of the cerebral cortex (consciousness) where, assuming monism, there must be a physical interaction. And this physical interaction must give off physical feedback that is detected (consciously or unconsciously) and may be reprocessed (vetoed by unconscious decision-making) accordingly. So it is the consciousness that would cause the decision to be vetoed depending on how it reacts with the output (decision).

I ague to DBT that the feedback might be a physical explanation to the veto instead of some invisible overseer directing what the physical brain does.

Whatever is being vetoed might mentally be what we call morals, such as vetoing the idea to steal. That's the mental explanation. The physical explanation would look like any physical feedback loop we would expect with the physical laws.

...and your fictional setup is related to natural science how? BTW: My view on morality is that it is built up justification augmented by social reinforcement for impulses to act other than what is expected in one's culture. Not based on reality, in any case, certainly not something of the brain.

Please read what I put.

 

[DBT]

Your interpretation is based on your own preconceived belief about mind and not the significance of the experiments or the evidence.

Just as a matter of interest...what do you believe is the source of the mind?

I think the mind is some effect created by some activity of the nervous system.

That is what the evidence supports. More specifically, mind being an effect created by the central processor of the nervous system, the brain.

But the effect and the activity are unknown. We do know a lot about the activity of the nervous system but we don't have any idea how any of this activity results in an experienced mind.

We know what the features and attributes of mind are because it is our daily experience from the moment the brain animates us/mind,consciousness/self awareness in the morning as a means of interacting with the World until at night we are switched off.

The features and attributes of mind/consciousness/self awareness being the ability to perceive the world and oneself and to think, feel and respond....all an effect - as you acknowledge - of the central nervous system and specifically it brain.

We can disrupt the activity with artificial stimulation or damage, and we can see the effects of this disruption.

But that tells us nothing about what specific activity is involved or what specific effect the activity is creating.

And I also think the mind can control the brain. This is clearly seen every time I willfully move or willfully express an idea. How it can do this is also unknown.

You still ignore all evidence to the contrary. What you wilfully do is a part of the production which you the experience have no access to or control over. Something goes wrong with the mechanism of production and your perceived free will ability to wilfully lift your arm or do this or that is over, disabled. Just like the brain turns you on in the morning and switches you off at night, your sense of agency is destroyed along with the mechanism that is producing it, the central nervous system/brain, as you have stated.

 

[DBT]

So you are saying a computer screen pixel pattern display has the ability to direct how the computer processes information and feeds into that display and effects what images are on the screen?

The EM radiation from the screen will affect the computer.

In ways that it itself chooses? In ways that benefits its own hopes, dreams, fears and desires?

 

[ryan]

The EM radiation from the screen will affect the computer.

In ways that it itself chooses? In ways that benefits its own hopes, dreams, fears and desires?

If you want to understand what I am talking about, read the following.

I will put a bracketed dual meaning for mental terms for each physical term.

If we take a part of the brain (mind) to be a physical object/process like everything else, we know it detects (knows) what the output (the unconscious decision) is. As Libet showed, the output (the unconscious decision) makes its way to a different part of the cerebral cortex (consciousness) where, assuming monism, there must be a physical interaction. And this physical interaction must give off physical feedback that is detected (consciously or unconsciously) and may be reprocessed (vetoed by unconscious decision-making) accordingly. So it is the consciousness that would cause the decision to be vetoed depending on how it reacts with the output (decision).

I argue that the feedback might be a physical explanation to the veto instead of some invisible overseer directing what the physical brain does.

Whatever is being vetoed might mentally be what we call morals, such as vetoing the idea to steal. That's the mental explanation. The physical explanation would look like any physical feedback loop we would expect with the physical laws.

 

[DBT]

In ways that it itself chooses? In ways that benefits its own hopes, dreams, fears and desires?

If you want to understand what I am talking about, read the following.

I will put a bracketed dual meaning for mental terms for each physical term.

If we take a part of the brain (mind) to be a physical object/process like everything else, we know it detects (knows) what the output (the unconscious decision) is. As Libet showed, the output (the unconscious decision) makes its way to a different part of the cerebral cortex (consciousness) where, assuming monism, there must be a physical interaction. And this physical interaction must give off physical feedback that is detected (consciously or unconsciously) and may be reprocessed (vetoed by unconscious decision-making) accordingly. So it is the consciousness that would cause the decision to be vetoed depending on how it reacts with the output (decision).

I argue that the feedback might be a physical explanation to the veto instead of some invisible overseer directing what the physical brain does.

Whatever is being vetoed might mentally be what we call morals, such as vetoing the idea to steal. That's the mental explanation. The physical explanation would look like any physical feedback loop we would expect with the physical laws.

Yet your wording reflects a meaning that I expressed and not what you wish me to understand. Not only is your wording problematic, but the implications support duality and autonomy of mind from brain...just like as if the screen display is indeed influencing what the computer is doing in ways that suit the needs of the display.

For example, when you say - ''if we take a part of the brain (mind) to be a physical object/process like everything else, we know it detects (knows) what the output (the unconscious decision) is'' - the implication of ''we know it detects'' it is this 'detects' that implies senses of its own, the ability to sense or detect unconscious activity....which is not how it works.

 

[untermensche]

And I also think the mind can control the brain. This is clearly seen every time I willfully move or willfully express an idea. How it can do this is also unknown.

You still ignore all evidence to the contrary. What you wilfully do is a part of the production which you the experience have no access to or control over. Something goes wrong with the mechanism of production and your perceived free will ability to wilfully lift your arm or do this or that is over, disabled. Just like the brain turns you on in the morning and switches you off at night, your sense of agency is destroyed along with the mechanism that is producing it, the central nervous system/brain, as you have stated.

No. What I willfully do is a choice I make, not my brain. I have no awareness of what the brain is doing and the brain has no coherent picture of the present world, only my mind understands that. The mind is the coherent whole of all the stimulation received by the brain. It has information the brain can't comprehend. My mind knows who the president is and what a president is, not my brain. My brain receives stimulation and tries to turn it into something the mind can make sense of.

My brain follows my commands. I tell it to lift my arm and it does.

Every time.

There is no evidence to say otherwise.

If you can't lift your arm at "will" then you have suffered some kind of damage.

 

[ryan]

If you want to understand what I am talking about, read the following.

I will put a bracketed dual meaning for mental terms for each physical term.

If we take a part of the brain (mind) to be a physical object/process like everything else, we know it detects (knows) what the output (the unconscious decision) is. As Libet showed, the output (the unconscious decision) makes its way to a different part of the cerebral cortex (consciousness) where, assuming monism, there must be a physical interaction. And this physical interaction must give off physical feedback that is detected (consciously or unconsciously) and may be reprocessed (vetoed by unconscious decision-making) accordingly. So it is the consciousness that would cause the decision to be vetoed depending on how it reacts with the output (decision).

I argue that the feedback might be a physical explanation to the veto instead of some invisible overseer directing what the physical brain does.

Whatever is being vetoed might mentally be what we call morals, such as vetoing the idea to steal. That's the mental explanation. The physical explanation would look like any physical feedback loop we would expect with the physical laws.

Yet your wording reflects a meaning that I expressed and not what you wish me to understand. Not only is your wording problematic, but the implications support duality and autonomy of mind from brain...just like as if the screen display is indeed influencing what the computer is doing in ways that suit the needs of the display.

For example, when you say - ''if we take a part of the brain (mind) to be a physical object/process like everything else, we know it detects (knows) what the output (the unconscious decision) is'' - the implication of ''we know it detects'' it is this 'detects' that implies senses of its own, the ability to sense or detect unconscious activity....which is not how it works.

I am trying to only use physical terms while showing the mental terms that run dual with the physical terms so that there is no ambiguity or confusion. Think of everything in the brackets as something a dualist would say, but I am not acknowledging their dual meaning.

Now, as Libet showed, there is activity prior to a certain part of the cerebral cortex (consciousness) reacting (acknowledging) how a different part of the brain (unconsciousness) affected it (consciousness).

But, as we see, the "certain part of the cerebral cortex" (consciousness) is physical too. Unless we are dealing with a ghost in the machine, we have to assume that it (consciousness) has a physical effect (possibly a veto) on the activity (choice).

This is just how a veto might exist without the need of any dual approaches.

 

[DBT]

You still ignore all evidence to the contrary. What you wilfully do is a part of the production which you the experience have no access to or control over. Something goes wrong with the mechanism of production and your perceived free will ability to wilfully lift your arm or do this or that is over, disabled. Just like the brain turns you on in the morning and switches you off at night, your sense of agency is destroyed along with the mechanism that is producing it, the central nervous system/brain, as you have stated.

No. What I willfully do is a choice I make, not my brain. I have no awareness of what the brain is doing and the brain has no coherent picture of the present world, only my mind understands that.

Yet it is the brain that switches you off at night and reanimates you every morning. And if the brain is effected by alcohol or drugs, it is you that experience the effects, synapses fail to connect, it is your experience that you can't recall a name, where you placed your keys and so on. Funny that. Funny that you think it is the mind that rules the very mechanism that is shaping, forming and generating mind.

My brain follows my commands. I tell it to lift my arm and it does.

Every time.

There is no evidence to say otherwise.

If you can't lift your arm at "will" then you have suffered some kind of damage.

Unless the brain is damaged in a specific way the effects motor action, then you find that you can't lift your arm or do anything no matter how much you try to will the action.

Sorry, you have no case to argue.

 

[DBT]

Yet your wording reflects a meaning that I expressed and not what you wish me to understand. Not only is your wording problematic, but the implications support duality and autonomy of mind from brain...just like as if the screen display is indeed influencing what the computer is doing in ways that suit the needs of the display.

For example, when you say - ''if we take a part of the brain (mind) to be a physical object/process like everything else, we know it detects (knows) what the output (the unconscious decision) is'' - the implication of ''we know it detects'' it is this 'detects' that implies senses of its own, the ability to sense or detect unconscious activity....which is not how it works.

I am trying to only use physical terms while showing the mental terms that run dual with the physical terms so that there is no ambiguity or confusion. Think of everything in the brackets as something a dualist would say, but I am not acknowledging their dual meaning.

Now, as Libet showed, there is activity prior to a certain part of the cerebral cortex (consciousness) reacting (acknowledging) how a different part of the brain (unconsciousness) affected it (consciousness).

But, as we see, the "certain part of the cerebral cortex" (consciousness) is physical too. Unless we are dealing with a ghost in the machine, we have to assume that it (consciousness) has a physical effect (possibly a veto) on the activity (choice).

This is just how a veto might exist without the need of any dual approaches.

There must necessarily be activity in the form of sensory information entering the system via the senses, converted to nerve impulses, transmitted to the related region, visual cortex, auditory, etc, propagated, correlated with memory, before that information can be represented in conscious form. The physics of the process is inescapable. Unconscious activity must occur before conscious representation of information about the external world and one's relationship to its events.

There is no escaping the fact that the preceding activity is the shaper and former of what is to be experienced consciously milliseconds after the event. That is why conscious 'free will' is an illusion formed by the absence of feedback between consciousness and its unconscious production mechanisms.

 

[untermensche]

No. What I willfully do is a choice I make, not my brain. I have no awareness of what the brain is doing and the brain has no coherent picture of the present world, only my mind understands that.

Yet it is the brain that switches you off at night and reanimates you every morning. And if the brain is effected by alcohol or drugs, it is you that experience the effects, synapses fail to connect, it is your experience that you can't recall a name, where you placed your keys and so on. Funny that. Funny that you think it is the mind that rules the very mechanism that is shaping, forming and generating mind.

Sleep is far more complicated in terms of the mind than "switching me off".

If I am "off" how is I can many times remember dreams?

And I agree, drugs are like temporary damage. They throw off normal processing. Which tells us nothing about normal processing.

My brain follows my commands. I tell it to lift my arm and it does.

Every time.

There is no evidence to say otherwise.

If you can't lift your arm at "will" then you have suffered some kind of damage.

Unless the brain is damaged in a specific way the effects motor action, then you find that you can't lift your arm or do anything no matter how much you try to will the action.

Sorry, you have no case to argue.

Yes, damage has an effect on the ability of the mind to control the brain, or the ability of the brain to control the body.

But what happens with damage does not negate what happens without it.

It's like saying the driver does not control steering because if you damage the steering mechanism the driver no longer controls the car.

And without damage I "will" my arm to rise with my mind and it does. Every time.

 

[ryan]

I am trying to only use physical terms while showing the mental terms that run dual with the physical terms so that there is no ambiguity or confusion. Think of everything in the brackets as something a dualist would say, but I am not acknowledging their dual meaning.

Now, as Libet showed, there is activity prior to a certain part of the cerebral cortex (consciousness) reacting (acknowledging) how a different part of the brain (unconsciousness) affected it (consciousness).

But, as we see, the "certain part of the cerebral cortex" (consciousness) is physical too. Unless we are dealing with a ghost in the machine, we have to assume that it (consciousness) has a physical effect (possibly a veto) on the activity (choice).

This is just how a veto might exist without the need of any dual approaches.

There must necessarily be activity in the form of sensory information entering the system via the senses, converted to nerve impulses, transmitted to the related region, visual cortex, auditory, etc, propagated, correlated with memory, before that information can be represented in conscious form. The physics of the process is inescapable.

Yes, the physics is all I want to talk about. I tried to stress that more than anything in my last two posts.

Unconscious activity must occur before conscious representation of information about the external world and one's relationship to its events.

Yes, that is why I used the Libet experiments in my last two posts.

There is no escaping the fact that the preceding activity is the shaper and former of what is to be experienced consciously milliseconds after the event. That is why conscious 'free will' is an illusion formed by the absence of feedback between consciousness and its unconscious production mechanisms.

What would you say is the physical interpretation of "experienced" as you put it? This is so we can speak in physical terms and not the dual interpretation.

 

[DBT]

Yet it is the brain that switches you off at night and reanimates you every morning. And if the brain is effected by alcohol or drugs, it is you that experience the effects, synapses fail to connect, it is your experience that you can't recall a name, where you placed your keys and so on. Funny that. Funny that you think it is the mind that rules the very mechanism that is shaping, forming and generating mind.

Sleep is far more complicated in terms of the mind than "switching me off". If I am "off" how is I can many times remember dreams?

I didn't say it wasn't more complicated. But essentially you are put to sleep or 'switched off' for the night. This doesn't mean you don't wake up during the night (not because you decided to) or that dreams are not conscious at times.

But 'your' dream self is not the same as 'your' awake self, which unlike your awake self can experience flying or battling monsters and all sorts of impossible things.

The point being that the whole show is being performed by the brain and experienced by the brains day worker Avatar where consciousness sometimes spills into dream states. And if the motivation is there, training is possible to be aware of Lucid dreams and gain some sense of agency as in the awake state. But of course the rules differ.

And I agree, drugs are like temporary damage. They throw off normal processing. Which tells us nothing about normal processing.

It tells a lot about normal processing, what effects it, how it is effected and by what, which elements and events effect the brain in which specific way, which in turn is experienced in conscious form.

All of which supports the brain as the sole agent of conscious experience of self, thought, deliberation and actions taken.

Yes, damage has an effect on the ability of the mind to control the brain, or the ability of the brain to control the body.

But what happens with damage does not negate what happens without it.

It's like saying the driver does not control steering because if you damage the steering mechanism the driver no longer controls the car.

And without damage I "will" my arm to rise with my mind and it does. Every time.

Without damage the brain is able to function as it normally should, therefore you experience these abilities. Once damaged, you have no agency and all your abilities evaporate. That is the hard truth. There is no autonomous driver of the brain. Your idea of the presence of an homunculus in the form of 'mind' controlling brain was refuted long ago.

 

[DBT]

What would you say is the physical interpretation of "experienced" as you put it? This is so we can speak in physical terms and not the dual interpretation.

How conscious experience is formed by a brain is not understood, but it is clear that it is the electrochemical activity of a brain that generates conscious experience in the form of sensory information, vision, hearing and so on, and associated feelings, thoughts, decisions and actions. All of which can be isolated, vision loss but improved hearing to compensate, the ability to think but lack empathy or feeling as with sociopaths.

This is not the work of quantum, but the whole system working in concert to produce consciousness in response to the challenges being presented by our environment, not quantum states, but the macro world of people and things and their relationships.

 

[untermensche]

Sleep is far more complicated in terms of the mind than "switching me off". If I am "off" how is I can many times remember dreams?

I didn't say it wasn't more complicated. But essentially you are put to sleep or 'switched off' for the night. This doesn't mean you don't wake up during the night (not because you decided to) or that dreams are not conscious at times.

But 'your' dream self is not the same as 'your' awake self, which unlike your awake self can experience flying or battling monsters and all sorts of impossible things.

The point being that the whole show is being performed by the brain and experienced by the brains day worker Avatar where consciousness sometimes spills into dream states. And if the motivation is there, training is possible to be aware of Lucid dreams and gain some sense of agency as in the awake state. But of course the rules differ.

Your understanding here is equivalent to any man or woman on the street.

You know something happens to the mind during sleep, but you don't know what the mind is nor do you know what happens to it.

Nor is any of this evidence I don't control my brain with my mind with voluntary movement or expression.

This appears some smoke screen to move away from the matter, voluntary movement and expression.

There is no evidence it is forced in any way. Thus the whole concept of "free will" arises.

And I agree, drugs are like temporary damage. They throw off normal processing. Which tells us nothing about normal processing.

It tells a lot about normal processing, what effects it, how it is effected and by what, which elements and events effect the brain in which specific way, which in turn is experienced in conscious form.

All of which supports the brain as the sole agent of conscious experience of self, thought, deliberation and actions taken.

Again, not in any way evidence I don't control my brain with my mind with voluntary movement and expression.

More smoke. Disrupting the brain will effect the mind, but that does not tell us what the mind is, what specific process is creating it and how.

Without damage the brain is able to function as it normally should, therefore you experience these abilities. Once damaged, you have no agency and all your abilities evaporate. That is the hard truth. There is no autonomous driver of the brain. Your idea of the presence of an homunculus in the form of 'mind' controlling brain was refuted long ago.

I damage the steering mechanism of the car and I no longer have agency over the car.

That doesn't mean I don't have agency over it when it is intact.

Your argument is illogical.

 

[fromderinside]

...and your fictional setup is related to natural science how? BTW: My view on morality is that it is built up justification augmented by social reinforcement for impulses to act other than what is expected in one's culture. Not based on reality, in any case, certainly not something of the brain.

Please read what I put.

Since I had already put two arguments, scientifically validated arguments, up against your fiction, your argument has already been demolished ..... evidence versus lack of same and all that.

 

[ryan]

What would you say is the physical interpretation of "experienced" as you put it? This is so we can speak in physical terms and not the dual interpretation.

How conscious experience is formed by a brain is not understood, but it is clear that it is the electrochemical activity of a brain that generates conscious experience in the form of sensory information, vision, hearing and so on, and associated feelings, thoughts, decisions and actions. All of which can be isolated, vision loss but improved hearing to compensate, the ability to think but lack empathy or feeling as with sociopaths.

It seems that the problem here might be that you believe in a consciousness that can be affected but cannot affect the physical world. That is epiphenominalism duality where mental events are caused by the physical but cannot affect the physical. Monism gets rid of these strange and complicated problems. To see the consciousness monistically is to know where my argument is coming from.

This is not the work of quantum, but the whole system working in concert to produce consciousness in response to the challenges being presented by our environment, not quantum states, but the macro world of people and things and their relationships.

Well then you are stuck and not willing to accept the science of it all.