The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[ryan]

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.

Judging by your response, you are not understanding my argument.

 

[fromderinside]

Oh I understand. You maintain a possibility based on the presumption that everything interacts and is noticable. Well, there is no evidence of indeterminacy (noticable or not) in the macro world so put your possibility on the shelf.

 

[ryan]

Oh I understand. You maintain a possibility based on the presumption that everything interacts and is noticable. Well, there is no evidence of indeterminacy (noticable or not) in the macro world so put your possibility on the shelf.

I would certainly notice myself vetoing a decision I make. We were talking about how the veto would work.

 

[DBT]

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.

It's not the sum of my understanding, but what I'm trying to point out to you, ie, the basics.

 

[Juma]

Oh I understand. You maintain a possibility based on the presumption that everything interacts and is noticable. Well, there is no evidence of indeterminacy (noticable or not) in the macro world so put your possibility on the shelf.

I would certainly notice myself vetoing a decision I make. We were talking about how the veto would work.

What? No you do not!

 

[ryan]

I would certainly notice myself vetoing a decision I make. We were talking about how the veto would work.

What? No you do not!

As it consciously happens, yes I would notice. This is assuming monism.

 

[fromderinside]

What? No you do not!

As it consciously happens, yes I would notice. This is assuming monism.

Assume what you want. Consciousness is a morality play put on by yourself for the benefit of others based on what you consider they think of you. Face it you don't want to be eaten. However you have no idea whether vetoes took place since what you have as consciousness is an after thee fact production. Most would call it a rationalization.

 

[DBT]

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

That is one definition of free will. It fails because regardless of decisions being forced or not all decisions are determined by unconscious processing, inputs, propagation, memory correlation, etc, before conscious experience is generated.

That is why you cannot deliberate, think or decide if the neural connections are not being made. The failure of memory function is the end of your conscious ability to think, decide to lift your arm, or anything else.

It is not that the machinery that you control is broken, therefore you can no longer control it so you just sit there like a driver who's car has stalled, but the machinery that forms you, your existence and experience is no longer able to do that.

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

Of course it is. I have provided the evidence that shows that any part of the process can be manipulated by electrical stimulation, lobotomy or drugs.

Again, its not that your vehicle that is being hijacked, you as the little man/mind who runs the show, but the very mechanism that forms you and your experience of conscious agency.

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.

There's that Homunculus again. It's a fallacy that was put to rest long ago. That it's still being invoked shows unfamiliarity with the subject matter;

''The homunculus argument is a fallacy arising most commonly in the theory of vision. One may explain (human) vision by noting that light from the outside world forms an image on the retinas in the eyes and something (or someone) in the brain looks at these images as if they are images on a movie screen (this theory of vision is sometimes termed the theory of the Cartesian Theater: it is most associated, nowadays, with the psychologist David Marr). The question arises as to the nature of this internal viewer. The assumption here is that there is a 'little man' or 'homunculus' inside the brain 'looking at' the movie.

The reason why this is a fallacy may be understood by asking how the homunculus 'sees' the internal movie. The obvious answer is that there is another homunculus inside the first homunculus's 'head' or 'brain' looking at this 'movie'. But how does this homunculus see the 'outside world'? In order to answer this, we are forced to posit another homunculus inside this other homunculus's head and so forth. In other words, we are in a situation of infinite regress. The problem with the homunculus argument is that it tries to account for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain.''


So, then, do you believe that this image is a representation of you and your autonomous mind/driver of the vehicle? It is the essence of your argument:

 

[DBT]

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

Nope. It's your interpretation of the presence and function of the quantum substrata of the brain that's flawed. You believe that it allows some greater freedom to to make decisions when it does no such thing. Quantum particle/waves are common to all brains from insects up to human, but each and every brain functions according to its overall neural architecture, producing a range of behaviours specific to a species and the individual members of a species according to genetic diversity and personal experience...not some vague notion of quantum 'free will' decisions.

 

[ryan]

There's that Homunculus again. It's a fallacy that was put to rest long ago.

But you seem to be using a homunculus every time you claim that the consciousness is somehow not affecting the output as it wills. If the consciousness is truly physical, then it gets a "say" in the final output. It's choice is in accordance with the operation it does.

Now if there is any possibility that it could have chosen otherwise (QM), then it's will has a certain degree of freedom.

 

[Juma]

What? No you do not!

As it consciously happens, yes I would notice. This is assuming monism.

No, since there is no "veto".
(Fromderinside has a very good explanation)

 

[fromderinside]

There's that Homunculus again. It's a fallacy that was put to rest long ago.

But you seem to be using a homunculus every time you claim that the consciousness is somehow not affecting the output as it wills. If the consciousness is truly physical, then it gets a "say" in the final output. It's choice is in accordance with the operation it does.

Now if there is any possibility that it could have chosen otherwise (QM), then it's will has a certain degree of freedom.

Consider that of what you are conscious has already taken place. When you are planning the future you are taking into account what you believe has happened in the past. If the past, recalled, requires you to reconsider what you thought because what you did in response was harmful to you then your thinking about the future is a veto of past consciousness and not a veto of an ongoing decision which takes place before you are aware that you have done something.

Got it?

 

[ryan]

But you seem to be using a homunculus every time you claim that the consciousness is somehow not affecting the output as it wills. If the consciousness is truly physical, then it gets a "say" in the final output. It's choice is in accordance with the operation it does.

Now if there is any possibility that it could have chosen otherwise (QM), then it's will has a certain degree of freedom.

Consider that of what you are conscious has already taken place. When you are planning the future you are taking into account what you believe has happened in the past. If the past, recalled, requires you to reconsider what you thought because what you did in response was harmful to you then your thinking about the future is a veto of past consciousness and not a veto of an ongoing decision which takes place before you are aware that you have done something.

Got it?

Right, it's like an observer at the front of the boat thinking he is steering it, but it's really just on autopilot.

But wait a minute; the person at the front of the boat is physical and affects what the boat does by being on it. Maybe if that person wasn't at the front of the boat, the boat would have moved differently.

Unless, you propose some kind of one-way causal duality.

 

[fromderinside]

Consider that of what you are conscious has already taken place. When you are planning the future you are taking into account what you believe has happened in the past. If the past, recalled, requires you to reconsider what you thought because what you did in response was harmful to you then your thinking about the future is a veto of past consciousness and not a veto of an ongoing decision which takes place before you are aware that you have done something.

Got it?

Right, it's like an observer at the front of the boat thinking he is steering it, but it's really just on autopilot.

But wait a minute; the person at the front of the boat is physical and affects what the boat does by being on it. Maybe if that person wasn't at the front of the boat, the boat would have moved differently.

Unless, you propose some kind of one-way causal duality.

If youse got the equipment like multiple control units youse don't need to think at all. Who cares if the boat might have moved differently. Its gonna move no matter where he is or what he does. Its a boat and it is guided by things and, surprise, it doesn't need to be you.

 

[ryan]

Right, it's like an observer at the front of the boat thinking he is steering it, but it's really just on autopilot.

But wait a minute; the person at the front of the boat is physical and affects what the boat does by being on it. Maybe if that person wasn't at the front of the boat, the boat would have moved differently.

Unless, you propose some kind of one-way causal duality.

Who cares if the boat might have moved differently.

Hhhhhh

 

[DBT]

There's that Homunculus again. It's a fallacy that was put to rest long ago.

But you seem to be using a homunculus every time you claim that the consciousness is somehow not affecting the output as it wills.

Check what I was responding to when I made my remark.

If the consciousness is truly physical, then it gets a "say" in the final output.

How could do that if it is being fed the very information that it is composed of while active? You imply that the information content of consciousness has autonomy of its own, which implies that consciousness itself is this homunculus that can regulate information and veto decisions. There is no veto as proposed by Libet.

 

[ryan]

But you seem to be using a homunculus every time you claim that the consciousness is somehow not affecting the output as it wills.

Check what I was responding to when I made my remark.

If the consciousness is truly physical, then it gets a "say" in the final output.

How could do that if it is being fed the very information that it is composed of while active? You imply that the information content of consciousness has autonomy of its own, which implies that consciousness itself is this homunculus that can regulate information and veto decisions. There is no veto as proposed by Libet.

Okay, please follow this analogy closely. It explains how the veto could work without magic.

Imagine a calm pond. There is a lily pad with a frog on it (the frog signifies the unconscious decision making). The frog starts to hop on the lily pad; it sends out ripples (the ripples are the effects from the unconscious decision). And there is a cattail plant growing out of the pond a short distance from the frog (the cattail signifies the physical consciousness). As the ripples move past the cattail, ripples are sent back to the frog. This would interfere with the ripples and would affect the frog's control.

 

[fromderinside]

Who cares if the boat might have moved differently.

Hhhhhh

Self reference is about as weak an argument as one can make. It all gets back to knowing which is something we can't.

 

[Treedbear]

...

If the consciousness is truly physical, then it gets a "say" in the final output.

How could do that if it is being fed the very information that it is composed of while active? You imply that the information content of consciousness has autonomy of its own, which implies that consciousness itself is this homunculus that can regulate information and veto decisions. There is no veto as proposed by Libet.

My as yet incomplete theory of consciousness is based on the idea that the primary function of the brain (or at least those regions more involved with cognition) is to create models of its environment through pattern recognition and extrapolation with modification. How it does this is the key to a full understanding. Somehow sensory inputs need to be compared with existing models. But I think it must be driven by the need to minimize anxiety-producing conflict and contradiction, which consumes excess energy and results in excessively high internal temperatures.

The concept of the self, or I, could just be another model that the brain has been working on since birth, based not just on the usual perception of sight, touch, hearing, etc, but also on all the internal inputs from the body. But I think it is primarily based on the models it creates of the external environment, such as early interactions with the immediate family. So the self is sort of an homunculus in the sense that its an internalized version of the person, but not the centralized source of will and motivation. It simply serves as a reference with which the various other functional regions of the brain interact with the purpose of predicting future actions. Although as an interactive reference it can certainly influence how these regions "regulate information and veto decisions".

My stab at what we call the hard problem, or the subjective quality of awareness, and how it occurs is that consciousness is the particular state in which the brain is comparing something in its environment with some aspect of this particular model. One can be aware subconsciously, but when the model of the self is involved we say we are conscious. Consciousness is not a thing, its a brain state. (I would say state of mind, since I define mind to include everything that a functional brain does, but this might be misconstrued by many.)

 

[ryan]

Hhhhhh

Self reference is about as weak an argument as one can make. It all gets back to knowing which is something we can't.

I don't know what you are talking about. I am trying to explain how the consciousness can affect/veto what choices are made in the future. It affects future choices by its own physical reaction to the consequences of the initial choice.