The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[untermensche]

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.

But your understanding is not any kind of understanding.

To go to sleep is not to have the brain turn something off.

It is to have the mind submit to "sleep".

It is an act of "will". Not merely some brain event.

And we all know this.

Any explanation cannot be an explanation if it doesn't explain what is actually happening.

 

[untermensche]

That is one definition of free will.

It's not a definition. Not being forced is an essential feature of "freedom".

And it is an either/or situation.

If one is not forced to do something then what one does is done "freely".

If I am not forced in some way, not merely compelled but actually forced, to write the next sentence then my writing of it is a "free" choice.

Those that claim that free choices are not possible must then demonstrate in some way that all choices are forced in some way. Because if choices are not forced they are "freely" made.

And we make choices with our minds, not our brains. Our minds know that a green light means "go", not our brains. Our brains "know" nothing. They merely respond to stimulation, even stimulation from the mind. If something is "known" it is known by a mind.

A mind is a "secretion" of the brain, like bile is a secretion of the liver.

Bile is not the liver and the mind is not the brain.

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's a mighty bold statement from somebody who does not have one clue what a mind is.

You know nothing but throw around a few very ambiguous and undefined terms (processing, memory, conscious experience) and think you know all that is necessary. It is astounding.

What is more astounding is you do it all with your mind but are blind to the fact you have one doing it.

But certainly blindness is an aspect of the human mind. It does not have access to all information and must learn logic.

That is why you cannot deliberate, think or decide if the neural connections are not being made.

Saying thought and the consequences of thought are not possible if the mechanisms that give rise to thought or act as a result of thought are damaged is not in any way surprising or informative beyond saying the mechanisms are delicate.

And it says absolutely nothing about the fact that I can move my arm at "will".

I assume I can do it because my brain is intact.

But that doesn't explain by a mile HOW I am doing it. How my mind causes my arm to move.

That would be the thing to explain. Then we would have an explanation that matches the phenomena.

The failure of memory function is the end of your conscious ability to think, decide to lift your arm, or anything else.

You seem to be a one trick pony.

The same bad logic over and over.

You can't explain what is happening in an intact brain by talking about what can't happen in a damaged brain.

The mind moves the arm. We all know it. We all, that can move, know it better than we know many things.

The only real question for science is: How does the mind move the arm?

To pretend it doesn't is just to run away from anything useful in terms of understanding what a mind is.

Which is my whole thesis: Mind as mechanism.

And the denial of mind as mechanism is just voodoo. It has no correspondence to experienced phenomena. Like denying all languages have similar features that go beyond conscious construction.

It is not that the machinery that you control is broken

What machinery might you be talking about?

You know no machinery. You know cells and neurotransmitters and electrical activity and areas of "activity".

You know no neural mechanisms, like the mechanism that creates the color blue the mind experiences. Or the mechanisms that create the understanding Obama is the US president in the mind.

You don't know what the mind is so you can not speak to what is or is not necessary for it to control other parts of the brain. From within.

From total ignorance of what the mind actually is you make all kinds of religious statements about it. You have a strange religion, and like many religions I know you didn't create it.

The religion that denies the mind can move the arm at "will". Without knowing what the mind is or what "will" is.

Sorry, an area "lighting up" when the mind knows a decision will possibly be made soon doesn't cut it as evidence of anything except a mind preparing to act.

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.

This is not logic.

It is not logical to say I can't lift my arm at "will" because you can do artificial and external things to the brain to stop it.

It makes as much sense as saying: You can't walk after I break your legs; therefore you really never could walk.

The poor logic is so glaring it is again astounding.

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

Absurd! Nothing about the mind has been put to rest. The phenomena of "mind" isn't understood at all.

And of course the argument is not for a homunculus. It is for a mind. Something without shape or form. So it cannot be a "little man"

But it can control a homunculus.

 

[DBT]

untermensche, it's a waste of time. You believe what you want to believe regardless of all evidence to the contrary....which you either dismiss, misrepresent or ignore in order to support your position that 'nothing is known about the mind' yet you apparently 'know' that mind is the driver of the brain on the basis of your subjective experience of conscious agency, which has been shown to be the input of multiple brain regions, and not an autonomous mind.

 

[DBT]

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".

There lies the problem....the issue of how something that the brain is forming and generating, a mental/conscious experience of the external world and self awareness (identity, language, culture, past experiences, etc) somehow autonomously 'influence' what the brain is doing.....of course the mere presence of this information within the system does indeed influence output.

But not as as a presence of an independent agent capable of vetoing decisions and directing brain output in order to meet the needs of its own 'free will' as some folks would have it.

 

[DBT]

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.

How does this relate to a meaningful veto? Your example entails interference rather than decision making. Something that would be experienced as a momentary disruption in a train of thought.

 

[untermensche]

untermensche, it's a waste of time. You believe what you want to believe regardless of all evidence to the contrary....which you either dismiss, misrepresent or ignore in order to support your position that 'nothing is known about the mind' yet you apparently 'know' that mind is the driver of the brain on the basis of your subjective experience of conscious agency, which has been shown to be the input of multiple brain regions, and not an autonomous mind.

You are using your mind to deny you have one.

If you were born paralyzed I can understand your difficulty.

If not, you have no excuse to deny the fact that you can move your body with your mind.

It is one thing a person with a mind understands well.

And there is no evidence to say otherwise. None to even suggest otherwise.

 

[Kharakov]

untermensche, it's a waste of time. You believe what you want to believe regardless of all evidence to the contrary....which you either dismiss, misrepresent or ignore in order to support your position that 'nothing is known about the mind' yet you apparently 'know' that mind is the driver of the brain on the basis of your subjective experience of conscious agency, which has been shown to be the input of multiple brain regions, and not an autonomous mind.

You are using your mind to deny you have one.

If you were born paralyzed I can understand your difficulty.

If not, you have no excuse to deny the fact that you can move your body with your mind.

It is one thing a person with a mind understands well.

And there is no evidence to say otherwise. None to even suggest otherwise.

Your mind is your body, although not all bodies move united with it at all times.

 

[ryan]

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.

How does this relate to a meaningful veto? Your example entails interference rather than decision making. Something that would be experienced as a momentary disruption in a train of thought.

If you don't separate the mind from its physical construct and mechanism, you will see that your mind is what it's doing mechanically.

 

[DBT]

untermensche, it's a waste of time. You believe what you want to believe regardless of all evidence to the contrary....which you either dismiss, misrepresent or ignore in order to support your position that 'nothing is known about the mind' yet you apparently 'know' that mind is the driver of the brain on the basis of your subjective experience of conscious agency, which has been shown to be the input of multiple brain regions, and not an autonomous mind.

You are using your mind to deny you have one.

There seems to be a complete disconnect between what I am actually saying and what you believe I am saying.

I have never said that there is no mind, just that your expressions of 'you' having a 'mind' or mind that has some degree of autonomy from the brain and its mind forming activity is false.

 

[ryan]

You are using your mind to deny you have one.

There seems to be a complete disconnect between what I am actually saying and what you believe I am saying.

I have never said that there is no mind, just that your expressions of 'you' having a 'mind' or mind that has some degree of autonomy from the brain and its mind forming activity is false.

Do you believe that there is a mind in addition to the processes it arises from?

 

[untermensche]

You are using your mind to deny you have one.

There seems to be a complete disconnect between what I am actually saying and what you believe I am saying.

I have never said that there is no mind, just that your expressions of 'you' having a 'mind' or mind that has some degree of autonomy from the brain and its mind forming activity is false.

The mind has control over the brain because the mind understands the obstacles in front of it, not the brain. The brain does not "know". It just "does".

Humans are not robots as you claim.

They control their bodies and their expressions with their minds.

And any science that denies that denies clear phenomena and is therefore useless.

 

[untermensche]

You are using your mind to deny you have one.

If you were born paralyzed I can understand your difficulty.

If not, you have no excuse to deny the fact that you can move your body with your mind.

It is one thing a person with a mind understands well.

And there is no evidence to say otherwise. None to even suggest otherwise.

Your mind is your body, although not all bodies move united with it at all times.

No the body is the body.

And the mind has a degree of control over the body.

The mind can make the arm go up and down.

Try it.

 

[Juma]

Your mind is your body, although not all bodies move united with it at all times.

No the body is the body.

And the mind has a degree of control over the body.

The mind can make the arm go up and down.

Try it.

Lol. You are funny.

 

[ryan]

Your mind is your body, although not all bodies move united with it at all times.

No the body is the body.

And the mind has a degree of control over the body.

The mind can make the arm go up and down.

Try it.

If the mind, not being a part of the body, controls the body, isn't that like a ghost controlling a machine? There would have to be effects without any observable causes, right?

 

[untermensche]

No the body is the body.

And the mind has a degree of control over the body.

The mind can make the arm go up and down.

Try it.

If the mind, not being a part of the body, controls the body, isn't that like a ghost controlling a machine? There would have to be effects without any observable causes, right?

The body is no machine.

QM and all that.

The body is a ghost too. No more machines.

A ghost acting on a ghost.

But to deny it is to deny you can lift your arm at will. Insanity.

 

[Juma]

If the mind, not being a part of the body, controls the body, isn't that like a ghost controlling a machine? There would have to be effects without any observable causes, right?

The body is no machine.

QM and all that.

The body is a ghost too. No more machines.

A ghost acting on a ghost.

But to deny it is to deny you can lift your arm at will. Insanity.

You have very low thoughts about machines. Why?

 

[untermensche]

The body is no machine.

QM and all that.

The body is a ghost too. No more machines.

A ghost acting on a ghost.

But to deny it is to deny you can lift your arm at will. Insanity.

You have very low thoughts about machines. Why?

The universe is not a machines as Descartes thought of as machine.

As gears touching one another or levers moving one another.

Newton showed that the universe is not a machine. Bodies can act upon one another at a distance.

And of course QM has reduced everything to mathematical abstractions like fields and wave functions. No machines at all.

There are no more machines. So there cannot be any ghosts in machines.

There is this thing "mind" that the brain "secretes".

And it is up to science to explain this phenomena. Not pretend the phenomena doesn't exist.

Again, I know it is repetitive but it is simple logic and can't be run away from.

To have experience requires BOTH that which experiences and that which it experiences.

 

[Juma]

You have very low thoughts about machines. Why?

The universe is not a machines as Descartes thought of as machine.

As gears touching one another or levers moving one another.

Newton showed that the universe is not a machine. Bodies can act upon one another at a distance.

And of course QM has reduced everything to mathematical abstractions like fields and wave functions. No machines at all.

There are no more machines. So there cannot be any ghosts in machines.

There is this thing "mind" that the brain "secretes".

And it is up to science to explain this phenomena. Not pretend the phenomena doesn't exist.

Again, I know it is repetitive but it is simple logic and can't be run away from.

To have experience requires BOTH that which experiences and that which it experiences.

Is that your definition of machine? Wherls with cogs? So a computer is not a machine?
A QM computer is not a machine?

 

[ryan]

If the mind, not being a part of the body, controls the body, isn't that like a ghost controlling a machine? There would have to be effects without any observable causes, right?

The body is no machine.

QM and all that.

The body is a ghost too. No more machines.

A ghost acting on a ghost.

But to deny it is to deny you can lift your arm at will. Insanity.

"A ghost acting on a ghost", okay, is this monism?

To avoid confusion, we could just say everything is one kind of substance called physical: physicalism.

 

[untermensche]

The universe is not a machines as Descartes thought of as machine.

As gears touching one another or levers moving one another.

Newton showed that the universe is not a machine. Bodies can act upon one another at a distance.

And of course QM has reduced everything to mathematical abstractions like fields and wave functions. No machines at all.

There are no more machines. So there cannot be any ghosts in machines.

There is this thing "mind" that the brain "secretes".

And it is up to science to explain this phenomena. Not pretend the phenomena doesn't exist.

Again, I know it is repetitive but it is simple logic and can't be run away from.

To have experience requires BOTH that which experiences and that which it experiences.

Is that your definition of machine? Wherls with cogs? So a computer is not a machine?
A QM computer is not a machine?

It is not my definition. It is the definition in Descartes day.

The brain is not a machine either.

There is no ghost in a machine because there is no machine.

Not because there is no ghost.

The ghost remains.

And can lift the arm at "will".