The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[untermensche]

You dismiss the research on sensory input, motor action, conscious decision relationships because it doesn't suit your belief in autonomous mind as the driver of the vehicle, the body.

No research disputes my claim. We move our bodies with our minds.

No external stimulation studies say a word about what the mind is doing when it uses the brain to move the body. All they show is the mind can be disrupted by external stimulation. To not understand this seems to be your trademark.

It is insanity to deny the mind is a mechanism.

What is needed is an explanation.

But those who for some reason deny this clear truth will never find it.

 

[DBT]

You dismiss the research on sensory input, motor action, conscious decision relationships because it doesn't suit your belief in autonomous mind as the driver of the vehicle, the body.

No research disputes my claim.

It does, but of course you have to say that.

We move our bodies with our minds.

Who or what is this 'we,' this 'we' who are using 'our' minds to move 'our' bodies? Another layer of agency? A proposed user of the mind as a vehicle as the mind is your proposed user of the body?

No external stimulation studies say a word about what the mind is doing when it uses the brain to move the body. All they show is the mind can be disrupted by external stimulation. To not understand this seems to be your trademark.

'External stimulation?' All forms of inputs stimulate neural network response...which generates internal activity and internal response in the form of conscious feelings, thoughts and actions. All of which can be separated. Actions without thoughts. Thoughts and perceptions of actions that are not actually carried out, phantom limbs, identification with foreign body parts and so on.

It is insanity to deny the mind is a mechanism.

The mind is a mechanism. A mechanism formed by brain activity. I've said that all along.

But those who for some reason deny this clear truth will never find it.

As far as I can make out, nobody has denied that the mind is a mechanism.

What is needed is an explanation.

Do you have an explanation for autonomous mind... mind that drives the body without being physically effected by bodily conditions, like a driver of a vehicle?

 

[untermensche]

We move our bodies with our minds.

Who or what is this 'we,' this 'we' who are using 'our' minds to move 'our' bodies? Another layer of agency? A proposed user of the mind as a vehicle as the mind is your proposed user of the body?

This is a discussion about humans. Humans use their minds to "willfully" move their bodies.

It takes a lot of blindness to deny it.

No external stimulation studies say a word about what the mind is doing when it uses the brain to move the body. All they show is the mind can be disrupted by external stimulation. To not understand this seems to be your trademark.

'External stimulation?'

?

Yes. Placing an external probe into the brain and introducing electrical stimulation.

You present these studies but don't seem to comprehend what is done in them.

It does not replicate the activity of the mind. It does not explain the activity of the mind.

It disrupts the activity of the brain.

The mind is a mechanism. A mechanism formed by brain activity. I've said that all along.

The mechanism is the ability of the mind to direct the brain.

The mechanism is not that the mind exists. Whatever it is. Of course it exists. I couldn't write this without one. You couldn't make sense of it without one.

Do you have an explanation for autonomous mind... mind that drives the body without being physically effected by bodily conditions, like a driver of a vehicle?

If I had one I wouldn't say one is needed.

We are nowhere near knowing what the mind is.

But I lift my arm with my mind, at will. To say the mind isn't a "driver" is merely to hide from clear phenomena.

 

[ryan]

This does not mean that the veto is not performed by information input preceded by processing....because that would be magic, information from nowhere.

Please see compatibalism. This is a very important thing to understand. It doesn't align with my argument because compatibalism does not allow alternative physical outputs, but it allows alternative choices/wills.

Many scientists believe in compatibalism. I don't, but it has an interesting perspective on free will in a deterministic universe.

Because the window of opportunity is so narrow, the processing and input that formed the original decision is nearly immediately altered by information riding on its heels.

This is experienced consciously as a change of mind, but it is not a conscious decision because the process is faster than reflex actions, which are not something that is thought about or experienced as a conscious decision.

Sorry, ryan, there is no magic 'free will' veto.

This side argument was meant to make sure that we both were on the same page when it comes to a physical mind. Now that we are, everything I said about QM "magically directing" the decision-making process is where you go now to understand what I am saying.

I finally feel like my argument is complete, and any argument that you have used in the past has been properly dealt with. Unless you have something knew, I am done.

It may be true that we could have chosen differently.

 

[fromderinside]

Oh gee, gosh. So the brain works a certain way. Scientists bypass or patch, some electronic capability, and the brain works that same certain way.

Where is that mind exactly?

She is using her mind to move a robotic arm.

She is using her mind to generate some kind of impulse the computers can work with.

Where is her mind that she is clearly using?

That of course is a very good question.

But it won't be answered by those who can't even see what she is clearly doing.

She is moving the robotic arm with the aid of electronics tied into the brain. She was asked to try to carry out a robot arm task by a team after her brain was connected with the arm. Actually she is using the robotic arm as if it were her arm probably with activity from brain elements normally used to move one's arm. See. No need to invoke a thing, 'mind', for what is observed.

Invoking useless intervening variables just make sentences longer and more cumbersome.

 

[untermensche]

She is using her mind to move a robotic arm.

She is using her mind to generate some kind of impulse the computers can work with.

Where is her mind that she is clearly using?

That of course is a very good question.

But it won't be answered by those who can't even see what she is clearly doing.

She is moving the robotic arm with the aid of electronics tied into the brain. She was asked to try to carry out a robot arm task by a team after her brain was connected with the arm. Actually she is using the robotic arm as if it were her arm probably with activity from brain elements normally used to move one's arm. See. No need to invoke a thing, 'mind', for what is observed.

Invoking useless intervening variables just make sentences longer and more cumbersome.

You are so blind.

On one end is some fancy electronics attached to her brain.

On the other is her mind activating it.

Without a mind and the woman using her mind there is no movement of the arm.

You are blind to the essential element here. It is interesting.

 

[Juma]

She is moving the robotic arm with the aid of electronics tied into the brain. She was asked to try to carry out a robot arm task by a team after her brain was connected with the arm. Actually she is using the robotic arm as if it were her arm probably with activity from brain elements normally used to move one's arm. See. No need to invoke a thing, 'mind', for what is observed.

Invoking useless intervening variables just make sentences longer and more cumbersome.

You are so blind.

On one end is some fancy electronics attached to her brain.

On the other is her mind activating it.

Without a mind and the woman using her mind there is no movement of the arm.

You are blind to the essential element here. It is interesting.

That you have not realized what fromderinside really says after all theese posts is interesting, and not interesting..,

Thing is: what id this you call mind? What is the real phenomen that makes you want to use the word? It is your own inner experience! It is what the processes of the brain looks from "inside".

 

[DBT]

We are nowhere near knowing what the mind is.

But I lift my arm with my mind, at will. To say the mind isn't a "driver" is merely to hide from clear phenomena.

I did a point by point refutation of your fallacies but lost internet connection and the entire post, auto save didn't seem to work. Couldn't be bothered to redo it. I'll just say that you persistently ignore all evidence that is contrary to your beliefs and just keep asserting your own version of mind as an autonomous driver of the vehicle, which is not supported by any researcher in the field that I'm aware of. But there may be the odd crank.

 

[DBT]

Please see compatibalism. This is a very important thing to understand. It doesn't align with my argument because compatibalism does not allow alternative physical outputs, but it allows alternative choices/wills.

Many scientists believe in compatibalism. I don't, but it has an interesting perspective on free will in a deterministic universe.

We've been over compatibalism numerous times. It's nothing new. Compatibalism is a dead duck. It was shot down long ago.

Refer to any of the old threads for the details of its failure, if you can't recall.

All that is left is the crumbling bones, which the desperate stuff into their medicine bag, clinging to it while chanting 'free will' - 'free will'

It doesn't work logically regardless of those who believe in it.

I finally feel like my argument is complete, and any argument that you have used in the past has been properly dealt with. Unless you have something knew, I am done.

It may be true that we could have chosen differently.

Sorry, but you never had a reasonable argument regardless of how you feel. Believe what you like, but you have not established a case for your propositions.

 

[untermensche]

We are nowhere near knowing what the mind is.

But I lift my arm with my mind, at will. To say the mind isn't a "driver" is merely to hide from clear phenomena.

I did a point by point refutation of your fallacies but lost internet connection and the entire post, auto save didn't seem to work. Couldn't be bothered to redo it. I'll just say that you persistently ignore all evidence that is contrary to your beliefs and just keep asserting your own version of mind as an autonomous driver of the vehicle, which is not supported by any researcher in the field that I'm aware of. But there may be the odd crank.

You presented your bad interpretations of incredibly preliminary research. You pretend to knowledge you are nowhere near having.

And I have tried my best to help you, but the arrogance of your ignorance is too great an obstacle.

You have nothing to refute the fact that humans use their minds as a "driver".

Nothing. Not one bit of research.

And the fact that can't see the mind is clearly a "driver" makes you useless to find any explanation that will have a correspondence to reality and observed phenomena.

 

[untermensche]

You are so blind.

On one end is some fancy electronics attached to her brain.

On the other is her mind activating it.

Without a mind and the woman using her mind there is no movement of the arm.

You are blind to the essential element here. It is interesting.

That you have not realized what fromderinside really says after all theese posts is interesting, and not interesting..,

Thing is: what id this you call mind? What is the real phenomen that makes you want to use the word? It is your own inner experience! It is what the processes of the brain looks from "inside".

The mind is the thing you used to form these expressions. And the thing that controlled your hands to type them out.

And you did it without compulsion or force.

Freely.

 

[untermensche]

Brain: Cells, blood, CSF, neurotransmitters, protein receptors, action potentials, the generation of electricity.

Mind: Has a coherent picture of the world and acts according to that picture. Has access to visual and auditory information. Has access to memory and emotion and "drives". Has access to language.

Can move the body and form expressions in language.

Those that pretend the complexity of the mind has been in any way explained because we can stimulate the brain and make it do tricks are standing in the way of knowledge.

 

[Juma]

Brain: Cells, blood, CSF, neurotransmitters, protein receptors, action potentials, the generation of electricity.

Mind: Has a coherent picture of the world and acts according to that picture. Has access to visual and auditory information. Has access to memory and emotion and "drives". Has access to language.

Can move the body and form expressions in language.

Those that pretend the complexity of the mind has been in any way explained because we can stimulate the brain and make it do tricks are standing in the way of knowledge.

Robots: can have a coherent picture of the world and act according to that picture. Have access to visual and auditory information. Has access to memory and emotion and "drives". Has access to language.

Can move the body and form expressions in language.


You have a big problem defining what the heck you mean by "mind"

 

[untermensche]

Brain: Cells, blood, CSF, neurotransmitters, protein receptors, action potentials, the generation of electricity.

Mind: Has a coherent picture of the world and acts according to that picture. Has access to visual and auditory information. Has access to memory and emotion and "drives". Has access to language.

Can move the body and form expressions in language.

Those that pretend the complexity of the mind has been in any way explained because we can stimulate the brain and make it do tricks are standing in the way of knowledge.

Robots: can have a coherent picture of the world and act according to that picture. Have access to visual and auditory information. Has access to memory and emotion and "drives". Has access to language.

No. You mistake the ability to avoid an obstacle because some program forces you to avoid the obstacle with having a picture of the world. The robot doesn't know what is out there. It doesn't "know" anything.

And the fact that you don't understand this clear distinction is interesting.

You are being willfully blind.

Which of course is something a human mind is capable of, but not a robot.

You have a big problem defining what the heck you mean by "mind"

You just have a hard time understanding.

When you move your arm what do you use to initiate the movement?

That is your mind.

 

[DBT]

I did a point by point refutation of your fallacies but lost internet connection and the entire post, auto save didn't seem to work. Couldn't be bothered to redo it. I'll just say that you persistently ignore all evidence that is contrary to your beliefs and just keep asserting your own version of mind as an autonomous driver of the vehicle, which is not supported by any researcher in the field that I'm aware of. But there may be the odd crank.

You presented your bad interpretations of incredibly preliminary research. You pretend to knowledge you are nowhere near having.

And I have tried my best to help you, but the arrogance of your ignorance is too great an obstacle.

You have nothing to refute the fact that humans use their minds as a "driver".

Nothing. Not one bit of research.

And the fact that can't see the mind is clearly a "driver" makes you useless to find any explanation that will have a correspondence to reality and observed phenomena.

No, everything you say that I do wrong actually applies to your own interpretations and beliefs....this remark is not just according to me but the researchers and experimenters themselves, who do the experiments and the research in order to better understand how the brain works in terms of behavioural output, which includes 'mind' - sensory experience, thoughts, feelings, decisions and actions - which is not related to anything other than a functioning brain, and not in disembodied form or the autonomous driver of a brain.

That is an absurd notion, a notion that is not shared by any of the researchers that I've brought up....only you.

 

[Juma]

Robots: can have a coherent picture of the world and act according to that picture. Have access to visual and auditory information. Has access to memory and emotion and "drives". Has access to language.

No. You mistake the ability to avoid an obstacle because some program forces you to avoid the obstacle with having a picture of the world. The robot doesn't know what is out there. It doesn't "know" anything.

Define "know". If i ask a robot where my car is and it answers correctly how could that mean it dont know where the car is?

 

[untermensche]

You presented your bad interpretations of incredibly preliminary research. You pretend to knowledge you are nowhere near having.

And I have tried my best to help you, but the arrogance of your ignorance is too great an obstacle.

You have nothing to refute the fact that humans use their minds as a "driver".

Nothing. Not one bit of research.

And the fact that can't see the mind is clearly a "driver" makes you useless to find any explanation that will have a correspondence to reality and observed phenomena.

No, everything you say that I do wrong actually applies to your own interpretations and beliefs....this remark is not just according to me but the researchers and experimenters themselves, who do the experiments and the research in order to better understand how the brain works in terms of behavioural output, which includes 'mind' - sensory experience, thoughts, feelings, decisions and actions - which is not related to anything other than a functioning brain, and not in disembodied form or the autonomous driver of a brain.

That is an absurd notion, a notion that is not shared by any of the researchers that I've brought up....only you.

You just used your mind to form these expressions. You used your mind to edit your thoughts before typing them out.

You used your mind to make your hands type them out.

If you can't even see your own mind at work then there is nothing I can do to help you.

The notion that the mind is understood or has been explained in any way is absurd.

We know some neurophysiology. We can tell the difference between the activity levels of certain regions.

The rest is invented stories about what that activity might mean.

 

[untermensche]

No. You mistake the ability to avoid an obstacle because some program forces you to avoid the obstacle with having a picture of the world. The robot doesn't know what is out there. It doesn't "know" anything.

Define "know". If i ask a robot where my car is and it answers correctly how could that mean it dont know where the car is?

A slinky can "walk" down the stairs.

That doesn't mean it in any way "walks" the way a human does.

Computers perform the functions human have designed them to perform.

That doesn't mean they are doing what humans do when they perform those programmed tricks.

Unless you can demonstrate a computer works the same way a brain does, you have no point.

Robots do not have an inner life. They do not have emotions or desires or thoughts. They do not "know" things. They have functions that can lead to results.

 

[fromderinside]

Define "know". If i ask a robot where my car is and it answers correctly how could that mean it dont know where the car is?

Robots do not have an inner life. They do not have emotions or desires or thoughts. They do not "know" things. They have functions that can lead to results.

You still need to define "know" because you now have to explain how you know Robots have no inner life. Or, you have to explain how you know that you know but can't explain away why robot's don't know. Or both.

Let me suggest mind is activity just as robot operations are activity produced by elements of their existence. Oh, by the way, elements of their existence can be defined operationally.

 

[Treedbear]

Robots do not have an inner life. They do not have emotions or desires or thoughts. They do not "know" things. They have functions that can lead to results.

You still need to define "know" because you now have to explain how you know Robots have no inner life. Or, you have to explain how you know that you know but can't explain away why robot's don't know. Or both.

Let me suggest mind is activity just as robot operations are activity produced by elements of their existence. Oh, by the way, elements of their existence can be defined operationally.

Robots know, but they don't know that they know.