• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

No, I am pointing out that you disregard your own claim ('nothing is known about the mind' and consequently 'what it can or cannot do') and continue to claim the opposite, that you do know what the mind is and what the mind does.....that the mind is the master controller of both brain and body, and in the process, ignore the means of mind/consciousness formation: brain activity.

The clear evidence, and I can do this at will whenever I want to, is that I move my body with my mind.

A fine example of what I said above.

If you can't move your body by simply "willing" it then you have a point.

If you can then your objection is amazing.

Your comment just shows that you have not understood a thing I've said. You persistently ignore the means of 'will' production and its drivers and focus on the product while ignoring the producer of 'your' conscious experience, your will or prompt to act....which is already in process. Thought and will is too slow a response for many activities in any case. A boxer can't wait for conscious will to form in order to block or dodge a punch, or consider his options, it's too slow. Reflex actions need to be faster than conscious mind activity.
 
A boxer can't wait for conscious will to form in order to block or dodge a punch, or consider his options, it's too slow. Reflex actions need to be faster than conscious mind activity.

I'm wondering if there are two kinds of reflexive actions. Certain events can create a slowing down effect that is caused by increased mind activity caused presumably by an influx of adrenaline. It's a state of mind often brought about by intense focus. I've entered this state on several occasions under varying circumstances: 1) extreme speed reduction into traffic after prolonged travel at high rate of speed 2) moments before near collisions 3) playing Tetris at high speed levels when starting from low levels 4) sparring simultaneously with multiple skilled martial artists 5) a few various attempts at trying to tap into the state of mind at will.

Focus tends to be the key, although intensity is a mitigating factor. Getting into the zone is one thing, but staying there, well, not always easy. Even a highly skilled boxer, I would imagine, can't just tap into that special place at will. Unintuitivly, one surprisingly has more of a hightened sense of alertness when tunnel vision begins to occur, often accompanied by deliberate lack of eye contact--e.g. when confidently blocking using peripheral vision.

There is this sense where reflexive action is action without consciously thinking about it, but the speeds in which we can consciously think things through can be so fast as to appear reflexive, so in your boxer example, I'd leave some room for those times when moves so happen to be a product of hightened focus.
 
A boxer can't wait for conscious will to form in order to block or dodge a punch, or consider his options, it's too slow. Reflex actions need to be faster than conscious mind activity.

I'm wondering if there are two kinds of reflexive actions. Certain events can create a slowing down effect that is caused by increased mind activity caused presumably by an influx of adrenaline. It's a state of mind often brought about by intense focus. I've entered this state on several occasions under varying circumstances: 1) extreme speed reduction into traffic after prolonged travel at high rate of speed 2) moments before near collisions 3) playing Tetris at high speed levels when starting from low levels 4) sparring simultaneously with multiple skilled martial artists 5) a few various attempts at trying to tap into the state of mind at will.

Focus tends to be the key, although intensity is a mitigating factor. Getting into the zone is one thing, but staying there, well, not always easy. Even a highly skilled boxer, I would imagine, can't just tap into that special place at will. Unintuitivly, one surprisingly has more of a hightened sense of alertness when tunnel vision begins to occur, often accompanied by deliberate lack of eye contact--e.g. when confidently blocking using peripheral vision.

There is this sense where reflexive action is action without consciously thinking about it, but the speeds in which we can consciously think things through can be so fast as to appear reflexive, so in your boxer example, I'd leave some room for those times when moves so happen to be a product of hightened focus.

Reflex nerve/arc actions don't involve the brain, this allows fast but involuntary actions.....brain processing takes time. Also sensory reflex response which bypass higher thought processes, which delay response, so called muscle training, boxers and so on.

Conscious volition/higher order thought, both conscious and unconscious being the slowest of all response time because of the additional information processing required.
 
Last edited:
You simply label some activity you don't understand as "motor action initiation" and then pretend you understand something about what is going on.

Nothing to do with me. The experiments and the researchers tell their own story.

The data is some increased activity is some region. In the midst of something that is not a person lifting their arm at "will" or anything like a person just lifting their arm at will for no particular reason.

The original researcher considered this some kind of preparatory activity. So do I. The mind knows a decision may be required momentarily and is preparing for it. That is my story and it corresponds to what is happening.

Others have told a different "story". They have invented an elaborate tale of what this tiny bit of activity fractions of a second in duration means.

And their tale is pure speculation.

It is nothing the data is telling anyone.

All of which you ignore in favour of surface experience with no regard for how 'your' experience is being formed.
Since you don't understand how something this complex is "formed" any better than anyone else, your speculations as to what is going on carries no special significance.

I can choose at any time to just lift my arm.

There is nothing compelling me to do it at any time though.

It is pure choice. A choice made by the mind capriciously.

I been providing studies on movement initiation and conscious report regularly for last several months. All of it is typically ignored.

What's been ignored is my response to these studies that show nothing about what is going on when I capriciously and with no external compulsion lift my arm.
 
No, I am pointing out that you disregard your own claim ('nothing is known about the mind' and consequently 'what it can or cannot do') and continue to claim the opposite, that you do know what the mind is and what the mind does.....that the mind is the master controller of both brain and body, and in the process, ignore the means of mind/consciousness formation: brain activity.

The clear evidence, and I can do this at will whenever I want to, is that I move my body with my mind.

A fine example of what I said above.

If you can't move your body by simply "willing" it then you have a point.

If you can then your objection is amazing.

Your comment just shows that you have not understood a thing I've said. You persistently ignore the means of 'will' production and its drivers and focus on the product while ignoring the producer of 'your' conscious experience, your will or prompt to act....which is already in process. Thought and will is too slow a response for many activities in any case. A boxer can't wait for conscious will to form in order to block or dodge a punch, or consider his options, it's too slow. Reflex actions need to be faster than conscious mind activity.

The same logical error again. How many times is this?

It is like some rut you are locked into. Other phenomena do not erase the phenomena of "willfully" lifting your arm.

The boxer is no different from simply walking. To walk requires all kinds of intricate movements that must be timed properly.

But we do it without a thought.

Our only thought is where we want to go.

And that is what the mind is directing. And even with the boxer. He may be able to do some things without thinking but he is thinking and planning. His mind is in control.
 
And that is what the mind is directing. And even with the boxer. He may be able to do some things without thinking but he is thinking and planning. His mind is in control.

His mind? Is it something that belongs to him? Is the brain merely the vehicle for both the mind and this implied owner of mind?

That is the point where you go wrong.

It is, specifically, the brain that forms and generates motor actions and mind, both unconscious mind and conscious mind.....or are you arguing for soul as the source of your idea of mind as the driver of the brain? Is that it?
 
And that is what the mind is directing. And even with the boxer. He may be able to do some things without thinking but he is thinking and planning. His mind is in control.

His mind? Is it something that belongs to him? Is the brain merely the vehicle for both the mind and this implied owner of mind?

That is the point where you go wrong.

It is, specifically, the brain that forms and generates motor actions and mind, both unconscious mind and conscious mind.....or are you arguing for soul as the source of your idea of mind as the driver of the brain? Is that it?

This seems a desperate criticism.

The brain forms the mind and it forms something that can in turn control it. Such that the mind can make the brain do things like move the arm at "will".

That is the clear phenomena and what needs to be explained.
 
His mind? Is it something that belongs to him? Is the brain merely the vehicle for both the mind and this implied owner of mind?

That is the point where you go wrong.

It is, specifically, the brain that forms and generates motor actions and mind, both unconscious mind and conscious mind.....or are you arguing for soul as the source of your idea of mind as the driver of the brain? Is that it?

This seems a desperate criticism.

Nah, just having a bit of fun with someone's irrational belief.

Irrational because the self same person, who happens to be you in this instance, made the claims that 'nothing is known about the mind' - 'nobody knows what the mind can or cannot do' - 'the mind is something the brain is forming' .....yet somehow, magically, the very mind that is being generated and formed by the brain is the master of the brain. The shaker and mover, the Commander of thought, will and movement.


If you can't see how absurd your claim is by now, I can't help you. Nobody can.

I suspect that you are just stirring the pot and milking the so called controversy for all its worth.

The brain forms the mind and it forms something that can in turn control it. Such that the mind can make the brain do things like move the arm at "will".

Hilarious, the very thing the brain is shaping, forming and generating supposedly takes on a life of its own, becomes autonomous and gains control as the homunculus that was rejected by science a hundred years ago.

That is the clear phenomena and what needs to be explained.

This has been explained to you over and over, studies and all. You simply reject any explanation that does not relate to your own belief, a belief that takes no account of what is happening below the threshold of conscious experience...of which you are completely unaware.


A parietal-premotor network for movement intention and motor awareness
''It is commonly assumed that we are conscious of our movements mainly because we can sense ourselves moving as ongoing peripheral information coming from our muscles and retina reaches the brain. Recent evidence, however, suggests that, contrary to common beliefs, conscious intention to move is independent of movement execution per se. We propose that during movement execution it is our initial intentions that we are mainly aware of. Furthermore, the experience of moving as a conscious act is associated with increased activity in a specific brain region: the posterior parietal cortex. We speculate that movement intention and awareness are generated and monitored in this region. We put forward a general framework of the cognitive and neural processes involved in movement intention and motor awareness.''
 
This seems a desperate criticism.

Nah, just having a bit of fun with someone's irrational belief.

Your arrogance, since it is based on complete ignorance is amusing. You seem lost in your delusions, like some religious adherent and their devotion to angels.

There is nothing irrational about seeing the ball fall to the ground and asking why. It is ignorant to clearly see the ball fall to the ground and pretend it doesn't.

It is just as ignorant to be a human that can easily move their arm with nothing but the mind, with a thought, with the "will" and pretend it isn't happening.

It is religion to build some huge story pretending it isn't happening.

The religion of the fMRI diviners. They see tiny specks of "activity" and divine their "TRUE?" meaning. Elaborate stories arise about what the specks of "activity" mean.

Because the diviners don't have the slightest clue what they mean. They only know the timing of their arrival.

It is a joke to call it science. It is the barest speculation and in some based on religious preconceptions about the mind.

The 1990's were declared "The Decade of the Brain". We were going to understand it all in 10 years.

It just so happened in those 10 years we learned a lot but didn't learn one thing about how a bunch of cells creates a mind. And we still don't have a clue 16 years later.

So instead of admit to total failure some use little specks of "activity" to create an entire religion around to pretend the failure isn't total.

Irrational because the self same person, who happens to be you in this instance, made the claims that 'nothing is known about the mind' - 'nobody knows what the mind can or cannot do' - 'the mind is something the brain is forming' .....yet somehow, magically, the very mind that is being generated and formed by the brain is the master of the brain. The shaker and mover, the Commander of thought, will and movement.

It isn't magic. To even label it as such shows bias and preconceptions. You label your ignorance "magic". And ignorance about something you do everyday, "willfully" move your arm with your mind, with your thoughts, your desire, your "will".

But it is clearly seen. This mind that arises in some way is also master in some ways.

To deny it is to deny what is clearly seen and known.

If you can't see how absurd your claim is by now, I can't help you. Nobody can.

It is you making absurd claims. You are claiming what is clearly experienced and seen is not.

You can lift your arm with your mind at "will" yet absurdly claim you can't. It is astonishing. And based on what? Tiny specks of "activity" that are far from understood?

Astonishing to a rational mind.

I suspect that you are just stirring the pot and milking the so called controversy for all its worth.

I suspect your are trapped in some religious delusion.

You have all this pretense to knowledge you simply don't have. But these things happen, even in science. The errors held by science at one time or another are numerous.

And this isn't even science.

It is wild speculation based on no real understanding of what brain activity actual is in terms of the mind.

The brain forms the mind and it forms something that can in turn control it. Such that the mind can make the brain do things like move the arm at "will".

Hilarious, the very thing the brain is shaping, forming and generating supposedly takes on a life of its own, becomes autonomous and gains control as the homunculus that was rejected by science a hundred years ago.

The homunculus evasion again? Like a dog to it's vomit the same bad arguments over and over.

This is no homunculus. It is no "little man" pulling switches.

It is a formless and shapeless mind "willing" the arm to move.

And to deny it is to deny that which is most known to a person that moves at "will".

And most definitely it somehow gains autonomy.

That is the question for science, How?

And you have presented that single study I can't read because I don't have access to it before.

If you can't simply explain it then you don't understand it. Even though a single study is never demonstrative of much.

What was done? In what way? And what was the data?
 
The only reason I know I have surroundings is because of my mind.

My mind is that which is aware of my surroundings.

And that which moves my arm at "will".

Here's some fodder for your 'mind'.

Assuming that consciousness in invertebrates either does not exist or that it arose later (e.g., in cephalopods, see Kroger et al., 2011), then the most basal conscious organisms on earth are the jawless vertebrates, represented by the lamprey.

from: The evolutionary and genetic origins of consciousness in the Cambrian Period over 500 million years ago http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00667/full

as additional support:

Evolution of consciousness: Phylogeny, ontogeny, and emergence from general anesthesia http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690605/


A group of prominent scientists formally declared in a document entitled the “Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in Non-Human Animals” that the neurobiological structures needed to support consciousness are not uniquely human (56). This declaration essentially states that the capacity for consciousness likely emerged very early in evolutionary terms, and those processes that support consciousness in humans are likely characteristic of many living creatures. In fact, according to the declaration, based on a number of considerations from comparative brain anatomy and current knowledge about the neurobiology of consciousness, it would seem almost certain that some form of consciousness is present in all mammals and could have emerged on the evolutionary timeline at the branch point of amniotes.

and

Using recent data from general anesthesia in humans, we suggest that the arousal centers in the brainstem and diencephalon—in conjunction with even limited neocortical connectivity and recurrent processing—can result in primitive phenomenal consciousness. By “reverse engineering,” we postulate that early mammals and birds possessing these structures (or their equivalents) are capable of phenomenal consciousness

So, puleez have information before you spout next time.

Consider this. How does a lamprey know that what's seen and moving, if you want to be picky, is food?
 
Last edited:
Nah, just having a bit of fun with someone's irrational belief.

Your arrogance, since it is based on complete ignorance is amusing.

Nah, it's called a sense of humour and not taking things too seriously. You should try it. It may do you some good.


Then, just maybe, you can work on a more coherent mind/brain/body hypothesis. ;)

You seem lost in your delusions, like some religious adherent and their devotion to angels.

Oh, the irony. You are on your own. Neuroscience does not support your beliefs. You cling to a belief that is completely and utterly unfounded.
 
So, puleez have information before you spout next time.

Consider this. How does a lamprey know that what's seen and moving, if you want to be picky, is food?

Consider this.

How does the bee tell another bee where they should go next?

The bee, smarter than the dog, or the infant, knows there is a permanent "world" beyond it's immediate perceptions.

Are there any reasons you want me to read all these preliminary speculations?

They are a million miles away from explaining what is happening when I "will" my arm to move.

They are a million miles from explaining the mind as mechanism.

Talking about when "consciousness" arose is interesting but it it will never explain what consciousness is.
 
Your arrogance, since it is based on complete ignorance is amusing.

Nah, it's called a sense of humour and not taking things too seriously. You should try it. It may do you some good.

That's fine.

When you apply your sense of humor you are also using your mind as mechanism.

Your mind can direct a few things. It can imagine things. The mind can create a cow in your thoughts if it wants to, or a rotating cube, or whatever the mind whats to create, even things that don't exist.

The mind can create expression, utterances in language to try to express a thought.

The mind can move the body.

The mind's an amazing mechanism and should have it's rightful place. As the director of many things.

Then, just maybe, you can work on a more coherent mind/brain/body hypothesis.

It would be like working on the ball falling when I drop it hypothesis.

It's not a question, the mind directs certain things.

The only question is how.

Neuroscience does not support your beliefs.

Neuroscience has no working explanation of the mind.

Neuroscience has nothing to say about this.

This is too complex a problem and there really is no direction to go presently in the search for an explanation of how a bunch of cells gives rise to a mind that can in turn direct those cells.
 
Are there any reasons you want me to read all these preliminary speculations?

They are a million miles away from explaining what is happening when I "will" my arm to move.

They are a million miles from explaining the mind as mechanism.

Talking about when "consciousness" arose is interesting but it it will never explain what consciousness is.

Yes, those speculations, as you call them, are summaries of studies conducted at least since the time of Darwin in in genetics, anesthesiology, anatomy, physiology, on the simple question of what and how is the mind and consciousness all c oming down on the side of extending both topics from man backward to primates, to reptiles and birds, to lampreys, and even earlier.

They are much further away for you than they are for me.

I understand the problem of how the lamprey discriminates visual perception of a moving target as food rather than just an image. That problem is wrapped up in the evolution of the nervous system as a fit system interpreting stuff into nutrition through development of integrated perceptive, awareness, and digestive systems permitting each organism to prosper in its environment.

Your 'free will' conceit is no more than a self congratulating judgement about human capability vis a vis the rest of life. Understanding that a neural system by its organization resolves edges and motion into objects, memes, archetypes, memories that lead to different behaviors through their perceived presence that enable the animal in question to sustain itself, protect itself, compete, live, provides all the information necessary to explain the rise of consciousness, will, even the mind conceit.

The co called mechanism, mind, is no more than an evolved life form communicating at a folk level what goes for an explanation for those challenged by the methods of observation and experiment. In those studies I provide summaries for are the actual work done which advance our knowledge of behavior of a social animal who has developed the capability to articulate operating knowledge at some usable level.

Your construction of mind is what makes your boat float. It isn't what is mind. That is the journey traveled by those studies available to those willing learn and understand a bunch of processes which explain, in detail, the activity you use to make you personally to feel secure. But that is another story.

One cannot tell when consciousness arose unless one has an operational understanding of what is consciousness.
 
Nah, it's called a sense of humour and not taking things too seriously. You should try it. It may do you some good.

That's fine.

When you apply your sense of humor you are also using your mind as mechanism.


Why, oh why, oh why do persist in ignoring the brain and its mind forming activity?

Why, oh, why do you persistently ignore the fact that the mind cannot do anything other than what the brain is forming in relation to mind?

Just look at the flawed logic of your position, you claim that nobody knows what mind is or what it can or cannot do, you acknowledge that the brain forms mind.... yet persistently assert that it is mind that controls actions!!!

A more accurate description would be to say, the brain controls actions through means of the mind - not entirely true because actions, being regulated other means, may bypass the mind altogether - yet you appear to reject this in favour of a magically autonomous mind.

Your mind can direct a few things. It can imagine things. The mind can create a cow in your thoughts if it wants to, or a rotating cube, or whatever the mind whats to create, even things that don't exist.


The mind can create expression, utterances in language to try to express a thought.

The mind can move the body.

The mind's an amazing mechanism and should have it's rightful place. As the director of many things.


All something that the brain does, partly through mind formation but mostly unconsciously...the bulk of the brains activity being unconscious. The brain being the sole agent of mind formation/generation.

Neuroscience has no working explanation of the mind.

Neuroscience has nothing to say about this.

This is too complex a problem and there really is no direction to go presently in the search for an explanation of how a bunch of cells gives rise to a mind that can in turn direct those cells.

Neuroscience has far, far more to say about brain function and neural correlates of consciousness than you do. Yet you have no hesitation claiming to know exactly what the mind is in terms of master of the brain and able to do things at will....never mind that this has no support. Never mind that there is evidence to the contrary....which you dismiss as damage to the vehicle, so the driver, the mind, can no longer operate its vehicle. How can your claim be taken seriously?

Introduction
The brain is the most complex part of the human body. This three-pound organ is the seat of intelligence, interpreter of the senses, initiator of body movement, and controller of behavior. Lying in its bony shell and washed by protective fluid, the brain is the source of all the qualities that define our humanity. The brain is the crown jewel of the human body.

For centuries, scientists and philosophers have been fascinated by the brain, but until recently they viewed the brain as nearly incomprehensible. Now, however, the brain is beginning to relinquish its secrets. Scientists have learned more about the brain in the last 10 years than in all previous centuries because of the accelerating pace of research in neurological and behavioral science and the development of new research techniques.

The Architecture of the Brain
''The brain is like a committee of experts. All the parts of the brain work together, but each part has its own special properties. The brain can be divided into three basic units: the forebrain, the midbrain, and the hindbrain.

The hindbrain includes the upper part of the spinal cord, the brain stem, and a wrinkled ball of tissue called the cerebellum (1). The hindbrain controls the body’s vital functions such as respiration and heart rate. The cerebellum coordinates movement and is involved in learned rote movements. When you play the piano or hit a tennis ball you are activating the cerebellum. The uppermost part of the brainstem is the midbrain, which controls some reflex actions and is part of the circuit involved in the control of eye movements and other voluntary movements.

The Geography of Thought
Each cerebral hemisphere can be divided into sections, or lobes, each of which specializes in different functions. To understand each lobe and its specialty we will take a tour of the cerebral hemispheres, starting with the two frontal lobes (3), which lie directly behind the forehead. When you plan a schedule, imagine the future, or use reasoned arguments, these two lobes do much of the work. One of the ways the frontal lobes seem to do these things is by acting as short-term storage sites, allowing one idea to be kept in mind while other ideas are considered. In the rearmost portion of each frontal lobe is a motor area (4), which helps control voluntary movement. A nearby place on the left frontal lobe called Broca’s area (5) allows thoughts to be transformed into words.

When you enjoy a good meal—the taste, aroma, and texture of the food—two sections behind the frontal lobes called the parietal lobes (6) are at work. The forward parts of these lobes, just behind the motor areas, are the primary sensory areas (7). These areas receive information about temperature, taste, touch, and movement from the rest of the body. Reading and arithmetic are also functions in the repertoire of each parietal lobe.

As you look at the words and pictures on this page, two areas at the back of the brain are at work. These lobes, called the occipital lobes (8), process images from the eyes and link that information with images stored in memory. Damage to the occipital lobes can cause blindness.

''The last lobes on our tour of the cerebral hemispheres are the temporal lobes (9), which lie in front of the visual areas and nest under the parietal and frontal lobes. Whether you appreciate symphonies or rock music, your brain responds through the activity of these lobes. At the top of each temporal lobe is an area responsible for receiving information from the ears. The underside of each temporal lobe plays a crucial role in forming and retrieving memories, including those associated with music. Other parts of this lobe seem to integrate memories and sensations of taste, sound, sight, and touch.''
 
Are there any reasons you want me to read all these preliminary speculations?

They are a million miles away from explaining what is happening when I "will" my arm to move.

They are a million miles from explaining the mind as mechanism.

Talking about when "consciousness" arose is interesting but it it will never explain what consciousness is.

Yes, those speculations, as you call them, are summaries of studies conducted at least since the time of Darwin in in genetics, anesthesiology, anatomy, physiology, on the simple question of what and how is the mind and consciousness all c oming down on the side of extending both topics from man backward to primates, to reptiles and birds, to lampreys, and even earlier.

Nobody is talking about magic or miracles.

Just the most simple phenomena that can be observed.

For no reason at all I can lift my arm at "will".

I can move my arm using thought.

I suspect the lizard can do this as well.

The co called mechanism, mind, is no more than an evolved life form communicating at a folk level what goes for an explanation for those challenged by the methods of observation and experiment. In those studies I provide summaries for are the actual work done which advance our knowledge of behavior of a social animal who has developed the capability to articulate operating knowledge at some usable level.

They say nothing about the development of the human mind.

The human mind is what you used to form those comments. That is why I can make sense of them. Those words fit into the temporary human conditions, not some general human condition. They have meaning because of the external world you grew up in, not because you have a brain. Your brain is just the tool your mind uses to form expressions in language and the expressions begin as a desire in the mind. "I want" is the beginning of many human actions.

Your construction of mind is what makes your boat float. It isn't what is mind.

Contrary to your conceit you have no more knowledge of the human mind than any layman on the street, and less than many.

What we know about it is only our experience of it. We have no idea what the brain is doing to give rise to it, despite all we know about what the brain is doing.

One cannot tell when consciousness arose unless one has an operational understanding of what is consciousness.

Which no human has.
 
Why, oh, why do you persistently ignore the fact that the mind cannot do anything other than what the brain is forming in relation to mind?

That is dogmatic speculation, not anything any study or group of studies has ever demonstrated.

All we know about the mind is what we experience or ask others about what they are experiencing.

All this data you speak of is ultimately subjective reporting when it comes to what is happening in then mind.

The only objective data is what is happening in the brain, some activity that nobody understands in terms of the generation of the mind.

Just look at the flawed logic of your position, you claim that nobody knows what mind is or what it can or cannot do, you acknowledge that the brain forms mind.... yet persistently assert that it is mind that controls actions!!!

That's your logic.

Mine is we know when we move the arm we are using our thoughts to do it.

Anything else is speculation, what is happening in the brain that corresponds to this experienced phenomena is unknown.

But your logic is that we only think we can move the arm with our thoughts. The brain somehow is tricking us to think we can move it with our desires. And you offer no explanation why or how the brain tricks us in this meaningless manner.

It is an absurd claim at this point.

All something that the brain does, partly through mind formation but mostly unconsciously...the bulk of the brains activity being unconscious. The brain being the sole agent of mind formation/generation.

I've explained this about five times already.

The external world forms the mind in conjunction with the "programming" of the brain.

The data from the external world is just as important as the brain.

Just as the immune system forms via exposure to external "stimulation".

Neuroscience has far, far more to say about brain function and neural correlates of consciousness than you do.

It says nothing.

I could present every neuroscientist in the world with an fMRI, or any test they wanted, and ask them what the person was thinking.

Most would laugh because they understand how far we are from something like that.
 
That is dogmatic speculation, not anything any study or group of studies has ever demonstrated.

It is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence according to practically everyone who works in the field. But not for you of course.

You have your own idea based purely on your conscious experience...an experience that is being formed by something you have no access to or consciousness of; the underlying activity of the brain.

That is what you appear to be unwilling to consider, yet alone accept on the basis of the available evidence.

I don't know why...is it for religious reasons? Ideology? A need for something more?
 
Yes that crazy religion that when it sees the ball fall says it sees the ball fall. It doesn't try to invent some crazy story about the ball really not falling, it's all a trick.

The religion of those who can "will" their arm to move.

In other words everyone who can move.
 
You probably dismiss QM just as easily, I suspect.

Superposition? ''Bah, humbug'' you say? Entanglement? ''What rot is that?'' I hear you say? After all, none of this is evident in everyday experience, is it? So just as you dismiss the underlying means of of producing you and your conscious experience of the World, the activity of 'your' brain, you probably feel that you can dismiss anything that you can't experience directly...right?

Or is it a case of cherry picking?
 
Back
Top Bottom