The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[DBT]

No you haven't. You ignore anything that doesn't suit your belief and rinse and repeat your belief in an inexplicably autonomous mind. All the while asserting that nothing is known about the mind or what it can or cannot do!! You call that clarity?

I have not ignored anything. I have disputed claims about very limited data.

You ignore everything, dismissing all that does not agree with your belief in autonomous mind. A belief which nobody in the field shares, except for maybe a few eccentrics.

I have disputed invented stories from specks of data.

I have disputed the astrology of this.

Your dispute consists of rinsing and repeating your assertion that mind has control of the brain....regardless of your own claim that nobody knows anything about mind or what it can or cannot do.

What is the actual data here?

I don't care about the invented stories.

Firstly, rather than 'invented stories' it is an observation of brain function in relation to movement initiation based on actual experiments. Secondly, the actual data supports the proposition that it is the various regions of the brain that work in concert to shape, form and produce mind and movement in response to sensory inputs and memory...so when you feel the urge to raise your arm at will, the reason that your desire to raise your arm preceded both your will and the action that is performed.

The preceding activity which initiated 'your' sequence of thoughts and actions you remain unaware of because conscious mind does not encompass its own means of production.

All you are aware of is the desire to raise your arm at will, which you do....completely oblivious of the neuronal activity that forms you, your thoughts and actions.

 

[untermensche]

You ignore everything, dismissing all that does not agree with your belief in autonomous mind. A belief which nobody in the field shares, except for maybe a few eccentrics.

It is not a belief, like your position.

I can move my arm at "will" is the clear evidence. It is the primary observation.

Anything else is speculation.

Your dispute consists of rinsing and repeating your assertion that mind has control of the brain....regardless of your own claim that nobody knows anything about mind or what it can or cannot do.

Why do you continually ignore the fact that this assertion is based on clear evidence?

If you can move you can do it too. Just on a whim lift your arm overhead.

An idea in the mind can do it. And the evidence is clear to anyone who does it.

And no other phenomena negates the fact that this is the clear evidence.

Firstly, rather than 'invented stories' it is an observation of brain function in relation to movement initiation based on actual experiments.

What is the observation?

Show me a picture of this observation that explains it all.

 

[DBT]

It is not a belief, like your position.

I can move my arm at "will" is the clear evidence. It is the primary observation.

Anything else is speculation.

No it's not speculation. We have a certain degree of understanding of brain function through case studies of individuals with altered and/or underdeveloped brain structures, which effects specific changes in the personality, character and behaviour of the mind/person.

The difference between you and everyone who works in the field is that you claim it is the vehicle that is damaged, thus not allowing the 'mind' control of it vehicle, while practically all neuroscientists hold the reasonable view that the state of the brain determines the form and function of mind, that mind is the work of a brain...and that brain is not a vehicle of an autonomous mind.

However, I think that you've milked this subject for all its worth. It's just going around in circles.

Believe whatever you like.

 

[untermensche]

It is not a belief, like your position.

I can move my arm at "will" is the clear evidence. It is the primary observation.

Anything else is speculation.

No it's not speculation.

It is bare speculation based on flimsy evidence.

If the evidence is so good show it to me.

Show me this image or images that clearly show all about how humans "will" their arms to move.

How many times will I (my mind) have to ask?

 

[DBT]

Show me this image or images that clearly show all about how humans "will" their arms to move.

How many times will I (my mind) have to ask?

I have provided quotes and links to numerous studies and experiments that are related to movement initiation within the brain. All of it being ignored or brushed aside by you, including what the researchers themselves say about the significance of their work.

Nothing that I can provide will make any difference to your faith in an undefined mind, which you say nothing known about what it is or what it does or does not do....yet that very stance of your doesn't stop you from asserting exactly what the mind is (the driver of the brain/body) or what it does. There lies the absurdity of your claim.

Now it's your turn...show something that proves your belief. Not another rinse and repeat of your subjective experience of agency, something tangible that shows that 'mind' is what you claim, that mind has autonomy from the brain, that mind is the driver of the brain/body.....can you do that, or are you just going to assert your rinse and repeat assertions?

 

[untermensche]

Show me this image or images that clearly show all about how humans "will" their arms to move.

How many times will I (my mind) have to ask?

I have provided quotes and links to numerous studies and experiments that are related to movement initiation within the brain. All of it being ignored or brushed aside by you, including what the researchers themselves say about the significance of their work.

Nothing that I can provide will make any difference to your faith in an undefined mind, which you say nothing known about what it is or what it does or does not do....yet that very stance of your doesn't stop you from asserting exactly what the mind is (the driver of the brain/body) or what it does. There lies the absurdity of your claim.

Now it's your turn...show something that proves your belief. Not another rinse and repeat of your subjective experience of agency, something tangible that shows that 'mind' is what you claim, that mind has autonomy from the brain, that mind is the driver of the brain/body.....can you do that, or are you just going to assert your rinse and repeat assertions?

You have.

But I still don't believe you. The research is polluted with 'Skinnerist' thinking and assumptions about behavior long proved wrong. It is rubbish.

Show me an image that demonstrates something.

Show me an image so I can see what you think you see.

If you can provide no image I have to wonder how you could possibly believe what you believe.

What is this great evidence you have you think is more substantial than experience?

I'm tired of empty claims.

 

[DBT]

Show me an image so I can see what you think you see.


I'm tired of empty claims.

Hilarious.

 

[untermensche]

Show me an image so I can see what you think you see.


I'm tired of empty claims.

Hilarious.

That is what somebody who has nothing to show would say.

The science is rubbish and it will go nowhere because it is based on assumptions about animal behavior that are erroneous and were shown to be erroneous about 60 years ago.

If what you are trying to claim were true you could provide actual evidence and not stories about "activity".

 

[fromderinside]

You can pretty much define anything as "the collection of actions it does".

Yes I can. Especially when there is no structure or mechanism from which the notion of mind can be traced.

The intermal lateral prefrontal cortex is pertty incomplete considering speech is the only mechanism through which untermensche offers any 'proof'.

Until a better specification of mind becomes apparent a functional one is all we have. Its pretty certain that the mind is not the brain, else manta rays which demonstrate awareness of self and awareness of otters has a mind. That's a pretty big leap from humans being unique which I suspect is behind the machinations of untermensche.

 

[untermensche]

You can pretty much define anything as "the collection of actions it does".

Yes I can. Especially when there is no structure or mechanism from which the notion of mind can be traced.

The intermal lateral prefrontal cortex is pertty incomplete considering speech is the only mechanism through which untermensche offers any 'proof'.

Until a better specification of mind becomes apparent a functional one is all we have. Its pretty certain that the mind is not the brain, else manta rays which demonstrate awareness of self and awareness of otters has a mind. That's a pretty big leap from humans being unique which I suspect is behind the machinations of untermensche.

Talking about areas of the brain is just name dropping. It explains nothing.

You have no explanation for consciousness, for the mind, not a clue.

But you used your mind to form those sentences so there is evidence you have one.

 

[fromderinside]

I offer clarity to begin with.

The clear phenomena is the mind that has a conception of the world acting on that conception. Not acting according to the dictates of brain physiology. I drive to work because I know about the need to go and I know the way, in my mind. It is absurd to claim the brain forces me to do it in some completely unexplained way.

In some areas, voluntary movement, voluntary imagining, voluntary expression, the mind leads and the brain follows.

That is what needs to be explained.

If it is possible for humans to do it. Humans are of course animals with limitations.

Wow an attempt.

Presuming a clear perception means clear awareness the mind extends to the Manta Ray as I pointed out earlier. At that one there is a tegmentum through which sensory, efferent, and memory related pathways interact which is active when other and one are being defined. One survives by staying alive and consuming.

In addition you need to show exemplar studies that demonstrate your claims.

If you chose you can go through the studies I posted in this discussion and you'll be exposed to a rich literature of empirical study on this very claim you make that extend over more than two hundred years. One single author, Crick credited discoverer of DNA as basis for genes, should be sufficient key words for you to gain access to them.

 

[untermensche]

I offer clarity to begin with.

The clear phenomena is the mind that has a conception of the world acting on that conception. Not acting according to the dictates of brain physiology. I drive to work because I know about the need to go and I know the way, in my mind. It is absurd to claim the brain forces me to do it in some completely unexplained way.

In some areas, voluntary movement, voluntary imagining, voluntary expression, the mind leads and the brain follows.

That is what needs to be explained.

If it is possible for humans to do it. Humans are of course animals with limitations.

Wow an attempt.

Presuming a clear perception means clear awareness the mind extends to the Manta Ray as I pointed out earlier. At that one there is a tegmentum through which sensory and efferent pathways interact which is active when other and one are being defined. One survives by staying alive and consuming.

In addition you need to show exemplar studies that demonstrate your claims.

You're babbling.

You know a few words to describe obscure anatomy and nothing else.

And you throw around these words as if they explain something and as if you understand the underlying activity.

It is a pathetic show.

 

[DBT]

Hilarious.

That is what somebody who has nothing to show would say.

The science is rubbish and it will go nowhere because it is based on assumptions about animal behavior that are erroneous and were shown to be erroneous about 60 years ago.

If what you are trying to claim were true you could provide actual evidence and not stories about "activity".

Thanks for offering your opinion. It started my day with a laugh.

 

[beero1000]

I'm amazed this is still going on. You know what they say about slamming your head against a brick wall?
...
It feels amazing when you stop.

 

[DBT]

QFT.

 

[untermensche]

That is what somebody who has nothing to show would say.

The science is rubbish and it will go nowhere because it is based on assumptions about animal behavior that are erroneous and were shown to be erroneous about 60 years ago.

If what you are trying to claim were true you could provide actual evidence and not stories about "activity".

Thanks for offering your opinion. It started my day with a laugh.

Too bad it didn't start your day with a thought.

Because what you're presenting is not science. It is invented stories based on bad understanding of human behavior.

You start with Skinnerist conclusions about how animals behave and of course end with the same crappy conclusions, because in reality you understand nothing about how a brain creates consciousness or how a mind behaves.

And you don't seem to be able to present any uncontroversial data to support it. You can't show me anything objective that clearly demonstrates your position.

Just stories about "activity" that nobody understands.

It is as if I am dealing with some cult member that cannot be reached with reason.

Someone that says that fishy studies count more than clear experience.

 

[fromderinside]

You're babbling.

You know a few words to describe obscure anatomy and nothing else.

And you throw around these words as if they explain something and as if you understand the underlying activity.

It is a pathetic show.

I'm just trying to make your posts more meaningful here at a scientific forum where you have, so far, been completely evidence free.

 

[untermensche]

You're babbling.

You know a few words to describe obscure anatomy and nothing else.

And you throw around these words as if they explain something and as if you understand the underlying activity.

It is a pathetic show.

I'm just trying to make your posts more meaningful here at a scientific forum where you have, so far, been completely evidence free.

It's like saying: Dopamine, Serotonin, Nor-epinephrine.

See, I've explained consciousness.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm just trying to make your posts more meaningful here at a scientific forum where you have, so far, been completely evidence free.

It's like saying: Dopamine, Serotonin, Nor-epinephrine.

See, I've explained consciousness.

Nope. You missed the bottom DALA.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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. 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.

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

These claims are very different in nature. The first one involves the term "consciousness". As the word is used in neurosciences, consciousness should be understood here as an objective phenomenon, i.e. a phenomenon that can be studied in the way that science mostly study phenomena, i.e. in the same way that you would study the memory capabilities in humans, or the ability to recognise patterns in the natural environment etc. The first claim is therefore standard fare in science in the sense that we can at least conceive that scientists could develop an experimental protocol to try and falsify the claim. Of course, the creatures talken about here have long disappeared but we might for example retrieve their DNA, recreate the organism and work on this basis. Not entirely satisfactory but good enough for practical purposes. So I'm fine with the first claim as "scientific claim" (although still to be confirmed).

The second claim involves the expression "phenomenal consciousness". Phenomenal consciousness is another way of talking about subjective experience. It's the subjective experience the subject is having. Typically, the scientists conducting the study would not be able to observe it, would not have the subjective experience, or the phenomenal consciousness, of the subjects taking part in the study. Essentially, the subject has to report to the scientists whatever s/he is experiencing subjectively, in their own words and as far as they could remember. Consciousness, in the sense used in the first extract, and phenomenal consciousness are therefore to be considered different things as long as we haven't found a way of showing they are, somehow, the same thing.

Still, scientists talking about phenomenal consciousness is a clear progress from only a few years ago when some people, not least a Mr. Fromderinside himself, would state that consciousness was but "an illusion".

It should be noted that the wording in the second extract shows the scientists concerned seem to understand the distinction involved between (objective) consciousness and phenomenal consciousness (i.e. subjective consciousness, A.K.A. subjective experience). Something also reassuring when others here have tried to deny that there was such a distinction. Well, here you have it, by scientists.
EB