There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[untermensche]

There is no way to tell which cube I am perceiving with such a blunt and crude instrument.

An fMRI cannot read minds. It cannot tell us what a person is perceiving.

You need to stick to science and move away from your science fiction.

Well King, another case of untermenche boating down denile. This case is closed.

You clearly have no clue what fMRI can and cannot do.

The perception is in the mind.

Show me a fMRI and point out the mind. Point out the contents of the mind.

 

[Juma]

There is no way to tell which cube I am perceiving with such a blunt and crude instrument.

An fMRI cannot read minds. It cannot tell us what a person is perceiving.

You need to stick to science and move away from your science fiction.

Well King, another case of untermenche boating down denile. This case is closed.

You clearly have no clue what fMRI can and cannot do.

The perception is in the mind.

Show me a fMRI and point out the mind. Point out the contents of the mind.

With fMRI we have been able to see perceived pain.
There is much you dont know, untermensce.

 

[Speakpigeon]

What I wrote can be interpreted by a true English speaker to just mean small is included in the definition, which it is.

There is no "true" English speaker. There are only native and non-native ones. Are you a native speaker?

Alternatively, you could say someone speaks or doesn't speak "good" or "correct" English, but each of these alternatives may well be true of both native and non-native speakers.

Yours is definitely bad English.

I am a true English speaker.

I'm not even sure what that means. It could mean you're truly English but your English is shite. Is that it?

Most competent native speakers wouldn't say of themselves they are "true English speaker". The Google count for "native English speaker" is "About 472,000 results". The count for "true English speaker" is a paltry "About 4,430 results"!

So, you effectively belong to a one percent linguistic minority, and then this directly contradicts the idea of reading "true English speaker" as "native English speaker".

So, may I ask where you learned your English?

And what's the difference between being an English speaker and being a true English speaker?

Ooops, I forgot, you never ever really answer questions.

You are not.

Oh-oh, you got me here! Well done! I'm definitely not any shitty true English speaker! I'm proud to say I'm a non-native English speaker, and, as it happens, my English is much, much better than yours.

This is why you don't even comprehend simple things.

Just remind everybody here what it is you think I didn't understand? Just for a laugh!

If I say "The weekend means fun" have I given a definition of "weekend"?

No. It means you generally expect week-ends to be an opportunity to have fun.

Hey, does that mean I've just given a definition of 'it'?

Hey, does that mean I've just asked if the definition of "that" was "I've just given a definition of 'it'"?

See? We don't really need any week-end to have fun!

Oops, I'm so stupid! But we are Saturday! So, let's take this opportunity to have fun together!

Hey, that's what we're doing, yes?

Your English sucks!

Only when I ask him! Only when I'm in the mood. Only on a Saturday night because it means fun.

Ah, you're no match. I'm just shadow-boxing here.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There is no way to tell which cube I am perceiving with such a blunt and crude instrument.

An fMRI cannot read minds. It cannot tell us what a person is perceiving.

You need to stick to science and move away from your science fiction.

Well King, another case of untermenche boating down denile. This case is closed.

One big characteristic of the human brain is the ability to combine individual concepts into complex thoughts. So I think we would need to show that fMRI technology can read thoughts like, not just "bananas", but, say, things like "I like to eat bananas in evening with my friends".

If scientists can develop a way to see thoughts of that complexity in the fMRI signal, I would say it's good enough for me. And that's definitely what I would expect them to achieve at some point.

In fact, I think they should have done that already because I don't think it's even difficult. And this would give an effective way of looking into the actual mechanics of free will. How people get to reach complex decisions and such. And once we understand how free will works in reality, this may stop stupid ideologues saying free will doesn't exist.
EB

 

[untermensche]

With fMRI we have been able to see perceived pain.

No you haven't. Pain is an experience. You can't see it. You can only see how the experience is created. But we have no clue how any experience is created.

There is no working model for an "experience".

There is much you dont know, untermensce.

That's a universal. Every person doesn't know much more than they know.

 

[bilby]

"beady" means small.

No. It means "small, round, and shiny or glittering". So, it only implies "small".

Your weakness in English is excusable.

What I wrote can be interpreted by a true English speaker to just mean small is included in the definition, which it is.

It is a redundancy to say "small little eyes".

Maybe in French you are better.

You should probably save your ire for the weakness in English displayed by the authors of the Cambridge English Dictionary, who use the same phrase in their very first example of usage of the word 'beady'.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/beady

(of eyes) small and bright, especially like a bird's eyes:
His beady little eyes were fixed on the money I held out.

Truly you are an extraordinary exemplar of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Who should we believe on this; The experts at Cambridge University, or some random Internet blowhard who has yet to admit to a single error, despite having demonstrated repeatedly his complete lack of ability with logic and reason, and his adherence to demonstrably false positions?

It's a real puzzler.

 

[Speakpigeon]

With fMRI we have been able to see perceived pain.

No you haven't. Pain is an experience. You can't see it. You can only see how the experience is created. But we have no clue how any experience is created.

There is no working model for an "experience".

Yes, I have to agree here.

Still, if you were even a moderately competent English speaker, you'd have understood straight away what poor Juma was really trying to say. That's a straightforward example of your failure to understand the obvious. Not the only example, unfortunately for all of us here.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Your weakness in English is excusable.

What I wrote can be interpreted by a true English speaker to just mean small is included in the definition, which it is.

It is a redundancy to say "small little eyes".

Maybe in French you are better.

You should probably save your ire for the weakness in English displayed by the authors of the Cambridge English Dictionary, who use the same phrase in their very first example of usage of the word 'beady'.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/beady

(of eyes) small and bright, especially like a bird's eyes:
His beady little eyes were fixed on the money I held out.

Truly you are an extraordinary exemplar of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Who should we believe on this; The experts at Cambridge University, or some random Internet blowhard who has yet to admit to a single error, despite having demonstrated repeatedly his complete lack of ability with logic and reason, and his adherence to demonstrably false positions?

It's a real puzzler.

If you want to have some more fun at UM's expense, just Google "beady little eyes"! More than 115,000 results! (against 4,430 results for UM's "true English speaker").

There's even an Internet Website "http://www.beadylittleeyes.com/" for God sake!

Google Translate gives it as the equivalent of "small bright eyes" in French, which I think is not quite the idea. Too subtle both for Google and UM!

And there is a thing called, again, "Beady Little Eyes", yes, which produces "puppet slams and other puppet-based events for adoring audiences in Portland, Oregon". The things you learn on the Internet! Just amazing.

There's even a song!

Or should we blame the images on TV?
No, blame Canada, blame Canada
With all their beady little eyes

There's also a book by a William Gleason that repeats "beady little eyes" three times!
"Did anyone ever tell you you had beady little eyes? I never did trust people with beady little eyes. My first husband had beady little eyes and he was a pitiful example of the human race if ever I saw one."

And so on and so on, with beady little eyes.

My beady little eyes are just crying out laughing.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Your weakness in English is excusable.

What I wrote can be interpreted by a true English speaker to just mean small is included in the definition, which it is.

It is a redundancy to say "small little eyes".

Maybe in French you are better.

You should probably save your ire for the weakness in English displayed by the authors of the Cambridge English Dictionary, who use the same phrase in their very first example of usage of the word 'beady'.

And that means what genius?

Is it now not a redundancy?

 

[untermensche]

I am a true English speaker.

I'm not even sure what that means.

Because your English sucks.

You have a stilted partial understanding.

Not a working knowledge.

Just remind everybody here what it is you think I didn't understand? Just for a laugh!

I said ""beady means small" and you did not comprehend what I was saying.

You have a partial understanding so you somehow thought I was giving a complete definition.

You did not comprehend that I was merely saying that small is included in the understanding, as in "The weekend means fun."

Your English sucks!

Ah, you're no match. I'm just shadow-boxing here.

You're making an ass of yourself.

Stick with French. Maybe you understand that.

 

[DBT]

Okay, so now I'm confident you're unwilling to learn and you're even unwilling to argue your views properly.

It's also more likely than not that you know exactly what you did wrong in your use of the definition I provided.

Just to help people understand this point, I put side by side the original definition, first, and then the version of it you've been using:

3.
a. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance: a healthy animal, free of disease; people free from need.

Free;
a. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance

Clearly, something is missing in your version.

By making your objection you show that you cannot grasp the fact that what I cut from that quote aer merely examples provided by the dictionary in order to illustrate usage.

Now, what I am doing is applying the very same definition, not to 'healthy animals' or the absence of disease, but the brain and its workings in relation to 'will' - which is perfectly acceptable because the dictionary definition is in no way, shape or form restricted to 'healthy animals' or absence of disease, these being simply examples of usage.

If you can't see this, there is no hope for you....you should just stick to snide innuendo that gives the impression of understanding without actuall putting it to the test.

Either your competence in English is really poor or you're being straightforwardly intellectually dishonest. Or both, obviously. Either way, not good.
EB

Considering the error you made above, it is clear that you should be looking in the mirror when you say that.

 

[DBT]

There is nothing random about it. One cube then the other. At will.

I look at the cube and change my perception of it at will.

I can do it over and over at my choosing.

It is really this way with many perceptions we have on a daily basis. Our will has an effect on what we perceive. It is not simply a passive process.

Your claim that something random is involved lacks evidence.

Your response does not relate to what I said. Sorry, maybe read more carefully and try again.

You need to address my point.

When I switch from perceiving one cube to perceiving another at will what am I using to make the switch?

How long and hard will you avoid addressing this?

With your stubborn will.

I have answered your belief many times, too many times. The answer is always the same. An answer that you do not like and therefore cannot even consider yet alone accept....that it is 'your' brain that is forming and generating not only the experience of switching perspective but you doing it, the feeling that you as conscious self/experience is switching perspective. That being the illusion of conscious agency. But as research and evidence shows, it ultimately comes down to brain agency. If you can see the distinction.

 

[untermensche]

You need to address my point.

When I switch from perceiving one cube to perceiving another at will what am I using to make the switch?

How long and hard will you avoid addressing this?

With your stubborn will.

I have answered your belief many times, too many times. The answer is always the same. An answer that you do not like and therefore cannot even consider yet alone accept....that it is 'your' brain that is forming and generating not only the experience of switching perspective but you doing it, the feeling that you as conscious self/experience is switching perspective. That being the illusion of conscious agency. But as research and evidence shows, it ultimately comes down to brain agency. If you can see the distinction.

You have no answer to it.

Saying the brain is generating it is not an explanation of anything. It is only a description of where some activity you don't understand in the least is taking place.

You keep repeating that ignorant claim over and over. IT IS MEANINGLESS!!!!

You don't have the slightest clue what a person uses to change their visual perception at will.

Your game is over.

 

[DBT]

You need to address my point.

When I switch from perceiving one cube to perceiving another at will what am I using to make the switch?

How long and hard will you avoid addressing this?

With your stubborn will.

I have answered your belief many times, too many times. The answer is always the same. An answer that you do not like and therefore cannot even consider yet alone accept....that it is 'your' brain that is forming and generating not only the experience of switching perspective but you doing it, the feeling that you as conscious self/experience is switching perspective. That being the illusion of conscious agency. But as research and evidence shows, it ultimately comes down to brain agency. If you can see the distinction.

You have no answer to it.

Saying the brain is generating it is not an explanation of anything. It is only a description of where some activity you don't understand in the least is taking place.

You keep repeating that ignorant claim over and over. IT IS MEANINGLESS!!!!

You don't have the slightest clue what a person uses to change their visual perception at will.

Your game is over.

The game never began for you. You were never in the game. Your claim of smart consciousness in control of a dumb brain is patently absurd. There is nothing to support the notion.

All evidence points clearly to brain agency.

But no matter how many explanations are provided, you cannot give them consideration. You can only dismiss. You dismiss everything, neuroscience, case studies, experiments, evidence, what researchers are saying, everything must be dismissed in order for you to maintain your smart consciousness as being the jockey of a brain.

 

[untermensche]

The game never began for you. You were never in the game. Your claim of smart consciousness in control of a dumb brain is patently absurd. There is nothing to support the notion.

All evidence points clearly to brain agency.

But no matter how many explanations are provided, you cannot give them consideration. You can only dismiss. You dismiss everything, neuroscience, case studies, experiments, evidence, what researchers are saying, everything must be dismissed in order for you to maintain your smart consciousness as being the jockey of a brain.

Of course there is something to support the notion. What you just did. You freely decided which ideas to include and which to discard in your response. That is how I have some understanding of it. Because they were ideas chosen by a mind not a random event.

You have faith not reason.

Connect the dots.

Consciousness arises somehow and in some way. And the brain is somehow involved.

Therefore what?

Connect the dots.

 

[DBT]

The game never began for you. You were never in the game. Your claim of smart consciousness in control of a dumb brain is patently absurd. There is nothing to support the notion.

All evidence points clearly to brain agency.

But no matter how many explanations are provided, you cannot give them consideration. You can only dismiss. You dismiss everything, neuroscience, case studies, experiments, evidence, what researchers are saying, everything must be dismissed in order for you to maintain your smart consciousness as being the jockey of a brain.

Of course there is something to support the notion. What you just did. You freely decided which ideas to include and which to discard in your response. That is how I have some understanding of it. Because they were ideas chosen by a mind not a random event.

You have faith not reason.

Connect the dots.

Consciousness arises somehow and in some way. And the brain is somehow involved.

Therefore what?

Connect the dots.

It's hopeless. You just cannot take into account the mechanism and means of your conscious experience of self and perceived agency....an experience that unravels whenever the actual agent, the brain, suffers damage or chemical imbalances...at which point the illusion of conscious self in control is revealed.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Because your English sucks.

Only when I ask him. When I'm in the mood for it. Only on a Saturday night because it means fun.

You have a stilted partial understanding.

Very nearly each of my posts is proof to the contrary!

You definitely display yourself "partial understanding" if that's all that you can understand of my posts.

Not a working knowledge.

Very nearly each of my posts is proof to the opposite. Your reading skills are not very good.

Just remind everybody here what it is you think I didn't understand? Just for a laugh!

I said ""beady means small" and you did not comprehend what I was saying.

That's a very stupid conclusion. Your sentence is effectively ambiguous. It can be taken to mean "beady implies small" or that you're claiming it's the definition. My reply what just to remove the ambiguity.

You have a partial understanding so you somehow thought I was giving a complete definition.

No. I saw the two possible interpretations and decided to remove the ambiguity. Your inference is pretty idiotic.

You did not comprehend that I was merely saying that small is included in the understanding, as in "The weekend means fun."

Your inference is pretty idiotic.

Your English sucks!

Only when I ask him. When I'm in the mood for it. Only on a Saturday night because it means fun.

Ah, you're no match. I'm just shadow-boxing here.

You're making an ass of yourself.

Stick with French. Maybe you understand that.

Each of your posts is demonstration enough that you're unable to relate to what other people say. For some reason, you have an axe to grind and you can't be steered away from that. Most of what you say is completely useless and you're essentially repeating yourself ad nauseam.

Your turn! I think we're doing well here. Go on! Show us what you can really do with English words
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Clearly, something is missing in your version.

By making your objection you show that you cannot grasp the fact that what I cut from that quote aer merely examples provided by the dictionary in order to illustrate usage.

Now, what I am doing is applying the very same definition, not to 'healthy animals' or the absence of disease, but the brain and its workings in relation to 'will' - which is perfectly acceptable because the dictionary definition is in no way, shape or form restricted to 'healthy animals' or absence of disease, these being simply examples of usage.

If you can't see this, there is no hope for you....you should just stick to snide innuendo that gives the impression of understanding without actuall putting it to the test.

Either your competence in English is really poor or you're being straightforwardly intellectually dishonest. Or both, obviously. Either way, not good.
EB

Considering the error you made above, it is clear that you should be looking in the mirror when you say that.

You seem to be missing something rather crucial--both obvious and crucial--which is that the two examples you voluntarily left out both talk of something being free from something else, that is to say, free relatively to a given condition or circumstance, as indeed explained in the definition itself. Look again here:

Original definition of "free"
Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance: a healthy animal, free of disease; people free from need.

Sorry that I should have to italicise and underline all the relevant points but you appear to have a serious problem understanding even straightforward English sentences.

So, now, you do understand what is a given condition or circumstance, don't you?

So, now, where is it in your contention that will is not free? Free from what? How is it that will is not free from anything at all? You think my will is not even free from yours? How is it that we can use "free" precisely in this sense for all sorts of things, as I have shown in my previous posts, but not for will? What's so special about will that it cannot be said to be free when we can talk of freepost, Freemason, freeloader, freelance, freehand, freephone, to name just a few; or indeed freedom itself. Surely, you should spend every moment of your life arguing that freedom just can't possibly exist in a deterministic universe. You really need to tell the whole world. Go on!

So, while I agree it could have been legitimate to cut the examples, the examples should have told you your understanding of the definition was just plain wrong.


_____________________

Okay, so, now, I've just pinpointed the problem. You won't have any excuse any more. I'm listening. What do you have to tell us about that definition?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I have answered your belief many times, too many times. The answer is always the same. An answer that you do not like and therefore cannot even consider yet alone accept....that it is 'your' brain that is forming and generating not only the experience of switching perspective but you doing it, the feeling that you as conscious self/experience is switching perspective. That being the illusion of conscious agency. But as research and evidence shows, it ultimately comes down to brain agency. If you can see the distinction.

You have no answer to it.

Saying the brain is generating it is not an explanation of anything. It is only a description of where some activity you don't understand in the least is taking place.

You keep repeating that ignorant claim over and over. IT IS MEANINGLESS!!!!

YES!!!! I HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU HERE!!!!

BUT YOU'RE DOING EXACTLY THE SAME THING, OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!!!

You keep repeating your ignorant claim over and over. IT IS MEANINGLESS!!!!

You can still change your ways. It's still time to do it! Just give it a try!
EB

 

[fromderinside]

There he is the french Gregory Peck on the beach. Of course it's logical. There's still time brother.

The above is about the only way I can express something classified as 'free' anything.