There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[Speakpigeon]

a person who has no objective knowledge of consciousness

Why did Husserl not become the Galileo of the science of consciousness?
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004333215s013

It is well known that Husserl clearly recognized the importance of the introduction of idealization in physics and its contribution to the further advancement in natural sciences. The history of the successful applications of idealization in natural sciences encouraged attempts to extend the use of this sophisticated instrument of theoretical investigation and theory construction to other domains of science. Since Husserl designed his phenomenology as the rigorous science of consciousness we have to find out why he did not use the method he understood so well to study experiences, the objects located by him in the domain of consciousness. The paper offers an answer to this question. It explains why Husserl conceived of the method of idealization as a tool of objectivization of previously subjective knowledge. Since idealization is used to objectify knowledge, its application to experiences, conscious acts would produce objective knowledge of consciousness. This, however, would contradict phenomenological assertion that subjectivity is an essential component of experience and that the reliable knowledge about conscious acts could not be objectified. It is the core of Husserl’s argumentation that there is no place for idealization in the research on consciousness.

Husserl's dead, but he "recognized the importance of the introduction of idealization in physics and its contribution to the further advancement in natural sciences".

Idealization in physics?

Dermot Moran, Husserl's Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/husserl-s-...transcendental-phenomenology-an-introduction/

For Husserl, what is essential is the way that Galileo overlaid the world of ordinary experience with a "garb of ideas," investing it with an entirely new sense and transforming it into the self-enclosed infinite manifold familiar to all scientifically educated people today.

Yeah, but Husserl's really dead.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Objective knowledge of consciousness is just like any objective knowledge of any natural phenomena.

It requires a testable model first.

There is no model for the production of consciousness.

It is a natural phenomena that is only known subjectively.

 

[DBT]

As much as I've enjoyed this discussion with you, I do not think that any rational common ground is possible.

That took you some time.
EB

The conceited Mr Noddy puts in his two bobs worth. I can say the same about Emily Lake. I explained my point of view over and over, that there is no 'person as a pattern, etc, etc, that ''acts on the body' because the brain is the sole instigator of all conscious and unconscious behaviours (except nerve loop reflex response) based on architecture and sensory input....to no avail.

So your opinion and snide remarks don't mean much, Noddy. Perhaps lsomething like irritating fly that buzzes around occasionally and needs swatting...

 

[DBT]

No, you think you have explained it, you believe that you have explained it, but you have not explained it.

You'd be better off just saying that your wording could have been better, that you didn't mean to imply that a person is able to act upon the body when in fact it is the brain that creates the person and acts upon the body accordingly.

That being the distinction you have been missing from the start.

Okay, I'm done here. I've explained it, and re-explained it in several different ways, then reiterated several explanations, then tried different ways to explain it, then pointed out that you were conflating two different things, then re-explained a re-explanation. I don't think it's possible to explain this in a way that you will accept. Regardless of how understandable it might be, you have rejected the entire concept in preference to the framework you have chosen... a framework that includes multiple very specific custom-built definitions, by the way.

As much as I've enjoyed this discussion with you, I do not think that any rational common ground is possible.

Sour Grapes, Sweety.

I have explained the error of your wording over and over, to no avail. There is no free will to be found in your 'person as pattern, etc, that acts upon the body' because there is no such entity.

You don't address what I say. You do try to explain what you mean but it still falls far short of any sort of argument for free will because your assumptions are flawed.

 

[DBT]

You cannot reason with a person who has no objective knowledge of consciousness yet claims to know what it is capable of doing.

Only a funny fellow who claims that smart consciousness operates a dumb brain can say that, eh? Even while claiming claiming that nobody understands consciousness...but never seeing the irony of his own position.

Hilarious. Comedy Central on this forum.

 

[untermensche]

You cannot reason with a person who has no objective knowledge of consciousness yet claims to know what it is capable of doing.

Only a funny fellow who claims that smart consciousness operates a dumb brain can say that, eh? Even while claiming claiming that nobody understands consciousness...but never seeing the irony of his own position.

Hilarious. Comedy Central on this forum.

You are the one being laughed at.

Deluded.

No idea what consciousness even is yet you know everything about what it can do.

Absolutely hysterical.

 

[DBT]

You cannot reason with a person who has no objective knowledge of consciousness yet claims to know what it is capable of doing.

Only a funny fellow who claims that smart consciousness operates a dumb brain can say that, eh? Even while claiming claiming that nobody understands consciousness...but never seeing the irony of his own position.

Hilarious. Comedy Central on this forum.

You are the one being laughed at.

Deluded.

No idea what consciousness even is yet you know everything about what it can do.

Absolutely hysterical.

You can say this because you are being honored for your insights and your contributions on the nature of subject mind/brain/consciousness?

Seriously?

Your grasp on the nature of irony is as tenuous as your understanding of neuroscience. Which based on your dumb brain being operated by smart consciousness claim is about zero.

 

[untermensche]

I understand when science has no working model to explain some phenomena.

That's all it takes.

Thinking any natural phenomena can be understood in the complete absence of a working model is delusion.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I was going to suggest you two should pair up. I'm not so sure now. Not pretty.
EB

 

[untermensche]

I was going to suggest you two should pair up. I'm not so sure now. Not pretty.
EB

When you age a little you will possible see that all my positions are the rational positions.

You might even understand that we explain natural phenomena using models.

But keep fighting little fella.

You may figure things out someday.

 

[DBT]

I understand when science has no working model to explain some phenomena.

That's all it takes.

Thinking any natural phenomena can be understood in the complete absence of a working model is delusion.

You persistently ignore the point that just because we do not know how a brain forms consciousness does not mean that it is quite clear that the brain is forming consciousness.

Just as you persistently ignore the fact that just because we do not undrstand everything about brain functions does not mean that we understand nothing.

Just as you persistently ignore the evidence that completely contradicts your absurd 'smart consciousness operates a dumb brain' description of brain function.

Just as ignore the means and mechanisms of your experience when you say ''I can lift my arm at will'' while ignoring the fact that it is 'your' brain that is generating you experiencing lifting your arm at 'will' in response to some stimuli.

 

[DBT]

I was going to suggest you two should pair up. I'm not so sure now. Not pretty.
EB

A better idea would be for you to join Mr Untermensche's club because neither of you appear to be able consider the evidence that proves your blinkered beliefs to be wrong.

Again, there is no 'free will' to be found in the claim that a 'person as a set of experiences, patterns, and processes acts upon the body' because there is no such entity that acts upon the body. A person as a set of experiences, patterns, and processes is something that a brain does according to its neural architecture and information input.....as if I haven't pointed this out enough times.

Quote;
''When it comes to the human brain, even the simplest of acts can be counter-intuitive and deceptively complicated. For example, try stretching your arm.

Nerves in the limb send messages back to your brain, but the subjective experience you have of stretching isn't due to these signals. The feeling that you willed your arm into motion, and the realisation that you moved it at all, are both the result of an area at the back of your brain called the posterior parietal cortex. This region helped to produce the intention to move, and predicted what the movement would feel like, all before you twitched a single muscle.''

 

[Speakpigeon]

I was going to suggest you two should pair up. I'm not so sure now. Not pretty.
EB

A better idea would be for you to join Mr Untermensche's club because neither of you appear to be able consider the evidence that proves your blinkered beliefs to be wrong.

Again, there is no 'free will' to be found in the claim that a 'person as a set of experiences, patterns, and processes acts upon the body' because there is no such entity that acts upon the body. A person as a set of experiences, patterns, and processes is something that a brain does according to its neural architecture and information input.....as if I haven't pointed this out enough times.

Quote;
''When it comes to the human brain, even the simplest of acts can be counter-intuitive and deceptively complicated. For example, try stretching your arm.

Nerves in the limb send messages back to your brain, but the subjective experience you have of stretching isn't due to these signals. The feeling that you willed your arm into motion, and the realisation that you moved it at all, are both the result of an area at the back of your brain called the posterior parietal cortex. This region helped to produce the intention to move, and predicted what the movement would feel like, all before you twitched a single muscle.''

???

I don't recall having criticised you on this point. Correction: I'm absolutely certain I didn't. Instead, I specifically criticised the comment you made on one sentence.

''Brain is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the existence of a mind.'' - implies mind that is independent from brain

And you never acknowledged this comment had been wrong.

So, I repeat below, again, my post, since you are misrepresenting it:

There are no examples of mind without the existence and activity of a brain. If you can explain mind without brain agency, go ahead, do your best.

Sure, but there are PLENTY of examples of a brain without a mind.

Brain is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the existence of a mind.

Think about an analogy: There is no person without a body. Yup, that's true. But that doesn't make a body alone into a person. A body is a physical construct. A person is a set of experiences, patterns, and processes that act upon a body.

Really? There are many examples of brain without mind but not a single example of mind without the presence and electrochemical activity of a brain.

If you have an example of mind without brain, please share.

I'd like you to take a moment and re-read my post, please.

''Brain is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the existence of a mind.'' - implies mind that is independent from brain.

No.

It means that the mind is dependent of the brain but that it is also dependent on something else. A mind requires a brain but it also requires something else.

So, I don't know which of your logic or your English is wrong but one of them is.

And then maybe both. Neither English nor logic seems necessary to write the kind of stuff you post.
EB

This Noddy the Frog Clever Boy was asking you what Emily Lake's rather straightforward sentence meant.

So, here's another chance to redeem yourself. Just look at it again :

Brain is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the existence of a mind.

Does it really imply, as you insisted, that the mind would be independent from the brain to say that a brain is necessary for the existence of a mind?

I'm just baffled.
Noddy

So, it's all about one sentence, only one sentence, Brain is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the existence of a mind, and your interpretation of it that it implies mind that is independent from brain.

Try again?
Noddy

 

[untermensche]

I understand when science has no working model to explain some phenomena.

That's all it takes.

Thinking any natural phenomena can be understood in the complete absence of a working model is delusion.

You persistently ignore the point that just because we do not know how a brain forms consciousness does not mean that it is quite clear that the brain is forming consciousness.

That is an assumption I share.

Unfortunately knowing that some kind of unknown activity in the brain creates consciousness tells us nothing about what consciousness is or what effects consciousness can have on the brain.

 

[DBT]

???

I don't recall having criticised you on this point. Correction: I'm absolutely certain I didn't. Instead, I specifically criticised the comment you made on one sentence.

Just speaking generally....is that allowed? Or are you going to indulge in mock outrage and wailing and gnashing of teeth again? My comment was loosely related to the comment I made on that sentence on the claim that ''brain is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the existence of a mind,'' etc.

And you never acknowledged this comment had been wrong.

So, I repeat below, again, my post, since you are misrepresenting it:

So, it's all about one sentence, only one sentence, Brain is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the existence of a mind, and your interpretation of it that it implies mind that is independent from brain.

Try again?
Noddy

But it was not about one sentence taken in isolation.

It would certainly be a wrong assumption if the remark was considered in isolation. Emily Lake's remark is related to the issue of free will and Emily Lake was arguing for free will, hence the context of the remark may well broaden its implications.

My assumption (taken in context of a free will debate) may well be wrong. If it is, what is the point of the remark? As it stands, taken on its own, it doesn't help make a case for free will.

What then is the point of it?

Brain state and condition in relation to decision making is not free will. A 'person as a set of experiences, patterns, and processes that acts upon a body' does not help, it is not even correct.

Th post made no sense without an assumption of autonomy of the person.

 

[DBT]

I understand when science has no working model to explain some phenomena.

That's all it takes.

Thinking any natural phenomena can be understood in the complete absence of a working model is delusion.

You persistently ignore the point that just because we do not know how a brain forms consciousness does not mean that it is quite clear that the brain is forming consciousness.

That is an assumption I share.

Unfortunately knowing that some kind of unknown activity in the brain creates consciousness tells us nothing about what consciousness is or what effects consciousness can have on the brain.

What do you mean by ''what effects consciousness can have on the brain'' considering that it is the brain that is forming and generating consciousness?

 

[untermensche]

That is an assumption I share.

Unfortunately knowing that some kind of unknown activity in the brain creates consciousness tells us nothing about what consciousness is or what effects consciousness can have on the brain.

What do you mean by ''what effects consciousness can have on the brain'' considering that it is the brain that is forming and generating consciousness?

The effects are the observed effects.

The clear observation is we use thoughts to initiate movement.

To do that consciousness must have an effect on the brain.

There is no logic in saying because some kind of unknown activity of the brain creates the phenomena of consciousness that the phenomena of consciousness cannot also have effects on the brain.

 

[DBT]

That is an assumption I share.

Unfortunately knowing that some kind of unknown activity in the brain creates consciousness tells us nothing about what consciousness is or what effects consciousness can have on the brain.

What do you mean by ''what effects consciousness can have on the brain'' considering that it is the brain that is forming and generating consciousness?

The effects are the observed effects.

The clear observation is we use thoughts to initiate movement.

To do that consciousness must have an effect on the brain.

There is no logic in saying because some kind of unknown activity of the brain creates the phenomena of consciousness that the phenomena of consciousness cannot also have effects on the brain.

The brain generates thoughts.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, you think you have explained it, you believe that you have explained it, but you have not explained it.

You'd be better off just saying that your wording could have been better, that you didn't mean to imply that a person is able to act upon the body when in fact it is the brain that creates the person and acts upon the body accordingly.

That being the distinction you have been missing from the start.

Okay, I'm done here. I've explained it, and re-explained it in several different ways, then reiterated several explanations, then tried different ways to explain it, then pointed out that you were conflating two different things, then re-explained a re-explanation. I don't think it's possible to explain this in a way that you will accept. Regardless of how understandable it might be, you have rejected the entire concept in preference to the framework you have chosen... a framework that includes multiple very specific custom-built definitions, by the way.

As much as I've enjoyed this discussion with you, I do not think that any rational common ground is possible.

Sour Grapes, Sweety.

I have explained the error of your wording over and over, to no avail. There is no free will to be found in your 'person as pattern, etc, that acts upon the body' because there is no such entity.

You don't address what I say. You do try to explain what you mean but it still falls far short of any sort of argument for free will because your assumptions are flawed.

Wow. You are seriously condescending. Unnecessarily so.

 

[Emily Lake]

The brain generates thoughts.

Sure. In exactly the same way that a server generates processes

Do you understand the distinction between hardware and software? Do you understand the distinction between architecture and process, as it relates to information systems - whether those systems are silicon based or organic?