There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[Speakpigeon]

That "subjective experience is only related to brain activity" is something we don't actually know.

Why don't we know this? Is there a single example of subjective experience that is not related to brain activity?

Do you believe there's such a thing as electromagnetic fields?

Well, if you do, explain to me how you would know there's an electromagnetic field precisely where there would be nothing for us to observe as being somehow affected by it?

Same for all physical fields we know of.
EB

 

[untermensche]

How many times can you tell somebody that just because the brain creates consciousness in some unknown way that does not tell us that consciousness cannot also have effects on the thing producing it?

We are kind of dealing with a unique situation here, consciousness.

Who says it can't have effects on the brain and what is their proof, not worthless irrational argument that consists of just saying the brain creates consciousness?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way".

Untermensche also says an infinite past is not possible because it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

Where's the logic there?!

And how many times do I have to post this to get a sensible answer?
EB

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way".

Untermensche also says an infinite past is not possible because it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

Where's the logic there?!

And how many times do I have to post this to get a sensible answer?
EB

Wrong thread peewee.

 

[DBT]

Here it is:

sufficient
adj
2. (Logic) (of a condition) assuring the truth of a statement; requiring but not necessarily required by some other state of affairs.

If that can help you with your English and your logic.
Noddy

Wake up Noddy, that was not the question. You love to act the Man, love to project your self image of perfect understanding, logic and reason, your self perceived elevation high above your opponents....but this is an illusion. You are regularly mistaken, yet conceited in your ignorance and arrogance.

 

[DBT]

That "subjective experience is only related to brain activity" is something we don't actually know.

Why don't we know this? Is there a single example of subjective experience that is not related to brain activity?

Do you believe there's such a thing as electromagnetic fields?

Well, if you do, explain to me how you would know there's an electromagnetic field precisely where there would be nothing for us to observe as being somehow affected by it?

Same for all physical fields we know of.
EB

That's absurd. You have no idea. I pointed out that electrical activity in the brain is detectable in an active brain and the detected patterns have been used to predict decisions before they become conscious. Which relates patterns of neuronal activity/firings to specific decisions and thoughts, this option over that option, etc.

For example:
''When it comes to making decisions, it seems that the conscious mind is the last to know.

We already had evidence that it is possible to detect brain activity associated with movement before someone is aware of making a decision to move. Work presented this week at the British Neuroscience Association (BNA) conference in London not only extends it to abstract decisions, but suggests that it might even be possible to pre-emptively reverse a decision before a person realises they’ve made it.

In 2011, Gabriel Kreiman of Harvard University measured the activity of individual neurons in 12 people with epilepsy, using electrodes already implanted into their brain to help identify the source of their seizures. The volunteers took part in the “Libet” experiment, in which they press a button whenever they like and remember the position of a second hand on a clock at the moment of decision.

Kreiman discovered that electrical activity in the supplementary motor area, involved in initiating movement, and in the anterior cingulate cortex, which controls attention and motivation, appeared up to 5 seconds before a volunteer was aware of deciding to press the button (Neuron, doi.org/btkcpz). This backed up earlier fMRI studies by John-Dylan Haynes of the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin, Germany, that had traced the origins of decisions to the prefrontal cortex a whopping 10 seconds before awareness (Nature Neuroscience, doi.org/cs3rzv).''

 

[DBT]

How many times can you tell somebody that just because the brain creates consciousness in some unknown way that does not tell us that consciousness cannot also have effects on the thing producing it?

We are kind of dealing with a unique situation here, consciousness.

Who says it can't have effects on the brain and what is their proof, not worthless irrational argument that consists of just saying the brain creates consciousness?

The thing being produced is not producing itself, it has no autonomy, it cannot decide to do otherwise. It, consciousness, is what it is and does what it does according to what the brain is doing, nothing more and nothing less. If the brain stops generating conscious activity, there is no consciousness.

Your 'smart consciousness' operating a 'dumb brain' idea has no merit.

How many times does this need to be pointed out before it sinks in? I suspect that an infinite amount of times would be insufficient.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Here it is:

sufficient
adj
2. (Logic) (of a condition) assuring the truth of a statement; requiring but not necessarily required by some other state of affairs.

If that can help you with your English and your logic.
Noddy

Wake up Noddy, that was not the question. You love to act the Man, love to project your self image of perfect understanding, logic and reason, your self perceived elevation high above your opponents....but this is an illusion. You are regularly mistaken, yet conceited in your ignorance and arrogance.

Somehow, my post wasn't sufficient. I fear any post of mine won't be sufficient, ever.
Noddy

 

[Speakpigeon]

Do you believe there's such a thing as electromagnetic fields?

Well, if you do, explain to me how you would know there's an electromagnetic field precisely where there would be nothing for us to observe as being somehow affected by it?

Same for all physical fields we know of.
EB

That's absurd. You have no idea. I pointed out that electrical activity in the brain is detectable in an active brain and the detected patterns have been used to predict decisions before they become conscious. Which relates patterns of neuronal activity/firings to specific decisions and thoughts, this option over that option, etc.

For example:
''When it comes to making decisions, it seems that the conscious mind is the last to know.

We already had evidence that it is possible to detect brain activity associated with movement before someone is aware of making a decision to move. Work presented this week at the British Neuroscience Association (BNA) conference in London not only extends it to abstract decisions, but suggests that it might even be possible to pre-emptively reverse a decision before a person realises they’ve made it.

In 2011, Gabriel Kreiman of Harvard University measured the activity of individual neurons in 12 people with epilepsy, using electrodes already implanted into their brain to help identify the source of their seizures. The volunteers took part in the “Libet” experiment, in which they press a button whenever they like and remember the position of a second hand on a clock at the moment of decision.

Kreiman discovered that electrical activity in the supplementary motor area, involved in initiating movement, and in the anterior cingulate cortex, which controls attention and motivation, appeared up to 5 seconds before a volunteer was aware of deciding to press the button (Neuron, doi.org/btkcpz). This backed up earlier fMRI studies by John-Dylan Haynes of the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin, Germany, that had traced the origins of decisions to the prefrontal cortex a whopping 10 seconds before awareness (Nature Neuroscience, doi.org/cs3rzv).''

You're completely missing the point. I already agreed as to the idea that the quantitative aspects of the mind are correlated to the activity of the brain. If you don't read my posts, don't reply to them.

Here I was talking of the qualitative aspects of our subjective experience, i.e. the experience as such, in itself, and the qualia we experience. There's nothing in what you explain here that could address those points, not even in principle.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way".

Untermensche also says an infinite past is not possible because it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

Where's the logic there?!

And how many times do I have to post this to get a sensible answer?
EB

Wrong thread peewee.

It shows you're a completely illogical bum and good logic is pretty much a requirement for the kind of conversations we have around here, so this is relevant. As long as you fail to address the contradiction between your two claims here.

So, basically, most threads are going to be appropriate for that.
EB

 

[untermensche]

How many times can you tell somebody that just because the brain creates consciousness in some unknown way that does not tell us that consciousness cannot also have effects on the thing producing it?

We are kind of dealing with a unique situation here, consciousness.

Who says it can't have effects on the brain and what is their proof, not worthless irrational argument that consists of just saying the brain creates consciousness?

The thing being produced is not producing itself, it has no autonomy....

Does not follow in any way.

If the mind is the only thing that can comprehend ideas and some decisions are made based on ideas then clearly the mind must be making them.

You have to demonstrate more than the brain creates ideas. You have to demonstrate it understands them too.

We know for certain minds comprehend ideas.

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way".

Untermensche also says an infinite past is not possible because it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

Where's the logic there?!

And how many times do I have to post this to get a sensible answer?
EB

Wrong thread peewee.

It shows you're a completely illogical bum and good logic is pretty much a requirement for the kind of conversations we have around here, so this is relevant. As long as you fail to address the contradiction between your two claims here.

So, basically, most threads are going to be appropriate for that.
EB

The past is time in the past.

It is possible time had a beginning.

But it could only have a beginning from some kind of existence that did not include time.

An existence we could comprehend in no way.

Physicists speculate about a lot more imaginary worlds than I am speculating about here.

Check out this thing called multiverse theory.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It shows you're a completely illogical bum and good logic is pretty much a requirement for the kind of conversations we have around here, so this is relevant. As long as you fail to address the contradiction between your two claims here.

So, basically, most threads are going to be appropriate for that.
EB

The past is time in the past.

It is possible time had a beginning.

But it could only have a beginning from some kind of existence that did not include time.

An existence we could comprehend in no way.

Physicists speculate about a lot more imaginary worlds than I am speculating about here.

Check out this thing called multiverse theory.

So very interesting, that, but it's not the point. Not even close.

Please address the point in my post:

Untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way".

Untermensche also says an infinite past is not possible because it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

Where's the logic there?!

You still haven't addressed this point.

How many times do I have to post this to get a sensible answer?!
EB

 

[bilby]

So very interesting, that, but it's not the point. Not even close.

Please address the point in my post:

Untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way".

Untermensche also says an infinite past is not possible because it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

Where's the logic there?!

You still haven't addressed this point.

How many times do I have to post this to get a sensible answer?!
EB

A-ha!

Perhaps now you have a tangible example of an actual, real-world, genuine, and inarguable infinity!

 

[fromderinside]

So very interesting, that, but it's not the point. Not even close.

Please address the point in my post:

Untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way".

Untermensche also says an infinite past is not possible because it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

Where's the logic there?!

You still haven't addressed this point.

How many times do I have to post this to get a sensible answer?!
EB

A-ha!

Perhaps now you have a tangible example of an actual, real-world, genuine, and inarguable infinity!

At the risk of suffering a attempted bitch slapping again after that horrifying chant by speakpigeon on circular arguments on functional things not being similar to westward ho types circling wagons against attacks by indians, I submit: Uh, like the thought "God is/isn't"?

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way".

If something is a logical necessity then of course it must be possible.

You have no point.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Beans, "mogette", from Vendée, and just one big red oignon, from Brittany, this time.
EB

 

[DBT]

Wake up Noddy, that was not the question. You love to act the Man, love to project your self image of perfect understanding, logic and reason, your self perceived elevation high above your opponents....but this is an illusion. You are regularly mistaken, yet conceited in your ignorance and arrogance.

Somehow, my post wasn't sufficient. I fear any post of mine won't be sufficient, ever.
Noddy

Well, there you go, what you say here is both quite true and a sufficient account of your position. As your specialty appears to be the art of snide remarks, you may be said to be adequate in that department...even if somewhat irritating. The self appointed arbiter of truth, logic and reason act, while amusing at first does fall flat after a while.

 

[DBT]

Do you believe there's such a thing as electromagnetic fields?

Well, if you do, explain to me how you would know there's an electromagnetic field precisely where there would be nothing for us to observe as being somehow affected by it?

Same for all physical fields we know of.
EB

That's absurd. You have no idea. I pointed out that electrical activity in the brain is detectable in an active brain and the detected patterns have been used to predict decisions before they become conscious. Which relates patterns of neuronal activity/firings to specific decisions and thoughts, this option over that option, etc.

For example:
''When it comes to making decisions, it seems that the conscious mind is the last to know.

We already had evidence that it is possible to detect brain activity associated with movement before someone is aware of making a decision to move. Work presented this week at the British Neuroscience Association (BNA) conference in London not only extends it to abstract decisions, but suggests that it might even be possible to pre-emptively reverse a decision before a person realises they’ve made it.

In 2011, Gabriel Kreiman of Harvard University measured the activity of individual neurons in 12 people with epilepsy, using electrodes already implanted into their brain to help identify the source of their seizures. The volunteers took part in the “Libet” experiment, in which they press a button whenever they like and remember the position of a second hand on a clock at the moment of decision.

Kreiman discovered that electrical activity in the supplementary motor area, involved in initiating movement, and in the anterior cingulate cortex, which controls attention and motivation, appeared up to 5 seconds before a volunteer was aware of deciding to press the button (Neuron, doi.org/btkcpz). This backed up earlier fMRI studies by John-Dylan Haynes of the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin, Germany, that had traced the origins of decisions to the prefrontal cortex a whopping 10 seconds before awareness (Nature Neuroscience, doi.org/cs3rzv).''

You're completely missing the point. I already agreed as to the idea that the quantitative aspects of the mind are correlated to the activity of the brain. If you don't read my posts, don't reply to them.

Here I was talking of the qualitative aspects of our subjective experience, i.e. the experience as such, in itself, and the qualia we experience. There's nothing in what you explain here that could address those points, not even in principle.
EB

I don't think I am missing the point because your remarks still appear to suggest that something more than brain activity is needed to explain the qualitative aspects of our experience.

Now, I do know that you may not be doing this intentionally, yet it is there; That "subjective experience is only related to brain activity" is something we don't actually know - Speakpigeon.

So again, if not the brain.....what? Is there another option? Is there another contender? A source other than an active brain for subjective experience?

If not, what is the point of your remark?

Plus, all experience is subjective. Consciousness is subjective. Mind is subjective, sight, sound, touch, smell, taste is subjective. This collection of features, functions and abilities is quite relatable to brain architecture and activity and exists nowhere else.

So your remarks appear to be quite strange in relation to the basics of cognition.

Maybe you have some point to make, but whatever it is, it isn't coming across as clearly as you probably imagine.

 

[DBT]

How many times can you tell somebody that just because the brain creates consciousness in some unknown way that does not tell us that consciousness cannot also have effects on the thing producing it?

We are kind of dealing with a unique situation here, consciousness.

Who says it can't have effects on the brain and what is their proof, not worthless irrational argument that consists of just saying the brain creates consciousness?

The thing being produced is not producing itself, it has no autonomy....

Does not follow in any way.

If the mind is the only thing that can comprehend ideas and some decisions are made based on ideas then clearly the mind must be making them.

You have to demonstrate more than the brain creates ideas. You have to demonstrate it understands them too.

We know for certain minds comprehend ideas.

The brain comprehends ideas and represents this understanding in conscious form, which is conscious mind. The brain and its information processing activity perceives the world and self through its senses and forms a mental picture of its external environment, body and self identity in conscious form.....