There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[untermensche]

The brain comprehends ideas..

You have seen a brain functioning productively in the world that didn't have a mind first?

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

There, there, it's all over now. I won't be pushing you around so much. Blink those tears back and stop sniffling. You're not really hurt or anything, I promise.
Noddy

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Well, if you don't bother to read my posts, of course whatever I say won't be coming across at all.

So, I am going to have to quote myself, just for you:

I don't see subjective experience as an aspect of the mind. I assume that mind and subjective experience are, at least potentially, two different things. I don't see subjective experience as necessarily connected to mind and I fail to see why I should. And, crucially, it's easy enough to make that distinction. I would even make a further distinction, between our qualia, i.e. the qualitative aspect of our mind, and the quantitative aspect of what our mind does. Computers already do something very much like the quantitative aspect, if only on a very small footing. I'm not sure we could even imagine a computer also doing the qualia thing, somehow. Let alone how to check that it would truly do it.

So, yes, I agree that any argument about the mind doesn't carry any water as far as subjective experience is concerned.

And, yes, I also agree that DBT's arguments are essentially about the mind, sort of.

But then, it's not really about the mind itself. Rather, it's all about whatever it is our body does--essentially the activity of our brain and our behaviour--that we take both to be closely related to what we call a mind, and that we, as outside observers, think we experience as a mind, something much like what we experience subjectively as our own mind.

And there is no dispute as to what our body does, except perhaps that some scientists may come to think they've discovered something quite stupendous. But no, we already knew, without any CT scan and EEG, broadly what they may think we've discovered with them, which is that we need a body to get any sign or signal that there is a mind. In fact, observing behaviour, i.e. not the brain, still is the best way to understand a mind, and this is something that nearly all human beings do without even thinking about it.

Personally, I try to keep that distinction clear. The quantitative aspect of our mind is, at least very likely, an activity of our brain. Our subjective experience is subjective experience of our mind but may be not necessarily only of our mind. I'll keep an open mind about that. And there's the hard problem of subjective experience. And then there's also the hard problem of qualitative qualia, which we wouldn't know how to explain from an essentially quantitative understanding of our physical universe and of our brain.

So, there you are, it's a scoop, the first time anybody (body!), ever, suggested there were two hard problems, not just one.
EB

Go on, surprise me!
EB

 

[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.

Oh, it follows in every way. You just can't accept the fact of brain as sole author of mind/consciousness.

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.

There is no mind without brain and brain activity forming mind.

The state and condition of a brain determines its expression of mind/consciousness. Adaptive, maladaptive, able to think, not able to think. It's all brain activity according to architecture and information input....garbage in, garbage out.

You have no way around this.

 

[DBT]

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.

There, there, it's all over now. I won't be pushing you around so much. Blink those tears back and stop sniffling. You're not really hurt or anything, I promise.
Noddy

You mistake irritation for hurt. Irritation is a puppy constantly yapping and snapping around your heels. It may be annoying, it may become boring over time, but it doesn't hurt.....yet the puppy needs to learn manners, to learn to behave like a reasonable adult. There lies the problem.

 

[DBT]

Go on, surprise me!
EB

As I said. The problem lies in your wording. On the one hand you say one thing; ''The quantitative aspect of our mind is, at least very likely, an activity of our brain'' but appear to suggest something else; ''Our subjective experience is subjective experience of our mind but may be not necessarily only of our mind.''


What does ''our subjective experience is subjective experience of our mind but may be not necessarily only of our mind''' even mean?

I can't even guess. It has suggestions of some non brain elements, but who knows. Maybe someone knows. That would be a surprise.

Again, it's your wording. Maybe you can explain what you mean clearly and concisely. That would be a surprise. Perhaps even do it without snide undertones. Which would be a shock.

 

[untermensche]

Does not follow in any way.

Oh, it follows in every way. You just can't accept the fact of brain as sole author of mind/consciousness.

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.

There is no mind without brain and brain activity forming mind.

The state and condition of a brain determines its expression of mind/consciousness. Adaptive, maladaptive, able to think, not able to think. It's all brain activity according to architecture and information input....garbage in, garbage out.

You have no way around this.

You have seen a brain functioning productively in the world that didn't have a mind first?

The state of the mind determines the state of the body. We see it all the time.

People can lower their blood pressure and heart rate using their minds.

 

[DBT]

Oh, it follows in every way. You just can't accept the fact of brain as sole author of mind/consciousness.



There is no mind without brain and brain activity forming mind.

The state and condition of a brain determines its expression of mind/consciousness. Adaptive, maladaptive, able to think, not able to think. It's all brain activity according to architecture and information input....garbage in, garbage out.

You have no way around this.

You have seen a brain functioning productively in the world that didn't have a mind first?

Conscious mind is put to sleep every night, sometimes even during the day...yet the brain is functioning.

The state of the mind determines the state of the body. We see it all the time.

People can lower their blood pressure and heart rate using their minds.

Lowering blood pressure is done by the brain in response to stimuli and represented in conscious form. First the input, initiation, then conscious representation of the experience.

That is how it works. I have provided links to experiments, quotes and analysis by researchers. The laws of physics cannot be overruled by 'mind.' Mind is brain activity. You confuse the complexity of conscious experience with agency.

 

[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?

Do you understand that a server is useless without hardware to run it? That software cannot function without hardware?

Yes. Do you understand that a server without software is a really expensive doorstop?

That a functioning brain is composed of both hardware and software? That a brain generates its own 'software' according to its architecture and information input?

Really? The brain generates its own software? Nothing else is required? Ahh... no... I see you've added an additional element there - information input. So a mind requires a physical brain structure, and it requires a processing program of sorts, and it also requires information input.

Is there anything else that is required for the existence of a mind? Maybe... chemical messengers that are generated in other parts of the body? Maybe hormonal messengers that are initiated outside of the brain? How about a feedback loop between information input and action? Does a mind need any of those things... or is a brain (plus inputs) all that is needed for a mind to exist?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Given that your discussion in this thread contain a large number of snide remarks with no content beyond insulting the other party... it might be worthwhile to back the fuck up for a bit and try being less hypocritical.

 

[Emily Lake]

Going back several steps... and for the moment limiting the topic to humans...

The act of thinking alters the patterns within the brain. Conscious thought can change brain activity.

Does anyone disagree with those statements?

 

[untermensche]

Conscious mind is put to sleep every night, sometimes even during the day...yet the brain is functioning.

The brain is not functioning normally.

And the mind allows itself to sleep at night. The mind submits. And the mind can cause the body to lay down and then decide to stay up for another hour and get the body up.

Trauma can alter the activity that is producing the mind thus robbing the mind of it's powers temporarily.

People can lower their blood pressure and heart rate using their minds.

Lowering blood pressure is done by the brain in response to stimuli and represented in conscious form.

It is done when a mind practices doing it. Just like a mind can get a body to learn how to jump a rope efficiently.

First the input, initiation, then conscious representation of the experience.

It is just like the Necker cube.

First the mind picks this cube and causes the perception to change. Then the mind changes the cube to another and with a very little practice back and forth at will.

You claim it is the brain not the mind initiating the change has no logic or evidence to support it.

Saying that the mind is created by some unknown activity of the brain is not saying the mind cannot act on the brain.

Saying it over and over and over will never change that.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Going back several steps... and for the moment limiting the topic to humans...

The act of thinking alters the patterns within the brain. Conscious thought can change brain activity.

Does anyone disagree with those statements?

Hmm... Seems there's this one Sean Carroll guy, yes:

Physicist Sean Carroll has examined the concept of downward causation in emergent systems and come to the conclusion that it is a "misguided/unhelpful notion".

You might want to have a close look at that.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The brain is not functioning normally.

And the mind allows itself to sleep at night. The mind submits. And the mind can cause the body to lay down and then decide to stay up for another hour and get the body up.

Trauma can alter the activity that is producing the mind thus robbing the mind of it's powers temporarily.

Lowering blood pressure is done by the brain in response to stimuli and represented in conscious form.

It is done when a mind practices doing it. Just like a mind can get a body to learn how to jump a rope efficiently.

First the input, initiation, then conscious representation of the experience.

It is just like the Necker cube.

First the mind picks this cube and causes the perception to change. Then the mind changes the cube to another and with a very little practice back and forth at will.

You claim it is the brain not the mind initiating the change has no logic or evidence to support it.

Saying that the mind is created by some unknown activity of the brain is not saying the mind cannot act on the brain.

Saying it over and over and over will never change that.

Yeah, sure. Go, go, boy!

I would definitely agree that the mind has a powerful power of self-delusion.

Unstoppable. Undelusionable.
EB

 

[untermensche]

The brain is not functioning normally.

And the mind allows itself to sleep at night. The mind submits. And the mind can cause the body to lay down and then decide to stay up for another hour and get the body up.

Trauma can alter the activity that is producing the mind thus robbing the mind of it's powers temporarily.





It is done when a mind practices doing it. Just like a mind can get a body to learn how to jump a rope efficiently.



It is just like the Necker cube.

First the mind picks this cube and causes the perception to change. Then the mind changes the cube to another and with a very little practice back and forth at will.

You claim it is the brain not the mind initiating the change has no logic or evidence to support it.

Saying that the mind is created by some unknown activity of the brain is not saying the mind cannot act on the brain.

Saying it over and over and over will never change that.

Yeah, sure. Go, go, boy!

I would definitely agree that the mind has a powerful power of self-delusion.

Unstoppable. Undelusionable.
EB

Some minds have a great capacity for self-delusion.

Some minds have trained themselves to recognize potential delusions and avoid them.

It is all about the will and what a mind chooses to do with it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I hear you, David Prowse, and my heart bleeds.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Your lack of faith disturbs me.

 

[DBT]

Do you understand that a server is useless without hardware to run it? That software cannot function without hardware?

Yes. Do you understand that a server without software is a really expensive doorstop?

Do you understand that a functional brain generates its own 'software?'

Really? The brain generates its own software? Nothing else is required? Ahh... no... I see you've added an additional element there - information input. So a mind requires a physical brain structure, and it requires a processing program of sorts, and it also requires information input.

Do you have problem with comprehension? I keep mentioning that there are multiple elements at work, brain architecture, neural connectivity, electrochemical information processing activity, memory function, recognition, etc, etc....without which conscious mind cannot exist....yet you persistently ignore what doesn't suit your needs and pretend I do not include them.

It's a poor effort. It's something you'd expect from a child.

Is there anything else that is required for the existence of a mind? Maybe... chemical messengers that are generated in other parts of the body? Maybe hormonal messengers that are initiated outside of the brain? How about a feedback loop between information input and action? Does a mind need any of those things... or is a brain (plus inputs) all that is needed for a mind to exist?

You don't realize that chemical messengers, etc, are a part of brain composition? Information input not only comes from body parts but the environment, via the senses, etc, acquired by the brain.

My point being that it is the brain as the central information processor of the body/nervous system that makes conscious experience/mind possible, and that without a functional brain (which includes, ion flow, neurotransmitters, receptors, glial support cells, etc, etc, there is no mind or consciousness.

Now stop playing childish games.

 

[DBT]

Going back several steps... and for the moment limiting the topic to humans...

The act of thinking alters the patterns within the brain. Conscious thought can change brain activity.

Does anyone disagree with those statements?

Conscious thought is brain activity.

 

[DBT]

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.

Given that your discussion in this thread contain a large number of snide remarks with no content beyond insulting the other party... it might be worthwhile to back the fuck up for a bit and try being less hypocritical.

What you fail to consider is that I did not initiate this. I do return what I get with interest. I never start it. If you care to check, it was Speakpigeon who began this round of insults. He has a habit of it, not only toward me but any poster he deems unworthy of his self perceived talents.

As for you, you appear to be able to dish it out, but not accept what is flung back into your own face as a result.

It appears that you are blind to your tone and manner, yet expect nothing but courtesy in return.

I freely admit that I do return insult with insult, but never initiate this behaviour unless a poster goes down that road. Speakpigeon regularly goes down that road, and so have you.

Which is why you get what you get, Sweetie.

You reap what you sow.