What is free will?

[DBT]

Nor does there appear to be a specific location for conscious activity within the brain, being a distributed activity;

''Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, resulting from the communication of information across all its regions and cannot be reduced to something residing in specific areas that control for qualities like attention, hearing, or memory.

These are the results of a new experiment out of Vanderbilt University, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in which researchers observed "whole-brain awareness" when individuals were asked to observe an image flashed briefly on a screen. Researchers measured brain function using fMRI imaging technology and categorized participant responses into "high confidence" and "low confidence" categories, according to how sure each person was that they had seen the image.

"They found that no one area or network of areas of the brain stood out as particularly more connected during awareness of the target; the whole brain appeared to become functionally more connected following reports of awareness."

This makes knowing what the mind is much harder.

And it is not an understanding of what the mind is.

The mind is something that emerges from this widespread activity.

It is not the activity. Whatever widespread activity is the activity that creates a mind and responds to a mind.

And of course none of this demonstrates the mind cannot influence the brain based on ideas in the mind.

You are ignoring evidence and just repeating your own claims.

The evidence, experiments, case studies, analysis, etc, is being posted....all of which you ignore in favour of you own beliefs.

Something can be said about the mind and its role and function.

Something is understood about the mind and its relationship to the brain.

Just because everything is not understood doesn't mean that nothing is understood.

That being the foundation of the fallacy of your claims.


''Consciousness, most scientists would argue, is not a shared property of all matter in the universe. Rather consciousness is restricted to a subset of animals with relatively complex brains. The more scientists study animal behavior and brain anatomy, however, the more universal consciousness seems to be. A brain as complex as a human's is definitely not necessary for consciousness. On July 7 of this year, a group of neuroscientists convening at the University of Cambridge signed a document entitled “The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in Non-Human Animals,” officially declaring that nonhuman animals, “including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses,” are conscious.''

 

[DrZoidberg]

Aren't memes discredited Dawkins fictions?

Nope. They're not. But it's such a high level theory that's it'll be very hard to disprove it. We rank the value of theories on the boldness of their claims. The more verifiable generalisations about details the stronger we consider the theory being. On this scale the meme theory is not a particularly bold theory. But it's still a perfectly valid one and is a field of study. Susan Blackmore has made it her life's work. Her books are great. I highly recommend them.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ideas are memes. They spread like viruses between hosts. A more helpful way to look at it is, seeing the meme as the individual spread over human real estate. It makes it more clear what is going on

Ideas are creations of minds.

This is just Hegelian/Rosseauist old ideas that Karl Marx killed. If you read any contemporary thinker on this they simply assume the meme theory being true, ie the mind does not create ideas. Because it matches the evidence. The strongest evidence is to see how we are effected by advertising. A huge amount of money is invested in researching this. We have a good handle on how it works.

Most likely none of the thoughts you have in your brain are anything you came up with.

A modern and popular definition of creativity is simply that it's the activity where we combine two or more pre-existing ideas into a combination of them, and we call that new.

Truly unique ideas like Emmy Noether's first theorem, is probably not even that unique either. Since mathematicians usually quote quite mundane everyday activities as the inspiration. They just combine things from different universes.

And since every mind is a unique growth every idea is looked at in a different background.

Human brains are extremely similar. Our thoughts are extremely similar. There are tiny differences, which we use all our efforts to focus on. But those differences are so small that we might as well think of them as clones. Humans have been stranded in weird parts of the world and managed to communicate and make friends just fine with people they share neither language or culture with.

But none of this has anything to do with the freedom to willfully focus on and move ideas around in the mind until a new idea emerges.

It doesn't? Care to explain that?

 

[untermensche]

You are ignoring evidence and just repeating your own claims.

You're half right.

I am not ignoring any evidence.

But all I am doing is repeating points you never address.

You have no clue what the objective mind is.

You think it has something to do with some kind of activity in the brain.

You can't tell me which specific activity or how the mind arises from it. This is what is needed to claim an understanding.

You can't rationally make any comments about the objective mind and what it can do.

You are tiresome but do represent a common blindness that has taken over neuroscience. It is killing the field.

Something is understood about the mind and its relationship to the brain.

You only know about your subjective mind and the reports of others.

You have no understanding of what the objective mind is.

So you can't possibly understand how the objective mind is related to the brain.

All you know is that when certain things are done to a brain the subjective reports change which is not an understanding of the objective mind and how it relates to the brain.

 

[DBT]

You can't tell me which specific activity or how the mind arises from it. This is what is needed to claim an understanding.
.

Well, no, the evidence makes it quite clear that without the measurable, detectable electrochemical activity of a brain there is no consciousness or mind.

The evidence makes it quite clear that the mind can be effected by application of chemical or electrical inputs, and in quite specific ways.

Mind can be altered or switched off altogether, etc, etc, through chemical or electrical means, as I have pointed out numerous times. This is something that cannot be disputed, something that clearly points to the brain and its activity as being the agency of mind.

Deny the evidence all you like, but you are wrong.

 

[untermensche]

You can't tell me which specific activity or how the mind arises from it. This is what is needed to claim an understanding.
.

Well, no, the evidence makes it quite clear that without the measurable, detectable electrochemical activity of a brain there is no consciousness or mind.

The evidence makes it quite clear that the mind can be effected by application of chemical or electrical inputs, and in quite specific ways.

Mind can be altered or switched off altogether, etc, etc, through chemical or electrical means, as I have pointed out numerous times. This is something that cannot be disputed, something that clearly points to the brain and its activity as being the agency of mind.

Deny the evidence all you like, but you are wrong.

You have named no specific activity nor have you shown how any specific activity results in the subjective mind.

You have no understanding of the objective mind.

 

[WAB]

I promised my self I wouldn't do this:

But:

If free will doesn't exist, exactly where does anyone get off ridiculing or shaming a person for their views, or their behavior?

To ridicule a person for silly beliefs is to make an assumption that that person can do otherwise than that which their brain has in store for them. If they literally can do nothing outside of what their brain dictates, then that person is completely absolved from criticism.

The same would apply to a rapist, or a serial killer. Absent free will, neither should be open for censure.

I should say that I am on the fence regarding free will. But my ethics are sound, I believe. If a person behaves in such a way that they have no real control over how they think or behave, then we need to seriously examine our criminal justice system.

 

[bilby]

I promised my self I wouldn't do this:

But:

If free will doesn't exist, exactly where does anyone get off ridiculing or shaming a person for their views, or their behavior?

To ridicule a person for silly beliefs is to make an assumption that that person can do otherwise than that which their brain has in store for them. If they literally can do nothing outside of what their brain dictates, then that person is completely absolved from criticism.

The same would apply to a rapist, or a serial killer. Absent free will, neither should be open for censure.

I should say that I am on the fence regarding free will. But my ethics are sound, I believe. If a person behaves in such a way that they have no real control over how they think or behave, then we need to seriously examine our criminal justice system.

Shame and blame, and the predictions of those elements existing in the future, are inputs into the (entirely deterministic) decision making process. A person may not have control over his behaviour; But society does - just as the wind has control over the direction in which a leaf travels, despite the leaf having on control of its own.

The environment is hugely complex, and the results are chaotic, so that are unpredictable despite not being willed; and they are not random, despite being unpredictable.

The criminal justice system exists to influence people not to commit future crimes. Punishment of criminals is an effective means to do this, even if the criminal had no freedom to choose a different path, and is undeserving of punishment for his choices.

The whole thing as a complex mess of feedback loops, made even more complex by the brain's ability to predict (but with limited accuracy) future consequences to today's decisions, and to use those predictions as inputs into the decision making process. It's hardly surprising that this stuff is difficult to understand, or that people try to simplify it by inventing fictions such as 'free will' in an attempt to explain it - just as chemists invented phlogiston to explain fire, before they had a better understanding of how it worked.

 

[DBT]

You can't tell me which specific activity or how the mind arises from it. This is what is needed to claim an understanding.
.

Well, no, the evidence makes it quite clear that without the measurable, detectable electrochemical activity of a brain there is no consciousness or mind.

The evidence makes it quite clear that the mind can be effected by application of chemical or electrical inputs, and in quite specific ways.

Mind can be altered or switched off altogether, etc, etc, through chemical or electrical means, as I have pointed out numerous times. This is something that cannot be disputed, something that clearly points to the brain and its activity as being the agency of mind.

Deny the evidence all you like, but you are wrong.

You have named no specific activity nor have you shown how any specific activity results in the subjective mind.

You have no understanding of the objective mind.

I clearly pointed out that consciousness/mind is a phenomena related to a brain....not only a brain, but an active brain, a brain that is acquiring information from its senses and organs and responding to these nerve signals in both unconscious and conscious form. It being the brains conscious form of response that we call 'mind'

The word mind refers to conscious brain activity, not to magic, not to some unrelated transcendent entity that is the Jockey of the Brain

 

[untermensche]

You have named no specific activity nor have you shown how any specific activity results in the subjective mind.

You have no understanding of the objective mind.

I clearly pointed out that consciousness/mind is a phenomena related to a brain....not only a brain, but an active brain, a brain that is acquiring information from its senses and organs and responding to these nerve signals in both unconscious and conscious form. It being the brains conscious form of response that we call 'mind'

The word mind refers to conscious brain activity, not to magic, not to some unrelated transcendent entity that is the Jockey of the Brain

You have made some claims about an association.

There is an association.

The question is: What kind of association?

You have no clue because you have no clue what specific activity it is that creates the subjective mind.

All you know is there is an unknown kind of association.

That is not any kind of understanding of what the mind is.

You have no clue what the mind is beyond your subjective experience of a mind that is confused and irrational.

 

[DBT]

You have named no specific activity nor have you shown how any specific activity results in the subjective mind.

You have no understanding of the objective mind.

I clearly pointed out that consciousness/mind is a phenomena related to a brain....not only a brain, but an active brain, a brain that is acquiring information from its senses and organs and responding to these nerve signals in both unconscious and conscious form. It being the brains conscious form of response that we call 'mind'

The word mind refers to conscious brain activity, not to magic, not to some unrelated transcendent entity that is the Jockey of the Brain

You have made some claims about an association.

There is an association.

The question is: What kind of association?

You have no clue because you have no clue what specific activity it is that creates the subjective mind.

All you know is there is an unknown kind of association.

That is not any kind of understanding of what the mind is.

You have no clue what the mind is beyond your subjective experience of a mind that is confused and irrational.

I have made some claims. Claims that I have backed with quotes and links to evidence and studies that support the claims I have made. You do not address the evidence or the studies, you simply assert your beliefs. Beliefs that you cannot support with quotes and links to evidence and studies.

That is the problem.

 

[steve_bank]

The Tin Man had a brain but no heart,

The Scarecrow had a heart but no brain. Dorothy asks how do you talk without a brain?

Scarecrow replies ' I don't know but a lot of people without brains do an awful lot of talking'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YyMsE16b2Y

 

[untermensche]

You have made some claims about an association.

There is an association.

The question is: What kind of association?

You have no clue because you have no clue what specific activity it is that creates the subjective mind.

All you know is there is an unknown kind of association.

That is not any kind of understanding of what the mind is.

You have no clue what the mind is beyond your subjective experience of a mind that is confused and irrational.

I have made some claims. Claims that I have backed with quotes and links to evidence and studies that support the claims I have made. You do not address the evidence or the studies, you simply assert your beliefs. Beliefs that you cannot support with quotes and links to evidence and studies.

That is the problem.

You have never once demonstrated any knowledge of the objective mind.

You have no understanding of the objective mind.

You know about a tiny fraction of brain activity and subjective reports from a mind.

But have no clue how or why any of it occurs.

You cannot clearly and concisely explain how brain activity creates a mind.

You have no clue what the mind is objectively.

You have no understanding of the mind beyond your subjective experience.

In other words you understand it the same amount as everyone else.

You use your mind to move your body everyday.

Yet somehow based on threads of nothingness, the timing of guesses, claim you don't.

 

[DBT]

You have made some claims about an association.

There is an association.

The question is: What kind of association?

You have no clue because you have no clue what specific activity it is that creates the subjective mind.

All you know is there is an unknown kind of association.

That is not any kind of understanding of what the mind is.

You have no clue what the mind is beyond your subjective experience of a mind that is confused and irrational.

I have made some claims. Claims that I have backed with quotes and links to evidence and studies that support the claims I have made. You do not address the evidence or the studies, you simply assert your beliefs. Beliefs that you cannot support with quotes and links to evidence and studies.

That is the problem.

You have never once demonstrated any knowledge of the objective mind.

You have no understanding of the objective mind.

You know about a tiny fraction of brain activity and subjective reports from a mind.

But have no clue how or why any of it occurs.

You cannot clearly and concisely explain how brain activity creates a mind.

You have no clue what the mind is objectively.

You have no understanding of the mind beyond your subjective experience.

In other words you understand it the same amount as everyone else.

You use your mind to move your body everyday.

Yet somehow based on threads of nothingness, the timing of guesses, claim you don't.

I have pointed out that something is understood about brain architecture and function and its relationship to consciousness, even to the point of being able to generate sensations and thoughts in subjects through electrical brain stimulation or chemical.

This body of information being strong evidence for brain generated consciousness, that consciousness is a form of electrochemical activity being generated by a brain.

This is not nothing.

It is your belief in autonomous mind that has no evidence, hence no foundation and no merit.

 

[untermensche]

...This body of information being strong evidence for brain generated consciousness, that consciousness is a form of electrochemical activity being generated by a brain....

There is more than electochemical activity.

There are also the quantum effects from that activity.

Evolution does not have to know anything about quantum effects to blindly make use of them. Just like it does not need to know aerodynamics to create a wing. Or mechanics to create a leg.

You are making a blind assumption it is electrochemical activity because we are able to detect that presently.

 

[DBT]

...This body of information being strong evidence for brain generated consciousness, that consciousness is a form of electrochemical activity being generated by a brain....

There is more than electochemical activity.

There are also the quantum effects from that activity.

Evolution does not have to know anything about quantum effects to blindly make use of them. Just like it does not need to know aerodynamics to create a wing. Or mechanics to create a leg.

You are making a blind assumption it is electrochemical activity because we are able to detect that presently.

How does quantum activity help you?

 

[untermensche]

...This body of information being strong evidence for brain generated consciousness, that consciousness is a form of electrochemical activity being generated by a brain....

There is more than electochemical activity.

There are also the quantum effects from that activity.

Evolution does not have to know anything about quantum effects to blindly make use of them. Just like it does not need to know aerodynamics to create a wing. Or mechanics to create a leg.

You are making a blind assumption it is electrochemical activity because we are able to detect that presently.

How does quantum activity help you?

I am not needing any help.

You have no understanding.

What the mind as quantum effect does is explain why there is no understanding.

Despite decades of massive research we have no clue what the objective mind is.

If it were some electrical or chemical effect we should have at least some progress.

But we have none.

There is no known chemical or electrical effect that leads to a mind. None that are known that get you close.

 

[WAB]

I promised my self I wouldn't do this:

But:

If free will doesn't exist, exactly where does anyone get off ridiculing or shaming a person for their views, or their behavior?

To ridicule a person for silly beliefs is to make an assumption that that person can do otherwise than that which their brain has in store for them. If they literally can do nothing outside of what their brain dictates, then that person is completely absolved from criticism.

The same would apply to a rapist, or a serial killer. Absent free will, neither should be open for censure.

I should say that I am on the fence regarding free will. But my ethics are sound, I believe. If a person behaves in such a way that they have no real control over how they think or behave, then we need to seriously examine our criminal justice system.

Shame and blame, and the predictions of those elements existing in the future, are inputs into the (entirely deterministic) decision making process. A person may not have control over his behaviour; But society does - just as the wind has control over the direction in which a leaf travels, despite the leaf having on control of its own.

The environment is hugely complex, and the results are chaotic, so that are unpredictable despite not being willed; and they are not random, despite being unpredictable.

The criminal justice system exists to influence people not to commit future crimes. Punishment of criminals is an effective means to do this, even if the criminal had no freedom to choose a different path, and is undeserving of punishment for his choices.

The whole thing as a complex mess of feedback loops, made even more complex by the brain's ability to predict (but with limited accuracy) future consequences to today's decisions, and to use those predictions as inputs into the decision making process. It's hardly surprising that this stuff is difficult to understand, or that people try to simplify it by inventing fictions such as 'free will' in an attempt to explain it - just as chemists invented phlogiston to explain fire, before they had a better understanding of how it worked.

If we are not free as individuals, then we are not free as a collective.

There is no freedom. Hence, no blame.

 

[bilby]

I promised my self I wouldn't do this:

But:

If free will doesn't exist, exactly where does anyone get off ridiculing or shaming a person for their views, or their behavior?

To ridicule a person for silly beliefs is to make an assumption that that person can do otherwise than that which their brain has in store for them. If they literally can do nothing outside of what their brain dictates, then that person is completely absolved from criticism.

The same would apply to a rapist, or a serial killer. Absent free will, neither should be open for censure.

I should say that I am on the fence regarding free will. But my ethics are sound, I believe. If a person behaves in such a way that they have no real control over how they think or behave, then we need to seriously examine our criminal justice system.

Shame and blame, and the predictions of those elements existing in the future, are inputs into the (entirely deterministic) decision making process. A person may not have control over his behaviour; But society does - just as the wind has control over the direction in which a leaf travels, despite the leaf having on control of its own.

The environment is hugely complex, and the results are chaotic, so that are unpredictable despite not being willed; and they are not random, despite being unpredictable.

The criminal justice system exists to influence people not to commit future crimes. Punishment of criminals is an effective means to do this, even if the criminal had no freedom to choose a different path, and is undeserving of punishment for his choices.

The whole thing as a complex mess of feedback loops, made even more complex by the brain's ability to predict (but with limited accuracy) future consequences to today's decisions, and to use those predictions as inputs into the decision making process. It's hardly surprising that this stuff is difficult to understand, or that people try to simplify it by inventing fictions such as 'free will' in an attempt to explain it - just as chemists invented phlogiston to explain fire, before they had a better understanding of how it worked.

If we are not free as individuals, then we are not free as a collective.

I didn't say that were were. The leaf must follow the wind; That doesn't imply that the wind has any choice about when or where to blow.

 

[DBT]

How does quantum activity help you?

I am not needing any help.

You have no understanding.

What the mind as quantum effect does is explain why there is no understanding.

Despite decades of massive research we have no clue what the objective mind is.

If it were some electrical or chemical effect we should have at least some progress.

But we have none.

There is no known chemical or electrical effect that leads to a mind. None that are known that get you close.

You mentioned quantum activity and I asked you how that helps your claim for autonomy of mind. Can you explain your reasoning or not?