From the latest New Scientist. The full article is for subscribers only, so for the benefit of discussion, here is an extract:

“What about the argument that you can follow chains of causality back to the beginning of the universe, so everything is predetermined?
It’s metaphysical goofiness. The reason I just scratched my foot is because of that causal connection to the big bang? Get real. Part of why we care about free will is because we care about assigning responsibility. Do we need to know about the relation between my scratching my foot and the big bang in order to make wise decisions about when to punish people for their actions? Of course not.

So I shouldn’t worry that I don’t have free will?
Here’s one way to think of it. Suppose your doctor tells you they have found colon cancer. You have to make a decision whether to have surgery. If you thought there was no such thing as free will because it is causality all the way back, you might say, well, it’s futile, I cannot make a free decision anyhow, I will just sit here and wait. That would be foolish.

If you are crippled by the thought that it is causality all the way back, you have essentially made a decision to make no decisions. That is very unwise. If by thinking that free will is an illusion you believe that it does not matter whether you acquire good habits or bad, hold false beliefs or true, or whether your evaluation of the consequences of an option is accurate or not, then you are highly likely to make a right mess of your life.

Do you see yourself as a cultural warrior?
Not at all. My intent is to say, I’ve made my peace with my brain, but there is a journey to getting there. I understand that journey, and not everybody will want to make it, but I’ll let you know how I got there. And then you can take it or leave it.

So yours is not an evangelical message, you aren’t seeking converts?
No, I have no intention or desire to shove anything down anybody’s throat. People are, by and large, smart enough and reasonable enough that they come to a good decision eventually. But it takes time to think about it, to go back and forth. It’s something that you have to marinate in for a while.

I just want to lay out what it looks like the science is telling us, because I think people want to know. I think it’s important to accept what seems to be true rather than make stuff up. In general, I think that’s a good life policy.

Can neuroscience offer a philosophy to live by?
Neuroscience doesn’t provide a story about how to live a life. But I think that understanding something about the nature of the brain encourages us to be sensible.

Some might say the idea that you are just your brain makes life bleak, unforgiving and ultimately futile. How do you respond to that?
It’s not at all bleak. I don’t see how the existence of a god or a soul confers any meaning on my life. How does that work, exactly? Nobody has ever given an adequate answer. My life is meaningful because I have family, meaningful work, because I love to play, I have dogs, I love to dig in the garden. That’s what makes my life meaningful, and I think that’s true for most people.

Now, at the end of it, what’s going to happen? I will die and that’s it. And I like that idea, in a crazy sort of way.”

I have never really understood the question around free will existing or not.

I always see the body and vehicle as body-vehicle composite, wont be inclined any other way by philosophical or even hard-science-inclined philosophical nonsense. That blood being pumped around the whole thing adds a lot to the experience, for example.

Way back I liked NS when it appeared to me to have a more metaphysical openness, but I think it were changes in editors maybe or something it tended toward the dark side IMO. A sort of rationalist materialist abyss maybe.

transition said:

I have never really understood the question around free will existing or not.

What bit needs clarification?

transition said:

I always see the body and vehicle as body-vehicle composite, wont be inclined any other way by philosophical or even hard-science-inclined philosophical nonsense. That blood being pumped around the whole thing adds a lot to the experience, for example.

Way back I liked NS when it appeared to me to have a more metaphysical openness, but I think it were changes in editors maybe or something it tended toward the dark side IMO. A sort of rationalist materialist abyss maybe.

Not sure what you mean there.

I think the interview I quoted from was simply the best exposition of scientific rationalist philosophy I have read anywhere.

I haven’t a clue why you would see it as a “sort of rationalist materialist abyss”. It seems to me to be the exact opposite.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

transition said:

I have never really understood the question around free will existing or not.

What bit needs clarification?

What is meant by “free will”, and what would be the consequences of it existing or not existing, mainly, I guess.

>I haven’t a clue why you would see it as a “sort of rationalist materialist abyss”. It seems to me to be the exact opposite.

Yeah the thread only just got started, haven’t had my second coffee yet (but will in a moment).

I was specifically refering to changes in what I felt of NS way back. I got every issue for many years, then re-read them in the small room years later. Good science magazine (of what I read back then but some changes seem to happen).

goes off to make coffee

transition said:

>I haven’t a clue why you would see it as a “sort of rationalist materialist abyss”. It seems to me to be the exact opposite.

Yeah the thread only just got started, haven’t had my second coffee yet (but will in a moment).

I was specifically refering to changes in what I felt of NS way back. I got every issue for many years, then re-read them in the small room years later. Good science magazine (of what I read back then but some changes seem to happen).

goes off to make coffee

OK, I don’t disagree about NS. It’s not the mag it once was (but it still contains stuff worth reading).

“What about the argument that you can follow chains of causality back to the beginning of the universe, so everything is predetermined?”

Right off the bat I have problems with that quoted above.

For example, it, the propositions, exclude the possibility and likelihood that non-repeatable events (of what we may arrive at being ‘low probability’ possibly) are very influential in the providing the ‘surplus’ we occupy and exploit of what humans call, to generalize, ‘environments’. This is a shame and a flaw in human understanding IMO. Some types of ‘explanations’ of causality would presumably (to be real and anything like accurate) involve chance events of low-probability that tend to extinguish their causal origin.

transition said:

“What about the argument that you can follow chains of causality back to the beginning of the universe, so everything is predetermined?”

Right off the bat I have problems with that quoted above.

For example, it, the propositions, exclude the possibility and likelihood that non-repeatable events (of what we may arrive at being ‘low probability’ possibly) are very influential in the providing the ‘surplus’ we occupy and exploit of what humans call, to generalize, ‘environments’. This is a shame and a flaw in human understanding IMO. Some types of ‘explanations’ of causality would presumably (to be real and anything like accurate) involve chance events of low-probability that tend to extinguish their causal origin.

To extend the quote a little bit:
“What about the argument that you can follow chains of causality back to the beginning of the universe, so everything is predetermined?
It’s metaphysical goofiness. “

So are you agreeing, or are you saying it’s not metaphysical goofiness, or something else?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

transition said:

I have never really understood the question around free will existing or not.

What bit needs clarification?

What is meant by “free will”, and what would be the consequences of it existing or not existing, mainly, I guess.

…or why there are questions regarding its existence or non-existence.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

What bit needs clarification?

What is meant by “free will”, and what would be the consequences of it existing or not existing, mainly, I guess.

…or why there are questions regarding its existence or non-existence.

…or why it all even matters.

For starters people tend to look for ‘patterns’, it’s got to the stage of looking like a disease of thought.

Pre-BB there are no patterns to be understood.

Another interesting field of thought IMO is that of memory and what is brought of the so-understood ‘past’ into the apparent ‘now’.

What I find most interesting is the tendency of science and more modern secular thinking (of ideology) to ignore, or ‘obliviate’ might be a better term, that of ‘environments’ and the ‘structure’ of relations, or ‘relational structure’ that doesn’t direct causation as we’d understand it, or tend to understand it, but instead provisions in a happened-upon way not by what it inclines though quantity (patterns etc), but by what it excludes and relegates to ‘probability space’ I call it. In short what we tend to see lots of that reinforce our understanding of how things happen, doesn’t tend insight or attributed importance to things of low and very low probability that tend to extinguish evidence of themselves.

I raised the subject of ‘memory’ because I think it a feature of consciousness.

The benefits of realising you are just a brain

As against just an arsehole?

As I’ve often pointed out, the exercise of “will” is itself a deterministic process, which is how we distinguish it from rolling dice. People make decisions about their lives in line with what they’ve chosen as relevant criteria, and they want the relationship between the criteria and the decision to be determined by reason. Given all that, what can be meant by the term “free” when stuck onto “will”? Really all that “free will” can sensibly mean is that the individual making the decisions is not under duress from other people or from circumstances completely beyond his control. Since we are ourselves effective deterministic beings (not innocent bystanders in a universe in which we have no say), there are always plenty of circumstances that are at least partly under our control.

“ there are always plenty of circumstances that are at least partly under our control”

For the sake of the argument, no there are not. Everything you do or choose, while not currently predictable, is pre-determined by all the events which have gone before.

I personally don’t believe in free will, in case that’s not obvious from the above statement.

>For the sake of the argument, no there are not. Everything you do or choose, while not currently predictable, is pre-determined by all the events which have gone before.

Whether or not that is the case is actually of no relevance since our own deterministic participation is necessary for the outcomes it produces. Humans add a particularly complex layer of deterministic behaviour to our local environment. It wouldn’t have been possible to change the world in the ways we have (and live the lives that we do) without making all the decisions we make, and the making of those decisions is very much an exercise in active determinism. There is no “we” that has to sit back and let our brain handle these things (as the OP implies, we ARE our brains), so there’s no sense in regarding ourselves as “victims” of predetermined events.

I think the universe may be predetermined

everything from the past effects the future

especially with the immediate past, now and the immediate future

>>>“What about the argument that you can follow chains of causality back to the beginning of the universe, so everything is predetermined?
It’s metaphysical goofiness. The reason I just scratched my foot is because of that causal connection to the big bang? Get real.

He say’s is a casual connection,

no, it isnt a casual connection, its a real unbroken connection

what he overlooks with the connection all the way back to the big bang is that he is also connected to everything else around him, space /time and all the other atomic particles in the universe that exist in the now moment around him, and all those atomic particles also have their connection back to the big big, and their connection to the immediate future

free will?

there doesn’t seem anyway to measure randomness

how do you measure randomness?

You are wilfully ignoring my argument.

I am saying we do not make actively deterministic decisions and there is no evidence that we do. We make decisions based on the chemical processes and physical make up of our brain. No matter how you choose to perceive it, you are not free to make a decision differently to that which you were always going to make.

Mine is a circular argument but nevertheless I believe it to be true.

>I am saying we do not make actively deterministic decisions

We most certainly do. Cities don’t get built unless we decide to build them, and the building of a city is dependent on vast numbers of complex decisions being made, and the making of these decisions is hard work. Without the active participation of the brain, these things very obviously wouldn’t happen.

Like me, you accept the idea of a deterministic universe. But the mistake you make is that you still don’t recognise that humans themselves are a necessary part of the deterministic machinery. You’re like the religious “free-willers” in that you still see humans as being somehow outside of all that, either innocent victims of deterministic processes beyond our control, or mystical agents able to change outcomes by magic.

>>Cities don’t get built unless we decide to build them

I’m not so sure about that.

Peak Warming Man said:

>>Cities don’t get built unless we decide to build them

I’m not so sure about that.

Of course they can accumulate without anyone founding them, but that was just an example of complex changes to the world that are dependent on the active participation of human decision-makers.

You are completely wrong, I do not consider us to be either outside or victims of magic machinations beyond our control. It is possible that we will one day be able to predict with 100% accuracy what any person will do or say in any situation.

Your comparison between myself and the religious is a disingenuous ad hominem attack which demonstrates your unwillingness to fully understand my argument.

Jing Joh said:

You are completely wrong, I do not consider us to be either outside or victims of magic machinations beyond our control. It is possible that we will one day be able to predict with 100% accuracy what any person will do or say in any situation.

Your comparison between myself and the religious is a disingenuous ad hominem attack which demonstrates your unwillingness to fully understand my argument.

Your argument seems to be that humans will do and say what they do and say without needing to make any decisions, or that the decisions they make are somehow illusory, rather than necessary. This is a naïve misunderstanding of the role of the brain in producing deterministic outcomes.

Can randomness be measured?

Bubblecar said:

As I’ve often pointed out, the exercise of “will” is itself a deterministic process, which is how we distinguish it from rolling dice. People make decisions about their lives in line with what they’ve chosen as relevant criteria, and they want the relationship between the criteria and the decision to be determined by reason. Given all that, what can be meant by the term “free” when stuck onto “will”? Really all that “free will” can sensibly mean is that the individual making the decisions is not under duress from other people or from circumstances completely beyond his control. Since we are ourselves effective deterministic beings (not innocent bystanders in a universe in which we have no say), there are always plenty of circumstances that are at least partly under our control.

She says much the same in the interview.

In case I haven’t made my own position sufficiently clear: I don’t believe in “free will” as formulated by religious believers etc, because they want to believe in “will” but don’t want to recognise that it is, by definition, a deterministic process. Humans are obviously critters of will, but “free will” is of only meaningful in limited contexts (e.g., when we talk of someone making decisions off their own bat rather than being forced into it by other people).

is of only meaningful = is only meaningful

correction

what she overlooks with the connection all the way back to the big bang is that she is also connected to everything else around her, space /time and all the other atomic particles in the universe that exist in the now moment around her, and all those atomic particles also have their connection back to the big big, and their connection to the immediate future

>> Your argument seems to be that humans will do and say what they do and say without needing to make any decisions,

Then I have not explained my position sufficiently well.

>> or that the decisions they make are somehow illusory, rather than necessary.

They can be completely necessary and still illusory in that we could not make any other decision that the ones which we make, yet they must still be actively made. The choice to not make a choice is still a choice.

>> This is a naïve misunderstanding of the role of the brain in producing deterministic outcomes.

See my previous posts.

Bubblecar said: Anyway, I am now going wilfully into the studio to get on with art (which doesn’t create itself :))

you are creating it

but by walking into your studio, your past, present and immediate future looks predetermined to me, look behind yourself, you are coming from the past, now look in front of yourself, you see the present and your going into the immediate future

free will? Ill say it again

how do you measure randomness?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Can randomness be measured?

Yes

Jing Joh said:

It is possible that we will one day be able to predict with 100% accuracy what any person will do or say in any situation.

It is near certain that that will never be possible, even in principle.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Can randomness be measured?

Yes

But more to the point, what does this have to do with the matter under discussion?

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Can randomness be measured?

Yes

But more to the point, what does this have to do with the matter under discussion?

Is randomness the opposite of predetermined?

>> It is near certain that that will never be possible, even in principle.

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. – Lord Kelvin

CrazyNeutrino said:

Is randomness the opposite of predetermined?

No.

It is possible for events to be determined by non-random but unpredictable factors.

Bubblecar said:

>I am saying we do not make actively deterministic decisions

We most certainly do. Cities don’t get built unless we decide to build them, and the building of a city is dependent on vast numbers of complex decisions being made, and the making of these decisions is hard work. Without the active participation of the brain, these things very obviously wouldn’t happen.

Like me, you accept the idea of a deterministic universe. But the mistake you make is that you still don’t recognise that humans themselves are a necessary part of the deterministic machinery. You’re like the religious “free-willers” in that you still see humans as being somehow outside of all that, either innocent victims of deterministic processes beyond our control, or mystical agents able to change outcomes by magic.

look at ants building their cities, they build them because they have to

human cities get built because everybody else needs them, look at all these houses, we need them

our bodies are full of chemicals that react to the environment, our bodies need to stay warm so we build structures, just like the ants that build their structures, like an algorithm

every type of life form on this planet are chemical structures, lifeforms contain chemicals, the chemicals and compounds come from the environment, then go back to the environment

Jing Joh said:

>> It is near certain that that will never be possible, even in principle.

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. – Lord Kelvin

Has the subject morphed to random mistaken statements made by scientists?

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Can randomness be measured?

Yes

But more to the point, what does this have to do with the matter under discussion?

How can we measure randomness?

CrazyNeutrino said:

How can we measure randomness?

Measure the deviation from the mean, and if no patterns emerge, then the process is random.

>> Has the subject morphed to random mistaken statements made by scientists?

No, it was a deterministic attempt to demonstrate the erroneous nature of categorically stating what will not be possible in the future.

Jing Joh said:

>> Has the subject morphed to random mistaken statements made by scientists?

No, it was a deterministic attempt to demonstrate the erroneous nature of categorically stating what will not be possible in the future.

Well actually you made the only categorical statement (that something was possible). I merely stated that it was probably not possible, which is a statement of opinion which is recognised as possibly being wrong.

Nonetheless, since for it to be wrong it would be necessary for the current understanding of quantum behaviour to be completely wrong, I do think it is unlikely to be wrong.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

How can we measure randomness?

Measure the deviation from the mean, and if no patterns emerge, then the process is random.

can that also apply to free will in the human brain?

it sure is a thought provoking article

:)

so you look back into the past its predetermined, but some like to think there is free will in the present, but in ten, twenty, 100 years time from now, when people look back into the past, its predetermined

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

How can we measure randomness?

Measure the deviation from the mean, and if no patterns emerge, then the process is random.

can that also apply to free will in the human brain?

I don’t see how.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Measure the deviation from the mean, and if no patterns emerge, then the process is random.

can that also apply to free will in the human brain?

I don’t see how.

Is free will being equated with randomness here?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

can that also apply to free will in the human brain?

I don’t see how.

Is free will being equated with randomness here?

yes, but if there is a problem with that Ill ask another question

How can you measure free will in the human brain?

“What about the argument that you can follow chains of causality back to the beginning of the universe, so everything is predetermined?

so looking back to the past is predetermined, so what do free willing thinkers, think now, when thinking about tomorrow, when tomorrow they look back at the past which is predetermined?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t see how.

Is free will being equated with randomness here?

yes, but if there is a problem with that Ill ask another question

How can you measure free will in the human brain?

Degrees of freedom are primarily related to individual experience. I am not sure free will could be tracked, but obviously perception and ingenuity can be. The most analogous circumstance I can think of for the presence of free will is in those moments an individual chooses self sacrifice for the good of others. Freedom of will is an anthropogenic concept relevant to the perception of the self in these instances……

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Degrees of freedom are primarily related to individual experience. I am not sure free will could be tracked, but obviously perception and ingenuity can be. The most analogous circumstance I can think of for the presence of free will is in those moments an individual chooses self sacrifice for the good of others. Freedom of will is an anthropogenic concept relevant to the perception of the self in these instances……

ie, freedom of will is what you choose to see as a part of yourself………

diversity chat

CrazyNeutrino said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t see how.

Is free will being equated with randomness here?

yes, but if there is a problem with that Ill ask another question

How can you measure free will in the human brain?

I agree with Bubblecar and the article that “free will” is poorly defined and comes with all sorts or overlays of embedded meanings, which are different for different people. I think the term “self control”, as used in the article, is better.

One way to test for self control would be to set up a simple game.

One player, who has an advanced brain reading machine, reads the state of the other players brain, and predicts what number the other player will choose, say from 0 to 9, and writes this down, visible to the second player.

The second player must write down a number between 0 and 9. If the number is the same as the one predicted, then player 2 pays player 1 $1000. If it is different, then player 1 pays player 2 $1000.

If player 2 always wins, by writing down a different number to the one predicted by player 1, then that would be evidence of “self control”, wouldn’t it?

One way to test for self control would be to set up a simple game.

One player, who has an advanced brain reading machine, reads the state of the other players brain, and predicts what number the other player will choose, say from 0 to 9, and writes this down, visible to the second player.

The second player must write down a number between 0 and 9. If the number is the same as the one predicted, then player 2 pays player 1 $1000. If it is different, then player 1 pays player 2 $1000.

If player 2 always wins, by writing down a different number to the one predicted by player 1, then that would be evidence of “self control”, wouldn’t it?
———————————————————————————————————

All that means is Player One’s machine is fucked.

Peak Warming Man said:

One way to test for self control would be to set up a simple game.

One player, who has an advanced brain reading machine, reads the state of the other players brain, and predicts what number the other player will choose, say from 0 to 9, and writes this down, visible to the second player.

The second player must write down a number between 0 and 9. If the number is the same as the one predicted, then player 2 pays player 1 $1000. If it is different, then player 1 pays player 2 $1000.

If player 2 always wins, by writing down a different number to the one predicted by player 1, then that would be evidence of “self control”, wouldn’t it?
———————————————————————————————————

All that means is Player One’s machine is fucked.

I also have free will/self control. I choose not to finish reading the “game” post.

Some contextual info

http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide

>They can be completely necessary and still illusory in that we could not make any other decision that the ones which we make, yet they must still be actively made.

Then there is no illusion. The decisions have to be made, and the process of decision-making necessarily involves considering various options and rejecting some, accepting others. When you accept that decision-making is a deterministic process, there is no room for the idea that there is anything “illusory” about it, unless you conceive of humans in a (falsely) dualistic way, consisting of a deterministic self that makes decisions, and a non-deterministic self that is subject to the “illusion” that he is the one making the decisions. But there is no non-deterministic participant.

Bubblecar said:

>They can be completely necessary and still illusory in that we could not make any other decision that the ones which we make, yet they must still be actively made.

Then there is no illusion. The decisions have to be made, and the process of decision-making necessarily involves considering various options and rejecting some, accepting others. When you accept that decision-making is a deterministic process, there is no room for the idea that there is anything “illusory” about it, unless you conceive of humans in a (falsely) dualistic way, consisting of a deterministic self that makes decisions, and a non-deterministic self that is subject to the “illusion” that he is the one making the decisions. But there is no non-deterministic participant.

Decisions having to be made doesn’t ensure that an individual is capable of making them. The capacity of the decision maker is deterministic. It may be more relevant to assess the term ‘freedom of will’ as degrees of freedom of will, first. Once this scale is established the limits of the freer end of the scale can be assessed….

>Decisions having to be made doesn’t ensure that an individual is capable of making them.

Huh? If the individual can’t make them, then the decisions don’t get made.

Decisions can be made for you.

Bubblecar said:

>Decisions having to be made doesn’t ensure that an individual is capable of making them.

Huh? If the individual can’t make them, then the decisions don’t get made.

Just because some people are incapable of making decisions doesn’t mean that they don’t make them anyway.

Divine Angel said:

Decisions can be made for you.

Yes, but only if they’re made by someone else (or by circumstances ensuring that no decision-making process is actually required).

Bubblecar said:

>Decisions having to be made doesn’t ensure that an individual is capable of making them.

Huh? If the individual can’t make them, then the decisions don’t get made.

Assessing freedom of will cannot be done by assessing the choice? Will is present in the chooser, so the nature, range and quality of the choice is entirely relevant to assessing the presence of freedom of will…….

>Just because some people are incapable of making decisions doesn’t mean that they don’t make them anyway.

Does not compute :)

>Assessing freedom of will cannot be done by assessing the choice? Will is present in the chooser, so the nature, range and quality of the choice is entirely relevant to assessing the presence of freedom of will…….

I don’t know what you mean by “freedom of will” in these statements.

Bubblecar said:

>Just because some people are incapable of making decisions doesn’t mean that they don’t make them anyway.

Does not compute :)

They make an arbitary decision or a completely irrelevant one or a bad one.
We often do this. It’s called an educated guess.

This thread is very weird if you just pop in and out over a few hours and only read a few posts.

>They make an arbitary decision or a completely irrelevant one or a bad one.

Fine, but they means they must be capable of making decisions. Being capable of making decisions doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re going to choose the best option.

Fine, but they means = that means

Bubblecar said:

>They make an arbitary decision or a completely irrelevant one or a bad one.

Fine, but they means they must be capable of making decisions. Being capable of making decisions doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re going to choose the best option.

So by that reasoning everyone except the severely brain damaged is capable of making decisions.

>So by that reasoning everyone except the severely brain damaged is capable of making decisions.

Is there any reason to suspect otherwise?

Bubblecar said:

>Assessing freedom of will cannot be done by assessing the choice? Will is present in the chooser, so the nature, range and quality of the choice is entirely relevant to assessing the presence of freedom of will…….

I don’t know what you mean by “freedom of will” in these statements.

You are basing your assessment of free will in a limited fashion. There are often multiple, equally applicable choices to a decision. it is not automatically a case of there only being one suitable result. To assess whether there is any freedom in decision making the range of functional freedom should be established.

Bubblecar said:

>So by that reasoning everyone except the severely brain damaged is capable of making decisions.

Is there any reason to suspect otherwise?

Some posts back someone posted about people who were incapable of making decisions.
I was just trying to clarify what that meant.

>There are often multiple, equally applicable choices to a decision. it is not automatically a case of there only being one suitable result.

You’re using “freedom” in a different way to that usually implied in the concept of “free will”. You’re talking about the range of options open to the decision-maker, whereas “free” in this context usually refers to a much more nebulous notion that the decision-maker is somehow not bound by any fundamental deterministic constraints.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Is free will being equated with randomness here?

yes, but if there is a problem with that Ill ask another question

How can you measure free will in the human brain?

I agree with Bubblecar and the article that “free will” is poorly defined and comes with all sorts or overlays of embedded meanings, which are different for different people. I think the term “self control”, as used in the article, is better.

One way to test for self control would be to set up a simple game.

One player, who has an advanced brain reading machine, reads the state of the other players brain, and predicts what number the other player will choose, say from 0 to 9, and writes this down, visible to the second player.

The second player must write down a number between 0 and 9. If the number is the same as the one predicted, then player 2 pays player 1 $1000. If it is different, then player 1 pays player 2 $1000.

If player 2 always wins, by writing down a different number to the one predicted by player 1, then that would be evidence of “self control”, wouldn’t it?

No, the imposed financial arrangement determines player 2’s consistent choice of different number to player 1’s which was the intention of the tester, not Player 2.

Bubblecar said:

>There are often multiple, equally applicable choices to a decision. it is not automatically a case of there only being one suitable result.

You’re using “freedom” in a different way to that usually implied in the concept of “free will”. You’re talking about the range of options open to the decision-maker, whereas “free” in this context usually refers to a much more nebulous notion that the decision-maker is somehow not bound by any fundamental deterministic constraints.

so how does assess the reality?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Bubblecar said:

>There are often multiple, equally applicable choices to a decision. it is not automatically a case of there only being one suitable result.

You’re using “freedom” in a different way to that usually implied in the concept of “free will”. You’re talking about the range of options open to the decision-maker, whereas “free” in this context usually refers to a much more nebulous notion that the decision-maker is somehow not bound by any fundamental deterministic constraints.

so how does assess the reality?

I suppose I fail to see how the inevitability of there being an outcome determines that there was only one outcome possible….

Soso said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

yes, but if there is a problem with that Ill ask another question

How can you measure free will in the human brain?

I agree with Bubblecar and the article that “free will” is poorly defined and comes with all sorts or overlays of embedded meanings, which are different for different people. I think the term “self control”, as used in the article, is better.

One way to test for self control would be to set up a simple game.

One player, who has an advanced brain reading machine, reads the state of the other players brain, and predicts what number the other player will choose, say from 0 to 9, and writes this down, visible to the second player.

The second player must write down a number between 0 and 9. If the number is the same as the one predicted, then player 2 pays player 1 $1000. If it is different, then player 1 pays player 2 $1000.

If player 2 always wins, by writing down a different number to the one predicted by player 1, then that would be evidence of “self control”, wouldn’t it?

No, the imposed financial arrangement determines player 2’s consistent choice of different number to player 1’s which was the intention of the tester, not Player 2.

It’s about “self” control, not control of all external circumstances.

Jing Joh said:

Some contextual info

http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide

QI, but:

- The fact that we are not aware of making a decision until well after the decision is made does not mean that it is not us making the decision. If not us, who is it?

- Obviously very many decisions are made much less than 7 seconds before we become aware of them, because for many decisions the required information is not available 7 seconds before.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Soso said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I agree with Bubblecar and the article that “free will” is poorly defined and comes with all sorts or overlays of embedded meanings, which are different for different people. I think the term “self control”, as used in the article, is better.

One way to test for self control would be to set up a simple game.

One player, who has an advanced brain reading machine, reads the state of the other players brain, and predicts what number the other player will choose, say from 0 to 9, and writes this down, visible to the second player.

The second player must write down a number between 0 and 9. If the number is the same as the one predicted, then player 2 pays player 1 $1000. If it is different, then player 1 pays player 2 $1000.

If player 2 always wins, by writing down a different number to the one predicted by player 1, then that would be evidence of “self control”, wouldn’t it?

No, the imposed financial arrangement determines player 2’s consistent choice of different number to player 1’s which was the intention of the tester, not Player 2.

It’s about “self” control, not control of all external circumstances.

But a person acting as mandated (given their self-interest) by the given external circumstances can’t be a demonstration of self control, it’s not demonstrating much more than reliable mechanical performance.

If someone decided to undertake an unexpected non-trivial task where there was some cost to do that task but no penalty not to do that task, like someone who is not a professional novelist undertaking to write a novel say, and they actually did it, that would demonstrate self control.

The Rev Dodgson said:

- Obviously very many decisions are made much less than 7 seconds before we become aware of them, because for many decisions the required information is not available 7 seconds before.

hmmm… I would question this further. Our reflexes are not an automatic presence but are a result of physical experience. An infant cannot react with the same capacity as an adult. In semi-autonomous decisions a large part of the choice has been made in former eperience…….

Soso said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Soso said:

No, the imposed financial arrangement determines player 2’s consistent choice of different number to player 1’s which was the intention of the tester, not Player 2.

It’s about “self” control, not control of all external circumstances.

But a person acting as mandated (given their self-interest) by the given external circumstances can’t be a demonstration of self control, it’s not demonstrating much more than reliable mechanical performance.

If someone decided to undertake an unexpected non-trivial task where there was some cost to do that task but no penalty not to do that task, like someone who is not a professional novelist undertaking to write a novel say, and they actually did it, that would demonstrate self control.

What is the reason for restricting the meaning of the words “self control” in this strange way?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

- Obviously very many decisions are made much less than 7 seconds before we become aware of them, because for many decisions the required information is not available 7 seconds before.

hmmm… I would question this further. Our reflexes are not an automatic presence but are a result of physical experience. An infant cannot react with the same capacity as an adult. In semi-autonomous decisions a large part of the choice has been made in former eperience…….

An individual who has committed to a certain complex task has previously assessed a range of possibility he/she is prepared for. Our capacity to respond to variations on a theme only provides rhobustness to the execution of reflex responses….

is the 7 second threshold a limitation on assessing new information?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

- Obviously very many decisions are made much less than 7 seconds before we become aware of them, because for many decisions the required information is not available 7 seconds before.

hmmm… I would question this further. Our reflexes are not an automatic presence but are a result of physical experience. An infant cannot react with the same capacity as an adult. In semi-autonomous decisions a large part of the choice has been made in former eperience…….

An individual who has committed to a certain complex task has previously assessed a range of possibility he/she is prepared for. Our capacity to respond to variations on a theme only provides rhobustness to the execution of reflex responses….

1 – Reflex responses are still self-control. It’s not control by someone/thing else.

2 – Decisions made in a period of up to 7 seconds are well outside the range of reflex responses anyway.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Soso said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It’s about “self” control, not control of all external circumstances.

But a person acting as mandated (given their self-interest) by the given external circumstances can’t be a demonstration of self control, it’s not demonstrating much more than reliable mechanical performance.

If someone decided to undertake an unexpected non-trivial task where there was some cost to do that task but no penalty not to do that task, like someone who is not a professional novelist undertaking to write a novel say, and they actually did it, that would demonstrate self control.

What is the reason for restricting the meaning of the words “self control” in this strange way?

To preserve some meaning for it by avoiding ascribing “self control” to any reliable mechanical device on the basis it “refrains” from behaving other than you would expect it to.

The Rev Dodgson said:

2 – Decisions made in a period of up to 7 seconds are well outside the range of reflex responses anyway.

if decisions can be measured 7 seconds before the individual is aware of making them, how is there not reflex involved?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

2 – Decisions made in a period of up to 7 seconds are well outside the range of reflex responses anyway.

if decisions can be measured 7 seconds before the individual is aware of making them, how is there not reflex involved?

It seems to me that this approach to the question of free will determines to which degree our decisions are purely reflex. Is the question one of whether we are only capable of making reflex decisions or if decisions can be made without pre-concieved outcomes….

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

2 – Decisions made in a period of up to 7 seconds are well outside the range of reflex responses anyway.

if decisions can be measured 7 seconds before the individual is aware of making them, how is there not reflex involved?

It seems to me that this approach to the question of free will determines to which degree our decisions are purely reflex. Is the question one of whether we are only capable of making reflex decisions or if decisions can be made without pre-concieved outcomes….

Can lucidity conquer the inevitable………

I’d like to see someone actively trying to beat the 7-seconds-prior predictions of the scientists. It seems fairly obvious to me that one can decide upon a non-reflexive action in a much shorter time frame than 7 seconds. Maybe 7 seconds is the length of the process for an unhurried neutral decision, from the time there is the first tentative selection of left or right, until the selection has been approved.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

2 – Decisions made in a period of up to 7 seconds are well outside the range of reflex responses anyway.

if decisions can be measured 7 seconds before the individual is aware of making them, how is there not reflex involved?

It seems to me that this approach to the question of free will determines to which degree our decisions are purely reflex. Is the question one of whether we are only capable of making reflex decisions or if decisions can be made without pre-concieved outcomes….

You seem to be suggesting that if a decision is made before we are consciously aware of it then it must be a “reflex”.

Soso said:

I’d like to see someone actively trying to beat the 7-seconds-prior predictions of the scientists. It seems fairly obvious to me that one can decide upon a non-reflexive action in a much shorter time frame than 7 seconds. Maybe 7 seconds is the length of the process for an unhurried neutral decision, from the time there is the first tentative selection of left or right, until the selection has been approved.

7 seconds was just the time given in one description in one particular experiment. I don’t think it should be treated as a magic number.

There’s also the issue that this decision is one being made in circumstances in which the decider is being made extremely focused on the decision process, possibly making it a slower one.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Soso said:

I’d like to see someone actively trying to beat the 7-seconds-prior predictions of the scientists. It seems fairly obvious to me that one can decide upon a non-reflexive action in a much shorter time frame than 7 seconds. Maybe 7 seconds is the length of the process for an unhurried neutral decision, from the time there is the first tentative selection of left or right, until the selection has been approved.

7 seconds was just the time given in one description in one particular experiment. I don’t think it should be treated as a magic number.

“7 seconds” was given heavy emphasis in the article.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

if decisions can be measured 7 seconds before the individual is aware of making them, how is there not reflex involved?

It seems to me that this approach to the question of free will determines to which degree our decisions are purely reflex. Is the question one of whether we are only capable of making reflex decisions or if decisions can be made without pre-concieved outcomes….

Can lucidity conquer the inevitable………

To assume an inevitable outcome should demand that there are absolute factors involved. Reflexes require absolutes for definition and effectiveness. If freedom of will is only evaluated on reflex based decision making it follows that there are inevitabilities which limit the notion of free will. To assume that decisions are entirely reflex based ignores the possibility that there are decisions made on the basis of seeking a result outside the range of experience of the maker…..

The Rev Dodgson said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

if decisions can be measured 7 seconds before the individual is aware of making them, how is there not reflex involved?

It seems to me that this approach to the question of free will determines to which degree our decisions are purely reflex. Is the question one of whether we are only capable of making reflex decisions or if decisions can be made without pre-concieved outcomes….

You seem to be suggesting that if a decision is made before we are consciously aware of it then it must be a “reflex”.

I am saying that, in general, the individuals awareness of his past is pre-dominant to his awareness of his present or future and therefore limits the individuals capacity to make non-reflex decisions

Riff-in-Thyme said:

To assume that decisions are entirely reflex based

Who did that?

It seems obvious to me that many decisions are not reflex based.

Also it remains self control no matter if the decision is entirely reflex, entirely non-reflex, or a combination of the two.

The same applies if we substitute “conscious” for “reflex”.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

I am saying that, in general, the individuals awareness of his past is pre-dominant to his awareness of his present or future and therefore limits the individuals capacity to make non-reflex decisions

I don’t follow the reasoning.

Decisions needn’t be made by you

The Rev Dodgson said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

I am saying that, in general, the individuals awareness of his past is pre-dominant to his awareness of his present or future and therefore limits the individuals capacity to make non-reflex decisions

I don’t follow the reasoning.

An individuals comprehension of inevitabilities is limited to experience. For a non-reflex decision to be made there should not be application of the makers experience and concept of inevitabilities. To state that there is no reality to free will accepts that the nature of decision making is ultimately reflexive and reliant on the decision makers expectations of the inevitable. To assess the limits of free will it should also be conversely assessed as to the degree to which decisions can be succesfully based on factors outside of the range of experience of the maker………

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

I am saying that, in general, the individuals awareness of his past is pre-dominant to his awareness of his present or future and therefore limits the individuals capacity to make non-reflex decisions

I don’t follow the reasoning.

An individuals comprehension of inevitabilities is limited to experience. For a non-reflex decision to be made there should not be application of the makers experience and concept of inevitabilities. To state that there is no reality to free will accepts that the nature of decision making is ultimately reflexive and reliant on the decision makers expectations of the inevitable. To assess the limits of free will it should also be conversely assessed as to the degree to which decisions can be succesfully based on factors outside of the range of experience of the maker………

You seem to be determined to overlay the concept of self control with all sorts of other stuff.

One of the things I liked about the article in the original post was that it was expressed in very plain English which avoided all this obfuscation.

I am quite reconciled with having will that need not torment itself over if or if not it is free.
In fact that it isn’t or likely isn’t free may be quite useful, perhaps even necessary to considering it.

Re the OP title, I do object, not that I care much of others, or more precisely I care that others have their own ways of seeing the world (especially of ones inner world viewing itself), but the title is a bit pathetic.
Not much to be had from overly elevating the CNS workhorse, I mean yeah it’s a grand thing, useful, packed with tools, keeps the lungs working, discourages blokes from slamming their cocks in cars doors, but organisms are a composite, it is a mind-body-vehicle, and evolved so.

transition said:

I am quite reconciled with having will that need not torment itself over if or if not it is free.
In fact that it isn’t or likely isn’t free may be quite useful, perhaps even necessary to considering it.

Re the OP title, I do object, not that I care much of others, or more precisely I care that others have their own ways of seeing the world (especially of ones inner world viewing itself), but the title is a bit pathetic.
Not much to be had from overly elevating the CNS workhorse, I mean yeah it’s a grand thing, useful, packed with tools, keeps the lungs working, discourages blokes from slamming their cocks in cars doors, but organisms are a composite, it is a mind-body-vehicle, and evolved so.

Why do you think it’s pathetic?

I think you are ascribing meanings that were not intended.

>I think you are ascribing meanings that were not intended.

Of course I am.

It’s one of those joys that comes with, well, you know.

transition said:

>I think you are ascribing meanings that were not intended.

Of course I am.

It’s one of those joys that comes with, well, you know.

OK, well you’re allowed to do that.

But I don’t think you should call the thread title pathetic in that case.

>But I don’t think you should call the thread title pathetic in that case.

Can I change my mind at some later date?

The Rev Dodgson said:

You seem to be determined to overlay the concept of self control with all sorts of other stuff.

One of the things I liked about the article in the original post was that it was expressed in very plain English which avoided all this obfuscation.

I don’t think I am pre-determining self control be involved. Is self control the only factor available to generate a ‘freer’ degree of choice making?

And what does ‘just’ mean, merely I suppose. To say, to use the less fashionable word “mind”, that such and such is merely a mind without recourse to “mind” comes very near the modern way doesn’t it, you know, translated.
Frankly I think NS did go over the the dark side way back.

transition said:

>But I don’t think you should call the thread title pathetic in that case.

Can I change my mind at some later date?

I’m sure you’ll do whatever your brain decides to do.

>I’m sure you’ll do whatever your brain decides to do.

I am more interested in the extent you acknowledge ‘the mind’, rev, your views on that, so that I can establish with some certainty that washing out the essentials in not more feeding the chooks.

transition said:

>I’m sure you’ll do whatever your brain decides to do.

I am more interested in the extent you acknowledge ‘the mind’, rev, your views on that, so that I can establish with some certainty that washing out the essentials in not more feeding the chooks.

Tell me what you mean by a “mind”, and I’ll let you know if I acknowledge it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>I’m sure you’ll do whatever your brain decides to do.

I am more interested in the extent you acknowledge ‘the mind’, rev, your views on that, so that I can establish with some certainty that washing out the essentials in not more feeding the chooks.

Tell me what you mean by a “mind”, and I’ll let you know if I acknowledge it.

Great minds think alike.

;)

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

You seem to be determined to overlay the concept of self control with all sorts of other stuff.

One of the things I liked about the article in the original post was that it was expressed in very plain English which avoided all this obfuscation.

I don’t think I am pre-determining self control be involved. Is self control the only factor available to generate a ‘freer’ degree of choice making?

I guess I should qualify this by saying that my understanding of lucidity accepts that there are a range of qualities of lucidity that are not necessarily defined by self control.

>Tell me what you mean by a “mind”, and I’ll let you know if I acknowledge it.

games.

Well, based on your own mind’s word-concept re “mind” let me know if you acknowledge your own mind, then following that I may explore any attribution disparities or otherwise, or the perfect uniformity should that be the situation.

transition said:

>Tell me what you mean by a “mind”, and I’ll let you know if I acknowledge it.

games.

Well, based on your own mind’s word-concept re “mind” let me know if you acknowledge your own mind, then following that I may explore any attribution disparities or otherwise, or the perfect uniformity should that be the situation.

No, it’s not games, I’m just trying to avoid answering a different question to the one you intended.

If by a “mind” you mean the functions performed by a brain, excluding purely mechanical control of the workings of the body, then yes I acknowledge that human bodies incorporate a mind. How could anyone think otherwise?

Good, get back to this later.

A lesson from Chuck Berry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCmXVi0FL6g

My brain runs my hands and feet and stuff.

roughbarked said:

My brain runs my hands and feet and stuff.

I imagine it performs some other functions as well though.

Such as imagining things.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

My brain runs my hands and feet and stuff.

I imagine it performs some other functions as well though.

Such as imagining things.

You know me better than I thought.. ;)

>If by a “mind” you mean the functions performed by a brain, excluding purely mechanical control of the workings of the body, then yes I acknowledge that human bodies incorporate a mind. How could anyone think otherwise?”

What’s all this mean above, rev, give me some more detail.

By “functions” are you excluding ‘the feel’ of internal mental states for example, and (additionally) the composite of global activity that might generate the big screen of self-awareness, and consciousness maybe, keeping open they might be seen as different.

Where do you differentiate between the ‘mechanical control of the workings of the body’ of say the head and eyes tracking say the movements of another human, as opposed to something like the operation of your tongue when speaking.

transition said:

>If by a “mind” you mean the functions performed by a brain, excluding purely mechanical control of the workings of the body, then yes I acknowledge that human bodies incorporate a mind. How could anyone think otherwise?”

What’s all this mean above, rev, give me some more detail.

By “functions” are you excluding ‘the feel’ of internal mental states for example, and (additionally) the composite of global activity that might generate the big screen of self-awareness, and consciousness maybe, keeping open they might be seen as different.

Where do you differentiate between the ‘mechanical control of the workings of the body’ of say the head and eyes tracking say the movements of another human, as opposed to something like the operation of your tongue when speaking.

One way of differentiating is by listening.

>One way of differentiating is by listening.

Enjoy the opportunity I provided for you to put that in a sentence :).

RB, fella.

transition said:

>One way of differentiating is by listening.

Enjoy the opportunity I provided for you to put that in a sentence :).

RB, fella.

:) Methankeththee. ;)

transition said:

>If by a “mind” you mean the functions performed by a brain, excluding purely mechanical control of the workings of the body, then yes I acknowledge that human bodies incorporate a mind. How could anyone think otherwise?”

What’s all this mean above, rev, give me some more detail.

By “functions” are you excluding ‘the feel’ of internal mental states for example, and (additionally) the composite of global activity that might generate the big screen of self-awareness, and consciousness maybe, keeping open they might be seen as different.

I’m not excluding anything other than what I said was excluded. Obviously many brain functions involve interaction with body parts outside the brain, and things outside the brain; nonetheless it seems reasonable to say that it is the brain that is doing the thinking, feeling, whatever.

transition said:

Where do you differentiate between the ‘mechanical control of the workings of the body’ of say the head and eyes tracking say the movements of another human, as opposed to something like the operation of your tongue when speaking.

I don’t. There is not a clear cut dividing line between mechanical control and the more abstract brain activities.

The Rev Dodgson said:

There is not a clear cut dividing line between mechanical control and the more abstract brain activities.

Me thinketh this true.

A few bit from psych wiki.

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Mind

“In popular usage mind is frequently synonymous with thought. It is that private conversation with ourselves that we carry on “inside our heads.” Thus we “make up our minds,” “change our minds” or are “of two minds” about something. One of the key attributes of the mind in this sense is that it is a private sphere to which no one but the owner has access. No-one else can “know our mind.” They can only interpret what we consciously or unconsciously communicate.

Thought is a mental process which allows an individual to model the world, and so to deal with it effectively according to their goals, plans, ends and desires. Words referring to similar concepts and processes include cognition, idea, and imagination. Thinking involves the cerebral manipulation of information, as when we form concepts, engage in problem solving, reasoning and making decisions. Thinking is a higher cognitive function and the analysis of thinking processes is part of cognitive psychology.

Main article: Philosophy of mind

Philosophy of mind is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of the mind, mental events, mental functions, mental properties, consciousness and their relationship to the physical body. The mind-body problem, i.e. the relationship of the mind to the body, is commonly seen as the central issue in philosophy of mind, although there are other issues concerning the nature of the mind that do not involve its relation to the physical body.

Brain

In animals the brain, or encephalon (Greek for “in the head”), is the control center of the central nervous system, responsible for thought. In most animals, the brain is located in the head, protected by the skull and close to the primary sensory apparatus of vision, hearing, equilibrioception, taste and olfaction. While all vertebrates have a brain, most invertebrates have either a centralized brain or collections of individual ganglia. Primitive animals such as sponges do not have a brain at all. Brains can be extremely complex. For example, the human brain contains more than 100 billion neurons, each linked to as many as 10,000 others.”

OK.. without reading further than the first couple of sentences, I am reminded of the arguments that a smoker would have with his brain.. about why he really doesn’t want to have a smoke no matter how much the brain craves the nicotine.

I’m enjoying what you haven’t said so far, RB :)

>Obviously many brain functions involve interaction with body parts outside the brain, and things outside the brain; nonetheless it seems reasonable to say that it is the brain that is doing the thinking, feeling, whatever.

Alright. What about the ‘interactions’ with another body (mind-body-vehicle), do I start thinking about that other person or persons from “brain” (like that typically hidden soft mass housed in the cranium, if it were to be exposed), and is it typical to do so, or really when a person thinks “brain” is it really another word for “mind”, that its more an acknowledgement of what it or they appear to do, or not do, central command or whatever, you know.

transition said:

I’m enjoying what you haven’t said so far, RB :)

\

First. Let’s deal with this.. Being a first.

Should we parse the phrase I’m enjoying or the part about what I haven’t said.

Congratulations. This is a first and two firsts at that.. re: the RB fella. ;)

I choose, quite freely, not to respond to this thread.

Mr Ironic said:

I choose, quite freely, not to respond to this thread.

are you sure about that?

I was simply strumming something in DEmDEmDGGD.. etc..

roughbarked said:

Mr Ironic said:

I choose, quite freely, not to respond to this thread.

are you sure about that?

I’m certainly not sure about it

transition said:

>Obviously many brain functions involve interaction with body parts outside the brain, and things outside the brain; nonetheless it seems reasonable to say that it is the brain that is doing the thinking, feeling, whatever.

Alright. What about the ‘interactions’ with another body (mind-body-vehicle), do I start thinking about that other person or persons from “brain” (like that typically hidden soft mass housed in the cranium, if it were to be exposed), and is it typical to do so,

I’ve no idea what that means

transition said:

or really when a person thinks “brain” is it really another word for “mind”, that its more an acknowledgement of what it or they appear to do, or not do, central command or whatever, you know.

The “mind” is one of the functions of the brain (or the interacting brain, body and environment, if you prefer).

Referring to the wiki quotes, I have no problem with the popular usage of “mind” (making up your mind, having a mind to, etc). The thing I don’t like is the philosophical idea that there is a “mind/body problem”, as if the “mind” had a separate existence from the body.

A “mind” is what you get when you have a functioning human brain inside a body, so it is quite reasonable to say that we are “just a brain”, without in any way belittling the complexity and amazingness of what the brain does.

An interesting question maybe is if there is any ‘computation’ (even shared) done within the body (or has been done through biohistory) that isn’t localized in the sense “central” suggests in the abbreviation “CNS” of some living example.

I mean it’s no great step to go from shared or distributed thinking to distributed computation.

Just a crazy thought.

Go get some rest in. Three days of painting starting early, should be good therapy.

transition said:

An interesting question maybe is if there is any ‘computation’ (even shared) done within the body (or has been done through biohistory) that isn’t localized in the sense “central” suggests in the abbreviation “CNS” of some living example.

I mean it’s no great step to go from shared or distributed thinking to distributed computation.

Just a crazy thought.

Go get some rest in. Three days of painting starting early, should be good therapy.

I get to cut plants with sharp instruments.. then I get to bandage and assuage their wounds.

transition said:

An interesting question maybe is if there is any ‘computation’ (even shared) done within the body (or has been done through biohistory) that isn’t localized in the sense “central” suggests in the abbreviation “CNS” of some living example.

I mean it’s no great step to go from shared or distributed thinking to distributed computation.

Just a crazy thought.

It is an interesting question, and I think there may well be much more “mind” activity outside the cranium than is commonly thought. To take an obvious example, when two people interact physically it certainly seems that there is a lot going on outside the brain, which doesn’t happen when one person interacts physically with themselves.

transition said:

Go get some rest in. Three days of painting starting early, should be good therapy.

Enjoy your painting :)

I’m certainly not sure about it
———————————————————-

Well I don’t know much but I am definitely unsure about being indecisive…

CrazyNeutrino said:

roughbarked said:

Mr Ironic said:

I choose, quite freely, not to respond to this thread.

are you sure about that?

I’m certainly not sure about it

How can you be so certain that you are not sure about it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

roughbarked said:

are you sure about that?

I’m certainly not sure about it

How can you be so certain that you are not sure about it?

well the left hemisphere said this and the right hemisphere said that and then the cerebal cortex intervened and sent it to the front brain.

THe front brain, being completely innocent of the subterfuge says.. “what’s this? Well fuck it, nobody knows, so I’m all for binning it.”

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

roughbarked said:

are you sure about that?

I’m certainly not sure about it

How can you be so certain that you are not sure about it?

I havent made up my mind yet

The “mind” is one of the functions of the brain (or the interacting brain, body and environment, if you prefer).
——————————————————

Like radio waves are a function of a receiver…

Oh hold on.

Mr Ironic said:

The “mind” is one of the functions of the brain (or the interacting brain, body and environment, if you prefer).
——————————————————

Like radio waves are a function of a receiver…

Oh hold on.

Well, no, not at all like radio waves are a function of a receiver really.

A brain on stilts!

The Rev Dodgson said:

Mr Ironic said:

The “mind” is one of the functions of the brain (or the interacting brain, body and environment, if you prefer).
——————————————————

Like radio waves are a function of a receiver…

Oh hold on.

Well, no, not at all like radio waves are a function of a receiver really.

funny that you had to say that.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Mr Ironic said:

The “mind” is one of the functions of the brain (or the interacting brain, body and environment, if you prefer).
——————————————————

Like radio waves are a function of a receiver…

Oh hold on.

Well, no, not at all like radio waves are a function of a receiver really.

funny that you had to say that.

I didn’t have to say it.

I made a decision to say it :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well, no, not at all like radio waves are a function of a receiver really.

funny that you had to say that.

I didn’t have to say it.

I made a decision to say it :)

aha.. and herewithin, we have cognition.

Well, no, not at all like radio waves are a function of a receiver really.
—————————————————————————-

Why not?

Brains that are in-tuned with a wealth of knowledge and opportunity share sharper minds…

I find it interesting that the mind is assessed as being the product of the complexities of a brain. It makes more sense to me that the brain is an interface device that hardwires a dislocated observer to the fundamental physics of the environment……

Mr Ironic said:

Well, no, not at all like radio waves are a function of a receiver really.
—————————————————————————-

Why not?

Brains that are in-tuned with a wealth of knowledge and opportunity share sharper minds…

My brain has it’s own radio stations.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

I find it interesting that the mind is assessed as being the product of the complexities of a brain. It makes more sense to me that the brain is an interface device that hardwires a dislocated observer to the fundamental physics of the environment……

hmmm.. um.. sorta out there.

roughbarked said:

Mr Ironic said:

Well, no, not at all like radio waves are a function of a receiver really.
—————————————————————————-

Why not?

Brains that are in-tuned with a wealth of knowledge and opportunity share sharper minds…

My brain has it’s own radio stations.

If radio waves pass through the brain, it should be possible to build in a mico receiver

like a crystal radio but much smaller and power it using electricity from the human body

then we can ditch all these smart phones all together

roughbarked said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

I find it interesting that the mind is assessed as being the product of the complexities of a brain. It makes more sense to me that the brain is an interface device that hardwires a dislocated observer to the fundamental physics of the environment……

hmmm.. um.. sorta out there.

out where? in here is the illusion……..

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

I find it interesting that the mind is assessed as being the product of the complexities of a brain. It makes more sense to me that the brain is an interface device that hardwires a dislocated observer to the fundamental physics of the environment……

hmmm.. um.. sorta out there.

out where? in here is the illusion……..

In where?

CrazyNeutrino said:

roughbarked said:

Mr Ironic said:

Well, no, not at all like radio waves are a function of a receiver really.
—————————————————————————-

Why not?

Brains that are in-tuned with a wealth of knowledge and opportunity share sharper minds…

My brain has it’s own radio stations.

If radio waves pass through the brain, it should be possible to build in a mico receiver

like a crystal radio but much smaller and power it using electricity from the human body

then we can ditch all these smart phones all together

You found wookie’s password?

anyway.. I like it. Yes my brain hears things of it’s own accord but I think it could be anything since my neural pathways are quite obviously all cfuked up.

ratty one said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

hmmm.. um.. sorta out there.

out where? in here is the illusion……..

In where?

ziggackly……

Riff-in-Thyme said:

ratty one said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

out where? in here is the illusion……..

In where?

ziggackERly……

*Fxued

Riff-in-Thyme said:

I find it interesting that the mind is assessed as being the product of the complexities of a brain. It makes more sense to me that the brain is an interface device that hardwires a dislocated observer to the fundamental physics of the environment……

hmmm.. um.. sorta out there.
————————————————

Not really, the brain is suppository of memories and ideas and ideals,

That the mind can receive at will.

Maybe the ‘Mind’ is a central processing unit with access to acquired knowledge and problem solving units.

Or maybe it’s something far less mechanical.

Mr Ironic said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

I find it interesting that the mind is assessed as being the product of the complexities of a brain. It makes more sense to me that the brain is an interface device that hardwires a dislocated observer to the fundamental physics of the environment……

hmmm.. um.. sorta out there.
————————————————

Not really, the brain is suppository of memories and ideas and ideals,

That the mind can receive at will.

Maybe the ‘Mind’ is a central processing unit with access to acquired knowledge and problem solving units.

Or maybe it’s something far less mechanical.

The brain/mind sorted mechanical things well before it realised that these actions were electro/chemical.

Mr Ironic said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

I find it interesting that the mind is assessed as being the product of the complexities of a brain. It makes more sense to me that the brain is an interface device that hardwires a dislocated observer to the fundamental physics of the environment……

hmmm.. um.. sorta out there.
————————————————

Not really, the brain is suppository of memories and ideas and ideals,

That the mind can receive at will.

Maybe the ‘Mind’ is a central processing unit with access to acquired knowledge and problem solving units.

Or maybe it’s something far less mechanical.

The mechanical aspects of the mind I see as performing regulatory functions, like clockwork designed to interface with the environment. Which alludes to my question of consciousness being fundamental to the mechanation of the universe. If formerly inanimate particles of the environment can organise themself into a self replicating system that retains a self awareness, does this not suggest that the environment is not only capable of being aware of itself but seeks to do so constructively?

hmmm.. um.. sorta out there.

out where? in here is the illusion……..

In where?

ziggackly……
—————————-

Yeah, I think the latest ‘Scientific’ explanation concludes the illusion…

Something about all things being just a 2 dimensional projection from a flat BH’s information received on a 3d screen in the 4th dimension.

I’m sure that helps…

Mr Ironic said:

I’m sure that helps…

as obvious as a BH…..

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Mr Ironic said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

I find it interesting that the mind is assessed as being the product of the complexities of a brain. It makes more sense to me that the brain is an interface device that hardwires a dislocated observer to the fundamental physics of the environment……

hmmm.. um.. sorta out there.
————————————————

Not really, the brain is suppository of memories and ideas and ideals,

That the mind can receive at will.

Maybe the ‘Mind’ is a central processing unit with access to acquired knowledge and problem solving units.

Or maybe it’s something far less mechanical.

The mechanical aspects of the mind I see as performing regulatory functions, like clockwork designed to interface with the environment. Which alludes to my question of consciousness being fundamental to the mechanation of the universe. If formerly inanimate particles of the environment can organise themself into a self replicating system that retains a self awareness, does this not suggest that the environment is not only capable of being aware of itself but seeks to do so constructively?

The brain is capable of manifesting clockwork but this should in no way imply that the brain ticks and tocks.

roughbarked said:

The brain is capable of manifesting clockwork but this should in no way imply that the brain ticks and tocks.

you can’t say it doesn’t cuckoo…….

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

The brain is capable of manifesting clockwork but this should in no way imply that the brain ticks and tocks.

you can’t say it doesn’t go cuckoo…….

•fixed•

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

The brain is capable of manifesting clockwork but this should in no way imply that the brain ticks and tocks.

you can’t say it doesn’t cuckoo…….

There’s a sad sort of clanging from the clock in the hall And the bells in the steeple too And up in the nursery an absurd little bird Is popping out to say, “Cuckoo” Regretfully they tell us but firmly they compel us To say goodbye to you

wookiemeister said:

Regretfully they tell us but firmly they compel us To say goodbye to you

You really shouldn’t talk to our readers in this way.. Yo may realise that sales could drop off?

does this not suggest that the environment is not only capable of being aware of itself but seeks to do so constructively?
————————————————————

Well the environment ‘whatever TF that is’ is aware of its surroundings…

Whether it is aware that it is aware is debatable… and probably not important.

And “Seeks to do so constructively” Just leads back to the porpoises V’s the randomness of nature.

Mr Ironic said:

does this not suggest that the environment is not only capable of being aware of itself but seeks to do so constructively?
————————————————————

Well the environment ‘whatever TF that is’ is aware of its surroundings…

Whether it is aware that it is aware is debatable… and probably not important.

We are made from the environment. We are aware of ourselves and it. Therefore the environment has an awareness of itself….

what about an experiment?

when someone gets a headache here they take maybe 5 magnesium pills and see if the headache clears in 20 minutes.

my headache might have cleared anyway but it disappeared fast than the pills could make one go away funny enough

We are made from the environment. We are aware of ourselves and it. Therefore the environment has an awareness of itself….
————————————————

I’m not sure a bridge exists while the lumber is still in the trees…

Good luck with that.

Mr Ironic said:

We are made from the environment. We are aware of ourselves and it. Therefore the environment has an awareness of itself….
————————————————

I’m not sure a bridge exists while the lumber is still in the trees…

Good luck with that.

are you sure about that?

Mr Ironic said:

We are made from the environment. We are aware of ourselves and it. Therefore the environment has an awareness of itself….
————————————————

I’m not sure a bridge exists while the lumber is still in the trees…

Good luck with that.

Pithy sayings provide minimal analysis.

roughbarked said:

Mr Ironic said:

We are made from the environment. We are aware of ourselves and it. Therefore the environment has an awareness of itself….
————————————————

I’m not sure a bridge exists while the lumber is still in the trees…

Good luck with that.

are you sure about that?

Is not a tree a bridge between the earth round its root and the sky above it’s branches?

:P

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

Mr Ironic said:

We are made from the environment. We are aware of ourselves and it. Therefore the environment has an awareness of itself….
————————————————

I’m not sure a bridge exists while the lumber is still in the trees…

Good luck with that.

In aboriginal lore.. the trees around Lake Eyre, held the sky up.
are you sure about that?

Is not a tree a bridge between the earth round its root and the sky above it’s branches?

:P

roughbarked said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

are you sure about that?

Is not a tree a bridge between the earth round its root and the sky above it’s branches?

:P

In aboriginal lore.. the trees around Lake Eyre, held the sky up.

>My life is meaningful because I have family, meaningful work, because I love to play, I have dogs, I love to dig in the garden..”

Of course.

brrraaaaiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

>It’s metaphysical goofiness.

There was a time that NS would have mentioned “metaphysics” without the “goofiness”, but at some time NS became goofy.

transition said:

>It’s metaphysical goofiness.

There was a time that NS would have mentioned “metaphysics” without the “goofiness”, but at some time NS became goofy.

Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

Since not all metaphysics is goofy, I think it is necessary to specify the goofiness if you are referring to a goofy argument.

In any case, it was an interview, so we might hope that the g word came from the interviewee, rather than the interviewer.

Which is not to say that NS does not suffer from it’s own goofiness at times these days. They are far too ready to print goofy press releases with no hint of critical comment. Their recent article on the bitcoin was a disgrace for instance.

NS on the bat-coin:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029452.400-cleanedup-bitcoins-could-change-commerce-forever.html#.UqObAM_xupo

>Since not all metaphysics is goofy, I think it is necessary to specify the goofiness if you are referring to a goofy argument”

I tend, the details, you know God is in the detail.