Page 57 of 57 FirstFirst ... 747555657
Results 561 to 567 of 567

Thread: Free Will And Free Choice

  1. Top | #561
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,576
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,789
    Rep Power
    64
    verify belief > something > mind.

    'Are' is not a reason for existence. However lack of understanding is a reason to invent a catchall for self revealed inventions.

    You arbitrarily replace brain with mind because you have no idea how the brain works so you can go on your Libet screed.

    then you gather a herd of suppositions

    then you return to 'I judge you' rant.

    Seems to me that Libet was pretty careful to constrain himself to brain signals not mind signals.

    Now if you'd constrain yourself to what Libet actually did rather than slopping presumptions in all over the place we might actually be having a fruitful discussion.

    How can you say 'guesses' when Libet gets data he can validate via accepted statistical analysis? Many premier cognitive scientists and leading current philosophers have used Libet as a starting point winding up in the end agreeing choice is determined even they used very advanced analytical tools and methods. All you've done is slander him. Not a very balanced approach.

  2. Top | #562
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,843
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,396
    Rep Power
    81
    No.

    You because of prejudice replace mind and say instead "dumb brain did it".

    You are a mind. And smarter than a brain because as a mind you can react to ideas.

    You care because you are a free mind.

    Determining when invisible events actually start is a total guess.

    It can never be more.

    It is not scientific data.

    It is only evidence the researchers have no way to test their theories without subjective input. They have no objective understanding of the mind.

    They see brain activity and have no clue how it arose but have a prejudice that the mind had nothing to do with it when the mind is doing it all.

    All Libet showed is that the mind prepares for movement before initiating movement. Something most physical therapists already know. The young and active prepare for movement extremely quickly and the elderly prepare more slowly.

    No activity seen by Libet just arose on it's own. The mind knew a move might be made and prepared. The brain reacted and prepared to comply.

    And the mind can shut the whole thing down any time it chooses if you give subjects that option.

    The experimenters absurdly rely on minds that comply to say the mind is not in control.

    The thing that can shut it all down is in control.

    That is why Libet said he had not found any evidence to counter the idea of free will. He had no clue how any activity he observed arose and was honest about it.

  3. Top | #563
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,843
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,396
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    How can you say 'guesses' when Libet gets data he can validate via accepted statistical analysis? Many premier cognitive scientists and leading current philosophers have used Libet as a starting point winding up in the end agreeing choice is determined even they used very advanced analytical tools and methods. All you've done is slander him. Not a very balanced approach.
    Randomly occurring numbers have a mean and a standard deviation.

    You can do statistical analysis of the numbers.

    Having statistical analysis of numbers is not evidence the numbers are objective data.

    Methods are what assure you have objective data.

    Subjective guesses about invisible events is not an objective data gathering method.

    A real scientist would know this.

    I only slander those who don't understand Libet. He understood his work did not speak about free will.

    He found some activity in the brain with a correlation to subjective reports of initiating movement.

    He did not claim to know anything about the origin of the activity or why it arose.

  4. Top | #564
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,576
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,789
    Rep Power
    64
    Wab

    We already see Mayzie as falsely placed outside the machine. It's the machine (brain) we can't yet completely explain so we've invented Mayzie as a place holder. Some idiot got the idea that Mayzie was a thing rather than a placeholder for undetermined brain functions, activities, and processes


    Untermensche

    Randomly occurring numbers have a mean and a standard deviation.

    You can do statistical analysis of the numbers.

    Having statistical analysis of numbers is not evidence the numbers are objective data.

    Methods are what assure you have objective data.

    Subjective guesses about invisible events is not an objective data gathering method.
    Obviously you know almost nothing about reputable scientific publication.

    Read his article carefully, especially the Method and Results sections. Top experts in the field concentrate on evaluating these elements of a paper. You will find no reason to doubt method or result since Libet put his work in to a database for anyone to review. You obviously didn't even bother to read those sections and you definitely didn't examine the data behind the publication. Your criticisms are a ham handed blurb of possible fraud which are not evident in his publications, nor in the study of others who replicated and extended his work.

    Your moment in the peanut gallery is coming to an end.

  5. Top | #565
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,843
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,396
    Rep Power
    81
    You claim applying statistical methods to numbers magically makes the numbers objective data.

    That is absolute stupidity.

    You have no argument to make subjective guesses anything but subjective guesses so instead make a huge and worthless appeal to authority.

    You are a joke.

    You don't even know what objective data is.

    Is there a thing in this topic from color production to the nature of subjective guesses about invisible events you do not get wrong?

  6. Top | #566
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,740
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,646
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Not fully understanding doesn't mean that nothing is understood. We understand that Consciousess is made up of a collection of elements, vision, smell, touch, taste, hearing, thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc, and that these key elements of conscious mind are related to sense organs, brain regions and brain information processing activity.
    We know by having experiences we can experience sights and sounds and smells and thoughts and pain and grief and happiness and hatred and revulsion.....

    We know none of this from neuroscience and neuroscience has no clue how we have any of it or what we are that has these experiences.

    We are not a brain.

    We are not electricity.

    We are not Dopamine.

    We are the center of experience and the center of the will. That thing that experiences and wills.

    Your conclusion doesn't follow. You still ignore all the evidence for brain agency and just assert autonomous mind without explanation or the slightest justification.

    You are unable to explain, so you make declarations.

    Meanwhile:



    Quote:

    What is the neural substrate of conscious experience? While William James (1842-1910) concluded that it was the entire brain (1), recent approaches have attempted to narrow the focus: are there neurons endowed with a special location or intrinsic property that are necessary and sufficient for conscious experience? Does primary visual cortex contribute to conscious experience? Are brain areas that project directly to prefrontal cortex more relevant than those that do not (2)? Although heuristically useful, these approaches leave a fundamental problem unresolved: How could the possession of some particular anatomical location or biochemical feature render some neurons so privileged that their activity gives rise to subjective experience? Conferring this property on neurons seems to constitute a category error, in the sense of ascribing to things properties they cannot have (3).

    The authors pursue a different approach. Instead of arguing whether a particular brain area or group of neurons contributes to consciousness or not, their strategy is to characterize the kinds of neural processes that might account for key properties of conscious experience. The authors emphasize two properties: conscious experience is integrated (each conscious scene is unified) and at the same time it is highly differentiated (within a short time, one can experience any of a huge number of different conscious states). Neurobiological data indicates that neural processes associated with conscious experience are highly integrated and highly differentiated.

    Consciousness, as William James pointed out, is not a thing, but a process or stream that is changing on a time scale of fractions of seconds (1). As he emphasized, a fundamental aspect of the stream of consciousness is that it is highly unified or integrated. Integration is a property shared by every conscious experience irrespective of its specific content: Each conscious state comprises a single "scene" that cannot be decomposed into independent components (5). Integration is best appreciated by considering the impossibility of conceiving of a conscious scene that is not integrated, that is, one which is not experienced from a single point of view. A striking demonstration is given by split-brain patients performing a spatial memory task in which two independent sequences of visuospatial positions were presented, one to the left and one to the right hemisphere. In these patients, each hemisphere perceived a separate, simple visual problem and the subjects were able to solve the double task well. Normal subjects could not treat the two independent visual sequences as independent, parallel tasks. Instead, they combined the visual information into a single conscious scene and into a single, large problem that was much more difficult to solve.

    In summary: Conventional approaches to understanding consciousness are generally concerned with the contribution of specific brain areas or groups of neurons. By contrast, the authors consider what kinds of neural processes can account for key properties of conscious experience. Applying measures of neural integration and complexity, together with an analysis of extensive neurological data, leads to a testable proposal -- the dynamic core hypothesis -- about the properties of the neural substrate of consciousness.(4)''

  7. Top | #567
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,843
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,396
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Not fully understanding doesn't mean that nothing is understood. We understand that Consciousess is made up of a collection of elements, vision, smell, touch, taste, hearing, thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc, and that these key elements of conscious mind are related to sense organs, brain regions and brain information processing activity.
    We know by having experiences we can experience sights and sounds and smells and thoughts and pain and grief and happiness and hatred and revulsion.....

    We know none of this from neuroscience and neuroscience has no clue how we have any of it or what we are that has these experiences.

    We are not a brain.

    We are not electricity.

    We are not Dopamine.

    We are the center of experience and the center of the will. That thing that experiences and wills.
    Your conclusion doesn't follow.
    What conclusion?

    Those are all facts you can't dispute.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •