Nowhere357

One important distiction between the two is consciousness is real.

I think they are moving before they are able to report the sensation of having decided to move. Given "reaction time" I'm not surprised. And my original objection still stands, since you haven't addressed it.

I think it is, and we already know the mind is influenced by the brain.

I notice you skip over the parts of my post where I show your own author admits that is not the case.

True enough, and I am. The problem is my reading list grows faster than I can read.

He defined free will as supernatural, so of course he concludes it doesn't exist. I point out the lack of scientific evidence for his conclusions, and you point out he talks about science. Star Trek talks about science too.

All I require from qt is to discredit predeterminism. I understand that the theory doesn't imply that a conscious awareness of events causes wave collapse.

The first is not my position and doesn't follow from it, while the second is from one neurologist and isn't conclusive in itself, and leaves room for will regardless. As far as I can tell, his conclusions have not been peer reviewed.

I like the way he attacks the gap, though. That's the only way we'll find out what's going on.

I can't produce expert opinions on the experiments unless it has been reviewed by peers, while the qt article has no evidence which supports your position.

I've tried to explain my view and answer questions, and will continue to do so. It would be nice, however, if you could stop the cute ego-flexing.

Amaranth

Luckily, we're discussing the "mind" and "free will."

"Subjects were reasonable accurate in determining the time of S indicating that this method of timing of subjective experience was acceptable." As for your original objection about "decision", I would have thought the problem with that was obvious. You have contested that the mind affects the brain through awareness - This is obviously patently false if decisions are made before you are aware of them.

Your continued misinterpretations of the conclusions and results, along with your call for peer reveiws when similar experiments with similar results are cited (as well as full appendices), makes me wonder if you've actually read what I've provided.

To an interesting degree - Notice how the patients maintained the illusion of random decision despite the affect? Damning.

Looking again, and I still don't see any such thing.

Good. You have to understand - With your whole argument pinned on an "unknown mechanism", it is relatively hard to aim at.

You keep saying that, then never, ever showing any different. It's neat. I know that you know (that I know that you know) that as long as you don't have to define you magic, it can't be shot down effectively. I know this trick from somewhere...

Actually, the importance of the article was the experiments it details, in my opinion. And those, according to sources and references to similar experiments, have been reviewed.

In other words, you're going to hand wave off an expert citing various experiments in the field, their conclusions from those experiments, and his conclusions from that, because you're too lazy to use the appendix he provided?

*chuckle* Tell me about that dancing banana again? Heat. Kitchen. GTFO.

Amaranth

fishbulb

And here at last we have at least something we can work with.

It would seem to me that I meet all of the definitions of "mind." I think, reason, perceive, will, and feel. By this definition, I would conclude that I am a mind.

I am not sure that's what you would conclude. Would you concur that I am a mind, or is it your assertion that I merely have a mind in the same sense that I have a brain? The definition seems to suggest the former.

If it is the former, then I can answer with confidence that yes, I (a mind) can affect my brain. If you drop by with a 26 oz. bottle of Crown Royal I will be happy to provide a demonstration. In the hands of a violent sociopath, the empty bottle could also be used to demonstrate how a mind could affect another mind's brain as well.

If the latter, then I don't think that I have a clear enough understanding of what you think that the mind is to answer your question with anything other than: it depends on what, specifically, you think a mind is. Perhaps it is fair to say that any claim regarding the mind is inherently controversial so long as the mind remains an at least partly abstract concept.

In either case, I am really unclear as to what any of this has to do with the original question of free will. I have seen nothing to suggest to me that there is a coherent definition of "free will" apart from the everyday use of the word, and the clarity of the discussion thus far does not bode well for finding one.

Nowhere357

You brought it up. Minds are conscious, a consciousness is a mind. Consciousness is awareness. Consciousness exists. Where exactly is the supernatural mythological entity in this?

Your last sentence correct.
The experiment artificially stimulates a portion of the brain which normally fires after a certain conscious decision was made. This artificial stimulus biases toward that decision. The stimulus preceeded the awareness of making the decision.

How does this prove no unstimulated decision can occur which fires that portion of the brain which normally fires after a certain conscious decision was made?

The experiment requires that the subject is prepared to raise a random finger when the alarm sounds. Notice that the subject has already made the decision to to respond to the alarm by randomly choosing and raising a finger. This occurs well before the artificial stimulus. If the subject has no intention of responding by raising a finger, then nothing in the experiment indicates he will raise a finger and feel as if he willed it. So the experiment indicates a bias toward a random choice only when a decision to respond within the same choices has already been made.

This means that if we assume will is illusory, the experiment can supports this. If we assume will is not illusory, the experiment does not contradict this.

I've already said I can accept the data, and I haven't misinterpreted the conclusions - I disagree with them. The appendices I've looked at so far support the data, not the conclusions.

No. The decision to respond had already been made - the artificial stimulus biased within a preexisting range only. It shows that the brain affects the mind - but we already knew that. It also shows that we see the brain as being affected by the mind. Not damning.

My bad. Sorry.
These were still in my notebook.

In the chapter "A brief aside about Consciousness"
"We have no understanding of the physiology of awareness and must leave it at that."

In the chapter "Is the "will" in charge?", comparing will as "process" against will as "perception".
"It is not certain which of these is correct, but there are some good arguments in favor of the latter."

We don't understand the physiology. And you have here an argument. The good doctor himself tells you this. You have the opinion of one neurosurgeon, and some interesting data. It doesn't help me one bit, and it doesn't prove your case.

The physiology of the mind is unknown. You see this as an argument that the mind cannot affect the brain.

Is it clear to you that I agree with your position - I think it's default - if we don't include personal experience?

If we accept that people are aware (since they are), and that awareness is related to yet different from atoms(since it is), and make the assumption that the brain creates this quality of awareness for a reason, what might that reason be? What does this quality of awareness give the brain, such that it aids survival?

I think it gives the brain the ability to react to stimulus. Avoid pain, approach pleasure, or something like that. The awareness is integral to what makes higher animals successful. If a creature isn't aware, it isn't reacting.

If this is true, then there is constant feedback between the awareness and brain. Here I see awareness as the black box, undefined exactly but with defined input and output. In is what we are aware of (direct conscious experience, which comes from the brain), and out is the brains reaction to the awareness. And so far not one word about will.

Where do you see magic?

No, in other words you have interesting data and a single opinion. It really is interesting, and it really doesn't prove your case.

It's still dancing, but then it's an idiot.

Nowhere357

Think, reason, perceive, will, and feel all require awareness. Awareness is consciousness. Consciousness is not material. Consciousness is subjective mental experience. The mind. What am I missing?

How is the everyday use incoherant? What is your suggestion? What is awareness exactly? What is will?

These are some quotes that show my definition of the mind does not include the physical body, so I'm not sure why you just posted several paragraphs that assume it does.

"A subjective mental awareness.
It is subjective, and it is mental.
Awareness does require physics and is ethereal.
Brains are sentient or aware. We call this aspect of a brain "the mind".
The mind is not a physical object, and means someone is there experiencing things - a subjective awareness.
Perceptions of sensations, memories, and thoughts.
I would say it's a quality or property of the living brain.
The mind exists, and is not made of matter.
An emergent quality or property of the brain.
And the mind is not a physical object, yet it holds mental objects all the time."

You see, we need to know what we mean by mind before we can understand a property of the mind, such as will.

Amaranth

Not really - But it is now

*sigh*

In the end, I do believe my problem with accepting free will, despite personal experience, is that I cannot concieve of a method in which choice can be a part of our cause-effect (or just effect, in the case of QM) paradigm of physics. While I can't find (and doubt the existance of) proof that shows such a mechanism as impossible, I plainly find it highly improbable. So, this comes down to:

1) Your hypothesis lacks definition of what seems to me as a unique structure in that physical world.

2) My hypothesis fails to explain why we percieve choices being made at all.

A matter of which you find more convincing, I suppose.

Anyways - I think I've made my case about as well as I am capable. Shall we agree to disagree?

Amaranth

PS - I'm going to shoot that banana

fishbulb

I am having problems correlating the content these responses with the quotes they follow.

The definition you supplied from the philosophy dictionary included no such requirement, but you seemed to suggest that it was a functional and standard definition. If it was incomplete, why did you present it?

How can you say that will is a property of the mind when you do not know what is meant by the term "mind?" And why is it that you would ask questions about the relationship between mind and brain if the concept of mind has not, in your mind, been adequately defined?

If you don't know what you mean by the term "mind," I am afraid that I do not have the missing information, but I can tell you that I cannot discuss any issues relating to something for which I do not have an adequate working definition. You brought the whole concept up as though it were relevant to the free will versus determininsm question. All that I said is that the whole issue is fundamentally incoherent, that the only sense in which the term "free will" is really meaningful is the everyday usage of the term, that this usage does not imply an all-or-nothing state, and that it is fairly obvious, under this notion, to what extent people exercise free will.

You still haven't really explained why it is relevant, let alone what you actually mean by mind. You alternate between providing vague definitions and saying you don't know what the mind is. Which one is it? Can you define what you mean by "mind" and explain why it is relevant to the issue at hand, or do you not know?

Nowhere357

Then let's look at them.

By "I" you include your body - fingers and toes and nose. And brain. These things are material. They are not non-material. Thus I replied with "Think, reason, perceive, will, and feel all require awareness. Awareness is consciousness. Consciousness is not material. Consciousness is subjective mental experience. The mind. What am I missing?"

You imply that the (non-material) mind includes the (material) body. I address your misconception by clarifying that the mind is not material, and this seems to confuse you.

"How is the everyday use incoherant? What is your suggestion? What is awareness exactly? What is will?"

You misrepresent my position by ignoring my definitions, so I ask questions about YOUR definitions, and I ask questions about YOUR statements, and this gives you a problem "correlating the content". And somehow this seems to confuse you.

You mention "coherent definition of "free will" apart from the everyday use of the word", so I ask how the everyday use is incoherant, and what definition you recommend, and this seems to confuse you.

I also ask for your definitions of "awareness" and "free will" and this also seems to confuse you.

I'm not exactly sure what position you are defending, but you are making it look very weak.

Yes it does include the requirement that minds are not material. I am not responsible for your inablity to comprehend basic definitions. Try looking at the definition for mind again, then look up the definitions for think, reason, perceive, will, and feel, and the definition for mental. Study about awareness and the phenomenae of personal mental experience, known as subjective awareness.

When you have enough of a basic comprehension of the subject that you no longer claim the body to be mind, then perhaps you'll be able to contribute here. Until then, you are confusing the map for the terrain, and your comments have no merit.

But I do know what is meant by the term "mind". I understand the definitions, while your comments indicate that you do not. Which is why I asked for your definitions - remember, the questions whose correlation to the subject seems to confuse you?

The concept of mind has been defined. The confusion is in your camp. I am not responsible for your inability to understand basic definitions.

I know what I mean by the term "mind".

Again, when you failed to understand simple and basic dictionary definitions, I asked for your definitions, in hopes of understanding you. But this tactic apparently confused you too much, as evidenced by your claim that my asking you for definitions of the terms we are discussing, somehow does not "correlate".

Because it is. It's unreasonable to expect you to understand this, when you are unable to grasp the BASIC DEFINITIONS.

Which is why I asked why is it fundamentally incoherent, which apparently confused you. And why I asked for your definitions, which also apparently confused you.

Maybe it is, by your definitions. I'd ask for them, but I'm afraid you would accuse me of incoherance. Provide them, if you think this may be appropriate.

Yes, I have. Will is a property of mind, so we need to understand mind to understand will. I am not responsible for your apparent failure to grasp this point. And the mind is the subjective mental awareness which arises from the living human brain. Again, I am not responsible for your apparent failure to grasp this point.

The definitions are clear - it is your comprehension which is vague. And you are confusing my statements that I don't know the physics involved, to mean I don't know what the mind is. Again, this is your confusion, not mine.

The mind is the subjective mental awareness. Relevant because if will exists, it is a property of mind.

Say, are you aware that pain has no mass? That desire cannot be seen with a microscope? That subjective qualities cannot be objectively observed? Or will your answers to these questions continue to confuse the map for the terrain?

Please study the definitions and the philosophy of mind, in order that your contributions here may achieve some measure of validity.

fishbulb

Nowhere357,

Your tone is unwarranted. You are the one who wishes to discuss the whole concept of a mind. You brought it up. I have no particular interest in discussing the concept, and I have not staked out a position with regards to it. I have not supplied a definition of it. You responded to a comment I made which, roughly speaking, was this:

The entire free will versus determinism debate is a faulty one because it is based on a notion of free will that is essentially meaningless. The only sense in which free will has, to my knowledge, ever been coherently defined is in the everyday sense that we have free will to the extent that we are free to make the choices we believe are right and are not coerced into making choices because of undue external force. But this definition is not at all incompatible with the argument made by determinists.

Perhaps some clarificaction is also in order: all of the factors that go into influencing a choice must, it seems to me, be of two types: random phenomena and influences which ultimately are rooted in the physical world, be they genetics, horomones, experience, perception, neurological damage, or whatever. The determinist argument is that our choices are all determined by this second group of things, so if our choices are determined solely by that group of things, the determinists are right. If random phenomena play some role as well, then you might say the determinists are wrong, but there is nothing in randomness that implies any sort of free will. Either free will doesn't exist or it is fundamentally the same thing as determinism, unless you can propose a third category of factors influencing decisions. I have never seen credible evidence in support of such a third category.

Perhaps I was not clear enough in my original wording or perhaps you are reading into the statement things that are not there. In any event, if you want to address that comment directly, I shall be obliged to respond. Otherwise, I am not interested in starting a tangental discussion on the nature of mind or anything else at this time.