What is "Mind?"

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 16561 - 16580 of total 22307 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

eeyonkee

Trad climber

Golden, CO

Dec 18, 2017 - 05:53pm PT

In answer to this.

Shifting gears: Do you not believe that YOU right now have some competence and thus some degree of freedom right now, in this moment, to your thinking and decision making (iow, to your will) that Charles Witman in the 60s in Texas didn't have when he shot up all those people?

If yes, then you DO have a will that is "free" in some higher systems sense (relative to a lower competence system).

I would say, of course I have a sense of my own "degrees of freedom" or agency. I also have no problem believing that that this sense is after-the-fact from a decision-making standpoint, and that I've been fooled into thinking that I made the decision.

eeyonkee

Trad climber

Golden, CO

Dec 18, 2017 - 06:04pm PT

Bottom line, eeyonkee, we ARE in agreement concerning our FATED behavior, our FATED planet, our FATED Cosmos.

Jeez, you make it sound so, I dunno, FATED:>

I'm, in my own way, trying to get to the reconciliation of our sense of who we are with determinism. Really, that's all. Gazzaniga opened up some new ideas for me. I hope you read him. He's not just some philosopher or neuroscientist with a cool new riff, he's got results from experiments like in the movie, Memento. This is new data for me.

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Dec 18, 2017 - 06:05pm PT

In your last post, aren't you combining (confusing) two different definitions of "sense". Just to be clear, in my post, I was using "sense" as synonymous with understanding. (Not "sense" as in internal sensing.)

I'll read it again, though.

The point I was trying to make is that Whitman's competence (in thinking, in intention, in desire, in choosing "responsible" social action) was compromised (it was malfunctioning) in a way yours isn't - or never has - because he had (unknown at the time) a tumor pressing up against his amygdala.

With competence (aka can-do power or agency) be it in humans or hawks, humans or computers, or computers vs computers (Intel 8080 vs Big Blue), capabilities emerge; and most importantly, from a systems perspective, types of freedom emerge (fully mechanistic) and we can talk in terms of these "freedoms" even though "under the hood" it is all mechanistic, it is all physical, it is all causal, it is all fated, at bottom.

As I tried to point out to Madbolter years ago, a hawk has a freedom a human doesn't; a 5.11 climber has a freedom a 5.9 climber doesn't. We imagine this freedom (this competence) manifested at the musculo-skeletal level. Fair enough. But (almost) just as easily we can imagine similar freedoms (competences, abilities) manifested at the functioning and output of nervous system nuclei (circuits) such as at the machinery that manifests our intention, our will.

...

I read Gazzaniga a couple years ago re thinking fast and slow, etc. I think I even posted up a bit about it. His work is entirely consistent with the known brain science, and also I believe with what I just said about the relationship between competence (agency) and freedom (what it means to be "free"; or what we mean when we say "free").

So how do you reconcile what our man Pinker said re "free will"? Did you see the clip I pointed you to in that video? He spoke of a "free" will plain as day in that clip despite rejecting libertarian "free will" (of churches and religious philosophers, typically).

How do YOU reconcile this? that Pinker accepts at least one variety of "free will" and thus by some people's def is therefore a "compatibilist"?

PS I am not sure everybody knows this, but when one speaks of the word perse (eg. "free will" as opposed to the concept or thing it signifies), it is put in quotes to make this clear.

WBraun

climber

Dec 18, 2017 - 06:22pm PT

we can talk in terms of these "freedoms" even though "under the hood" it is all mechanistic, it is all physical, it is all causal, it is all fated, at bottom.

You've never been under the hood, and as you say above you're all talk and no go (doing the actual experiment) .....

eeyonkee

Trad climber

Golden, CO

Dec 18, 2017 - 06:32pm PT

HFCS earlier said.

Remember, I was raised in physics (engineering physics, electronics physics), chemistry, and biology and I, luckily enough, imprinted at an early age on these sciences. So I am with YOU 100% in concluding that we are fully caused living organisms and completely FATED.

Those are good credentials, indeed, for understanding the problem.

My background is in science (geology, mainly) and computer science. Lately, the computer science part, my weakest I thought, has been coming up with the new ideas on this subject. And why not? Life is based on the DNA molecule. The DNA molecule presents an obvious "base-4" computational framework. For all of you out there who think that the computer metaphors for consciousness and mind are overblown, you couldn't be more wrong.

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Dec 18, 2017 - 06:33pm PT

I'm, in my own way, trying to get to the reconciliation of our sense of who we are with determinism.

Welcome to the club, my friend. As I've said here a few times over the years... if coming to grips with evolution as part of a worldview is 5.9... then coming to grips (reconciling) with out mechanistic nature in a fated universe (also as part of a worldview) is 5.11 if not harder!

...

Those are good credentials, indeed, for understanding the problem...

Not in MikeL's view, if you remember, there they count for nothing. lol

But then that's post-modernism, ain't it?

"I don't know, is the moon really really REALLY there if I'm not looking?" lol

MH2

Boulder climber

Andy Cairns

Dec 18, 2017 - 06:41pm PT

the Jhanas without Form, which I found to be 5.15 in difficulty.

Odd comparison.

Can you back it up?

What 5.15 route have you done?

MH2

Boulder climber

Andy Cairns

Dec 18, 2017 - 06:59pm PT

Wishing you a good climbing break in Córdoba, yanqui.

Seven weeks should be a noticeable interval of time.

When people say that science is like a religion, I have doubts that they have a good understanding of either science or religion. However, my respect for mathematics comes close to reverence even though I don't really understand much about it. There is something inside me that makes math appealing.

MikeL

Social climber

Southern Arizona

Dec 18, 2017 - 07:03pm PT

Those are good credentials, indeed, for understanding the problem...

HFCS: Not in MikeL's view, if you remember, there they count for nothing. lol

I can’t see where anyone ever got anywhere with any “problem” by parading his or her bona fides around. As the Duck points out, you gotta do the work.

Too much talk, not enough work.

WBraun

climber

Dec 18, 2017 - 07:24pm PT

For all of you out there who think that the computer metaphors for consciousness and mind are overblown, you couldn't be more wrong.

First, you have to fully know what consciousness itself is and its actual source BEFORE you can even make a computer metaphor for it.

If you don't fully completely know what consciousness really is and its actual source (not a just theory) then YOU are totally wrong ......

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 18, 2017 - 07:45pm PT

What strikes me as strange is that the original question is, what is mind. Then people go scrambling to try and reckon this by looking at machines, physics, engineering, systems theory, etc. all valid in terms of processing, but a little time spent observing mind itself would sort out many of these issues.

Consider, during observation, the back and forth between awareness and the auto-generated thoughts and impulses. In psychology this is called a pattern interrupt. Also consider the revision process of any creative task you might be doing. That shows you a lot. The output of a machine is fated. See if in your creative process if the revisions are fated in the same way.

The tricky part is the bifurcation of the mechanical and determined with ....

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Dec 18, 2017 - 07:46pm PT

I also have no problem believing that that this sense is after-the-fact from a decision-making standpoint, and that I've been fooled into thinking that I made the decision.

Okay, so here you're speaking from neuroscience. Got it. But even in neuroscience (imagine the course or department in school) there is cellular neuroscience, systems neuroscience and interdisciplinary neuroscience and each has its perspectives and different lexicons and different ways of talking and it's important to keep track of these as part of the larger conversation.

Again, language and framing rule here as well. (1) Brains like computers do make decisions. (2) Just as some computers are more competent in making decisions than others, so too, some humans (because of intelligence, education, health) are more competent in making decisions than others. (3) Are these decisions both in brain and computer entirely "determined" by system architecture and input? yes (4) Are your decisions entirely free of (a) a tumor; (b) a gun held to your head coercing a certain intent (hope you saw the Emily Blunt Sicario clip); (c) a real-world (as opposed to a fictitious mythical) demon? Yes.

If we're entirely in agreement on all of this (all these points) then I think we've seen the conversation through!

Whether or not we call ourselves "compatibilists"!

WBraun

climber

Dec 18, 2017 - 07:51pm PT

Computers don't ultimately make decisions.

People do.

If you let computers ultimately make all your decisions for you than you are a sterile robot.

Exactly what you build and think you are advancing ......

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 18, 2017 - 07:54pm PT

Are these decisions both in brain and computer entirely "determined" by system architecture and input? yes

No cigar on this one Fruity. Again, observe your creative process while handling new material. Especially the revisions.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Dec 18, 2017 - 07:56pm PT

aside from stating that it is so, what empirical evidence is there for "free will?"

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 18, 2017 - 08:04pm PT

Ed, why not observe your process the next time your are working on a calculation, especially if it is a new one. What Fruity is driving at with his "fated" is basically old school Logical Determinism, that the future is already determined. See how this squares with your revision process when you start grinding on those numbers.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Dec 18, 2017 - 08:17pm PT

you are assuming something about agency, which might be an interesting assumption to examine.

"working on a problem" involves a very long process, stating the problem, revising the statement, predicting outcomes, testing outcomes (by calculation and experiment), understanding the outcomes, revising the statement...

it is certainly not "hard determinism," but there is an answer, in the end, which is a set of logical propositions supported by empirical evidence, and generalizable beyond the narrow definitions of the problem's statement.

once the answer is known, the answer is pretty much viewed in deterministic language as the consequence of the logical argument leading to it.

for instance, how is it that you always come up with "4" as the answer to the question "what is 2+2?" I don't think that is such an obvious question if I insist that you must describe what the exact process is that you engaged in to obtain that answer.

jogill

climber

Colorado

Dec 18, 2017 - 08:19pm PT

DMT: one second we're talking to the anesthesiologist and then bam! we're aware in the post-op room. In between, nothing! No sense of time, no dreaming, no interruption really

MikeL: Mind training may amend that perception

I'm curious. How does mind training affect one during the period of time unconscious under anesthesia as described by DMT? I must have missed that in the general discussion. After considerable meditation are you able to recall things that occurred while unconscious? Don't memories usually arise based on conscious experiences?

Just wondering . . .

(sycorax, note skillful use of ellipses)

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Dec 18, 2017 - 08:20pm PT

I've been fooled into thinking that I made the decision...

Eeyonkee,

Isn't "fooled" a rather strong term though? Maybe? (Then again, maybe not, lol)

Based on science and based on all we agree on, it was you, YOU, (I) that made the decision (else that chose). I mean it wasn't your neighbor or any other agent near or far. It was YOU. On many counts. On many levels. It was the multitude of YOUR cells. It was YOUR underlying control system machinery. It was YOUR so-called "self-model" (Metzinger) directing YOUR decisions and ultimately YOUR behavior.

Why isn't this okay? Maybe it is? Perhaps it takes some adaptation, some adjustment to REALLY come to terms with it. Especially if we're so often or entirely immersed in a pop culture, still largely non-scientific, that has a different way of talking about these things.

Cut yourself some slack. It is YOU. It is just a different YOU than perhaps you conceived as a child or in your pre-science years.

If we've learned anything from psychology and brain science in the last couple of decades it is that our evolved perceptions and intuitions are most directly "designed" "built" first and foremost to get our genes into the next generation - and as means to this end our imagination, our mental faculties, our perceptions, our intuitions, however you prefer to describe them, routinely trick us. Some brain wonks (Eagleman, Harris, too) even wonder aloud if we can't designate all this deception, delusion, trickery as one long streaming hallucination! Thought-provoking, to say the least. Either way though, I for one have adapted I think and am open to it: We are a head-full of illusory representations that regularly "fool" us.

...

On a related subject.
In defense of expertise, science, higher education

A Conversation with Tom Nichols
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/defending-the-experts

Grade A