Free Will vs Free Won't - Motor activity in the brain precedes our awareness of the intention to move, so how is it that we perceive control?

[Immortalist]

Experiments suggest to some that unconscious processes in the brain
are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore
plays no part in their initiation. If unconscious brain processes have
already taken steps to initiate an action before consciousness is
aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in
volition is all but eliminated.

Instead conscious volition is exercised in the form of 'the power of
veto' (sometimes called "free won't"; the idea that conscious
acquiescence is required to allow the unconscious buildup of the
readiness potential to be actualized as a movement. While
consciousness plays no part in the instigation of volitional acts it
may still have a part to play in suppressing or withholding certain
acts instigated by the unconscious.

Everyone has experienced the withholding from performing an
unconscious urge. Since the subjective experience of the conscious
will to act preceded the action by only 200 milliseconds, this leaves
consciousness only 100-150 milliseconds to veto an action (this is
because the final 50 milliseconds prior to an act are occupied by the
activation of the spinal motor neurones by the primary motor cortex,
and the margin of error indicated by tests utilizing the oscillator
must also be considered).

------------------------------------
There's lots of research evidence demonstrating that many of our
actions are not initiated consciously. We're not making conscious
choices to act. That said, some of the strongest neuroscientific
evidence indicates that our conscious choice is capable of stopping
nonconsciously initiated action. Perhaps it's not a matter of free
will, but "free won't," and this matters in terms of procrastination.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/201106/free-wont-it-may-be-all-we-have-or-need

Susan Blackmore's interpretation is that conscious
experience takes some time to build up and is
much too slow to be responsible for making
things happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdMA8RVu1sk

[Father Haskell]

On Jul 17, 1:21 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Experiments suggest to some that unconscious processes in the brain
> are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore
> plays no part in their initiation. If unconscious brain processes have
> already taken steps to initiate an action before consciousness is
> aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in
> volition is all but eliminated.

Reflex from say, mashing your thumb with a 28 ounce waffle-faced
framing hammer? Efferent and afferent horns of the spinal cord.

[DonH]

"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0cb6d7ae-0f3a-464c...@s6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

# It seems you may be only one jump away from David Hume's contention that
"reason is the slave of the passions".
Certainly, our Instincts demand satisfaction, and rightly so, or we'd
cease to exist.
Intelligence guides Instinct, and thus to three meals a day; also
Reproduction.
As for Free and Will, it somewhat depends how these are defined, but
anything which violates the Laws of Causality would seem ruled out.
Hence, everything we do is Determined, like it or not.
What then of the person of Strong Will? Such person is guided by strong
inner factors, whether endocrine or intellectual or instinctive.
Determination, but also Determined.
The Jesuits have reportedly claimed "Give us a child until it is seven,
and after that you can do as you like with it". So much for the infant's
"free will" subsequently.
Demagogues may use Reason, but appeal to Prejudice.
Advertising Agencies use all kinds of psychological ploys to get
consumers to buy, and the 99c coin has yet to be minted.
So, folks, you think you are an autonomous Spirit, Free to Do As Thou
Wilt?
Sorry, but you are a Causal Consequence of your Hereditary and
Environment, and even your supposed Choices are within such confines.
Who am I? The Ego is equated with the Brain, but we individuals are a
Colony of Cells, with a presumptuous Nervous System, or, at least the
Cranial Aspect.
How do our Bodies function? We may learn this from books, but our food
is digested without any conscious control on "our" part; we leave it to the
specialised Organs of the Physical Body.
And what glimmers of Rational Control we have is often distorted so we
consume Junk Food when our Body demands better - and suffers accordingly.
Homo Sapiens, the Darling of God, or aTop an Evolutionary Tree?
No, more likely a brief aberrant off-shoot, whose Rise and Fall will
leave little trace.
Have a nice day!

[LudovicoVan]

On Tuesday, 17 July 2012 18:21:52 UTC+1, Immortalist wrote:

> Experiments suggest to some that unconscious processes in the brain
> are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore
> plays no part in their initiation.

Nonsense: unconscious processes are not volitional, by definition.

> Instead conscious volition is exercised in the form of 'the power of
> veto' (sometimes called "free won't";

Very nice: so, we have free-will *plus* free free-won't!

-LV

[casey]

On Jul 17, 10:21 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Experiments suggest to some that unconscious processes
> in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts,
> and free will therefore plays no part in their initiation.

There is no free will (action without a physical cause)
so of course free will plays no part in our actions.

An action is caused by preceeding actions. If you are
told to move your finger "when you feel like it" what
do you imagine causes you to "feel like it" and where
is the activity of that cause in the brain? Of course
the activity that causes you to "feel like moving your
finger" has to preceed knowing that you feel like it.
You can't know something before it happens.

The problem only arises if you are imagining a ghost
in the machine with intentions of its own. If the
brain has to generate a "feel like moving my finger"
that intention will exist somewhere in the brain as
some kind of neural activity.

jc

[LudovicoVan]

"casey" <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:6ba4dccc-b73d-42b2...@qk10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 17, 10:21 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Experiments suggest to some that unconscious processes
>> in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts,
>> and free will therefore plays no part in their initiation.
>
> There is no free will (action without a physical cause)
> so of course free will plays no part in our actions.

Interesting: can you expand a bit?

> The problem only arises if you are imagining a ghost
> in the machine with intentions of its own.

You mean, there is no captain on the boat?

-LV

[casey]

On Jul 17, 8:45 pm, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> "casey" <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

>> On Jul 17, 10:21 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Experiments suggest to some that unconscious processes
>>> in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts,
>>> and free will therefore plays no part in their initiation.
>>
>>
>> There is no free will (action without a physical cause)
>> so of course free will plays no part in our actions.
>
> Interesting: can you expand a bit?

What would an uncaused causation mean?

The closest we come to that is a random quantum event
but that is not a rational choice. A rational decider
makes what it considers its best choice as *determined*
by some criteria. If you know the choices available
and the methods used to select a choice you can
predict what the machine will do next.

If you think you are not a machine (a state determined
system) then you believe in a ghost in the machine
for which there is zero scientific evidence.

>> The problem only arises if you are imagining a ghost
>> in the machine with intentions of its own.
>
>
> You mean, there is no captain on the boat?

There has to be something equivalent to a captain
on the boat but it doesn't have to be a ghost.
A physical captain will do just fine. The choice
made by the captain will be determined by the
reward system and what choices are available.

jc

> -LV

[Doug Freyburger]

LudovicoVan wrote:
> Immortalist wrote:
>
>> Experiments suggest to some that unconscious processes in the brain
>> are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore
>> plays no part in their initiation.
>
> Nonsense: unconscious processes are not volitional, by definition.

Then the problem is with the definition. Consider observations of
mystics who have conscious control of many more aspects of their body
than the average human. Since they exert conscious control, for them
those bodliy functions are conscious "by definition" yet for the rest of
us they are unconscious "by definition". And once these yogis stop
exerting conscious control those bodliy functions resume normal function
and they become unconscious "by definition".

There is actually a spectrum between the conscious and unconscious.
This makes discussions of free will even more problematic.

[Albert Tatlock]

"LudovicoVan" <julio_d...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c8afaa0-79dd-4f41...@googlegroups.com...

> On Tuesday, 17 July 2012 18:21:52 UTC+1, Immortalist wrote:
>
>> Experiments suggest to some that unconscious processes in the brain
>> are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore
>> plays no part in their initiation.
>
> Nonsense: unconscious processes are not volitional, by definition.

the article does'nt say that unconscious processes ARE volitional acts...it
says that unconscious processes are the INITIATORS of volitional acts...of
acts that a person would subsequently describe as volitional.

[LudovicoVan]

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message news:ju6ghd$35a$1...@dont-email.me...

> LudovicoVan wrote:
> > Immortalist wrote:
> >
> >> Experiments suggest to some that unconscious processes in the brain
> >> are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore
> >> plays no part in their initiation.
> >
> > Nonsense: unconscious processes are not volitional, by definition.
>
> Then the problem is with the definition.

No, volition and initiator of volition is just a tautology. Then what I
meant is that the existence of non-consciously initiated actions is *not* an
argument against the existence of volitions. Hence, my later remark: we
rather get free-will *plus* free-won't.

> Consider observations of
> mystics who have conscious control of many more aspects of their body
> than the average human.

Supposedly, those mystics are *fully awake*, which is a kind of conscience
that has nothing to do with what is meant here, surely not with volitions!

> There is actually a spectrum between the conscious and unconscious.
> This makes discussions of free will even more problematic.

Agreed only in a first instance: the theoretical point rather is, with
cybernetics, that there is no such problem at all (of free will vs.
determinism), there is rather "freedomn in the context of vincula
(constraints)", which is a systemic approach. Indeed, Robinson does not
exist, not even in principle, etc. etc.

-LV

[Immortalist]

On Jul 18, 10:15 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> "Doug Freyburger"  wrote in messagenews:ju6ghd$35a$1...@dont-email.me...

> > LudovicoVan wrote:
> > > Immortalist  wrote:
>
> > >> Experiments suggest to some that unconscious processes in the brain
> > >> are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore
> > >> plays no part in their initiation.
>
> > > Nonsense: unconscious processes are not volitional, by definition.
>
> > Then the problem is with the definition.
>
> No, volition and initiator of volition is just a tautology.  Then what I
> meant is that the existence of non-consciously initiated actions is *not* an
> argument against the existence of volitions.  Hence, my later remark: we
> rather get free-will *plus* free-won't.
>

Free won't seems better suited to our psychology and still fits within
each and every processing cycle. Think of "trial and error" cycles
being divided up to find out where the trial and error boundries are.
What about after the fact falsification in the scientific method? So
it is many events not one within time frames and sequences, that we
are speaking of metaphysically.

Can free will and necessity can be compatible? The doctrine of
necessity is entirely compatible with the idea of free will.

We have free will, but we will almost always choose to act the same
way if faced with the same circumstances. The reason for this is
because of who we are, what our characters are, what beliefs, desires,
and motivations we have. These factors influence our actions, and
because we don't usually change the core of our person, we are fairly
regular in our actions, unless we purposefully choose to act against
our normal characters.

Necessity implies that an outside force, such as our environment,
compels our actions whereas our actions are compelled by our own
nature. Therefore, how could it be said that we have anything but free
will - we are the source of our own actions, no outside force compels
us to act the way we do, surely we must be free.

The problem here is that given that the way we act is determined by
our characters, it is quite important that we are our own authors,
that we make our own characters, and this is really not the case. Our
characters are formed as children, by our education, environment and
those around us, and we have very little control over how these
factors affect us; we cannot just decide to not allow an experience of
burning to make us afraid of fire in the future, for example.

Our childhood experiences, our teachers, and so forth necessitate our
actions. We have little control over our characters initially, but
once we come to the use of reason we have the ability to change
ourselves. This is, of course, not easy, and most people will probably
live out their lives without making the slightest attempt to do so,
but we can do it and this is our free will (and perhaps free will
cannot be said to be anything more than this ability [a variation Free
Won't]).

It cannot be said that, say, our parents compel us to act in the way
we do because they had a hand in forming our character, as they could
not directly and deliberately act in a way that would form our
character in any specific way. Their influence was indirect, and thus
they really had no more hand in forming us than we ourselves did in
subconsciously choosing to be affected by one experience but not
another. Easy it is to views our characters as being little more than
accidents of our upbringing, which is what allows us to hold the view
that we have free will, whilst still being compelled by our
characters.

[Jack McKinney]

On Mon Immortalist wrote:

> Experiments suggest to some that
> unconscious processes in the brain are
> the true initiator of volitional acts, and
> free will therefore plays no part in their
> initiation.

</snip>

You misunderstand the nature of reality. It is the unconscious processes
that allow humans to have anything that remotely resembles free will...
If not for these so-called unconscious processes, we really would be
robots...

Think about it, as humans are currently constituted, if you had to
consciously beat your heart, digest your food, grow your cells, regulate
your body temperature, or to consciously control and manipulate all that
is required to see, hear, smell , taste, and touch ... you wouldn't have
time to think about doing anything else... Even something as simple as
crossing the road, would be a Herculean task...

===============
The evidence for reactions before the actual occurrence of an event,
does not represent a case against free will, it suggests precognition...

I heard of studies that suggest that the *best* baseball hitters are
reacting to the path of a pitch .2 of a second before the pitcher
releases the ball. This suggests to me that the batters are using their
*free will* to adjust to the path of the ball... The idea of free will
is still intact...

[Fred M. McNeill]

Ignorance always breeds folk talk, like "consciousness".
Then there are the 'virtual reality' representations, and the 'self'
deceit and the hubris that support that virtual reality as
'reality'.

I am not optimistic about the 'human' race because it cannot
get honest about itself, and about its precarious situation.

[casey]

On Jul 19, 4:24 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Necessity implies that an outside force, such as our environment,
> compels our actions whereas our actions are compelled by our own
> nature. Therefore, how could it be said that we have anything but free
> will - we are the source of our own actions, no outside force compels
> us to act the way we do, surely we must be free.

That is just playing with words, shifting of meanings.

Free will as an indeterminate act is without meaning.

Free from *current* outside forces doesn't mean your current state
isn't the result of previous outside forces.
Your internal nature evolved (was determined by) *outside* selective
forces.

We all have a limited set of choices but the choice we choose is
determined by our evolved reward system.
There is no magical ghost in the brain that decides what the brain
will do.
The brains that processed the data into better choices as measured by
reproductive success are the brains we see today.
Their choices are determined by how they are wired up or changed over
time by *outside* forces.

[Birric Forcella]

Benjamin Libet showed experimentally that unconscious decisions-making
in the brain precedes the conscious "free will" experience by a
measurable time. Apparently, he was so shocked by his own finding and
its implications for free will that he himself developed the "free
won't" concept, an idea that has ever since confused the issue like a
red herring.

If there were such a thing as free will, operated by some ghost in the
machine, then one should expect that the brain signals come AFTER the
conscious decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

Clearly, we don't have free will. What we need to realize is that
this is a very good and very desirable fact.

Free will advocates often argue that if everything is merely natural
processes, then we cannot make any coherent (value) judgments,
decisions, or statements, since, after all, it's all merely atoms and
physical laws talking through us.

My point is this: Within our brain there is a level which makes the
decisions for us. Modern brain scans show clearly that decisions are
made deep in the brain well before we are aware of them. This level in
the brain makes the decision for the self in the way that the outcome,
the decision, is the most desirable for the self. The brain produces
exactly the outcome that the self wants. After all, that is what the
brain is all about, isn't it?

Now here comes the kicker. In this way the brain creates the SAME
outcome that would pertain if the person had free will, because even
with free will you cannot do anything else but what you want. This
means, that you cannot any more make the claim that one cannot
coherently defend a value (or free-choice) position without free
will. Since my choice and judgment is exactly the same as it would be
WITH free will, any free will advocate who finds my reasons
insufficient can make the justification FOR ME. However, Free Will,
if it is truly free, has ultimately no justification whatever. I
really prefer my brain acting on my behalf.

What about "free won'ts"? Well, it's an incoherent concept, based on
misunderstandings. When the first decision of our brain enters our
consciousness, it becomes subject to all kinds of reasonings and
secondary inputs. We may even do some research before we let our
decision loose into the wild. However, all subsequent decisions, even
those that veto the original one, are formed by the same process which
produced the original one. That means, again, our brain acts before
we are conscious of it.

That is exactly what the brain does - prioritize competing wants and
inputs - and it will choose in a way similar to vector addition, if
possible - a bit of this and a bit of that - but in other cases it
will have to choose something that is just more pleasurable / less
painful - but those decisions, again, are NOT conscious, but made,
within your brain, BEFORE you are aware of them. So all the later
modifying decisions are made in exactly the same way as the earlier
decision. This answers the objection that the "original" decision may
be made unconsciously, but that later decisions (vetos) are then
"free." It cannot be like that and it is NOT

It would appear that there are good evolutionary reasons why the brain
creates the appearance of free will. Indeed, since the brain IS YOU,
it is you who produces the final decision/thought - albeit in a
natural deterministic fashion.

If you think the brain does not make the decisions, all you do is push
the problem one level on. Who operates the brain? Is there a
"Captain" to your soul? And how does this Captain make his
decisions? Randomly? Clearly not, since character and such are
persistent and stable things. So how does your "higher operator" make
his decisions? Who or what is the "Captain of the Captain?"

I think we can simplify the naturalist position and leave the world
at large out. For our mind only one thing matters, and that is crucial
for the free will debate. A determined process has one outcome and
one outcome only. Given the state of the world, the prior states in
the brain (or anywhere) completely determine the outcome of the
process by natural laws. That is the naturalist position. All others
positions would require some supernatural force. This natural
position also includes Quantum physics. Though I doubt quantum
effects play a role in our decisions, if they do, all of them are
purely natural occurrences.

Brain states are energy states of neurons and other structures. If
you think that you could have acted/thought otherwise, then you would
have to account for the energy that would change your brain state.
Clearly, it could not come from within this universe, because the iron-
clad laws of THIS universe have ordained the act/thought that actually
did occur.

If you argue that you could have freely chosen otherwise from what you
actually have chosen, then you are committed to the claim that you
could have either violated the laws of nature. It is a
supernaturalist claim.

There is a misuse of the word choice that occurs quite commonly. As
in sentences like: "Water chooses the lowest level." In this use of
the word "choice" there may be a range of theoretical outcomes, but it
is understood that only one of them is possible. That is exactly the
meaning of the word "caused." Basically everything that is caused
has a range of theoretical outcomes, but only one is possible
according the the state of the world that pertains. A computer which
"chooses" one out of thousands or millions of entries in a database
clearly does not choose at all. The word "choose" is simply used
differently in this context. However, if something chooses "freely"
then there was a range of outcomes and NO way exists to explain that
choice through natural processes, not even in theory by taking
recourse to incalculable complexities.

It turns out that free will is also incompatible with the idea of an
omniscient and omnipotent god, for if a decision is to be truly free,
then even god cannot know where it came from. That is the case even
if you assume that god exists outside of space and time.

Well, we do what we WANT - and what we WANT is completely determined,
by circumstances, by natural laws, and by natural laws working in our
brains - hopefully our brains work right and look out for our best
interests - so our brains do make us WANT what we naturally SHOULD
WANT !

You don't need to explain what consciousness is in order to see that
it works according to natural laws. It is clear that the preferences
generated in our brains operate all our choices. It is a natural
function.

Birric Forcella

Better explanations rule !

[casey]

On Jul 19, 8:21 am, Birric Forcella <erniec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [... see previous post for snipped bits]

> Well, we do what we WANT - and what we WANT is completely determined,
> by circumstances, by natural laws, and by natural laws working in our
> brains - hopefully our brains work right and look out for our best
> interests - so our brains do make us WANT what we naturally SHOULD
> WANT !

I agree with what you have written.

You cannot say "free" without saying free from what or free to do
what.

We can think in terms of degrees of freedom which is simply a
description of constraints.

The legs of a table are not free to move independently, they are
constrained.

A prisoner is not free to walk in the local park but may be free to
walk around the prison court yard.

The will is what we want to do and a person with "free will" is one
that is "free" to carry out what they "will" to do but what they will
and thus what they carry out is determined by how their brains are
wired up by the genes and environment. The will is determined.

[Melzzzzz]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
casey <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> On Jul 19, 8:21 am, Birric Forcella <erniec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [... see previous post for snipped bits]
> > Well, we do what we WANT - and what we WANT is completely
> > determined, by circumstances, by natural laws, and by natural laws
> > working in our brains - hopefully our brains work right and look
> > out for our best interests - so our brains do make us WANT what we
> > naturally SHOULD WANT !
>
> I agree with what you have written.
>
> You cannot say "free" without saying free from what or free to do
> what.
>
> We can think in terms of degrees of freedom which is simply a
> description of constraints.
>
> The legs of a table are not free to move independently, they are
> constrained.
>
> A prisoner is not free to walk in the local park but may be free to
> walk around the prison court yard.
>
> The will is what we want to do and a person with "free will" is one
> that is "free" to carry out what they "will" to do but what they will
> and thus what they carry out is determined by how their brains are
> wired up by the genes and environment. The will is determined.
>

If we (our brain) just execute program, than we have no free will.
That is if we are algorithmic machines than we don't have free will.

[casey]

On Jul 19, 8:55 am, Melzzzzz <m...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
>

Free will can be the ability to carry out a task without restriction.
The computer can be free (able) to turn on the printer (what it
wills).

Free will as an internally caused action is fine. But the action was
still determined.

The question could be asked is an alien hand an act of free will?

It is caused by the internal actions of the brain but we do not
consider it something "we" chose to do.

So the question here is, what are "we" in neural terms?

[Melzzzzz]

Nope. Computer behavior is precisely determined by program.
If program does not do "turn on printer", it will never does.

>
> Free will as an internally caused action is fine. But the action was
> still determined.

Yes.

>
> The question could be asked is an alien hand an act of free will?
>
> It is caused by the internal actions of the brain but we do not
> consider it something "we" chose to do.

Well, that example is about broken machine. We do many
things unwillingly.

>
> So the question here is, what are "we" in neural terms?

Are we machines ?

>
>

[casey]

On Jul 19, 9:18 am, Melzzzzz <m...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
>

> casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > > The question could be asked is an alien hand an act of free will?
>
> > It is caused by the internal actions of the brain but we do not
> > consider it something "we" chose to do.
>
> Well, that example is about broken machine. We do many
> things unwillingly.

Sure you can say it is broken but don't be quick to dismiss the
question.

How can an outsider determine the difference?
You have simply defined broken by a strange behavior not by what owns
the behavior.
We know tumors can result in criminal behavior.
Are these people broken?
What if no tumor is found, maybe they are born that way, broken?
Should we make them suffer for being born that way?
How can we solve crime if we delude ourselves it is a "free choice"?

> > So the question here is, what are "we" in neural terms?
>
> Are we machines ?

We are machines in the widest sense of the meaning of that word.
To believe otherwise is to believe in a ghost in the machine.
Being a machine does not degrade being human, it upgrades what it
means to be a machine.



>
>
>
>

[casey]

Actually in light of my question I should have said we are
something the brain does. But not everything the brain does
is us.

[Melzzzzz]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
casey <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> On Jul 19, 9:18 am, Melzzzzz <m...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > > > The question could be asked is an alien hand an act of free
> > > > will?
> >
> > > It is caused by the internal actions of the brain but we do not
> > > consider it something "we" chose to do.
> >
> > Well, that example is about broken machine. We do many
> > things unwillingly.
>
> Sure you can say it is broken but don't be quick to dismiss the
> question.
>
> How can an outsider determine the difference?
> You have simply defined broken by a strange behavior not by what owns
> the behavior.
> We know tumors can result in criminal behavior.
> Are these people broken?

Yes.

> What if no tumor is found, maybe they are born that way, broken?

Yes.

> Should we make them suffer for being born that way?

We already make them suffer.

> How can we solve crime if we delude ourselves it is a "free choice"?

Crime can't be finally solved. There is system to punish for
crime and it prevents crime in normal people.
Does not matter if it is free choice. Mainly it is not...

>
>
> > > So the question here is, what are "we" in neural terms?
> >
> > Are we machines ?
>
> We are machines in the widest sense of the meaning of that word.
> To believe otherwise is to believe in a ghost in the machine.

Well, there is ghost in the machine. Information we carry,
self awareness , consciousness, thoughts, emotions, it is immaterial.

> Being a machine does not degrade being human, it upgrades what it
> means to be a machine.

Of course.

[Jack McKinney]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 3:21pm (CDT-2) From: erni...@gmail.com
(Birric Forcella) wrote

> Now here comes the kicker. In this way
> the brain creates the SAME outcome
> that would pertain if the person had free
> will, because even with free will you
> cannot do anything else but what you
> want. This means, that you cannot any
> more make the claim that one cannot
> coherently defend a value (or
> free-choice) position without free will.
> Since my choice and judgment is
> exactly the same as it would be WITH
> free will, any free will advocate who
> finds my reasons insufficient can make
> the justification FOR ME. However,
> Free Will, if it is truly free, has
> ultimately no justification whatever. I
> really prefer my brain acting on my
> behalf.

Well if one is always doing what he wants, that is to say that he is
always making the best choice available, and then to turn around and say
that this is not free will, then there would indeed be no such thing as
free will... The only way out of that box is to be *freely* doing what
you don't want to do...AND THAT IS PROBABLY IMPOSSIBLE...

The idea that one lacks free will because he is always doing what he
wants, or that he is forced to always do what he wants, is to be
changing the definition of free will..

A simple definition of free will could be the ability to do what one
wants without an outside coercive force... but to consider your own self
as being an coercive agent is absurd, in my opinion...AGAIN, it is to be
saying that one does not have free will because one is ways doing
exactly what he wants to do...doesn't that sound funny ?

[LudovicoVan]

"casey" <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:d4ca937c-3e1c-433f...@nw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 17, 8:45 pm, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
>> "casey" <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>> On Jul 17, 10:21 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snipped>

> What would an uncaused causation mean?

Nothing at all.

> If you think you are not a machine (a state determined
> system) then you believe in a ghost in the machine

A ghost and a machine, maybe.

> There has to be something equivalent to a captain
> on the boat but it doesn't have to be a ghost.
> A physical captain will do just fine. The choice
> made by the captain will be determined by the
> reward system and what choices are available.

Indeed, as cybernetics says, freedom in the context of vinculi.

-LV

[LudovicoVan]

"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:49a22c70-05b4-4669...@qq9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> What about after the fact falsification in the scientific method?

Don't get me wrong, I like this idea of "free won't". In fact, there is
something similar already in Freud... But, the role of "free will" should
not be neglected: the action initiated by rational decision. To refuse
rationality is to refuse to be rational.

> Can free will and necessity can be compatible? The doctrine of
> necessity is entirely compatible with the idea of free will.

If free will equals determinism, there just is no free-will (actually,
neither remains).

> We have free will, but we will almost always choose to act the same

> way if faced with the same circumstances. [...]

Hence, nonsense. -- Snipped paralogistic explication.

-LV

[casey]

On Jul 19, 9:47 am, Melzzzzz <m...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Well, there is ghost in the machine. Information we carry,
> self awareness , consciousness, thoughts, emotions, it is immaterial.

Information is not immaterial in the sense a ghost is immaterial.
A ghost is an imagined action without a body. Information can only
exist as patterns in a physical substrate.

[casey]

On Jul 19, 9:53 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> [...]

> A simple definition of free will could be the ability to do what one
> wants without an outside coercive force...

The bottom lin is could they have done otherwise?

Any definition that says they could have done otherwise would
have to explain how they could have done otherwise.

[casey]

On Jul 19, 10:51 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> "Immortalist" <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> news:49a22c70-05b4-4669...@qq9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > What about after the fact falsification in the scientific method?
>
> Don't get me wrong, I like this idea of "free won't".  In fact, there is
> something similar already in Freud...  But, the role of "free will" should
> not be neglected: the action initiated by rational decision.

[...]


Have you have just declared role of an act of free will as a rational
act???

It makes it hard to hold onto what is being discussed if the meanings
keep shifting.

The role I understand it to play is when it means they could not have
done otherwise. If you are hit in the face by someone with movements
not of their will you would say their hand movement was not an act of
free will. However it was caused by some physical event in the brain
just as any other act was caused by some physical event in the brain.
What is the difference between the type brain of event that initiates
an act of free will and one that initiatives an act not of free will?

Both are brain actions but one you might claim was not of your
choosing or control.

[LudovicoVan]

"casey" <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:8f52fb02-f518-4b3b...@l6g2000pbf.googlegroups.com...

> The role I understand [free will] to play is when it means they could
> not have done otherwise.

Free will vs. determinism: free will exists when they can choose,
determinism is when there is no choice. Hence, in particular, "they
exercised their free will" would be the opposite of "they could not have
done otherwise".

-LV

[Zerkon]

In article <0cb6d7ae-0f3a-464c-a1f1-3ab0d1d32037
@s6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>, reanima...@yahoo.com says...

> Everyone has experienced the withholding from performing an
> unconscious urge.
>

Everyone everyday experiences unconscious acts which were initiated and
performed by rational intent that then have transformed by rational
intent into habitual action or, as commonly called, the skillful act.

> There's lots of research evidence demonstrating that many of our
> actions are not initiated consciously.

what does "many" and "our actions" mean? Is a person's heart pumping
their action? A sneeze?

> "free won't"

Funded cute.

[Albert Tatlock]

"LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote in message
news:ju80kb$gmm$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> "casey" <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:8f52fb02-f518-4b3b...@l6g2000pbf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> The role I understand [free will] to play is when it means they could
>> not have done otherwise.
>
> Free will vs. determinism: free will exists when they can choose,
> determinism is when there is no choice.

we choose according to our preferences but we don't choose our preferences.
the only need for fairytales about an automonous 'agent' is psychological
rather than expalnatory.

[casey]

On Jul 19, 1:57 pm, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> "casey" <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

Yes I know. Unfortunately I hit [send] and couldn't edit it.
I really should take time proof read a post but usually I hope
the reader will have enough sense read what I meant not what
I wrote.

I was going to attach a correction but figured the reader would
figure it out. The point of the post was really about a brain
event that was deemed an act of free will (deliberate, done
knowingly) and a brain event that was deemed the person had no
control over. So when is a brain event the act of the "person"
and when it is just a brain event no person involved.

>
> -LV
>
>

[Jack McKinney]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 6:39am (CDT+6) From: tat...@rovers.com
(Albert Tatlock) wrote:
.
>> Free will vs. determinism: free will
>> exists when they can choose,
>> determinism is when there is no
>> choice.

> we choose according to our preferences
> but we don't choose our preferences.
> the only need for fairytales about an
> automonous 'agent' is psychological

> rather than explanatory.

That is another one of your meaningless statements; human beings are
born with certain preferences, and to say that we don't have free will
because we prefer to do certain things, is another absurd statement...
Yeah, when I'm hungry I would prefer to eat a bowl of fruit as opposed
to a bowl of dirt..

You materialists are something else; you are attempting to define
determinism as doing what one prefers to do; and I guess free will can
only be demonstrated by doing what you don't want to do...

So if you willingly cross the road, when you really don't want to, then
and only then, are you demonstrating free will... but if you freely
cross a road, when that is your desire, you only are demonstrating
determinism...

YEAH, I'M BUYING THAT...

You people can't think straight ! This is not rocket science....

[Albert Tatlock]

"Jack McKinney" <jak...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15608-500...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...

> the question is whether or not things could be different by virtue of some
> kind of agency called 'the self', and given that we dont choose our
> preferences theres no reason to suppose that they could. so your
> beloved 'free will' fairytale bites the dust unless you can come up with
> something better than a fairytale. I'm betting you cant.

[Jack McKinney]

Your theory pertaining to a lack of free will is non-falsifiable,
therefore it is not a valid theory, it's just another belief system...
To say that acts of free will, are the result of preferences which we
can't control, is to be saying in effect, any and all acts result from
determinism....

And if any and all acts result from determinism then you no longer have
a theory.... You just have another religion...for there is no way for
you to prove the correctness of your position...

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE !

[casey]

On Jul 19, 7:13 pm, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:

So why do you have so much difficulty understanding it?

The brain has a sensory input, the sensory data is processed
according to what worked in our evolutionary past, and an
action is generated.

How is that different to any other determinate machine?

If you think a little ghost in the brain controls the
machine what is the point of the brain? Why does it
appear to do all that decision making if in fact the
decisions are being made by a yet to be discovered
ghostly thing behind the eyes?

jc

[casey]

On Jul 20, 1:09 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 6:39am (CDT+6) From: tatl...@rovers.com (Albert

>
> Tatlock) wrote:
> > the question is whether or not things
> > could be different by virtue of some kind
> > of agency called 'the self', and given
> > that we dont choose our preferences
> > theres no reason to suppose that they
> > could.     so your beloved 'free will'
> > fairytale bites the dust unless you can
> > come up with something better than a
> > fairytale.   I'm betting you cant.
>
> Your theory pertaining to a lack of free will is non-falsifiable,
> therefore it is not a valid theory, it's just another belief system...
> To say that acts of free will, are the result of preferences which we
> can't control,

And what do you imagine the "we" is? A ghost or a brain process?

Control systems are deterministic. They make choices just as we do.

Our choices a determined by the current sensory input and our goals.

> is to be saying in effect, any and all acts result from
> determinism....
>
> And if any and all acts result from determinism then you no longer have
> a theory.... You just have another religion...for there is no way for
> you to prove the correctness of your position...

True science assumes cause and effect as it has explanatory power.
The notion of causality is part of our inherited makeup.
It is just some imagine a ghost in the machine because they are
*unable to see* how a physical system like a brain can have beliefs
and feelings and rational (or irrational) thinking abilities. Then
they have to explain how the ghost does it and how it is related to
the brain or even why it needs a complex brain.

> AGAIN, THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE !

So why don't you understand that an effect has a cause?

[Immortalist]

On Jul 19, 8:09 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 6:39am (CDT+6) From: tatl...@rovers.com (Albert

Free will is something bubbling up out of the activities of the brain
that when constantly combining exert influence upon themselves. This
process may involve 100 billion nerve cells, various organizational
stabilities in an emerging hierarchal influence, influences from
changing sensory data. I am an sharer in control freely steering an
vast system which steers the elements of freedom. Some of these
activities are identical to my subjectivity.

Mill used to say something along the lines that the steering of the
self by will makes the system end up somewhere else where we decide
and our progress is checked by "stored memory" accessed in the future
and slight course details adjusted appropriately. Therefore if this is
what Mill believed then free will is "extended in and across time?"

"Mill's argument is basically that we have free will, but that we will

almost always choose to act the same way if faced with the same

circumstances. The reason for this according to Mill is because of who
we
are, what our characters are, what beliefs, desires, and motivations
we
have. These factors influence our actions, and because we don't
usually
change the core of our person, we are fairly regular in our actions,
unless
we purposefully choose to act against our normal characters."

http://www.elliotcross.com/essays/essay4.html


...It's an election hall of idiots, for idiots, and by idiots, and it
works marvelously. This is the true nature of democracy and of all
distributed governance. At the close of the curtain, by the choice of
the citizens, the swarm takes the queen and thunders off in the
direction indicated by mob vote. The queen who follows, does so
humbly. If she could think, she would remember that she is but a mere
peasant girl, blood sister of the very nurse bee instructed (by whom?)
to select her larva, an ordinary larva, and raise it on a diet of
royal jelly, transforming Cinderella into the queen. By what karma is
the larva for a princess chosen? And who chooses the chooser?

"The hive chooses," is the disarming answer of William Morton Wheeler,
a natural philosopher and entomologist of the old school, who founded
the field of social insects. Writing in a bombshell of an essay in
1911 ("The Ant Colony as an Organism" in the Journal of Morphology),
Wheeler claimed that an insect colony was not merely the analog of an
organism, it is indeed an organism, in every important and scientific
sense of the word. He wrote: "Like a cell or the person, it behaves as
a unitary whole, maintaining its identity in space, resisting
dissolution...neither a thing nor a concept, but a continual flux or
process."

It was a mob of 20,000 united into oneness.

http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/

Free will is an personalized interaction in an massive field of
interactive causes. If the motive rolls out the organizational
structure that steers the rest it is free. If an system is imposed
down upon it from the top down it is not free. There is an spectrum of
Control; centralized and decentralized. Decentralized control of
simple factors that grow into massive events are free. Like people
voting for politicians the will is an summed set of cycles ever
changing into an free choice. Where is the freedon/causation here?

The notion that in an ecosystem view of parallel processes some point
in an attempt to reduce it all would show that smaller units in the
ecosystem might similar to serial computers but an ecosystem by this
symbology would consist of trillions of serial computers organized
into a multi-layered grammatical structure of organizational entities
each with threir sphere of influence all at once contributing to the
overall emerging waves of influence pon the backs of various levels of
activity.

It seem to me that it is more appropriate to consider free will in the
context of a herd. All the individuals influence the direction of the
mass of individuals. Maybe the sense of self and freedom comes from an
overall activity but the means that initiate these activities are like
Shpherders or sheep dog. By a few simple rules and with a few
individuals the entire masses of individuals can be herded in this
direction of that. The sheep dog has a few simple rules to simulate an
objective movement of the herd like; if the dog sees some individuals
moving and steering in an undesired direction he runs over and nips
the heels of a few select sheep and a wave of exponentially growing
movement increases across the herd that may alter the general
trajectory of the population.

For us there may be a disconnect because our sense of being,
consciousness and freedom may be major cross regional and mode locked
regions of the brain but the stimulants to these vaster activities are
small groups of herding impulses. Up and down back and forth in scale
the dynamic fluctuates. These small influences have to grow so the
initial state can lead to very complex results and some information
trickles back down so that a monitoring effect takes place etc....

http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/

[Art]

Let's try this simple example. I want to go bowling this evening
and I also want to stay home and read a good book.

Scenario 1 : I decide to flip a coin and leave the choice of
action to chance.
Scenario 2 : I decide to leave the decision to a last minute
whim.

In both cases I have freely made a choice (decision). Deciding
to leave the choice of action to chance is a free choice. Deciding
to leave the choice of action to a last minute whim is a free
choice. What kind of explanation of alternatives do you require
here, and why? Or do you claim that choosing between two "wants" is
not a example of free will?

Art

[Jack McKinney]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 10:47am (CDT-2) From: reanima...@yahoo.com
(Immortalist) wrote:


> "Mill's argument is basically that we
> have free will, but that we will almost
> always choose to act the same way if
> faced with the same circumstances. The
> reason for this according to Mill is
> because of who we
> are, what our characters are, what
> beliefs, desires, and motivations we
> have. These factors influence our
> actions, and because we don't usually
> change the core of our person, we are
> fairly regular in our actions, unless
> we purposefully choose to act against
> our normal characters."

</snip>

Yeah, I can agree with the above statements; so why do people think that
the above process is more reflective of determinism than free will, is
one my questions? And why on earth do people think that following your
own preferences is not an act of free will... Is it even POSSIBLE, for
one to not be doing what he wants to do... and to go along with that
idea is to be defining free will ...OUT OF EXISTENCE... determinism is
the only thing left; definite, absolute, and most importantly
..NON-FALSIFIABLE...

I personally believe that everyone is *always* making what he thinks is
the best move, for any given set of circumstances; and what he thinks is
best *will* be governed by his beliefs, desires, motivations, etc., ...
Once again, saying that this procedure reflects a lack of free will is
absurd....

[casey]

On Jul 20, 5:44 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:38:08 -0700 (PDT), casey
>

Depends what you mean by free will.

When you say free you need to ask free from what?

There are degrees of freedom (number of choices) but the actual choice
made is determined by the mechanism making the choice.


>
> Art
>
>

[casey]

On Jul 20, 6:31 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 10:47am (CDT-2) From: reanimater_2...@yahoo.com

>
> (Immortalist) wrote:
> > "Mill's argument is basically that we
> > have free will, but that we will almost
> > always choose to act the same way if
> > faced with the same circumstances. The
> > reason for this

Giving a reason is giving the determinates of the choice.

> > according to Mill is
> > because of who we
> > are, what our characters are,

Right. But we are not free to choose our character,
that was determined by past events.

> > what
> > beliefs, desires, and motivations we
> > have. These factors influence our
> > actions, and because we don't usually
> > change the core of our person, we are
> > fairly regular in our actions, unless
> > we purposefully choose to act against
> > our normal characters."

We don't choose to act against our normal
characters unless something causes it.

>
> </snip>
>
> Yeah, I can agree with the above statements; so why do people think that
> the above process is more reflective of determinism than free will,

What do imagine the difference between determinism and free will are?

Are you saying free will happens without a cause?

is
> one my  questions? And why on earth do people think that following your
> own preferences is not an act of free will...

Your preferences determine your actions and you are not free from your
preferences.

Is it even POSSIBLE, for
> one to not be doing what he wants to do... and to go along with that
> idea is to be defining free will ...OUT OF EXISTENCE... determinism is
> the only thing left; definite, absolute, and most importantly
> ..NON-FALSIFIABLE...
>
> I personally believe that everyone is *always* making what he thinks is
> the best move, for any given set of circumstances;

Exactly. They have no choice in the matter.

> and what he thinks is
> best *will* be governed by his beliefs, desires, motivations, etc., ...

Exactly. These beliefs, desired are the causes of the action.
They determine what action will be taken.

> Once again, saying that this procedure reflects a lack of free will is
> absurd....

Are you clear in your mind what you mean by "free will"?

Do you imagine a person could have done other than what they did?

If so explain to me the physics involved that are not governed by
cause and effect.


>
>

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Autumn 1932, Berlin, Einstein told the German League of Human Rights:

« I do not believe in freedom of the will. Schopenhauer's words:
" Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills. "
accompany me in all situations throughout my life
and [ it reconciles ] me with the actions of others
even if they are rather painful to me.

This awareness of the lack of freedom of will preserves me
from taking too seriously myself and my fellow men
as acting and deciding individuals and from losing my temper. »

I (Jeff Relf) say:

Intrinsically, nothing is random.

Without ignorance, there can be no (pseudo)randomness.
The future is just as fixed as the past, neither can be changed.

So nature is at once "nothing" ( 4⋅D, changeless and choiceless )
and everything ( excluding nothing ).

"Mother Nature" is "The Supreme God": eternal, infinite¹ and perfect.
She consumes fuel (eXergy) so, virtually², She's "alive".

[ ¹: Certainly not limited to biblical times/places.
²: in a notional sort of way, like a map, not real. ]

The energy of the (semi⋅known) cosmos is fixed ( "closed", net net );
but the QUALITY¹ of its energy can only go down, not up.

[ ¹: Call it "EXERGY", energy that can do work.
Mass is QUALITY energy, it has exergy. ]

[Albert Tatlock]

"Jack McKinney" <jak...@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:22326-500...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...

> listen to me very carefully....its not rocket science that I'm telling
> you....my claim is NOT that there is no free will but that there is NO
> REASON to uphold that idea. it is NOT NEEDED. SURPLUS TO
> REQUIREMENTS. REDUNDNAT. you can come up with whatever unnnecessary
> fairy tales you like....tell us there are fairies down the bottom of your
> garden....tell us that youve been abducted by aliens and anally
> probed....tell us that god spoke to you and told you which horse to bet
> on....tell us that theres a teapot in orbit around the planet
> mercury....whatever floats your boat. but none of those stories are
> needed in any expalnation of how the world works. NOT NEEDED....GET IT?
> and so it is with the free will fairy story....NOT NEEDED in any
> explanation of how the world works.

[casey]

On Jul 20, 3:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Free will is something bubbling up out of the activities of the brain
> that when constantly combining exert influence upon themselves.

So free will is something that bubbles up????

If you "will" to do something and if you are "free" to carry
out what you will to do then it becomes an act of free will
and thus you take responsibility for it.

I think that is all that people mean when they ask if you
did something as an act of free will.

The question for neurologists is what brain activity occurs
when your action is deliberate as opposed to an action you
make over which you had no control.

[casey]

On Jul 20, 2:54 am, "Albert Tatlock" <tatl...@rovers.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Your theory pertaining to a lack of free will is non-falsifiable,
> therefore it is not a valid theory, it's just another belief system...

And a belief system that works well for science.

Free will as an effect without a cause has no explanatory power.

What happens now is determined by what happened before.

We use that assumption in all scientific models.

There may be different notions as to what is meant by "free will".

Free will means your choices came from you and you were not coerced in
anyway in making those choices.

As you say it isn't rocket science so why the argument?

Is everyone talking about the same question??

[Albert Tatlock]

"casey" <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:a86bbc66-ed3d-4ca7...@po9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> just pointing out that the crredit in the top line is misplaced...thatwas
> Jack's reply to one of my comments.

[casey]

On Jul 20, 8:11 am, "Albert Tatlock" <tatl...@rovers.com> wrote:
> "casey" <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

My apology. I will try and be more careful in future.

jc

[Jack McKinney]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 8:12am (CDT-2) From: jgkj...@yahoo.com.au
(casey) wrote:

>> On Jul 19, 7:13 pm, jak1...@webtv.net

>> You people can't think straight !

>> This is not rocket science....

> So why do you have so much difficulty
> understanding it?

> The brain has a sensory input, the
> sensory data is processed according to
> what worked in our evolutionary past,
> and an action is generated.

> How is that different to any other
> determinate machine?

> If you think a little ghost in the brain
> controls the machine what is the point of
> the brain? Why does it appear to do all
> that decision making if in fact the
> decisions are being made by a yet to be
> discovered ghostly thing behind the
> eyes?

I tried to approach this question from the materialists point of view,
but I can see now that's a waste of time, so I might as well tell it
like it is.... the question of free is being approached ass-backwards...

The *best* information available suggests that consciousness is primary;
it comes first and creates all, or *everything* else...Consciousness is
not the result of brain functions, it creates the interworkings of the
brain... Without consciousness there is no illusion of cause and effect
relationships, there is no brain sensory input, there is NO BRAIN, and
in fact without consciousness ...THERE IS NO UNIVERSE...

Get this: all there is, is free will; it is not possible for anything
else to exist, but free will; and that would mean that determinism IS
the impossibility....

And btw, consciousness has no cause; it always was and it always will
be, for it is also responsible for the creation of space and time...

[Zinnic]

On Jul 20, 5:14 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 8:12am (CDT-2) From: jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au

So I guess you leave us with no choice (free will)? Not even ....IF
what you say is untrue, THEN.....?

[Zinnic]

Free will versus determinism in computers.
Is "IF...... THEN ......" a choice or a command?
As it's usage increases in highly complex programs (e.g. the neural
system) does it's 'multiple' emerge as an illusion of 'free will"?

[Hezz Hattuck]

jak...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote in
news:13393-500...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net:

> And btw, consciousness has no cause; it always was and it always will
> be, for it is also responsible for the creation of space and time...

I hope you're only referring to protophenomenal properties maybe outrunning
the cognitive faculties of the brain. Or have retreated into an a priori
version of *what makes knowledge of nature possible*, which accordingly has
no impact upon lab/field investigations. Kantianism merely provides leg-room
for humanness and culture, free from the constraints of scientism turned
political / authoritarian.

[Jack McKinney]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 2:11pm (CDT+5) From: hzzh...@nospam.invalid
(Hezz Hattuck) wrote:

> I hope you're only referring to
> protophenomenal properties maybe
> outrunning the cognitive faculties of the
> brain. Or have retreated into an a priori
> version of *what makes knowledge of
> nature possible*, which accordingly has
> no impact upon lab/field investigations.
> Kantianism merely provides leg-room
> for humanness and culture, free from
> the constraints of scientism turned
> political / authoritarian.

You appear to be *terribly* confused, so let me repeat myself...

Consciousness has no cause; it always was and it always will be, for it

is also responsible for the creation of space and time...

THAT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH ...AIN'T IT ?

[Hez Hattuck]

jak...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote in

news:28056-500...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net:

Yep, plain enough. Still unspecified bottabee-bottabah has no cause, and
causes space and time: "One fine day in the middle of the night, Two dead
boys got up to fight..."

You have a nice day, sir.

[Michael Gordge]

On Jul 21, 4:14 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 2:11pm (CDT+5) From: hzzht...@nospam.invalid

Hey dopey, the non-constant relationship between entities of matter
exist regardless of you being conscious of it.

Hey dopey, the primacy of all knowledge is existence not
consciousness.

MG

[Michael Gordge]

On Jul 20, 5:58 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Depends what you mean by free will.

The only free will you have is the choice to think or not think

> When you say free you need to ask free from what?

No you dont, because you, the individual, (therefore the collective)
are never free to escape the consquences of
your ideas (thinking) and thats inspite of every nauseating attempt of
the loony left to try and sanction into law an
escape of the consequences of stupid ideas e.g. tax and rug laws, cant
be done.

> There are degrees of freedom (number of choices) but the actual choice
> made is determined by the mechanism making the choice.

Nope, ewe are free to live as ewe please, your (the loony and envy
ridden left) problem is that ewe refuse to allow
other individuals that same freedom.

MG

[casey]

So I am to assume from the above you belong to the
loony contented right?

JC

[LudovicoVan]

On Friday, 20 July 2012 20:14:47 UTC+1, Jack McKinney wrote:

> Consciousness has no cause; it always was and it always will be, for it
> is also responsible for the creation of space and time...

Nice one.

> THAT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH ...AIN'T IT ?

Simple and, apparently, useless... Seriously, it does not provide an explanation for what consciousness is (or is not).

-LV

[mikeg...@xtra.co.nz]

On Saturday, July 21, 2012 8:28:24 AM UTC+9:30, casey wrote:
> On Jul 21, 8:09 am, Michael Gordge &lt;mikegor...@xtra.co.nz&gt; wrote:
> &gt; On Jul 20, 5:58 am, casey &lt;jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au&gt; wrote:
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; Depends what you mean by free will.
> &gt;
> &gt; The only free will you have is the choice to think or not think
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; When you say free you need to ask free from what?
> &gt;
> &gt; No you dont, because you, the individual, (therefore the collective)
> &gt; are never free to escape the consquences of
> &gt; your ideas (thinking) and thats inspite of every nauseating attempt of
> &gt; the loony left to try and sanction into law an
> &gt; escape of the consequences of stupid ideas e.g. tax and rug laws, cant
> &gt; be done.
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; There are degrees of freedom (number of choices) but the actual choice
> &gt; &gt; made is determined by the mechanism making the choice.
> &gt;
> &gt; Nope, ewe are free to live as ewe please, your (the loony and envy
> &gt; ridden left) problem is that ewe refuse to allow
> &gt; other individuals that same freedom.
> &gt;
> &gt; MG

>
> So I am to assume from the above you belong to the
> loony contented right?
>
> JC

Ewe are kidding of course, The right are as stupid as your dopey lefturdian mob.

[Jack McKinney]

Consciousness IS the ground of all being; it IS the source/cause of all
observed physical effects, yet it IS NOT the result of any physical
cause... It IS primary, and probably BEYOND any explanation that a human
can provide...

[LudovicoVan]

"Jack McKinney" <jak...@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:28056-500...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...

> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 5:56pm (CDT-2) (LudovicoVan) wrote:
> On Friday, 20 July 2012 20:14:47 UTC+1, Jack McKinney wrote:
>
>>> Consciousness has no cause; it always
>>> was and it always will be, for it is also
>>> responsible for the creation of space
>>> and time...
>
>> Nice one.
>
>>> THAT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH ...AIN'T IT >> ?
>
>> Simple and, apparently, useless...
>> Seriously, it does not provide an
>> explanation for what consciousness is
>> (or is not).
>

> Consciousness IS the ground of all being; it IS the source/cause of all
> observed physical effects, yet it IS NOT the result of any physical
> cause... It IS primary, and probably BEYOND any explanation that a human
> can provide...

Probably beyond any *scientific* explanation. Then I might subscribe to it.

-LV

[bigfl...@gmail.com]

Consciousness is from the realm of the infinite, and , by definition,
cannot be explained by the relative mind.

We each (mostly sub consciously) acknowledge such reality in day to
day language, when we refer to mind, brain, emotions etc as
possessions ("my" mind etc).

As one becomes more conscious (of consciousness), the relative and non
relative labels sit more comfortably within the individual awareness.
The "group awareness/consciousness"...to which "all" organised
philosophies/sciences belong, by definition, is part of the "relative"
reality.

"I know that which I dont believe, and believe that which I dont know"
is not contradictory, but an example of parallel realities (although
even this definition falls short because there are no geometrical laws
in infinite consciousness.) The value of the analogy is for the
relative mind part only......the consciousness, of itself has no
parts.

[Zinnic]

On Jul 21, 4:18 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 5:56pm (CDT-2) From: julio_diegi...@hotmail.com

Combine the above with the quote(below) from one of your earlier
posts:

"> Consciousness has no cause; it always was and it always will be,
for it
> is also responsible for the creation of space and time...

> THAT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH ...AIN'T IT ?""

What is also "simple enough" is that your theory pertaining to Eternal
"Consciousness" is non-falsifiable, therefore it is not a valid

theory, it's just another belief system...

For consciousness read GOD in the above and you have a non-falsifiable
belief of Theism. Give "consciousness" a Christian name (Jesus) and
you are into a New Testament belief. Hardly original concepts!
Zinnic

[Art]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 04:55:57 -0700 (PDT), Zinnic
<zinni...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"> Consciousness has no cause; it always was and it always will be,
>for it
>> is also responsible for the creation of space and time...

>> THAT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH ...AIN'T IT ?""
>
>What is also "simple enough" is that your theory pertaining to Eternal
>"Consciousness" is non-falsifiable,�therefore it is not a valid
>theory, it's just another belief system...

Since this is a philosophy (not a science) newsgroup, nobody is under
any obligation to offer non-falsifiable theories. Jack is expressing a
belief, which is something professional philosophers do as well. I
find Jack's admitted prosthelytizing inappropriate but I don't find
it's any more of a annoyance than, say, Sir Fred's repetitive
posts about hubris or the posts by those entrenched in scientism.

Art

[Zinnic]

On Jul 22, 3:47 pm, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 04:55:57 -0700 (PDT), Zinnic
>

> posts about hubris or the posts by those entrenched in scientism.pr
>
> Art

I agree. But I was not, and am not, annoyed by "Jack's admitted
prosthelytizing". My motivation was to point out he was the pot
calling the kettle black as occasioned by one of his responses to
Tatlock shown below.
"
> Your theory pertaining to a lack of free will is non-falsifiable,

> therefore it is not a valid theory, it's just another belief system...

> To say that acts of free will, are the result of preferences which we
> can't control, is to be saying in effect, any and all acts result from
> determinism....
> And if any and all acts result from determinism then you no longer have
> a theory.... You just have another religion...for there is no way for
> you to prove the correctness of your position..."

Zinnic

>
>

[casey]

On Jul 23, 6:47 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 04:55:57 -0700 (PDT), Zinnic
>

> <zinnic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >"> Consciousness has no cause; it always was and it always will be,
> >for it
> >> is also responsible for the creation of space and time...
> >> THAT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH ...AIN'T IT ?""
>
> >What is also "simple enough" is that your theory pertaining to Eternal
> >"Consciousness" is non-falsifiable, therefore it is not a valid
> >theory, it's just another belief system...
>
> Since this is a philosophy (not a science) newsgroup, nobody is under
> any obligation to offer non-falsifiable theories.

Is it then a matter of religious philosophy vs. scientific philosophy.

Religion is make up any old crap and science is make up theories that
can be subjected scientific verification.


>
> Art
>
>

[SAMEJACK MCKINNEY]

On alt.philosophy Date: Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 4:47pm (CDT+1) From:

nu...@zilch.com (Art) wrote:

> Since this is a philosophy (not a science)
> newsgroup, nobody is under any obligation to

> offer non-falsifiable theories. Jack is
> expressing a belief, which is something
> professional philosophers do as well.

> prosthelytizing inappropriate but I don't find
> it's any more of a annoyance than, say, Sir
> Fred's repetitive posts about hubris or the
> posts by those entrenched in scientism.

> Art

You guys have got me all wrong; my prosthelytizing was no accident, it
was given as a counter to the materialists endless questions as to how
consciousness can arise from dead matter... If all behavior can be the
result of unconscious preferences, which I believe to be DEAD WRONG, so
to speak, then I say all behavior can be the result of free will, which
I believe is absolutely correct...

I am not trying to give the world a fair and balance presentation; I am
absolutely bias; nor am I in the business of providing proof of
anything...

[casey]

On Jul 23, 8:50 am, SAMEJ...@webtv.net (SAMEJACK MCKINNEY) wrote:
> On alt.philosophy Date: Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 4:47pm (CDT+1) From:
>

We call that religion.

Make up and believe any old crap that takes your fancy.

[Jack McKinney]

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 4:26pm (CDT-2) From: jgkj...@yahoo.com.au
(casey) wrote:

> We call that religion

> Make up and believe any old crap that
> takes your fancy.

Why shouldn't I have the same rights as you; that is to say, the ability
to make up and believe any old crap ? Btw, I also call that religion !

[casey]

On Jul 23, 10:05 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 4:26pm (CDT-2) From: jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au

>
> (casey) wrote:
> > We call that religion
> > Make up and believe any old crap that
> > takes your fancy.
>
> Why shouldn't I have the same rights as you; that is to say, the ability
> to make up and believe any old crap ?

What crap have I made up? What crap do you claim I believe in?

Are you suggesting the scientific version of the Universe is on an
equal footing to the religious versions?

That a religious theory of a flat earth being supported by turtles all
the way down is as good as the scientific model?

> Btw, I also call that religion!

Then you are confused. Scientific beliefs are based of verifiable
evidence which you admit above you don't use.

[Jack McKinney]

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 5:27pm (CDT-2) From: jgkj...@yahoo.com.au
(casey) wrote:

> Are you suggesting the scientific version
> of the Universe is on an equal footing to
> the religious versions?

> That a religious theory of a flat earth
> being supported by turtles all the way
> down is as good as the scientific model?
>> Btw, I also call that religion!

>Then you are confused. Scientific beliefs
> are based of verifiable evidence which
> you admit above you don't use.

I am suggesting that once one gets past building bridges, scientific
*beliefs* are no better than any other systems of beliefs; and when it
comes to explaining the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, or
the origin of the universe, most scientists, and those with the
scientific mind-set, are almost totally in the dark... The religions do
a better job...

Stick to building bridges, and better I-Pads, and lay off the HEAVY
STUFF...

You are terribly naive; and just because you can build an I-Pad, does
not mean that you can THINK STRAIGHT... that conclusion would represent
an improper use of inductive reasoning...

[casey]

On Jul 23, 7:09 pm, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 5:27pm (CDT-2) From: jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au

>
> (casey) wrote:
> > Are you suggesting the scientific version
> > of the Universe is on an equal footing to
> > the religious versions?
> > That a religious theory of a flat earth
> > being supported by turtles all the way
> > down is as good as the scientific model?
> >> Btw, I also call that religion!
> >Then you are confused. Scientific beliefs
> > are based of verifiable evidence which
> > you admit above you don't use.
>
> I am suggesting that once one gets past building bridges, scientific
> *beliefs* are no better than any other systems of beliefs; and when it
> comes to explaining the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, or
> the origin of the universe, most scientists, and those with the
> scientific mind-set, are almost totally in the dark...

Science gets real answers which is something religion
has never done and you try and say it is no better?

Religion gets nothing right about the world we live
in so what makes you think it has it right about a
fantasy world we can't even test for?

As for consciousness or the origin of the Universe don't jump
to the conclusion science will not crack those nuts as well.

But if it fails it will not tell lies about having the answers.

> The religions do a better job...

Religion has a track record of ZERO. It hasn't discovered or
explained anything at all. Everything it makes up turns out
to be wrong when we are in a position to test it.

> Stick to building bridges, and better I-Pads, and lay off the HEAVY
> STUFF...

If religion can't get the "light" stuff right what hope has it
of getting the "heavy" stuff right?

Religious beliefs are on the level of a child's fairy story
and serve the same purpose.

IMHO

[Zinnic]

On Jul 23, 4:09 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 5:27pm (CDT-2) From: jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au

Naive is as naive does! Probably naive of me to ask you to explain
(not prove) why "the religions do a better job...." than science in
explaining the "HEAVY STUFF". It does seem a little odd in that you
agree that religions are "any old crap".
I am interested in what it is that motivates you to prefer one sort of
crap over another in your 'decision' making!
Zinnic

[bigfl...@gmail.com]

Following religion, is following 'others' beliefs that took 'their'
fancy.

Finding reality, by definition, means going beyond group perceptions/
beliefs. "Make up ? "....has a Mozartian ring about it :-)

BB8

[bigfl...@gmail.com]

Interestingly, both lines of perception/observation come from the same
source.

BF8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Art

[Jack McKinney]

zinni...@gmail.com (Zinnic)

On Jul 23, 4:09 am, jak1...@webtv.net

> Naive is as naive does! Probably naive
> of me to ask you to explain (not prove)
> why "the religions do a better job....
> " than science in explaining the "HEAVY
> STUFF". It does seem a little odd in that
> you agree that religions are "any old
> crap". I am interested in what it is that
> motivates you to prefer one sort of crap
> over another in your 'decision' making!
> Zinnic

For deep insight into the workings of Jack's mind please visit:

http://community.webtv.net/jok1949/

I go there every day, and I find it to be most entertaining... I'm sure
you will also...

That web site was created for people just like you and Casey.... HAVE
FUN !

[Zinnic]

On Jul 23, 9:34 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> zinnic....@gmail.com (Zinnic)

Tried it, didn't like it.
Declaritive statements brook no discussion and engender one of only
two responses. Yep! or Nope!
Most aphorisms are meaningless or trivial. Here is another one to
'live by'- in the absence of plurality, singularity self-references
until One morphs into Nothing. :)

[Jack McKinney]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 10:36am (CDT-2)
Zinnic wrote:

> Tried it, didn't like it.

> Declaritive statements brook no
> discussion and engender one of only
> two responses. Yep! or Nope!

There is a method to my madness; the posts made on that site are not
designed to generate discussions... As a rule I don't ask questions, and
the threads that do have questions in the heading, have the answers
given within the post... For the most part things are already discussed
enough, from my point of view...

The entries are works of art, you know, like a fine painting, a
beautiful sculpture, or a fine piece of music... How much discussion can
you have with a great painting, or a fine piece of music; you can talk
about the painting with a friend, but you would be missing the point, so
to speak, in that you would not be enjoying the painting...

No my site is a great site, a site where anyone can come, sit for a
while, enjoy themselves, soak up some wisdom, and then go out and make
the world a better place...

They can always come this group and have an *endless* discussion on why
the sky is blue, or why the color red appears to be red...

I already know the score; most people won't get it; but there is a
percentage who will get, and some will absolutely love it;
THAT'S WHO I POST FOR; AND BTW: I LOVE MY OWN SITE...

[Birric Forcella]

GOOD FOR YOU !

Birric Forcella

[Birric Forcella]

On Jul 18, 6:21 pm, Birric Forcella <erniec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Benjamin Libet showed experimentally that unconscious decisions-making
> in the brain precedes the conscious "free will" experience by a
> measurable time.  Apparently, he was so shocked by his own finding and
> its implications for free will that he himself developed the "free
> won't" concept, an idea that has ever since confused the issue like a
> red herring.
>
> If there were such a thing as free will, operated by some ghost in the
> machine, then one should expect that the brain signals come AFTER the
> conscious decision.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet
>
> Clearly, we don't have free will.  What we need to realize is that
> this is a very good and very desirable fact.
>
> Free will advocates often argue that if everything is merely natural
> processes, then we cannot make any coherent (value) judgments,
> decisions, or statements, since, after all, it's all merely atoms and
> physical laws talking through us.
>
> My point is this:  Within our brain there is a level which makes the
> decisions for us.  Modern brain scans show clearly that decisions are
> made deep in the brain well before we are aware of them. This level in
> the brain makes the decision for the self in the way that the outcome,
> the decision, is the most desirable for the self.  The brain produces
> exactly the outcome that the self wants.  After all, that is what the
> brain is all about, isn't it?
>
> Now here comes the kicker.  In this way the brain creates the SAME
> outcome that would pertain if the person had free will,  because even
> with free will you cannot do anything else but what you want.  This
> means, that you cannot any more make the claim that one cannot
> coherently defend a value (or free-choice) position without free
> will.  Since my choice and judgment is exactly the same as it would be
> WITH free will, any free will advocate who finds my reasons
> insufficient can make the justification FOR ME.  However, Free Will,
> if it is truly free, has ultimately no justification whatever.  I
> really prefer my brain acting on my behalf.
>
> What about "free won'ts"?  Well, it's an incoherent concept, based on
> misunderstandings.  When the first decision of our brain enters our
> consciousness, it becomes subject to all kinds of reasonings and
> secondary inputs.  We may even do some research before we let our
> decision loose into the wild.  However, all subsequent decisions, even
> those that veto the original one, are formed by the same process which
> produced the original one.  That means, again, our brain acts before
> we are conscious of it.
>
> That is exactly what the brain does - prioritize competing wants and
> inputs - and it will choose in a way similar to vector addition, if
> possible - a bit of this and a bit of that - but in other cases it
> will have to choose something that is just more pleasurable / less
> painful - but those decisions, again, are NOT conscious, but made,
> within your brain, BEFORE you are aware of them.  So all the later
> modifying decisions are made in exactly the same way as the earlier
> decision.  This answers the objection that the "original" decision may
> be made unconsciously, but that later decisions (vetos) are then
> "free."  It cannot be like that and it is NOT
>
> It would appear that there are good evolutionary reasons why the brain
> creates the appearance of free will.  Indeed, since the brain IS YOU,
> it is you who produces the final decision/thought - albeit in a
> natural deterministic fashion.
>
> If you think the brain does not make the decisions, all you do is push
> the problem one level on.  Who operates the brain?  Is there a
> "Captain" to your soul?  And how does this Captain make his
> decisions?  Randomly?  Clearly not, since character and such are
> persistent and stable things.  So how does your "higher operator" make
> his decisions?  Who or what is the "Captain of the Captain?"
>
>  I think we can simplify the naturalist position and leave the world
> at large out. For our mind only one thing matters, and that is crucial
> for the free will debate.  A determined process has one outcome and
> one outcome only.  Given the state of the world, the prior states in
> the brain (or anywhere) completely determine the outcome of the
> process by natural laws.  That is the naturalist position. All others
> positions would require some supernatural force.  This natural
> position also includes Quantum physics.  Though I doubt quantum
> effects play a role in our decisions, if they do, all of them are
> purely natural occurrences.
>
> Brain states are energy states of neurons and other structures.  If
> you think that you could have acted/thought otherwise, then you would
> have to account for the energy that would change your brain state.
> Clearly, it could not come from within this universe, because the iron-
> clad laws of THIS universe have ordained the act/thought that actually
> did occur.
>
> If you argue that you could have freely chosen otherwise from what you
> actually have chosen, then you are committed to the claim that you
> could have either violated the laws of nature.  It is a
> supernaturalist claim.
>
> There is a misuse of the word choice that occurs quite commonly.  As
> in sentences like:  "Water chooses the lowest level."  In this use of
> the word "choice" there may be a range of theoretical outcomes, but it
> is understood that only one of them is possible.  That is exactly the
> meaning of the word "caused."   Basically everything that is caused
> has a range of theoretical outcomes, but only one is possible
> according the the state of the world that pertains.  A computer which
> "chooses" one out of thousands or millions of entries in a database
> clearly does not choose at all.  The word "choose" is simply used
> differently in this context.  However, if something chooses "freely"
> then there was a range of outcomes and NO way exists to explain that
> choice through natural processes, not even in theory by taking
> recourse to incalculable complexities.
>
> It turns out that free will is also incompatible with the idea of an
> omniscient and omnipotent god, for if a decision is to be truly free,
> then even god cannot know where it came from.  That is the case even
> if you assume that god exists outside of space and time.
>
> Well, we do what we WANT - and what we WANT is completely determined,
> by circumstances, by natural laws, and by natural laws working in our
> brains - hopefully our brains work right and look out for our best
> interests - so our brains do make us WANT what we naturally SHOULD
> WANT !
>
> You don't need to explain what consciousness is in order to see that
> it works according to natural laws. It is clear that the preferences
> generated in our brains  operate all our choices.  It is a natural
> function.
>
> Birric Forcella
>
> Better explanations rule !

[Birric Forcella]

Really, Jack McKinney and others arguing in the same vein:

Your argument for the ghost in the machine is nothing but the same old
same old argument for a god in the gap, only you aren't calling it a
sky pixie, you are calling it consciousness. Just as the sky pixie,
your ghost in the machine has run out of fuel long ago.

The idea of free will can be proven false in a single, simple
paragraph:

Intentions are represented, in the brain, as an energetic state of
(many) neurons. That is even the case if you assume a "ghost" in the
machine. If you had free will, then this state could change
accordingly. Where would the energy for that change come from? It
can't come from inside our universe, since that energy state is
represented by the actions/thoughts that do occur. You would have to
assume that a supernatural agency/force is at work, an agency which
works contrary to the iron laws of physics in each and every one of
trillions of the freely willed actions/thoughts that people have
presumably undertaken in history. That is one of the most outlandish
claims EVER.

Supernatural forces have NO explanations within this universe. No
natural explanation, conjecture, or speculation can be made about
them. Anything and evrything and infinitely more could be brought as
an explanation - all could be claimed with equal grounds, and none
could be proven. Since it's supernatural, after all, it has
fundamentally NO explanation and no proof. Otherwise it would be
natural - duh.

Jack, when you said earlier

"""Without consciousness there is no illusion of cause and effect
relationships, there is no brain sensory input, there is NO BRAIN, and
in fact without consciousness ...THERE IS NO UNIVERSE... """

You are dead wrong. Without EXPLANATIONS there is no universe. It is
the very structure of the OUTSIDE universe that allows us to explain
it. The universe is not mysterious to us exactly because it has no
mystery - only explanations we haven't figured out yet. There is
nothing surprising in the fact that a non-mysterious universe would
evolve brains that can understand it.

[However, I understand your position very well, I cut my teeth on the
Idealism of Hegel, and I'm still (somewhat) influenced by it.]

My post earlier in this thread was not so much meant to disprove free
will (and free won't) as to show that having NO free will is actually
a good thing and quite desirable.



We can't will our wants. And if we could, then what would will our
will to will our wants? It leads to an infinite regress. If you ask
"Who is the captain of the soul?," then you must ask "who is the
captain of the captain's soul?" and so on and so on.

Our wants are clearly mediated by pleasure/displeasure which are
simple and explicable functions arising naturally in the brain.
Animals have them, and possibly even plants on some level when they
move toward light / away from darkness. There is nothing mysterious
in our having wants and feelings.

Sometimes free-will advocates will tell you that without free will
you can't make a coherent claim, since it's merely natural laws and
matter talking out of you. That is absolutely false. As I showed
earlier, the outcome of the determined action/thought is exactly the
same as it would be if it were freely willed. So the arguments that
arise are exactly the same and they have the same validity, so do the
associated emotions. The illusion of free will is one of the
associated pleasurable emotions.

Your case might be (somewhat) stronger if you asked where emotions and
subjectivity come from. We don't know (yet). Science is happy to
tell you that it hasn't figured everything out. We're working on it.
No dogmas make us stop looking - only supernatural sky fairies and
ghosts do that. You, Jack, are a good example for that.

[Jack McKinney]

Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 8:46am (CDT-2) From: erni...@gmail.com
(Birric Forcella)

> Really, Jack McKinney and others
> arguing in the same vein:

> Your argument for the ghost in the
> machine is nothing but the same old
> same old argument for a god in the gap,
> only you aren't calling it a sky pixie, you
> are calling it consciousness. Just as the
> sky pixie, your ghost in the machine has
> run out of fuel long ago.

</SNIP>

I know nothing about the ghost in the machine; in fact I know nothing
about the machine; I do know a little about living, breathing human
beings who are governed by free will...

My beliefs are based on my own intuitive feelings, what I believe to be
the best science available, and on the insights of the best *mystics* of
our time... OH THOSE WONDERFUL MYSTICS...

My beliefs are what they are, and I don't offer any proof or
justifications for my beliefs... IT IS WHAT IT IS !

Your *beliefs* are your *beliefs* and I *strongly* believe them to be
less valid than mine...In fact, I think they are DEAD WRONG...

Again, consciousness is the ground of all being; it is that which
creates everything else; it is the source of both the ghost and the
machine, yet it is not the result of any operations performed by the
machine...

You materialists need to get with it, and step into the 21st century...

HINT: your task is hopeless, you will not win this argument... The truth
is on my side, for I have a mystical feeling in my bones...

[casey]

On Jul 25, 3:44 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> [...]

> My beliefs are based on my own intuitive feelings,

Which is why they are wrong.

Science goes beyond intuition.

[Jack McKinney]

As usual, you've gotten things ass backwards... It is the intuition that
goes beyond known science, and not the other way around... the same goes
for the imagination, not to mention, the insight of mystics...

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful
servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has
forgotten the gift.... Albert Einstein

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.... Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein ... Imagination is more important than knowledge. For
knowledge is limited to all we now know and ...

Never let knowledge (or desire for knowledge) stifle your imagination,
and in turn inhibit your creativity ... Albert Einstein

[casey]

On Jul 25, 7:14 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 11:14am (CDT-2) From: jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au

Perhaps some more quotes to bolster your views?

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

What was Albert Einstein's religion?

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html

Newton was a religious man and intuition must have been
a guiding force but the only results that we can accept
have to stand on their own.

[casey]

On Jul 25, 7:14 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 11:14am (CDT-2) From: jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au

>
> (casey) wrote:
>
> On Jul 25, 3:44 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> [...]
>
> >> My beliefs are based on my own
> >> intuitive feelings,
> > Which is why they are wrong.
> > Science goes beyond intuition.
>
> As usual, you've gotten things ass backwards... It is the intuition that
> goes beyond known science, and not the other way around... the same goes
> for the imagination, not to mention, the insight of mystics...

The "insights" of mystics haven't produced any new
understanding of what we are.

Many of the discoveries of science about the world
we inhabit and are part of are non-intuitive.

> The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful
> servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has
> forgotten the gift.... Albert Einstein

An intuitive mind that is subject to the rigours of scientific
confirmation is indeed a wonderful gift for without it there
would be no science.

> Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
> is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.... Albert Einstein

Advice you should take?

> Albert Einstein ... Imagination is more important than knowledge. For
> knowledge is limited to all we now know and ...

All new things must come from the imagination and free
invention, even scientifically questionable notions.
However they can only be *accepted* into the body of
scientific knowledge if they pass critical scrutiny,
which includes the checking of suitable test implications
by careful observation or experiment.
source:
(Scientific Inquiry: Invention and Test- Philosophy of
Natural Science, Carl G. Hempel)

So do your beliefs fulfill the requirements that
Albert Einstein's beliefs fulfilled?

> Never let knowledge (or desire for knowledge) stifle your imagination,
> and in turn inhibit your creativity ... Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein may have waxed lyrical at times but his
achievement was grounded in science and his theories
are far removed from the intuition about the world most
people have, that is why they are so hard to understand.

I don't disagree with Albert's views only your notion
of how they apply to your methods of understanding
the world we live in and are part of.

[Jack McKinney]

OK Casey here's the deal; you keep preaching your 350 year old, obsolete
Newtonian based science, and I'll keep informing the world about 21st
century cutting edge scientific & metaphysical thought...

IS THAT A DEAL ?

Can you hold up your end of this deal? I have confidence in you...
You've shown a lot of promise...(ha, ha)

Newtonian based science is very handy when it comes to building bridges,
but once you get past that, WATCH OUT...

[Doug Freyburger]

Jack McKinney wrote:
> jgkj...@yahoo.com.au (casey) wrote:

>> jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
>
>>> My beliefs are based on my own
>>> intuitive feelings,
>
>> Which is why they are wrong.
>> Science goes beyond intuition.
>
> As usual, you've gotten things ass backwards... It is the intuition that
> goes beyond known science, and not the other way around... the same goes
> for the imagination, not to mention, the insight of mystics...

It actually goes both ways so it's a feedback loop. For any one
indvidual at any one time one or the other could go farther.

The discovery step of the scieintific method is offering a mathematical
model to explain an intuitive perception or order in randomness. The
totality of science is beyond the intuition of many. Learning a field
of science until the student has an intuitive grasp makes further
discoveries the more likely. And so on back and forth in the feedback
loop.

[casey]

On Jul 26, 12:54 am, Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jack McKinney wrote:

When I wrote science goes beyond intuition I meant it doesn't stop
there
it goes on to test the intuitive ideas. The results of these tests or
experiments can result in new intuitive ideas to test. So I would
agree it is a loop. A loop that ever expands in complexity well beyond
the simple minded intuition of common religious concepts.

[casey]

On Jul 25, 7:14 pm, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> OK Casey here's the deal; you keep preaching

I don't preach I discuss.

> your 350 year old, obsolete
> Newtonian based science,

??

> and I'll keep informing the world about 21st
> century cutting edge scientific & metaphysical thought...

Love to discuss cutting edge scientific thought, just leave out the
meta stuff.

> IS THAT A DEAL ?
>
> Can you hold up your end of this deal? I have confidence in you...
> You've shown a lot of promise...(ha, ha)
>
> Newtonian based science is very handy when it comes to building bridges,
> but once you get past that, WATCH OUT...

We have gone beyond Newtonian physics as you well know.
Unlike religion science moves on ...


>
>

[Hezz Hattuck]

jak...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote in
news:27322-500...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net:

> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 11:14am (CDT-2) From: jgkj...@yahoo.com.au
> (casey) wrote:
>
> On Jul 25, 3:44 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> [...] 
>
>>> My beliefs are based on my own
>>> intuitive feelings,
>
>> Which is why they are wrong.
>
>> Science goes beyond intuition.
>
> As usual, you've gotten things ass backwards... It is the intuition that
> goes beyond known science, and not the other way around... the same goes
> for the imagination, not to mention, the insight of mystics...

Get rid of the mysticism, and this intuition butterfly your net is
swooshing and scurrying after could lead you to getting your foot caught
in a Zen gopher hole someday.

DAVID DARLING . . . "Zen is not a philosophy or even, to the Western
mind, a form of mysticism. As we normally understand it, mysticism starts
with a separation of subject and object and has as its goal the
unification or reconciliation of this antithesis. But Zen does not teach
absorption, identification, or union of any kind because all of these
labels are derived ultimately from a dualistic conception of life. If a
label is needed that best approximates to the spirit of Zen then 'dynamic
intuition' is perhaps as close as we can come.

"There is a saying in Zen: 'The instant you speak about a thing you miss
the mark.' So, presumably, this saying has also missed the mark - and this
one, too. Our endless analysis can lead us into all sorts of difficulties.
But how can we break free of it? Living in a world of words and concepts
and inherited beliefs, says Zen, we have lost the power to grasp reality
directly. Our minds are permeated with notions of cause and effect,
subject and object, being and nonbeing, life and death. Inevitably this
leads to conflict and a feeling of personal detachment and alienation from
the world. Zen's whole emphasis is on the experience of reality as it is,
rather than the solution of problems that, in the end, arise merely from
our mistaken beliefs.

"Because it eschews the use of the intellect, Zen can appear nihilistic
(which it is not) and elusive (which it is). Certainly, it would be hard
to conceive of a system that stood in greater contrast with the logical,
symbol-based formulations of contemporary science. More than any other
product of the Oriental mind, Zen is convinced that no language or
symbolic mapping of the world can come close to expressing the ultimate
truth. As one of its famous exponents, Master Tokusan said: 'All our
understanding of the abstractions of philosophy is like a single hair in
the vastness of space.'"

http://tinyurl.com/btp2n8v

http://www.daviddarling.info/works/ZenPhysics/ZenPhysics_ch12.html

[Doug Freyburger]

casey wrote:

> Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The discovery step of the scieintific method is offering a mathematical
>> model to explain an intuitive perception or order in randomness. �The
>> totality of science is beyond the intuition of many. �Learning a field
>> of science until the student has an intuitive grasp makes further
>> discoveries the more likely. �And so on back and forth in the feedback
>> loop.
>
> When I wrote science goes beyond intuition I meant it doesn't stop
> there
> it goes on to test the intuitive ideas. The results of these tests or
> experiments can result in new intuitive ideas to test. So I would
> agree it is a loop. A loop that ever expands in complexity

One of the most wonderful events in science is when someone discovers a
simplification. Many can proceed from the simple to the complex.
Puzzle solving and gap filling. The great geniuses can progress from the
complex to the simple. Discoveries that make the history books.

> well beyond the simple minded intuition of common religious concepts.

There is far more to intuition than religious concepts. Part of why
young scientists and engineers study their fields until they have an
intuitive feel for the concepts and mechanisms.

There is also more to religion than its interaction with science and
only two religions bother to have a conflict with science. Why they do
that is beyond me as a member of one of the ones that does not.

[casey]

There are probably political and cultural reasons for the
difference between the Jewish God based religions and the
more exotic types of religions.

"Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms
of the not worth knowing." - Mencken

This is really another topic, the psychology of religion.

What do people get out of believing things that are
clearly not true. It is easy to see where these religious
concepts come from and it isn't from a different world.
They are just magical versions of the physical world we
all live in and not at all very imaginative compared with
the amazing world as disclosed by scientific investigation.

[Jack McKinney]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 2:32pm (CDT-2) From: jgkj...@yahoo.com.au
(casey)
wrote:

> "Theology is the effort to explain the
> unknowable in terms of the not worth
> knowing." - Mencken

> This is really another topic, the
> psychology of religion.

> What do people get out of believing
> things that are clearly not true.

What is clearly not true? You can't use the teachings of one religion,
say christianity, as a basis to rule out the validity of all teachings
of any other religion... You are making stupid generalizations...

> It is easy to see where these religious
> concepts come from and it isn't from a
> different world. They are just magical
> versions of the physical world we all live
> in and not at all very imaginative
> compared with the amazing world as
> disclosed by scientific investigation.

Why all the labelling; and are you saying that any concept that is not
based on *proven* science, is a religious concept, and therefore not
worthy of consideration by the rational mechanism?

If I tell you I feel great today, are you telling me that, that
observation about myself, is not valid, because its not based on proven
science, and that feeling is probably just the result of preferences,
over which I have no control?

You need to lighten up a bit, and get real...

[casey]

On Jul 26, 9:10 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
>>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 2:32pm (CDT-2) From: jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au

> (casey)
> wrote:
>
> > "Theology is the effort to explain the
> > unknowable in terms of the not worth
> > knowing." - Mencken
> > This is really another topic, the
> > psychology of religion.
> > What do people get out of believing
> > things that are clearly not true.
>
> What is clearly not true? You can't use the teachings of one religion,

> say Christianity, as a basis to rule out the validity of all teachings

> of any other religion... You are making stupid generalizations...

I am not using the teachings of one religion to rule out other
religions.

They are all made up beliefs without any scientific evidence.

> > It is easy to see where these religious
> > concepts come from and it isn't from a
> > different world. They are just magical
> > versions of the physical world we all live
> > in and not at all very imaginative
> > compared with the amazing world as
> > disclosed by scientific investigation.
>

> Why all the labeling; and are you saying that any concept that is not

> based on *proven* science, is a religious concept, and therefore not
> worthy of consideration by the rational mechanism?

They have been considered by rational thinkers and found wanting.

> If I tell you I feel great today, are you telling me that, that
> observation about myself, is not valid, because its not based on proven
> science, and that feeling is probably just the result of preferences,
> over which I have no control?
>
> You need to lighten up a bit, and get real...

Getting real is something I did a long time ago when I realized
that religious beliefs were wishful thinking or a means by which
one group could control another group.

It is hard to "lighten up a bit" when I see all the damage that
is done to people's lives by those imposing their fantasy world
on the rest of the population. Although you might be a good
person who wouldn't kill people who don't agree with you, or try
and force them to obey your religious beliefs, it doesn't change
the fact that *you give credit to their reasoning process* as
a legitimate means to reach their conclusions.

When good people remain silent bad things happen. I see irrational
reasoning and the legitimization of that kind of reasoning to
result in bad things happening so I speak up.

[Immortalist]

Suppose this "gap" is really just one portion of a cycle of ghost. The
processing cycle or cognitive cycle can be controlled at the beginning
or near the end of the cycle. Most experiences probably require more
than one cognitive cycle so some neural and representational influence
extends across many processing cycles. In this way we can have the
ghost production machinery, a ghost that is stretched across time and
cannot just be at any one time.

http://www.brains-minds-media.org/archive/150/CogCycleAnimation_s.gif/image_view_fullscreen

We propose that human cognition consists of cascading cycles of
recurring brain events. Each cognitive cycle senses the current
situation, interprets it with reference to ongoing goals, and then
selects an internal or external action in response. While most aspects
of the cognitive cycle are unconscious, each cycle also yields a
momentary “ignition” of conscious broadcasting. Neuroscientists have
independently proposed ideas similar to the cognitive cycle, the
fundamental hypothesis of the LIDA model of cognition. High-level
cognition, such as deliberation, planning, etc., is typically enabled
by multiple cognitive cycles. In this paper we describe a timing model
LIDA's cognitive cycle. Based on empirical and simulation data we
propose that an initial phase of perception (stimulus recognition)
occurs 80–100 ms from stimulus onset under optimal conditions. It is
followed by a conscious episode (broadcast) 200–280 ms after stimulus
onset, and an action selection phase 60–110 ms from the start of the
conscious phase. One cognitive cycle would therefore take 260–390 ms.
The LIDA timing model is consistent with brain evidence indicating a
fundamental role for a theta-gamma wave, spreading forward from
sensory cortices to rostral corticothalamic regions. This
posteriofrontal theta-gamma wave may be experienced as a conscious
perceptual event starting at 200–280 ms post stimulus. The action
selection component of the cycle is proposed to involve frontal,
striatal and cerebellar regions. Thus the cycle is inherently
recurrent, as the anatomy of the thalamocortical system suggests. The
LIDA model fits a large body of cognitive and neuroscientific
evidence. Finally, we describe two LIDA-based software agents: the
LIDA Reaction Time agent that simulates human performance in a simple
reaction time task, and the LIDA Allport agent which models phenomenal
simultaneity within timeframes comparable to human subjects. While
there are many models of reaction time performance, these results fall
naturally out of a biologically and computationally plausible
cognitive architecture.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0014803

[casey]

On Jul 26, 11:04 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Suppose this "gap" is really just one portion of a cycle of ghost.

And what is a ghost?

[Jack McKinney]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 4:47pm (CDT-2) From: jgkj...@yahoo.com.au
(casey) wrote:

> I am not using the teachings of one
> religion to rule out other religions.

> They are all made up beliefs without any
> scientific evidence.

For the record, Casey says that all religious/spiritual beliefs are not
valid because they are not based on of the *beliefs* of scientific
materialists, who believe that only that which can be scientifically
measured and verified is real...

> They have been considered by rational
> thinkers and found wanting.

Again, Casey is saying that religious/spiritual beliefs are wanting,
because they are not based on scientific materialism... Circular logic
is a wonderful thing...

> Getting real is something I did a long
> time ago when I realized that religious
> beliefs were wishful thinking or a means
> by which one group could control
> another group.

So my spiritually derived belief in the existence of a free will for all
men, is really a ploy to gain control over the souls of materialists;
and your non-spiritual belief in the non-existence of a free will, is a
concept that will set them free? ....RIGHT ? And why are you worried
about being controlled anyway, since according to your beliefs the
behavior of the religious is being controlled by the random firings of
neurons in the brain, which are not under one's control... So does
evolution want the religious in control ?

> It is hard to "lighten up a bit" when I see
> all the damage that is done to people's
> lives by those imposing their fantasy
> world on the rest of the population.

What about the untold damage done to people's lives by the *devastating*
belief of scientific materialists, that says that people have no control
over their own lives ???

The main focus of my spiritually derived beliefs is to warn people of
the devastating damage that can be done to one's life, by the deadly
belief in a victim filled, meaningless universe... That is to say that
if we don't have control over our own lives, then that automatically
makes us all victims of some sort, which is EXACTLY what you are arguing
for...

You will not win this argument; THE TRUTH IS ON MY SIDE, AND SO ARE THE
MYSTICS....

[Albert Tatlock]

"Jack McKinney" <jak...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23681-50...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...

The victory of blind faith over reason!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

[bigfl...@gmail.com]

They stand on their own while others catch up. In the meantime the
"individual' intuition keeps expanding.

BF8