iNow

No, especially since gene expression is environmentally dependent

We actually fill in and invent something like 90% of what we “see,” and your example of the dress confirms exactly that. We impose a best guess on the incoming stimuli based on context and expectation, based on our existing model of the world and the context available, and NOT based purely on precise things like frequency. Here’s a link to an extremely simple and accessible explanation and it serves to reinforce my point that these things are all differing intensities of self-created illusions. https://www.pbs.org/video/dress-excerpt-j7mm9z/ Yes, of course. It starts with the biochemistry and when that same biochemistry activates within the storytelling parts of our brains we THEN apply AFTER the fact arbitrary labels like “feel” and “reason” and “think” in an attempt to align it with our model of the world and communicate these ideas with others. Citation? You have this interesting habit of asserting things as absolute truths when they’re very clearly not.

This concept of a mind is just as much as a post-dictive narrative as freewill is, yet you treat it as something tangible. The mind is just as arbitrarily modeled as the idea of yellow is, but at least with yellow we can use tools to measure and confirm frequency. The mind however is just a concept, similar to love in this regard. Yellow is paradoxically more real. Please elaborate. The conception a mind comes directly from the operation of it, so it’s invalid to suggest any independence whatsoever, yet that’s precisely what you’ve done here.

Who said anything about not being able to have thoughts about anything at all? Are we reading the same thread? Please explain to me in what ways they’re different. Can you show me a picture of your mind? Maybe point to it on an fMRI?

This same logic applies equally to the concept of a mind. There isn’t such a thing as “a mind” in the world “out there.” The concept of a mind is all in your head. But again… what does this have to do with freewill?

It does more than just those. Those often happen too, but aren’t prerequisite

You have yet to establish that referents are prerequisite to having a mind, but it’s not any more on topic now than it was earlier.

You said a computer can’t have a mind bc it doesn’t have referents. Inherent in that claim is that referents are required for a mind. That’s plainly false. This is all still off topic too

You’ve misrepresented the definition you shared. The mind is the complex of element processing in an individual, but the referents being processed there are not prerequisite to having a mind as you seem to be suggesting. The mind exists even in the absence of external referents (like those you cite). This all off topic in a thread about freewill though

Your own link refutes your claim

This is non-sequitur and mistakenly asserts that referents are required to meet some arbitrary definition of mind. They are actually fixable. Just need to train it on a different data set and feed new more representative data into the model.

As I’m not arguing epiphenomenalism, I’m also NOT arguing that mental events cannot lead to other events themselves. It’s not my position, so I’m technically not evading support of it. I’m saying the decision event occurs prior to conscious awareness. You’re the one who keeps trying to shoehorn the concept of causality into the discussion. And I applaud you for your specificity, sir. Well done. You win the prize today.

That was obvious from the start. It’s nice to see you acknowledge it, but would be even nicer if you inserted some uncertainty into your stance as a result. Instead, we have post after post after post of you saying little more than, “Nuh uh, because… reasons!”

No

You’re being absurd

By appealing to more moderates and independents in the general election, those who tend to lack the extreme abortion stances seen so consistently in GOP primaries. On another note, most of this is moot if Joe Manchin (who announced today he’d tip the senate toward GOP control and won’t be running next year in deep red West Virginia) decides after his tour for “speaking out to see if there is an interest in creating a movement to mobilize the middle” to run on a No Labels ticket and siphon away Biden voters (who are more likely to flow to him than Trump voters).

I don’t know what a realm is in context of neuroscience, but if mental events are not solely due to physical inputs, then what else do you recommend we measure and look at to better understand them? Correct, and maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. Somewhat peripheral to my stance though I struggle to agree with you here. Why would that be unlikely? What other systems would be worthy of consideration? I understand you agree and this comment confirms that, but your mention of realms isn’t terribly different IMO.

Perhaps once again you’re posting tongue in cheek, but conversion therapy is dangerous and doesn’t work, just to make that clear.

Grateful for this

This proves not only that you’re unfamiliar with the topic, but also that you haven’t paid attention to the resources already shared. We’ve known this is the case for decades, even if you personally did not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#The_point_of_no_return

His comments will hurt him with the GOP base during the primaries, but not enough to make him lose. His comments will help him during the general election, potentially enough to avoid loss.

That'd be a great name for a cologne. Beyond that, seems pretty useless. You're free to believe or disbelieve any silly thing you want, but if you plan to defend your beliefs in a public space like this then you'll need to try harder. Again, I can only remind you, it depends on how one defines their terms. You're suggesting QM is truly random, but an entirely valid counter proposal is simply that it's not predictable with current models and tools. These differences matter, and others have already explored exaclty this. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chance-randomness/#ChanDete This last part may be most useful in bolstering my stance that yours is misguided:

Indeed, but it only matters if they show up. In a nearby school board election day before yesterday, 2 of the candidates won by only 12 votes. The margins are razor thin, and the districts as drawn aren't very forgiving for apathy and failure to have oneself be counted. I'll note this is itself a fairly key strategy among the GOP right now as they don't necessarily need to beat Biden if they can instead simply convince enough folks who voted for him in 2020 to just not show up next year. This is where Dem strategists are hoping that actively putting abortion on to MORE ballots (like was done in Ohio this week) will be the wedge needed to get more people up off their couches and into voting booths.

Correct, and none of those are currently toss-ups

Lots of folks keep saying I'm arguing for epiphenomenalism, and I simply used those exact words found in the definition of epiphenomenalism. They're not my words, and in fact I'm fairly certain you're one of the people who posted the wiki link from which they were drawn. Here it is for reference: I note still the question remains unanswered. If physical and biochemical events are NOT the sole cause of mental events, then what other variables do you suggest ARE involved? I actually haven't. I've said "it depends on how you define it." My apologies for missing it, but it seems I'm not the only one who did. Will you kindly please repeat it so we may align on this point you seem to believe is so self-evident and obvious? I see. So you say I'm arguing for epiphenomenalism, that epiphenomenalism is a wrong dead end, and when I ask what other possibilities exist for the underlying elements leading to mentation and causation, you respond, "I have no fucking idea, I just KNOW that it MIGHT be wrong." Right. Okay, haas. Got it. Super strong position you're arguing. FWIW: I also acknowledge it MIGHT be wrong, but as it stands today nobody can explain where or how. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, so dismiss you I do. One final point of clarification: I'm not arguing for epiphenomenalism and all of the baggage which comes with it. I'm saying our mentation is rooted in chemical and biological processes, physical processes. If you disagree, then the onus is on you to show WHAT ELSE leads to mentation. Not just physical processes? Okay, what then? Not just biochemistry? Okay, what then? Go ahead and lay that out, folks... I'll wait (mostly likely indefinitely given the trend in these last several replies).