Current state of the debate between free will and determinism in philosophy and neuroscience

[Anirudh Dabas]

It seems like we're going down a rabbit hole here. I'd like to circle back.

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Anirudh Dabas said:

It seems like we're going down a rabbit hole here. I'd like to circle back.

This whole topic is a rabbit hole, some just like the more fanciful tributaries @AIkonoklazt for instance.

[iNow]

10 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

It's not even about confirming or refuting what a person sees. It's about what a person sees.

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/

 

10 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Is there an element in you that "that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons"?

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. 

10 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

no matter how you conceive a mind, it's going to operate as it does no matter how you conceive it.

Citation? You have this interesting habit of asserting things as absolute truths when they’re very clearly not. 

[AIkonoklazt]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

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/

 

 

The other user tried to counter my point of color being subjective. Thanks for supporting my point I guess?

[iNow]

Whatever makes your boat buoyant 

[AIkonoklazt]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

 

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. 

Let's just go with what you said regarding the physical process. Said physical process isn't going to change simply because of how one conceive it.

18 hours ago, Anirudh Dabas said:

It seems like we're going down a rabbit hole here. I'd like to circle back.

Okay. We've eliminated information processing from consideration in the question of freewill. That's at least one thing down.

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Let's just go with what you said regarding the physical process. Said physical process isn't going to change simply because of how one conceive it.

You seem to be arguing that our current thoughts cannot influence our future thoughts. That’s clearly nonsense. 

[AIkonoklazt]

59 minutes ago, iNow said:

You seem to be arguing that our current thoughts cannot influence our future thoughts. That’s clearly nonsense. 

How does your conception of physical processes affect said processes? If you think of physics differently, does that affect the laws of physics?

Also, it seems to me that you're losing track of what you were disputing, or was confused in the first place. I said how the mind works isn't affected by what you think of the mind, and not current thoughts couldn't influence future ones.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I said how the mind works isn't affected by what you think of the mind

Of course it is 

[AIkonoklazt]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

Of course it is 

Ok how

[iNow]

Chemistry 

If you’d like to learn more about neuroscience, I can recommend a few good sites or just encourage some university courses, but your existing knowledge of how our minds function is clearly lacking and based on flawed assumptions. 

[iNow]

The act of thinking changes the structure of the brain. The act of recalling memories rewires the brain and changes the memories being recalled. This happens with all thoughts and all emotions and all experiences. This has all been broadly understood for decades even though it seems philosophy and those engaging it often fail to keep up with the most current knowledge.  What you’re doing is equivalent to arguing for the Bohr model of the atom. 

Edited November 12, 2023 by iNow

[AIkonoklazt]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

The act of thinking changes the structure of the brain. The act of recalling memories rewires the brain and changes the memories being recalled. This happens with all thoughts and all emotions and all experiences. This has all been broadly understood for decades even though it seems philosophy and those engaging it often fail to keep up with the most current knowledge.  What you’re doing is equivalent to arguing for the Bohr model of the atom. 

All of that is part of how the mind works. All of the above points to a tangible collection of mechanisms that's not going to change upon how anyone conceives any concept, including the mind. Of course I'd "treat the mind as something tangible."

I'm not sure at this point you even know what you were arguing.

On 11/10/2023 at 2:06 AM, StringJunky said:

All science is wrong in the end. What matters is that scientists can do useful things with the theories they have until something else supersedes it. That's the way science rolls. A fact is only correct in a contemporary sense... it answers the questions of the day. What we have today is what we have to work with.

Let's put the above within the context of why I refuse to engage in any theorizing regarding metaphysics (e.g. metaphysical pluralism) as I've mentioned. Any theory regarding something that couldn't possibly be verified, such as "more than one type of thing, or several types of things, ultimately makes up the universe" is not going to be useful. There is no such thing as "metaphysical science."

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

All of the above points to a tangible collection of mechanisms that's not going to change upon how anyone conceives any concept, including the mind.

Thinking about the mind changes the structure of it. This is my simple, and accurate, point that seem unable to accept. 

11 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I'm not sure at this point you even know what you were arguing.

I’m very clear on my point, even though I understand you for various reasons believe otherwise. 

[AIkonoklazt]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Thinking about the mind changes the structure of it. This is my simple, and accurate, point that seem unable to accept. 

I’m very clear on my point, even though I understand you for various reasons believe otherwise. 

The so-called "change in structure" is part of the way it works. Thanks for telling me something I already know.

[iNow]

Ah. Well good, then. You could’ve saved us a whole lot of time then if only you hadn’t continued asserting that the structure and nature of a functioning mind doesn’t change by the act of thinking about it. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by iNow

[AIkonoklazt]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Ah. Well good, then. You could’ve saved us a whole lot of time then if only you hadn’t continued asserting that the structure and nature of a functioning mind changes by the act of thinking about it. 

Uh, that's what you were asserting. You evidently lost track in the space of one reply.

[iNow]

I edited the post bc I made an error. Your reply came during that edit. 

You were saying the mind doesn’t change just by thinking about it. It does and that is why I kept correcting you. 

On 11/10/2023 at 9:19 PM, AIkonoklazt said:

Your mind's operation is basically independent of your conception of it.

On 11/10/2023 at 10:05 PM, AIkonoklazt said:

no matter how you conceive a mind, it's going to operate as it does no matter how you conceive it.

22 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Said physical process isn't going to change simply because of how one conceive it.

21 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

how the mind works isn't affected by what you think of the mind

33 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

a tangible collection of mechanisms that's not going to change upon how anyone conceives any concept

 

Thinking about the mind changes the structure of it.

Claiming otherwise isn’t sufficient to make this false just bc this is a thread in the philosophy folder  

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/living-forward/202304/how-your-thinking-affects-your-brain-chemistry?amp

https://www.technologynetworks.com/neuroscience/news/can-we-change-the-structure-of-our-brain-just-by-thinking-327017

Edited November 13, 2023 by iNow

[AIkonoklazt]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

I edited the post bc I made an error. Your reply came during that edit. 

You were saying the mind doesn’t change just by thinking about it. It does and that is why I kept correcting you. 

 

 

You quoted me three times but you didn't comprehend any of the key words attached (bolded by me):

Quote

Your mind's operation is basically independent of your conception of it.

Quote

no matter how you conceive a mind, it's going to operate as it does no matter how you conceive it.

Quote

Said physical process isn't going to change simply because of how one conceive it.

I know about the plasticity, and that plasticity is part of its operative process

(okay it's up to 5x the quotes now but doesn't change things one iota)

To have something tangible suddenly become something not tangible simply by virtue of plasticity of that thing is committing an obvious category mistake.

[iNow]

45 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

okay it's up to 5x the quotes now but doesn't change things one iota

Indeed. You were wrong at least 5x

(Unless you’re claiming there’s some unalterable feature of the universe called a “mind” that cannot be changed or altered and is rigid even in the face of new thoughts and inputs… maybe it’s just yours and you’re projecting perhaps?)

Edited November 13, 2023 by iNow

[AIkonoklazt]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Indeed. You were wrong at least 5x

(Unless you’re claiming there’s some unalterable feature of the universe called a “mind” that cannot be changed or altered and is rigid even in the face of new thoughts and inputs… maybe it’s just yours and you’re projecting perhaps?)

Like I've already said, the plasticity is part of its operative process.

To have something tangible suddenly become something not tangible simply by virtue of plasticity of that thing is committing an obvious category mistake.

[iNow]

8 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

the plasticity is part of its operative process

Do you believe the operative process is unchangeable? Does that still apply when electrocuted? What about when infected with a virus that influences neural functions? Or maybe when in an accident and bleeding?

How about just when it's receiving insufficient oxygen due to low blood glucose levels and the outer cortical functions slowly begin shutdown in an effort to focus all energy on autonomic components of the peripheral nervous system? All of these things quite obviously influence the operation of the mind. 

Trying to understand why you're placing this hard arbitrary wall where "the mind" is somehow not influenced by the environment in which it functions. It's not the stable category you keep suggesting it is. It's also not a category we see anywhere in the universe outside of our own minds. 

Everyone's minds very much are influenced by the conditions around it, conditions which change from moment to moment, conditions which alter its operations in measurable ways, and yet your position (while consistent) shows consistently an ignorance and obliviousness of the evidence available. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by iNow

[Anirudh Dabas]

+1.
The mind, far from being an isolated and unchangeable entity, is intricately woven into the fabric of its environment, subject to influences that continually shape its operations.

[AIkonoklazt]

1 hour ago, Anirudh Dabas said:

+1.
The mind, far from being an isolated and unchangeable entity, is intricately woven into the fabric of its environment, subject to influences that continually shape its operations.

The entire "dispute" was regarding whether the mind is a tangible entity. As I've already pointed out, to have something tangible suddenly become something not tangible simply by virtue of plasticity of that thing is committing an obvious category mistake.

iNow basically has forgotten where the ball went in the tennis match. Everything he said, quoted, and even linked to only supports my point regarding tangibility. Even in the latest reply- He mentioned physical damage, which affects this tangible entity. The plasticity is also how the mind deal with changes in the environment. He doesn't even realize what he's writing, because he uses "it" to refer to the mind. I mean, if it's not tangible then what in the world is this "it" he's speaking of? I just find his responses to be silly at this point.

It's going to be damaged the way it's going to be damaged no matter how you conceive it or its damage. It's going to be changed no matter how you conceive the change or how the change happens. It's baffling how I'd have to explain this to anyone.

[geordief]

2 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

The entire "dispute" was regarding whether the mind is a tangible entity. As I've already pointed out, to have something tangible suddenly become something not tangible simply by virtue of plasticity of that thing is committing an obvious category mistake.

iNow basically has forgotten where the ball went in the tennis match. Everything he said, quoted, and even linked to only supports my point regarding tangibility. Even in the latest reply- He mentioned physical damage, which affects this tangible entity. The plasticity is also how the mind deal with changes in the environment. He doesn't even realize what he's writing, because he uses "it" to refer to the mind. I mean, if it's not tangible then what in the world is this "it" he's speaking of? I just find his responses to be silly at this point.

It's going to be damaged the way it's going to be damaged no matter how you conceive it or its damage. It's going to be changed no matter how you conceive the change or how the change happens. It's baffling how I'd have to explain this to anyone.

Do you think the mind  can be said to follow any  procedures which do not vary from one mind to another  or one circumstance to another?

 

Are there things that can be aid about the concept of "mind" that apply in all circumstances?

 

Or are all minds just a mirror image of the circumstances they are  embedded in and react to?

 

Are all "rules of the mind" purely ad hoc  or might we say there are distinguishing features of the phenomenon  that  only apply to minds and so define them?