The difference between your definition of free will and no free will would be what? The difference between your definition of free will and the illusion of free will would be what? I'm with Faith on this one, hard determinism isn't something that I like, but it isn't something that I can so easily dismiss.

(March 14, 2012 at 3:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: @ Apo-Except that in this case, when I say "it's under the hood", it's because it is, and we've opened the hood to check. Now, if we were to open the hood, and there was no distributer (yet it still ran), I'd be left with two possible scenarios (and this is assuming that I am not merely mistaken about there being no distributor). One, this car doesn't require a distributor, two, it is located somewhere else. Well, show me the somewhere else and I'll give 2 more consideration than 1. Or, as I've been mentioning all along, someone could just point to the fucking distributor. Why ask me to provide more information than we have? I wish I could explain how our minds work in every particular, but I can't. That doesn't mean that anything you have to offer has value. You must make that case yourself.

I have to demonstrate that you don't know where the distributor is? You've pointed to a pile of things and said, "that's the distributor," and I'm supposed to demonstrate that you don't know which part is the distributor? Despite your already having admitted that you don't know ("I wish I could explain how our minds work in every particular, but I can't."). You've made a claim that the self not simply is inside the brain, but that it is the brain. If you can't demonstrate that the entire brain is the self, then you're equivocating. And I can tell you for certain that a neurosurgeon can cut away many parts of the brain without affecting your self. So the brain isn't idempotent with the self. So again, you're pointing to a set of things, and telling me they are the one thing, and now I have to demonstrate that you know what that one thing is? That's fucked up. You made the claim that the brain is the self, you have the burden of proof, not I. And so far you've shown me nothing that even looks remotely like a self.

And you completely ignored the mereological point in the rush to reverse your burden of proof. Let me explain it to you this way. I ask you what you use to type your posts with, and you say your hands. I point out that if the brain is you then they aren't your hands because they aren't a part of the brain. At which point you'll likely say that you control them. Yet the gravity exerted by earth controls them every bit as much as you do, so are they the planet's hands too? You see, you haven't identified what exactly a self is, and until you do, your claims to know where it is are either equivocation or handwaving. Unless you really do know where the self is, in which case I'd like you to define the boundaries between self and not-self, such as which lobes of the brain are involved, is anything outside the brain involved, and so on; until then, your claim that the self "is" the brain is an assertion without any evidence. Telling me that I have to prove that you're ignorant about what exactly the self is, well that is just messed up.

(
If the planet I'm on becomes a nuclear fireball, the self will cease to exist. Yet if I claimed that the planet "is" the self, you'd rightly consider me a nutter. Let me ask one final time. I let you know that a fluxnarb is a part of the engine. I ask you to point to the fluxnarb, but you can't do it, not because the engine doesn't have a fluxnarb, but because you don't know what it is, and thus you can't comply. In the same way, when I point to the brain and ask you to point out the parts that are the self, you can't comply — not because the brain doesn't have a self, but because you don't actually know what a self is. Given that level of ignorance, it's ludicrous for you to claim that you know that the "brain is the self" because the latter term in your world is undefined. Knowledge statements with undefined terms are meaningless (from logic, not speaking colloquially; any term anded with a term that has no truth value renders the entire expression without truth value, meaningless or null — according to classical logic [there are logics in which this is not the case; I'm assuming you're okay with classical logic]). Therefore, unless you can define the self so that I can match up the parts of the self with the parts (or whole) of the brain, your statement that "the self is the brain" is meaningless. And I am not in any way responsible for supplying you with the right definition or proving anything about your claim. You are. Or, you can continue to utter meaningless statements.
)

(March 14, 2012 at 4:31 pm)genkaus Wrote: Until now, we've only been arguing about my definition of free-will.

Apologies, but its because its incomprehensible. It appears to be non-theological compatibilism. I.e. Not supernatural, but the future is not set, and our choices can change it.
This is the position you represented, and I discussed my position contrary to that. Simply because I don't believe compatibilism is defensible. So from my point of view, it appeared to be trying to have the compatibilist cake, but avoiding the problems it causes.

Once again, I'm sure you don't see this as your view, I simply can't get my head around what position you are actually taking. Which is fine, so I think you're right, its time to move the discussion forward, and I'm glad you're part of it, as it really has challenged my noodle, and I love that.

I'm hard determinist as stated, and its not the illusion of free will that frightens me, but the illusion of morality which frightens me more as a direct implication.

Do you have anything other than buddhism or the supernatural to present Apo? We are our brains, this is the position of demonstrable evidence. Assume anything over, above, or around that which you wish (and you may as well assume anything), but I refuse to defend what insights have been gained from scientific inquiry every time it rubs some believer the wrong way, you included. That particular burden of proof has been met, and you're free to contest it all you wish, but that's going to require evidence, isn't it? Again I'm reminded that it's fucking impossible to have a conversation about a single thing without some peddler of the supernatural wishing to argue about anything other than evidence, anything other than the focal point.

You can leave this planet, and we do, and there will still be a self, so take that long winded shit elsewhere, it's meaningless criticism. Again, if you want there to be a "fluxnarb", make your own case..don't say "you just don't understand". Show me the fluxnarb, show me where it goes, explain to me what it does? Tell me how it interfaces with the rest. Until then I'm going to assume that you're fucking with me, sending me out to look for soft spots on a bradley. We explain the unknown by reference to the known, I cannot express this more simply. You could invoke the unknown as an explanation for the unknown, if you wish, which you clearly do, but it doesn't work for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science -Enjoy Apo..just in case you forgot how to google.

I don't know where the hell you are getting this idea that what I believe about the self comes from Buddhism or the Supernatural or some other brand of woo. Throughout this whole discussion you've been accusing me of holding opinions I do not hold. It's quite possible that I know as much as you do about cognitive science, so maybe you should read Wikipedia yourself, because from my vantage point, it looks like you misread something. Apparently, in your dimly lit world, if somebody disagrees with you about cognitive science, they must be a woo peddler, and therefore they hold positions X, Y, and Z. For the past two days you've been arguing against strawmen because you've been misunderstanding what I have been saying, largely because of your prejudice against woo peddlers. I'm saying that you are the woo peddler, not I. If you can't explain in detail what the self is in better detail than "somewhere in the brain" then your concept of self is itself a supernatural idea. And the reason for pointing this out is saying that the brain is the self is either not saying anything meaningful, or it's saying something supernatural. If you claim it means something, show me what it means — show me where in the brain the self is and how it operates. If you can't, then you're talking nonsense. "Mama mia, it's in there." does not give any legs to this metaphysically, ontologically and scientifically undefined notion of "self". And until you can give the notion some real legs, claiming that anything — ANYTHING — is it, is woo. So I'm asking you to defend your particular woo.

I'll assume the default, null hypothesis. The self does not exist. Define the self and prove it exists. (Then prove that the thing you've defined is exactly cotemporaneous with the neural tissue in the brain.)

For your convenience, here is the statement you were attempting to refute:
"A stickier question, at least for the compatibilist, is what is meant by "I". It's a shortcut to say that whatever is in the brain is the I, because it's not — there are many things in the brain that are not the I, and some, Buddhists, contend there isn't even an I. Equating the brain with the I is largely handwaving, albeit handwaving which many materialists have fought hard to sell....Simply leaving the "I" an undefined part of the brain is simply insufficient. Certainly the brain "causes" the I, but the brain is not the "I". The "I" is an idea in the brain."

Feel free to explain to me how an undefined idea like the self is the brain, or that it is anything at all. That's like saying this log contains phlogiston — you don't know what it is, you just know it's in there. And that my friend, is woo. I've asked you several times to more or less show me which neuronal circuits in the brain are those that make up the self and you've just waved the question off. And you wonder why I accuse you of handwaving?

"Attempting to refute" lol, no, I'm asking if you have anything to add, from anywhere. I don't beat around the bush, I don't blather on about ancillary points. Is there a ghost in the machine? Simple question, simple answers. The thing that we refer to as "self" is understood to be an effect of the brain. Unless you disagree. If so, I'm dying to hear why. The idea is the machine, electrical impulses, chemical reactions. Arguments are unconvincing to me in the face of evidence. That you feel this is handwaving is unconvincing to me, in the face of evidence. What is it that you want, a statement of complete knowledge? We don't have it, but what we do have remains. That would be, again, in case I was unclear, evidence. Your incinerated planet argument, is again, unconvincing to me, as is what you or any buddhist would contend.

A single disembodied consciousness would suffice. A single "idea" not found directly connected to the varying functions the brain performs.

(March 15, 2012 at 12:34 am)Rhythm Wrote: "Attempting to refute" lol, no, I'm asking if you have anything to add, from anywhere. I don't beat around the bush, I don't blather on about ancillary points. Is there a ghost in the machine? Simple question, simple answers. The thing that we refer to as "self" is understood to be an effect of the brain. Unless you disagree. If so, I'm dying to hear why. The idea is the machine, electrical impulses, chemical reactions. Arguments are unconvincing to me in the face of evidence. That you feel this is handwaving is unconvincing to me, in the face of evidence. What is it that you want, a statement of complete knowledge? We don't have it, but what we do have remains. That would be, again, in case I was unclear, evidence.

Something to add? No, still you misunderstand, either because you don't read, don't read well, or choose not to. It's not that I have something to add, it's that I have something to subtract. You claim that the self is an effect of the brain, specify what the effect is, or remove the undefined term. Heat is an effect of the brain, but you would not say that the heat given off is the self. Yet still you refuse to specify what your meaning is. Failing that, I can only conclude that everything you say about the self is meaningless. And there is no amount of evidence that can demonstrate the truth of a meaningless statement. Period. So your claim of evidence is a lie and a boast that you can't fulfill.

(Oh, and since you saw fit to assess my conduct by implying that I "beat around the bush" and "blather on about ancillary points", let me return the favor and claim that I am a careful reader of texts, unlike some people who apparently suffer problems with basic reading comprehension, or are otherwise defective either in specific competence, or lacking in general intellect. Isn't this fun — and you said you don't blather on about ancillary points; girlfriend, all your blather has been about ancillary points because of your incompetent and negligent reading of both my texts and cognitive science proper.)

You mean things that might be found in journals like these?

http://cognitivesciencesociety.org/journal_csj.html
http://www.jneurosci.org/

But perhaps there might be something more approachable, a text that might be used in an introductory course...hmn...

http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~ashas/Cog...apter1.pdf

(A fun excerpt, no farther than the first few pages, btw. Bolding is mine.)


Fuck these guys at Stanford and their textbooks though, what would they know, you and some buddhists contend otherwise. Right?

But perhaps we could begin our search more generally, and crawl around with whatever interests us at any given moment in search of this evidence. I like the references and links Wikipedia is so often full of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science

So, again, we are an effect of our brains. It is not some "thing" inside our brain. You demand complete knowledge, which we do not have, about a very, very large and complicated subject. Perhaps you should pick something to focus on, some particular thing which you take issue with, maybe explain why, offer an alternative, provide some evidence. There's probably a nobel prize in it for you. Tell me all about "cognitive science proper", how you've got it right, and these guys have it wrong.

And yes, you beat around the bush and blather on about ancillary points, interjecting your notions of where materialists handwave this or that, attempting to hide their ignorance. Reread the thread title, Mr. "Incompetent and Negligent Reading". I understand how we got here though. If we don't argue against our understanding of the self, free will (and a whole host of other things) become shaky positions. Something about materialism really irks you, and you feel the need to express it. It wouldn't bother me so much if you didn't stress your knowledge of cognitive science by contradiction to what cognitive science has to say on the subject.

By the by, I know very little other than what is presented in the text I linked above, and most of that I've either forgotten or never learned. So how is it, precisely, that I managed to get something as simple as "The brain gives rise to the mind, the mind is not some thing hiding inside the brain" right and you did not? How much could you possibly know about the subject starting from that point? How could any argument that begins by stating the direct opposite have any merit whatsoever? But hell, that text is 6 years old, so maybe we've had a revolutionary breakthrough since I last had to pass a test. Maybe they did find a ghost in the machine after all. Or maybe, you aren't even up to date on 6 year old information?

Perhaps if you won't take my word for it, you'll accept the word of noted cognitive scientist . She wrote this in 1986, but I don't believe anything has changed. (But you're welcome to correct her if it has.) Pay attention to the bolded part at the bottom.

Quote:Until much more is known about the mind-brain, these questions will have to wait for an answer, tantalizing though they may be. As things stand, the notions of a center of consciousness, or a center of control, let alone "mind," "self," "person," and "soul," are theoretically so ill defined that we are at a loss to know how to count such things. In the absence of a psychological and neuroscientific theory concerning cognition, consciousness, attention, and so on, counting centers of consciousness and the like is essentially a guess-and-by-golly affair.

Until we know what we are counting, we cannot begin to count — and we cannot even say with much confidence that we have one of whatever it is that split-brain subjects seem to have two of. It is like trying to count blood types before there was a theory about the constituents of blood and how they differed from organism to organism, or like trying before Cantor to decide whether there was more than one infinite set; without a sound set theory, it was like clawing at the air. To the amusement of future historians, current debates on the number of selves in split-brain subjects may be seen as akin to nineteenth-century debates in biology over whether each organism or organism-part had its own vital spirit, and over what happens to the vital spirit of a bisected worm whose parts squirm off in separate directions to begin lives of their own. What I find especially important in the split-brain results is the suggestion that our familiar conceptions, such as "center of consciousness" and "self," do not have the empirical integrity they are often assumed to have. (For more discussion on these questions, see Patricia S. Churchland 1983, Dennett 1978b, 1979, Griffin 1984, and the commentaries on Puccetti 1981.)

— Neurophilosophy: Toward A Unified Science Of The Mind/Brain, p. 182, , 1986-1995 (my copy is 1995)

Bold and underlining added. I doubt I have read this since before 2000, so I'm not claiming intimate familiarity with her text.

(Oh, and you're equivocating again. The question is not is the brain the mind, the question was what is the "I" or the self. I realize you have some comprehension problems, but do try to keep it straight, please?)

Again, you're assuming that there is more to the self than the mind, I am not (and that's the woo..btw. I'll just keep repeating this until it sinks in, we explain the unknown by means of the known). The reason that I am not, is that everything associated with the self seems inextricably bound to the mind. Inextricably bound to the functions which it accomplishes, and this mind is inextricably bound to the brain. There is no other "I" generating apparatus in sight, and the brain, and by extensions it's effect (the mind), very much appear to be more than capable. LOL, Neurophilosophy, try neuroscience. Why are you sourcing your science from a philosopher Apo? My problem is not one of comprehension, it is one of being unwilling to make additional assumptions where I need not make them. Some people don't consider that much of a problem at all. If you're going to respond to the publication I linked you with a older publication, I'll refer you to cave drawings which handle the subject of self in my next response, maybe they're even more informed?

Split brain, btw, is what led us to conclude that the right hemisphere was the one involved in generating "self-awareness". By the by,

"Churchland has focused on the interface between neuroscience and philosophy. According to her, philosophers are increasingly realizing that to understand the mind one must understand the brain. She is associated with a school of thought called eliminative materialism , which argues that commonsense, immediately intuitive, or "folk psychological" concepts such as thought, free will, and consciousness will likely need to be revised in a physically reductionistic way as neuroscientists discover more about the nature of brain function."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Churchland

Well I'll be damned, looks like I agree with her completely. Godamned materialists everywhere all of a sudden.

"Some eliminativists argue that no coherent neural basis will be found for many everyday psychological concepts such as belief or desire, since they are poorly defined. Rather, they argue that psychological concepts of behaviour and experience should be judged by how well they reduce to the biological level."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

Since you're keen on subtracting things, and you're keen on Mrs Chruchland here, understand that she might just subtract your "self" as folk psychology. Of course I couldn't care less what she subtracts unless she has evidence.