Some components of human cognition are voluntary and some involuntary. The visual cortex registering the border of a shape is involuntary. An internal monologue is involuntary but can be deliberately modified. Reasoning through a philosophical problem is quite voluntary but involves involuntary aspects as well. Many cognitive processes have conventionally free elements, but moreso unfree elements which subjugate our self-identified wills. — Enrique

100% agree, no issues here.

So human will is not the sum total of all brain processes, and many involuntary features of cognition that reside beyond our wills aren't what common sense labels as thought or action. I think common sense terms are essentially being redefined, which could lead to confusion. Basically, some elaboration will be necessary for your approach to work. — Enrique

The issue I take with this, is that, if you review the term 'will' in all of its various modern and historical definitions, you'll notice that all human behaviors are encompassed by it, either involuntary or voluntary. Free Will and Will are similar concepts, but one implies what the other does not, in this case complete independence. If the behaviors that can be voluntary are done through neural processes of the brain, which also handles the involuntary processes, then it stands to reason, whether free or unfree, 'will' is simply that expression of thought and behavior, both voluntary and involuntary. Right, like it isn't some mystical you apart from the brain doing it, because if we provide trauma to the brain we lose those faculties in accordance with the functions of the damaged structures. And as you said, the voluntary aspects are replrete with many involuntary aspects. Seems to me they all come from the same place, through the same processes, and are even expressed in the same ways (thought and action), it's just some of those ways are covered by the part of the brain the provides executive function. What do you think?

Some kind of elaboration along those lines is adequate I think. Amazing to realize neuroscience is so nascent that the textbook meanings of "thought" and "action" will be completely different in a hundred years.

Some kind of elaboration along those lines is adequate I think. Amazing to realize neuroscience is so nascent that the textbook meanings of "thought" and "action" will be completely different in a hundred years. — Enrique

An absolutely excellent point. I literally just jotted that down in my private writings last night. I'm working on an epistemology of ethics that opens with where such a practice begins, that being with consciousness. So, I had to explore a little bit regarding what we know and how long it's been going on. I found an awesome journal two nights ago on consciousness that blew me away. Not because it was new to me as a thought, but because it took until 2021 to elaborate on in the form of a published journal in neuroscience. Check it out if you get a chance. Basic gist, we've been wrong about consciousness for years. Oddly, this was already my idea of consciousness before I read it; hope you like it, share thoughts if you're up for it:


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351365249_WHAT_PRODUCES_CONSCIOUSNESS?_iepl%5BgeneralViewId%5D=lhn7ZjibDGnkfzBkMEcxCBfaDEZU94efInAd&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=searchReact&_iepl%5BviewId%5D=6hj7dd19J1eHUhdAIOwfuUSjvB5fcDpSFdzK&_iepl%5BsearchType%5D=publication&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BcountLessEqual20%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BinteractedWithPosition3%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BwithoutEnrichment%5D=1&_iepl%5Bposition%5D=3&_iepl%5BrgKey%5D=PB%3A351365249&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A351365249&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle

Basic gist, we've been wrong about consciousness for years. Oddly, this was already my idea of consciousness before I read it; hope you like it, share thoughts if you're up for it — Garrett Travers

I agree that the material basis of paranormal intuition is a great mystery, and I think it will be solved when physics has advanced far enough to fashion a model of matter's supradimensional structure along with how energy flows through it. Could causality proceed no faster than the speed of light and time travel by filling a supradimensional hyperspace of which thermodynamic substance is only the veneer or a fractional component? How would this change the way we conceptualize distance? What are the contents of hyperspace, how does it correlate with electromagnetism and interact with the brain? Might this space be populated by objects and organisms that transcend sense-perception and our current models? What kind of instruments would enable scientists to objectively inspect this paranormal realm and perhaps ecosystem if it indeed exists?

I agree that the material basis of paranormal intuition is a great mystery, and I think it will be solved when physics has advanced far enough to fashion a model of matter's supradimensional structure along with how energy flows through it. Could causality proceed no faster than the speed of light and time travel by filling a supradimensional hyperspace of which thermodynamic substance is only the veneer or a fractional component? How would this change the way we conceptualize distance? What are the contents of hyperspace, how does it correlate with electromagnetism and interact with the brain? Might this space be populated by entirely spiritual objects and organisms that transcend sense-perception and our current models? What kind of instruments would enable scientists to objectively inspect this paranormal realm and perhaps ecosystem if it indeed exists? — Enrique

Pretty cool concepts. However, interesting abstractions compared to what the data to this point seem to suggest is hard for me to move beyond, especially dealing with that level of abstraction. For example, if we were to discover objects in that domain, wouldn't they stop being spiritual and immediately become natural, considering the fact that we know there's no evidence for anything not natural by definition? Who knows? What that journal highlights is how unclear scientists have been all this time on the nature of consciousness, which strikes me as strange because I've regarded consciousness as a neural function that is emitted, or generated as a result of all the functions of the brain working as a synchronized catena of systems. Seems pretty clear to me, given the data besides. But, anyway. Thought you'd like that.

I've regarded consciousness as a neural function that is emitted, or generated as a result of all the functions of the brain working as a synchronized catena of systems. — Garrett Travers

Do you think mental states are identical to brain states? Or mental states are caused by physical states?

Do you think mental states are identical to brain states? Or mental states are caused by physical states? — RogueAI

All states, short of illnesses of certain types, are produced by the brain. Mental states are a result of neural activity in association with chemicals that are part of the intrinsic function of the brain.

All states, short of illnesses of certain types, are produced by the brain. Mental states are a result of neural activity in association with chemicals that are part of the intrinsic function of the brain. — Garrett Travers

But are mental states identical to brain states? It sounds like you're saying mental states are caused by brain states.

But are mental states identical to brain states? It sounds like you're saying mental states are caused by brain states. — RogueAI

That is correct. The word "identical" doesn't really have a place here, not really applicable. The brain creates the states, just as it does everything for you. There's is no state without the brain. It's like asking if a sight and visual perception are identical, doesn't really work.

The brain creates the states, ... — Garrett Travers

But the question is, what is a brain? Does a jellyfish have a brain? Does a jellyfish have mental states? Is an electronic brain a brain? Does your computer have mental states?

Nothing is explained.

How does the brain cause mental states? Why is consciousness only associated with some parts of the brain? Would something that's functionally equivalent to a brain also be conscious? What about a simulated brain?

But the question is, what is a brain? Does a jellyfish have a brain? Does a jellyfish have mental states? Is an electronic brain a brain? Does your computer have mental states?

Nothing is explained. — SolarWind

That actually is not the question. The question is does the brain do this? The answer is yes. The brain governs all human activity. As far as how, that is still being investigated. Primarily through a complex, multistructural, system of chemical exchanges, electrical and electromagnetic interactions across 80 billion neurons, specialized by 3.5 billion years of evolution. As far as computers are concerned, the most advanced computer ever made by Man pales in comparison to the complexity of even a single structure of the brain. A simulated brain is a concept that I don't even know about.

How does the brain cause mental states? Why is consciousness only associated with some parts of the brain? Would something that's functionally equivalent to a brain also be conscious? What about a simulated brain? — RogueAI

Through chemical interactions across 80 billion neurons. Consciousness is actually NOT only associated with some parts of the brain, but all of them working in unison. If it were truley functionally equivalent in reality, yes.

All states, short of illnesses of certain types, are produced by the brain. Mental states are a result of neural activity in association with chemicals that are part of the intrinsic function of the brain. — Garrett Travers

You seem to be talking about causation where the brain causes mental states. How exactly does a physical brain produce the mental state of visual depth? When I view the world, I don't experience the neural signals and chemical interactions inside of my brain that I see when looking at other people's mental states. I experience a sensory model of the world. So any good theory needs to explain how it is that I experience my mental states so differently than I experience other people's mental states (as brains).

Through chemical interactions across 80 billion neurons. — Garrett Travers

How does that work? Why do chemical interactions across 80 billion neurons produce consciousness, but chemical reactions in other organs don't? What is so special about neurons? Would a brain with 70 billion neurons produce consciousness? 7 billion? 7 thousand?

Consciousness is actually NOT only associated with some parts of the brain, but all of them working in unison.

But damage to the brain (e.g., minor stroke) doesn't always result in a change in consciousness. And some damage to the brain causes extreme changes in consciousness. Some parts of the brain are clearly more involved in consciousness than others. And some brain activity is completely unconscious. Why is that?

If it were truley functionally equivalent in reality, yes.

So suppose we set up a huge system of pumps, valves, and running water and it was functionally equivalent to a working brain, and we ran it for a second. Would it be conscious? If so, how is that not magical thinking?

What about a simulation of a working brain? Would that be conscious? Can computers be conscious? Are any computers today conscious? How would you test for computer consciousness?

You seem to be talking about causation where the brain causes mental states. How exactly does a physical brain produce the mental state of visual depth? When I view the world, I don't experience the neural signals and chemical interactions inside of my brain that I see when looking at other people's mental states. I experience a sensory model of the world. So any good theory needs to explain how it is that I experience my mental states so differently than I experience other people's mental states (as brains). — Harry Hindu

You don't experience other people's mental states. You are confined to the experience of your brain. You absolutely are experiencing those neural signals and chemical interactions, that's what allows you to see. How does the brain do this producing of mental states? Through many, many complex processes. You need to familiarize yourself with modern neuroscience. The explanations you seek are far too complex to put in a forum. There are hundreds of research papers published every year on this topic, and every detail they've discovered that goes into the processes.

How does that work? Why do chemical interactions across 80 billion neurons produce consciousness, but chemical reactions in other organs don't? What is so special about neurons? Would a brain with 70 billion neurons produce consciousness? 7 billion? 7 thousand? — RogueAI

How it works was told to you. Why it works, is an anthropomorphization of reality. There is no why, there is only how. Organs are themselves specialized structures not designed to produce such activity. The way those organs were specialized through genetic information exchange and adaptation, is the same process by which the brain is specialized through genetic information exchange and adaptation. The result of billions of years of chemical interactions.

As far as these questions: What is so special about neurons? Would a brain with 70 billion neurons produce consciousness? 7 billion? 7 thousand?

What's not special about neurons? What brain has only 70 billion? Do they have consciousness? These are questions for you to answer with the info you've been given, and the info broadly available to you. I'm a philosopher, in particular an ethicist, not a neuroscientist. You're asking the wrong person.

I have read many papers on the topic, but none of them address the question I asked you. If you could direct me to some paper that does, I'd be grateful.

Even with that said, it seems like you're missing my point or are a p-zombie.

1. If you dont experience other people's mental states then how do you know about them? What form does your knowledge of other people's mental states take?

2. I am not confined to my experience of my brain. Like I said, I don't experience my brain. I experience a sensory model of the world. I experience brains when looking at other people's mental states.

Maybe it would help if you define "experience".

1. If you dont experience other people's mental states then how do you know about them? What form does your knowledge of other people's mental states take? — Harry Hindu

I don't know about them. Other people have to tell me about them. Same as everyone.

I am not confined to my experience of my brain. Like I said, I don't experience my brain. I experience a sensory model of the world. I experience brains when looking at other people's mental states. — Harry Hindu

This is mystical woo. You only ever experience what your brain produces for you as experience. Absolutely nothing else, ever. This sensory model of the world is actually data accrued and organized by the brain it recieved from the world. And no, you don't look at other people's mental states, that would be telepathic. What you experience is the presence of other humans WITH mental states just like yours, but to which each is exclusively bound to, respectively.

Experience: practical contact with and observation of facts or events.

This is not something applicable between mental states. This is the sensory data recieved by the brain to create that model of the world of yours.

How it works was told to you. Why it works, is an anthropomorphization of reality. There is no why, there is only how. Organs are themselves specialized structures not designed to produce such activity. The way those organs were specialized through genetic information exchange and adaptation, is the same process by which the brain is specialized through genetic information exchange and adaptation. The result of billions of years of chemical interactions.

As far as these questions: What is so special about neurons? Would a brain with 70 billion neurons produce consciousness? 7 billion? 7 thousand?

What's not special about neurons? What brain has only 70 billion? Do they have consciousness? These are questions for you to answer with the info you've been given, and the info broadly available to you. I'm a philosopher, in particular an ethicist, not a neuroscientist. You're asking the wrong person. — Garrett Travers

Let's focus on computers. Would a computer running a simulation of a working brain be conscious? Are computers ever going to be conscious? Are any computers now conscious? How would you test for computer consciousness?

Let's focus on computers. Would a computer running a simulation of a working brain be conscious? — RogueAI

Simulation and consciousness are mutually exclusive terms.

Are computers ever going to be conscious? — RogueAI

Not anytime soon, but possibly.

Are any computers now conscious? — RogueAI

No.

How would you test for computer consciousness? — RogueAI

Independent concept generation for sole the purpose of behavioral refinement in accordance with the inviolable conditions of the material reality within which they were suspended, or as we call in the philosophical world, Ethics. However, if we created a computer that could independently recognize itself as sparate from other entities of action, I'd be willing to call that consciousness.

Are computers ever going to be conscious?
— RogueAI

Not anytime soon, but possibly. — Garrett Travers

So you believe computer consciousness is possible. That is to say that it is possible that a collection of electronic switches is conscious. Is that correct?

So you believe computer consciousness is possible. — RogueAI

So, yes, scientists have determined that it's possible, but would take the kind of production that is beyond human capacity right now.

That is to say that it is possible that a collection of electronic switches is conscious. — RogueAI

........ No. That's not what I'm saying. Not in any conceivable manner could I possibly have been misconstrued to have said such a thing.

Spiritual energy is derived from the energy of the body, which is always extant, as the contemporary idea of time and entropy are an illusion.

No. That's not what I'm saying. Not in any conceivable manner could I possibly have been misconstrued to have said such a thing. — Garrett Travers

A computer is not a collection of electronic switches?

A computer is not a collection of electronic switches? — RogueAI

Not in any conceivable way. To even suggest as much means that you have simply never been exposed to the inside of a computer chassis. No kidding.

What do you mean by "computer"?

What do you mean by "computer"? — RogueAI

Not that I brought up computers, or anything, but the definition of the word will do just fine: an electronic device for storing and processing data, typically in binary form, according to instructions given to it in a variable program.

You know, not switches and stuff.

You know, not switches and stuff. — Garrett Travers

Transistors?

Transistors? — RogueAI

Am I really supposed to be taking this line of inquiry seriously? Do you have a damn point about material reality to make, or are you going to continue to demostrate your lack of knowledge in association with computational electronics?