Neuroscience and free will

Because meaning is subjective.

Objective meaning is a fundamental part of our informational environment.  I strongly disagree that meaning is (just) subjective.

The reason I'm not too worried about the definition of causality is that I'm willing to suspend the assumption that every decision is deterministic and/or random. Then I simply ask for a hand-waving description of the indeterministic yet specific decision-making method. If the excuse for not producing this description is that causality is poorly defined, then I agree that this conversation is hopeless.

 
Interestingly, I had a dream last night where I saw, in symbolic form, the answer to your question. Unfortunately, I am travelling and did not have a paper and pen at my bedside (like I do at home) to write down what I saw, upon awakening. 

Sorry.

Linda

Objective meaning is a fundamental part of our informational environment.  I strongly disagree that meaning is (just) subjective.

Again, if you would only use plain English, more of us might be able to grasp what you mean. I have no idea what you mean by our "informational environment". My first thought was that perhaps you are talking about the use of meaning as in a dictionary definition. Is that what you mean by objective? If so, then that isn't really what this discussion is about. We are talking about meaning arising from feelings which enable (or prompt) us to make choices (free will). 

There are, of course, other senses of the word "meaning" such as "definition" (which is actually listed as a synonym) which are clearly more objective but not really relevant to the discussion. On looking up synonyms, I could also list: "sense", "spirit", "understanding" and "value" which could all be said to be subjective and human rather than objective and fixed (determined).

Again, if you would only use plain English, more of us might be able to grasp what you mean. I have no idea what you mean by our "informational environment". My first thought was that perhaps you are talking about the use of meaning as in a dictionary definition. Is that what you mean by objective? If so, then that isn't really what this discussion is about. We are talking about meaning arising from feelings which enable (or prompt) us to make choices (free will). 

There are, of course, other senses of the word "meaning" such as "definition" (which is actually listed as a synonym) which are clearly more objective but not really relevant to the discussion. On looking up synonyms, I could also list: "sense", "spirit", "understanding" and "value" which could all be said to be subjective and human rather than objective and fixed (determined).

Informational environment is a concept no different than the term physical environment.  It has a formal definition.

 information environment. The aggregate of individuals, organizations, or systems that collect, process, or disseminate information; also included is the information itself. See also information system.

The term to describe the study of objective meaning, in linguistics is called Semantics.

Luciano Floridi uses the term infospace with a slightly different meaning. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/...s&lang=en&

 The Fourth Revolution

How the infosphere is reshaping human reality
Luciano Floridi

• Considers the influence information and communication technologies (ICTs) are having on our world
  
  
  
• Describes some of the latest developments in ICTs and their use in a range of fields
  
  
  
• Argues that ICTs have become environmental forces that create and transform our realities
  
  
  
• Explores the impact of ICTs in a range of areas, from education and scientific research to social interaction, and even war
  

Informational environment is a concept no different than the term physical environment.  It has a formal definition.


The term to describe the study of objective meaning, in linguistics is called Semantics.

Luciano Floridi uses the term infospace with a slightly different meaning. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/...s&lang=en&

The point is that you can't expect the rest of us to share your obsession with information science and be familiar with its jargon they way you are. A formal definition is not necessarily plain English, it may be only familiar to those with a specific and focused interest, such as yourself. Anyhow, this is sidetracking into semantics.

The point is that you can't expect the rest of us to share your obsession with information science and be familiar with its jargon they way you are. A formal definition is not necessarily plain English, it may be only familiar to those with a specific and focused interest, such as yourself. Anyhow, this is sidetracking into semantics.

The subject of this website's discussions are targeted at parsing Psi.   Is Psi physically measured (a pound of ESP) or is it measured as verdical information?

To me - to discuss a subject it is appropriate to speak about objective standards and formal definitions, which describe the substances and processes under observation.

If Psi is an information based phenomena - why do you want to talk in other terms, but those that address the subject?

...................................................................
Instead of imagining the world as composed of rocks or billiard balls, The image I envision is a sponge floating on the surface of water. The solid parts of the sponge are structured objective materialistic reality. The water is the "Abyss" of uncertainty and Free Will and prime cause and it interpenetrates the structures of reality at the boundaries. The mind is composed of mechanistic processes which are rooted in ambiguity and so are constantly dipping in and out of the waters of the Abyss to create novelty.

You apparently visualize the mind as being primarily composed of mechanistic processes (presumably the information processing of its vast and complicated structure of mainly neural nets).

How does this jibe with the extensive veridical NDEs and other empirical evidence which indicates that the human mind is not tied to and totally a function of, brain structures. NDEers report (along with veridical data) a strong sense of coherent consciousness even more clear than normal in-the-body consciousness, even though their brains are mostly shut down. This sense and experience of super-clear coherent consciousness seems to be located in some sort of center of consciousness separated from the physical body that exists in some sort of realm independent of the material world. 

And there is the so-called "hard problem" of mind science, which is the problem that since the basic properties of mind such as subjective awareness, perception and agency (for example qualia) are in an entirely different and higher existential category than mechanism and its workings, mind can't be mechanism or its workings, and remains a mystery.  

These factors seem to indicate that the essence of the mind is non-material and presumably not visualizable as a mechanism.

Because meaning is subjective. Why not use real examples instead of meaningless tokens?

My example: what does it mean to me to be with my granddaughter? There's something more than proximity. There's something more than facial recognition. There's something more than common genes. Something that can't be explained by mechanism.

I don't see why it can't be explained by mechanism. Perhaps it is just hundreds of associations.

Free will? Do I feel like spending the day with my family or spending it watching my favourite team play sport? My choice may be emotional or sentimental. It may involve feelings of love or loyalty or guilt. How does that compute? What's the algorithm for sentiment? How does a NAND gate get a computer to feel empathy?

I don't know how to compute it. But I also don't know how to explain it any other way.

~~ Paul

You apparently visualize the mind as being primarily composed of mechanistic processes (presumably the information processing of its vast and complicated structure of mainly neural nets).

How does this jibe with the extensive veridical NDEs and other empirical evidence which indicates that the human mind is not tied to and totally a function of, brain structures. NDEers report (along with veridical data) a strong sense of coherent consciousness even more clear than normal in-the-body consciousness, even though their brains are mostly shut down. This sense and experience of super-clear coherent consciousness seems to be located in some sort of center of consciousness separated from the physical body that exists in some sort of realm independent of the material world. 

And there is the so-called "hard problem" of mind science, which is the problem that since the basic properties of mind such as subjective awareness, perception and agency (for example qualia) are in an entirely different and higher existential category than mechanism and its workings, mind can't be mechanism or its workings, and remains a mystery.  

These factors seem to indicate that the essence of the mind is non-material and presumably not visualizable as a mechanism.

I accept most NDEs and other anomalous perceptions as being real and veridical and it doesn't conflict with my model.

Anytime something repeats reliably enough to be predictable we assign words to it that are linked to our sensory experience of things that we cannot physically change... but materialists have forgotten that this is a metaphor and not an ontological "solid" truth. It cannot be con-"firmed" due to the limits of induction as well as the subjective component required for all pattern creation/recognition. The epistemological toolkit of science requires things to be repeatable and testable. It is a pattern finder/maker. So it is inherently blind to true novelty or the notion of a prime cause or a black swan that induction failed to observe.

So... having clarified that all structures of knowledge are built on nothing... we nevertheless find ourselves in a place where it is useful to use induction and consider regular patterns to be more or less solid and reliable. So any set of repeatable predictable actions we can call a mechanism. The brain has plenty of these. If there is a realm outside of this one - the spirit realm or immaterial realm - if there is any regularity to it at all, we can also use the same words evoking feelings of solidity and repeatability to describe it... so if it is possible to study the "spirit world" with the toolkit of science then there are mechanisms and objective truths and "material" there as well.

The hard problem goes away entirely if we stop seeing the world as composed of hard things. It goes away if we instead see the world as composed of patterns. Patterns require subjectivity and objectivity to exist. There is no pattern without objective dimensions of similarity and there is no pattern without subjective arbitrary assignation of similarity thresholds to serve as boundaries around repeated patterns. 

Regarding non-local or anomalous perceptions in OBEs or NDEs...
We can break reality down on any dimension of similarity/difference. Locality is similarity along spatial dimensions. The 5 ordinary senses and Newtonian physics clearly require coincidence of locality for normal operation, but there is no reason to assume that all interactions must occur where there is a coincidence of locality. There are also coincidences along other dimensions of similarity which produce interactions despite a lack of coincidence in space or time. We use the word "field" to describe interactions that are based on degree of similarity in locality, so why not apply the same word to other dimensions of similarity? As an analogy, we've all seen the metal filings line up around field lines of a magnet... perhaps certain molecules in the body which are subject to quantum effects (like the microtubules or the dipole in the water molecule) can align themselves when in the presence of a "field" along some other non-local dimension of similarity.

Regarding the soul...
An individual life can be thought of as the building of patterns. For these patterns to exist "objectively" somewhere or somewhen else doesn't seem like a stretch. Every moment we've ever lived is probably still "now" somewhere else in the universe. How long does the memory go on? If it is eternal then we seem to be back to the block universe. But if the universe eventually forgets and creates something new, maybe not...

Perhaps the universe itself is created with a neural network... maybe it's neural networks all the way down.

So... having clarified that all structures of knowledge are built on nothing... we nevertheless find ourselves in a place where it is useful to use induction and consider regular patterns to be more or less solid and reliable. So any set of repeatable predictable actions we can call a mechanism. The brain has plenty of these. If there is a realm outside of this one - the spirit realm or immaterial realm - if there is any regularity to it at all, we can also use the same words evoking feelings of solidity and repeatability to describe it... so if it is possible to study the "spirit world" with the toolkit of science then there are mechanisms and objective truths and "material" there as well.

Perhaps the "spirit world" is deterministic and composed of mechanisms that can be studied quasi-scientifically, but through these arguments we find that its spirit inhabitants must have an inner nature that is not limited to either randomness or causal determinism, and is therefore not analyzable by the methods of science.

"The hard problem goes away entirely if we stop seeing the world as composed of hard things. It goes away if we instead see the world as composed of patterns. Patterns require subjectivity and objectivity to exist. There is no pattern without objective dimensions of similarity and there is no pattern without subjective arbitrary assignation of similarity thresholds to serve as boundaries around repeated patterns."
............................
Regarding the soul...
An individual life can be thought of as the building of patterns. For these patterns to exist "objectively" somewhere or somewhen else doesn't seem like a stretch. Every moment we've ever lived is probably still "now" somewhere else in the universe. How long does the memory go on? If it is eternal then we seem to be back to the block universe. But if the universe eventually forgets and creates something new, maybe not...

Perhaps the universe itself is created with a neural network... maybe it's neural networks all the way down.

I don't see how this does away with the Hard Problem. This argument seems to just beg the question by at the beginning assuming something called a subjective viewpoint which is what can assign meaning to patterns. Patterns are still formed in material things and patterns are still in a different existential category from mental phenomena such as subjective awareness and perception and agency. And such purely mental phenomena are still absolutely needed to originate the meaning-filled physical patterns in the world (assuming we a talking about complex specified information). 

I like your notion that there is an indefinable "prime cause" underlying reality, which I interpret to be the real essence of consciousness and mental phenomena.    

Regarding non-local or anomalous perceptions in OBEs or NDEs...
We can break reality down on any dimension of similarity/difference. Locality is similarity along spatial dimensions. The 5 ordinary senses and Newtonian physics clearly require coincidence of locality for normal operation, but there is no reason to assume that all interactions must occur where there is a coincidence of locality. There are also coincidences along other dimensions of similarity which produce interactions despite a lack of coincidence in space or time. We use the word "field" to describe interactions that are based on degree of similarity in locality, so why not apply the same word to other dimensions of similarity? As an analogy, we've all seen the metal filings line up around field lines of a magnet... perhaps certain molecules in the body which are subject to quantum effects (like the microtubules or the dipole in the water molecule) can align themselves when in the presence of a "field" along some other non-local dimension of similarity.

This is reminiscent of the Penrose/Hameroff microtubule theory. It has two basic problems - the "Hard Problem", and the fact that telepathy and other "anomalous psi perceptions" have been shown not to be subject to either the inverse square law of attenuation by distance or metal shielding, and are therefore apparently not field effects, certainly not of any fields known to physics.