Originally posted by twhitehead ...
They [the offered definitions for 'volition'] suggest that your 'will' is responsible for certain outcomes. This is hardly anything but blatantly obvious. ...
Then you clearly are using some definition for the term, since you find it 'blatantly obvious' that your 'will' is responsible for 'certain outcomes'. What is your definition?
Originally posted by apathist Then you clearly are using some definition for the term, since you find it 'blatantly obvious' that your 'will' is responsible for 'certain outcomes'. What is your definition?
I used the same definitions as you did, as I clearly indicated in my post.
If the 'will' is defined as the higher order brain function that makes executive decisions then it stands to reason that those executive decisions are made by the will.
But none of that shows that the higher order brain functions exclusively control lower order brain functions and take no input from them as you suggest by saying it is a 'top down' system. That is certainly not demonstrated by anything that has been said in the article in the OP or in this thread.
Further, it can be easily demonstrated that many decisions that the brain makes are not made consciously and thus would not fit the definition of volition being a concious choice. So if I asked you to name two countries that start with the letter 'c', the main reasons for your final answers would have little to do with volition.
Originally posted by twhitehead I would think the tank problem is something that could actually be tested with computers. ie a large number of tests could be run to see how closely predictions match reality.
I just remembered! I have already done this with a computer program for the tank problem! I did this when I was not so sure that my mathematical proof was valid (initially it was a bit incomplete but it is complete now ) and did it using a numerical method with a large number of 'tests' just to see if it was at least in the right ballpark. What I observed was a mathematical convergence on the probabilities that I predict BUT a mathematical divergence on what the conventional equation predicts thus 'proof' of sorts that my equation is right and theirs is wrong.
After publication of my book, I now plan to give away my computer program over the internet for free to all (it is written in java so it should run on any PC ) so anyone who doubts my claim would see for themselves it is correct (I will also show them the source code so that the can also scrutinize that as well as the output from the program runs ) although I cannot imagine how a totally rational person could doubt it if he sees my mathematical proof and agrees it is definitely valid.
I should also mention in my book I have such a program that I will give for free to all over the net that vindicates my claim and describe the numerical method that program uses. I should also show actual examples of the input and output of the program in my book that shows examples of mathematical convergence on the probabilities that I predict BUT a mathematical divergence on what the conventional equation predicts; this will surely leave readers with vary little doubt of the validity of my claim!
Originally posted by twhitehead..
But none of that shows that the higher order brain functions exclusively control lower order brain functions and take no input from them as you suggest by saying it is a 'top down' system. ...
I had no idea that if a system affects its parts then those parts cannot affect the system. I still don't.
Originally posted by twhitehead Yet the phrase 'top-down causation' implies that is the case.
Top-down causation refers to the effects on components of organized systems that cannot be fully analyzed in terms of component-level behavior but instead requires reference to the higher-level system itself. (from http://humbleapproach.templeton.org/Top_Down_Causation/)
Notice that top-down causation does not imply that bottom-up causation does not also occur.
Originally posted by apathist Top-down causation refers to the effects on components of organized systems that cannot be fully analyzed in terms of component-level behavior but instead requires reference to the higher-level system itself. (from http://humbleapproach.templeton.org/Top_Down_Causation/)
Notice that top-down causation does not imply that bottom-up causation does not also occur.
In that case, I have no issue with it. It is clear to me that the brain is information based but also strongly affected by the physical environment (hormones, and other such effects).
It is still not clear to me what you view as free will or why you think determinism is related to it. A top-down system as you describe above can be entirely deterministic.
It is also not clear what value you see in demonstrating that free will exists (as that appears to be your main interest in the thread).
Originally posted by apathist Top-down causation refers to the effects on components of organized systems that cannot be fully analyzed in terms of component-level behavior but instead requires reference to the higher-level system itself. (from http://humbleapproach.templeton.org/Top_Down_Causation/)
Notice that top-down causation does not imply that bottom-up causation does not also occur.
Reading the definition in that link of top-down causation makes me suspicious of it. Just as you stated it, it says in that link:
"Top-down causation refers to the effects on components of organized systems that cannot be fully analyzed in terms of component-level behavior but instead requires reference to the higher-level system itself."
What aspect of "analyzed" cannot be "fully analyzed" for the effects on a component without "reference to the higher-level system itself."? Can you give a concrete example of such an effect on a component that cannot be fully analyzed in terms of its interactions with another component nor its interactions with a collection of components but only with the "higher-level system itself."
Can't the "higher-level system itself" always be described as being entirely consisting of collectively all its components and collectively all the interactions between its components? (note I see no reason why those interactions between its components cannot also be labelled as being 'components' of the whole system ). If not, why not and can you give a concrete example that shows why not.
Originally posted by humy Can't the "higher-level system itself" always be described as being entirely consisting of collectively all its components and collectively all the interactions between its components? (note I see no reason why those interactions between its components cannot also be labelled as being 'components' of the whole system ). If not, why not and give a concrete example that shows why not.
My guess would be that the definition treats information as not being part of the system.
So for example, you could analyse my computer all you want, but you would not know how it will behave after I install a program (information) that you do not have access to. The behaviour of a computer is largely driven by information rather than its physical design. So you can know how hard disks work, how memory works, how CPUs work etc but never really know what computers do or how they are useful or how they will behave with particular software until you run the whole system with such software.
Its tricky and nearly impossible to really separate information from physical structure, but easier to see the distinction with a computer where information tends to be transient electricity rather than the brain where it can be physical connections between cells.
05 Apr '16 15:531 edit
top-down causation
Back to Top