The Astonishing Hypothesis

Ahnimus

The Astonishing Hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Astonishing Hypothesis is Francis Crick's 1994 book about consciousness. The book is mostly concerned with establishing a basis for scientific study of consciousness; however, Crick places the study of consciousness within a larger social context. Human consciousness is central to human existence and so scientists find themselves approaching topics traditionally left to philosophy, and religion.

Public perceptions of science and the questions that scientists are willing to ask are strongly influenced by religion. Crick had discussed the relationship between science and religion in his earlier book What Mad Pursuit. Crick's view of this relationship was that religions can be wrong about scientific matters and that part of what science does is to confront the errors that exist within religious traditions. For example, the idea of a mechanism for the evolution of life by natural selection conflicts with some views on creation of life by divine intervention. Crick's subtitle for The Astonishing Hypothesis is The Scientific Search For The Soul. Crick argued that traditional conceptualizations of the soul as a non-material being must be replaced by a materialistic understanding of how the brain produces mind. The publicity generated by opposition to scientific ideas such as natural selection or the scientific study of the soul brings such topics into more widespread debate.

Francis Crick was one of the co-discoverers of the molecular structure of the genetic molecule, DNA. Crick served as an important theorist who helped guide the growth of molecular biology. In his later years, Crick became a theorist for neurobiology and the study of the brain.

In his book, Crick presents an idea that has great potential to provoke wide-spread public discussion and opposition. The 1990s were declared the Decade of the Brain by some administrators of science research. Within the rather small brain science community, researchers began discovering mechanisms of brain function that Crick claims can account for the human soul.

In his review of Crick's book, J. J. Hopfield (Science magazine, 4 February 1994) concluded that, "The book should be read by scientists for its eloquent attempt to put consciousness, which we so much equate with the essence of our humanity, into the realm of science."

Crick's Astonishing Hypothesis goes like this, "a person's mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them." Crick claims that scientific study of the brain during the 20th century lead to acceptance of consciousness, free will, and the human soul as subjects for scientific investigation.

Crick's controversial message, "You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" has caused some controversy over the physiological approach.

I haven't read this book, but I'm thinking about getting it. Has anyone here read this or any of Crick's books?

Vedderlution_Baby

Sounds too liberal to me!


(Man, I'm sorry. I know you're looking at this comment, hoping for an actual response regarding Crick's work, but I couldnt resist.)

deadnothingbetter

Ahnimus wrote:

The Astonishing Hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Astonishing Hypothesis is Francis Crick's 1994 book about consciousness. The book is mostly concerned with establishing a basis for scientific study of consciousness; however, Crick places the study of consciousness within a larger social context. Human consciousness is central to human existence and so scientists find themselves approaching topics traditionally left to philosophy, and religion.

Public perceptions of science and the questions that scientists are willing to ask are strongly influenced by religion. Crick had discussed the relationship between science and religion in his earlier book What Mad Pursuit. Crick's view of this relationship was that religions can be wrong about scientific matters and that part of what science does is to confront the errors that exist within religious traditions. For example, the idea of a mechanism for the evolution of life by natural selection conflicts with some views on creation of life by divine intervention. Crick's subtitle for The Astonishing Hypothesis is The Scientific Search For The Soul. Crick argued that traditional conceptualizations of the soul as a non-material being must be replaced by a materialistic understanding of how the brain produces mind. The publicity generated by opposition to scientific ideas such as natural selection or the scientific study of the soul brings such topics into more widespread debate.

Francis Crick was one of the co-discoverers of the molecular structure of the genetic molecule, DNA. Crick served as an important theorist who helped guide the growth of molecular biology. In his later years, Crick became a theorist for neurobiology and the study of the brain.

In his book, Crick presents an idea that has great potential to provoke wide-spread public discussion and opposition. The 1990s were declared the Decade of the Brain by some administrators of science research. Within the rather small brain science community, researchers began discovering mechanisms of brain function that Crick claims can account for the human soul.

In his review of Crick's book, J. J. Hopfield (Science magazine, 4 February 1994) concluded that, "The book should be read by scientists for its eloquent attempt to put consciousness, which we so much equate with the essence of our humanity, into the realm of science."

Crick's Astonishing Hypothesis goes like this, "a person's mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them." Crick claims that scientific study of the brain during the 20th century lead to acceptance of consciousness, free will, and the human soul as subjects for scientific investigation.

Crick's controversial message, "You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" has caused some controversy over the physiological approach.

I haven't read this book, but I'm thinking about getting it. Has anyone here read this or any of Crick's books?

yeah, dude, it's not too controversial to me but all of a sudden it's like we are all robots or something. it's a little weird. is crick saying that anything i do, don't do or ever will do and all the things that has ever occurred to me are all flamed by the behavior of these nerve cells of mine? hmmmm.....

but then again i'm not entirely surprised a psychologist would ever say this.

Ahnimus

deadnothingbetter wrote:

yeah, dude, it's not too controversial to me but all of a sudden it's like we are all robots or something. it's a little weird. is crick saying that anything i do, don't do or ever will do and all the things that has ever occurred to me are all flamed by the behavior of these nerve cells of mine? hmmmm.....

but then again i'm not entirely surprised a psychologist would ever say this.

Well on the topic of being a robot. Yea, that's what is being said. This book is 13 years old now, but this theory predates free-will theory. It really becomes obviously clear in neuroscience. Most if not all neuroscientists realize this to be true. Francis Crick was also a neuroscientist and he worked with other neuroscientists like Christoph Koch.

But even in philosophy or behaviorism this can be quite clear. For example; People will attribute certain things to determinism and certain other things to free-will, depending on the satisfaction they gain from it. Consider that you play a great hand of poker and are satisfied with your accomplishments, your strategy worked out great. You are praising your own doing, your own free-will for the outcome of the game. The guy who lost all of his money to you is blaming the cards, saying he got shitty hands. He is blaming that which is beyond his control, determinism. If he had won, he'd be praising himself too. Philosophically speaking. There is no denying determinism. You can't deny that many things observably affect a person's decision making, like knowledge and perception. So you must argue that there is an independent will that somehow observes over the collected data and is capable of choosing differently than another free-will. Then, if that free-will chooses differently than another free-will, what causes the variation? In order for the two free-wills to be different, something must cause them to be different. Then, it's not free. So the whole idea of free-will is impossible.

OutOfBreath

At it again, are we Ahnimus?

Peace
Dan

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

For example; People will attribute certain things to determinism and certain other things to free-will, depending on the satisfaction they gain from it. Consider that you play a great hand of poker and are satisfied with your accomplishments, your strategy worked out great. You are praising your own doing, your own free-will for the outcome of the game. The guy who lost all of his money to you is blaming the cards, saying he got shitty hands. He is blaming that which is beyond his control, determinism. If he had won, he'd be praising himself too. Philosophically speaking. There is no denying determinism. You can't deny that many things observably affect a person's decision making, like knowledge and perception. So you must argue that there is an independent will that somehow observes over the collected data and is capable of choosing differently than another free-will. Then, if that free-will chooses differently than another free-will, what causes the variation? In order for the two free-wills to be different, something must cause them to be different. Then, it's not free. So the whole idea of free-will is impossible.

Hehe...you deny free will based on a desire to recognize success??? Yet you embrace determinsm even though someone could flip your own logic on its head and simply accuse you of attempting to absolve yourself of failure. Priceless.

Ahnimus, stop looking for free-will magic. Causeless free-will does not exist. No one here is telling you it exists. Free-will has a cause: that cause is your consciousness. Your consciousness gives you the ability to think, or not to think. That is free-will. It's not magic -- get that into your head and you'll be able to better understand it. Stop looking for the alchemist's formula and stop denying the existence of gold when you can't find that formula.

Your obsession with this is comical. In the event that this world and all human behavior is completely determined, what does it even matter? I mean, when all this started you seemed to think that somehow a deterministic viewpoint would somehow make the world a better place, as if such a thing would be possible or even matter in a world whose path was already entirely determined. It's silly.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...you deny free will based on a desire to recognize success??? Yet you embrace determinsm even though someone could flip your own logic on its head and simply accuse you of attempting to absolve yourself of failure. Priceless.

Ahnimus, stop looking for free-will magic. Causeless free-will does not exist. No one here is telling you it exists. Free-will has a cause: that cause is your consciousness. Your consciousness gives you the ability to think, or not to think. That is free-will. It's not magic -- get that into your head and you'll be able to better understand it. Stop looking for the alchemist's formula and stop denying the existence of gold when you can't find that formula.

Your obsession with this is comical. In the event that this world and all human behavior is completely determined, what does it even matter? I mean, when all this started you seemed to think that somehow a deterministic viewpoint would somehow make the world a better place, as if such a thing would be possible or even matter in a world whose path was already entirely determined. It's silly.

I do see his point, though. I think your general view is somewhat similar besides some sticky little aspects. I think his basic point is that the average person is ignorant of the underlying reasons to their behaviour, and will therefore go by the fantastical scripts they've been given and will act on them to the detriment of the truth. And he feels this is the root of all evil. That seems in essence very similar to what I believe your view to be.

Granted, he could use some polish on his interpersonal and communication skills.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

I do see his point, though. I think your general view is somewhat similar besides some sticky little aspects. I think his basic point is that the average person is ignorant of the underlying reasons to their behaviour, and will therefore go by the fantastical scripts they've been given and will act on them to the detriment of the truth. And he feels this is the root of all evil. That seems in essence very similar to what I believe your view to be.

Angelica, I completely agree with your assessment above. But there cannot be an "evil", based on Ahnimus's viewpoints. Evil requires a moral contrary. There can't be a moral contrary absent moral agents. There is no good, there is no evil. It's all completely irrelevant in a world that is predetermined.

OutOfBreath

farfromglorified wrote:

Angelica, I completely agree with your assessment above. But there cannot be an "evil", based on Ahnimus's viewpoints. Evil requires a moral contrary. There can't be a moral contrary absent moral agents. There is no good, there is no evil. It's all completely irrelevant in a world that is predetermined.

Oh there can be good or evil. They just can't change it is all.

(edit) Read up on calvinism and the whole predestination thing. That would be the best starting point for that. Salvation anxiety can very well have an effect on good and evil and ones actions, even within a strict determinist view.

Peace
Dan

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Angelica, I completely agree with your assessment above. But there cannot be an "evil", based on Ahnimus's viewpoints. Evil requires a moral contrary. There can't be a moral contrary absent moral agents. There is no good, there is no evil. It's all completely irrelevant in a world that is predetermined.

What's going on is that yourself, myself and Ahnimus are seeing the same thing through 3 different filters. You and I spent a LOT of energy coming to understand each other's differing view of the same thing. Ahnimus' weak suit is with subjective experience. He doesn't trust it, and he minimizes and invalidates it. AND that's completely natural for his personality type. But he also knows it is there, he just chooses to ignore major parts of it without really acknowledging he does so. When such parts are gradually brought to his attention, within terms that make sense with his filters, he does see what we see.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

angelica wrote:

I do see his point, though. I think your general view is somewhat similar besides some sticky little aspects. I think his basic point is that the average person is ignorant of the underlying reasons to their behaviour, and will therefore go by the fantastical scripts they've been given and will act on them to the detriment of the truth. And he feels this is the root of all evil. That seems in essence very similar to what I believe your view to be.

Angelica, I completely agree with your assessment above.

Ahnimus, here you have it--farfromglorified agrees with this assessment. Are you realizing that although he uses a different framework and different terms for the basics, you and farfromglorified are seeing eye to eye, here?

And if you have any clarifications to my basic characterization about your view above, please feel free to let me know.

Ahnimus

Uh, free-will by definition is causeless. Hence the word free. Caused will is just will.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Uh, free-will by definition is causeless. Hence the word free. Caused will is just will.

according to Merriam-Webster it means "voluntary" and "spontaneous".
http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/free%20will

If I spontaneously decide to run outside right now, obviously the word spontaneous is used beyond the determinants that cause my responses, correct?

If I volunteer to do something, obviously the volunatary nature does not render my actions without determinants.

Both farfromglorified and I agree that most people don't recognize the determinants and consider THAT free will. They ascribe magic to their actions. We're all in agreement it is not magic. Its tightly synchronized.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

Uh, free-will by definition is causeless. Hence the word free. Caused will is just will.

No, it's not. You need to get this into your head. Free will has a cause. Its cause is consciousness. You're holding onto some bizarre deux ex machina definition of free-will. Yet I don't hear anyone here telling you that free-will is causeless.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

according to Merriam-Webster it means "voluntary" and "spontaneous".
http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/free%20will

If I spontaneously decide to run outside right now, obviously the word spontaneous is used beyond the determinants that cause my responses, correct?

If I volunteer to do something, obviously the volunatary nature does not render my actions without determinants.

Both farfromglorified and I agree that most people don't recognize the determinants and consider THAT free will. They ascribe magic to their actions. We're all in agreement it is not magic. Its tightly synchronized.

Wrong defintion. M-W.com
freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

This is free-will or "free will" not freewill. I know it's confusing. I'm looking at the philosophical debate around free-will.

wikipedia wrote:

The problem of free will concerns whether rational agents imagine or really do exercise control over their own actions and decisions. Addressing this problem requires understanding the relation between freedom and causation, and determining whether or not the laws of nature are causally deterministic. The various philosophical positions taken differ on whether all events are determined or not—determinism versus indeterminism—and also on whether freedom can coexist with determinism or not—compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, hard determinists argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this makes free will impossible.

The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

No, it's not. You need to get this into your head. Free will has a cause. Its cause is consciousness. You're holding onto some bizarre deux ex machina definition of free-will. Yet I don't hear anyone here telling you that free-will is causeless.

Dude, you have no idea what I am talking about. Volition isn't caused by consciousness either. I mean seriously.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

Dude, you have no idea what I am talking about. Volition isn't caused by consciousness either. I mean seriously.

*Sigh*

I know exactly what you're talking about. You're inventing a will absent restriction and then tearing it down.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Wrong defintion. M-W.com
freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

This is free-will or "free will" not freewill. I know it's confusing. I'm looking at the philosophical debate around free-will.

Give me the link.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

*Sigh*

I know exactly what you're talking about. You're inventing a will absent restriction and then tearing it down.

I'm not inventing it, it's an illusion people live with.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Give me the link.

You gotta select the second item on the list
http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/free-will

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm not inventing it, it's an illusion people live with.

Do you realize we all agree? You agree that we have choice and accountability dependent on the determinants that cause us to act as we do. So does farfromglorified.