The Astonishing Hypothesis
Ahnimus
Posts: 10,560
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?
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?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
(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.)
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.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
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.
Granted, he could use some polish on his interpersonal and communication skills.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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.
(edit) Read up on calvinism and the whole predestination thing. That would be the best starting point for that.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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.
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.
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.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm not inventing it, it's an illusion people live with.
You gotta select the second item on the list
http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/free-will
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Over 90% of people believe they have free-will.
That's great, then I don't understand where the concept is not being grasped.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
We can't be, because ffg is saying that free-will is caused and it cannot be caused.
Hehe...then if they live with it, it's perfectly determined that they were supposed to live with it, right? And if they reject your arguments, it's perfectly determined that they were supposed to reject them, correct? If it's all determined now, and it's all going to be determined tomorrow, what are you so concerned about?
You seem to want it both ways....you seem to want a determined universe full of people who will choose to devour your theories. It's absolutely priceless.
Perhaps hearing from a socialist might help you...
"Freedom of the will does not mean that the decisions that guide a man's action fall, as it were, from outside into the fabric of the universe and add to it something that had no relation to and was independent of the elements which had formed the universe before. Actions are directed by ideas, and ideas are products of the human mind, which is definitely a part of the universe and of which the power is strictly determined by the whole structure of the universe.
What the term 'freedom of the will' refers to is the fact that the ideas that induce a man to make a decision (a choice) are, like all other ideas, not 'produced' by external 'facts," do not 'mirror' the conditions of reality, and are not 'uniquely determined' by any ascertainable external factor to which we could impute them in the way in which we impute in all other occurrences an effect to a definite cause. There is nothing else that could be said about a definite instance of a man's acting and choosing than to ascribe it to this man's individuality." -Ludwig von Mises
*Sigh*
Stop putting words in my mouth. Free-will must be caused. Otherwise, it would not exist.
In the field it's called rational deliberation. By talking to people that have the illusion I'm providing them with evidence to question their beliefs, otherwise they may never not. You are still describing something different though.
Without free-will, if will is truly determined. Then God cannot expect anyone to independently choose Good over Evil and therefor the entire myth about heaven and hell is wrong.
He is not saying that our choices come from thin air--he knows they are dependent on who we are and all of our experiences that influence us.
Now where he and I are share a view but are somewhat different than you, is that we see that the human, backed by all the determinants/reasons is very unique. We focus on and celebrate this! There will never ever be another same individual making those choices in this big old world, whether based on determinants or not. We see how potent and unique and spectacular that is--we see that the human making these choices is a separate thing than JUST being the choices. Remember ffg's analogy about how you would see the magic show, understand it, and then say the magician does not exist. We're saying an integral part of this process is all about this central, individual character--the individual themself, free to dance upon a world of forces even if driven by a past and causes. And we feel that this portion of the equation, being the role of the central character--ourself-- cannot be downplayed, or ignored.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!