Quantum mechanics hinges on principles that are beyond cause and effect mechanisms. Just like a kiss is beyond the brain chemicals of love and yet is still very very real within the context of love.
Ok, I guess we have to agree to disagree Angelica, I happen to believe the laws of thermodynamics are true. Therefor the effect cannot be "far beyond" the cause, it cannot be any greater in energy.
I agree that a mindset can affect your health. A study showed that thinking about generating muscle tissue generated 10% more muscle tissue than the control group. That's just one example of several, but the brain already controls everything. PPAR-Delta is a hormone the brain sends to the muscle tissue to trigger growth and absorption of adiposity. Thinking about generating muscle tissue may be accelerating PPAR-Delta hormones. That's microscopic, but not quantum and it's a very well known truth.
I don't see how any of it applies to free-will though.
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
Ok, I guess we have to agree to disagree Angelica, I happen to believe the laws of thermodynamics are true. Therefor the effect cannot be "far beyond" the cause, it cannot be any greater in energy.
I agree that a mindset can affect your health. A study showed that thinking about generating muscle tissue generated 10% more muscle tissue than the control group. That's just one example of several, but the brain already controls everything. PPAR-Delta is a hormone the brain sends to the muscle tissue to trigger growth and absorption of adiposity. Thinking about generating muscle tissue may be accelerating PPAR-Delta hormones. That's microscopic, but not quantum and it's a very well known truth.
I don't see how any of it applies to free-will though.
Allow me to give you an example of what I was saying about non-linear effects. As Roland pointed out, we have an objective reality where things operate by cause and effect rules, but then say Roland, yourself and I join together in a room and begin to have a conversation. It becomes like a video game where you enter that other dimension for the fight. We create a new dimension. There are three of us. we are all thinking at the same time. Roland says something that linearly triggers me to think another thing, and at the same time, simultaneously, we all have completely individual thoughts that are in a different dimension from the causal one. We each come from effectively three different universes (theoretically speaking) in that we've been raised and conditioned by completely different environments and determinants. We have a whole situation, now. To break it up to be a linear one is to lose data and therefore understanding. There are dynamics and multiples causes, effects and functions going on at the same time. We need to use different criteria in order to FULLY understand this situation. There are causes and effects in place, but there is also a new dimension. These variables are both linear and lateral--this is holistic. Making a table on the other hand requires step after step in time and linearity, so its objective. Understanding the whole universe is beyond linearity, because the whole universe has all kinds of emergent systems as well as lateral ones along with causes, being a whole and all.
There is a very big difference between objective systems and humanitarian systems and therefore they have different dimensions than one another, all within the same reality system. If you try to fit the human systems ONLY into linearity, you lose understanding.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Well, heat requires a heat source, it requires a cause. You can go into spontaneous combustion, but I'd prefer to stick to things we understand, not the things we can't explain. Everything on the macro-level, our level, follows deterministic laws and none of that is change by the behavior of the quantum world. Take for example the solidity of the table, the table is 90% empty space, just electrons repelling or attracting each other. But to use the table is in-fact solid and unchanged by our knowledge of the quantum world.
But perhaps the biggest part of the puzzle IS the parts we cant explain... And I'm not suggesting knowing how things work in themselves makes us able to change them by will alone. But how we look at and interpret objects, and how we determine their use and significance, that's up to us. But I was gonna stay out of that one. Not too relevant either.
So, basically what I'm trying to get at is in terms of our own behaviour, we only need to look at ourselves. Dipping into QM or cosmology is just going to raise more frivilous questions. Especially since we have a very limited understanding of the quantum world, and it's probably only going to get stranger.
So we should limit our view to avoid confusion? That's what you're basically saying here. That brings up the whole question of how we then go about limiting, and who decides those limits for one thing.
The problem with free-will is that it cannot be caused to be free, by definition free-will is without cause and without influence. It's the only way it can exists as a free-choice system. All efforts to explain it, either behaviorally or physically always comes down to a cause. FFG says consciousness causes free-will, some suggest QM causes free-will, but these hypothesis are in defiance of the term free.
Free will does not demand total independence of everything else in the universe. Free will only requires that 100% is not explained and laid out by forces outside our minds. You only use free-will in the strongest possible sense, while I doubt many of your opponents do. Even if 99% of what we do is deterministic in nature, that still leaves a little bit for free will.
Besides, should free will be an illusion, it is definitely a necessary one. Otherwise motivation would be meaningless pretty much. A modicum of free will is necessary for any change, action and whatnot. Even if it can be closely predicted what we will most likely do. And we are creatures of habit in 99% of our actions certainly. But as long as we are nowhere close to 100% knowledge about anything about consciousness I also find it impossible to determine (sic) beforehand that it's 100% free will or 100% determinism. I find it hard to legitimately hold an adamant view on it at least.
Free will is not without causation and influences. It merely posits that we are able to NOT act on them if we so actively choose. Some would then also say that we have the ability to act without it necessarily being determinants all over the place making sure of it.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"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
Ok, I guess we have to agree to disagree Angelica, I happen to believe the laws of thermodynamics are true. Therefor the effect cannot be "far beyond" the cause, it cannot be any greater in energy.
What do you say to these points? Remember the holon concept. Everything is a whole unto itself, and yet is a part of another whole. Classical physics is a whole unto itself within it's own context. And it is also a part of quantum mechanics since they share principles. Quantum mechanics has added new principles--otherwise, it would be known as classical physics.
"The failure of the theories of classical physics in accounting for atomic phenomena was further accentuated by the progress of our knowledge of the structure of atoms."
Above all, Rutherford's discovery of the atomic nucleus (1911) revealed at once the inadequacy of classical mechanical and electromagnetic concepts to explain the inherent stability of the atom.
"Einstein's great original contribution to quantum theory (1905) was just the recognition of how physical phenomena like the photo-effect may depend directly on individual quantum effects. In these very same years when, in developing his theory of relativity, Einstein laid a new foundation for physical science, he explored with a most daring spirit the novel features of atomicity which pointed beyond the whole framework of classical physics. "
"These ideas, which were soon confirmed by the experiments of Franck and Hertz (1914) on the excitation of spectra by impact of electrons on atoms, involved a further renunciation of the causal mode of description, since evidently the interpretation of the spectral laws implies that an atom in an excited state in general will have the possibility of transitions with photon emission to one or another of its lower energy states."
"The peculiar individuality of the quantum effects presents us, as regards the comprehension of well-defined evidence, with a novel situation unforeseen in classical physics and irreconcilable with conventional ideas suited for our orientation and adjustment to ordinary experience." http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...ks/dk/bohr.htm
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Allow me to give you an example of what I was saying about non-linear effects. As Roland pointed out, we have an objective reality where things operate by cause and effect rules, but then say Roland, yourself and I join together in a room and begin to have a conversation. It becomes like a video game where you enter that other dimension for the fight. We create a new dimension. There are three of us. we are all thinking at the same time. Roland says something that linearly triggers me to think another thing, and at the same time, simultaneously, we all have completely individual thoughts that are in a different dimension from the causal one. We each come from effectively three different universes (theoretically speaking) in that we've been raised and conditioned by completely different environments and determinants. We have a whole situation, now. To break it up to be a linear one is to lose data and therefore understanding. There are dynamics and multiples causes, effects and functions going on at the same time. We need to use different criteria in order to FULLY understand this situation. There are causes and effects in place, but there is also a new dimension. These variables are both linear and lateral--this is holistic. Making a table on the other hand requires step after step in time and linearity, so its objective. Understanding the whole universe is beyond linearity, because the whole universe has all kinds of emergent systems as well as lateral ones along with causes, being a whole and all.
There is a very big difference between objective systems and humanitarian systems and therefore they have different dimensions than one another, all within the same reality system. If you try to fit the human systems ONLY into linearity, you lose understanding.
I disagree with that and I see no need to introduce an alternate universe to explain thought.
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
If one thing exists without cause, then many or all things may exist without cause?
Perhaps there is no causality outside of our human perception, what then goes on? Why does causality work? Why can we understand absolutely everything with causality, except that which can not be seen or tested?
How can we hypothesize that dark matter must exist because we observed the cause of it, then decades later observe dark matter?
The answer, because everything has a cause. There is nothing without cause.
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
I disagree with that and I see no need to introduce an alternate universe to explain thought.
Explain how you see it then. I've showed you my view.
You are a very linear and logical person, Ahnimus. It's my impression that you are waking up in the existential world. The giveaway sign is that you've used the word "absurd" seemingly unending times in the past few days. You are like me in that you need to find order to the absurdity. And you will. But first you've got to stop trying to put the absurdity into the old linear model. The new models are fighting to emerge for you. It's very exciting to behold quite frankly.
There are all kinds of energetic patterns that move all around us within the linearity that we see.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Ahnimus, allow me to help you understand me. I am at no time attempting to be scientific. I am a philosopher, and a mystic. I am using science principles to give structure to my views and philosophies on human systems and other patterns I see. So like you may use philosophy to augment science, I use science to augment philosophy. If you think I am being literal with my science, it makes sense that my ideas fall short so often to you.
Through the years science advances have given us new cutting edge models for understanding our surroundings on all kinds of levels. I'm almost purely relating quantum physics principles as a LIFE principles where they exist beyond atoms. Unless I'm quoting the scientist, or talking specifically about the actions of atoms themselves, I am using the concept symbolically to explain relativity patterns in human interactions.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Hmm, I'm afraid to share this theory. It's an interesting theory of gamma coherence and quantum backward-time consciousness, to remove the 500 ms delay in conscious awareness. It's interesting, I'd urge you to watch it, but I'm afraid it'll be misinterpreted.
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
Why can we understand absolutely everything with causality, except that which can not be seen or tested?
In order to be accurate, we can only understand what we understand with causality. What we will know in 500 years will depend on principles we will uncover beyond causality, like with this new physics has emerged that further explains the physical world and has brought dramatic new discovery.
Why does causality explain so much? Like I said, it is a whole and also a part of the greater systems to which it belongs that we are evolving to perceive and understand. It is fundamental. We only understand objective things with causality. We don't fully understand inter-subjective or cultural effects entirely with causality--we need to add hermeneutics and interpretation to that mix. And we don't understand subjective effects by causality. This is why for a true theory of everything, we need to expand our models beyond causality. In terms of classical physics, causality is perfectly effective for our purposes.
I will be out for hours, but I will check out the video later. I'll be looking at it with a philosophical eye, though, rather than a science one because I can't help it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
In order to be accurate, we can only understand what we understand with causality. What we will know in 500 years will depend on principles we will uncover beyond causality, like with this new physics has emerged that further explains the physical world and has brought dramatic new discovery.
Why does causality explain so much? Like I said, it is a whole and also a part of the greater systems to which it belongs that we are evolving to perceive and understand. It is fundamental. We only understand objective things with causality. We don't fully understand inter-subjective or cultural effects entirely with causality--we need to add hermeneutics and interpretation to that mix. And we don't understand subjective effects by causality. This is why for a true theory of everything, we need to expand our models beyond causality. In terms of classical physics, causality is perfectly effective for our purposes.
I will be out for hours, but I will check out the video later. I'll be looking at it with a philosophical eye, though, rather than a science one because I can't help it.
lol, then you will no doubt buy the theory 100% despite the fierce opposition to it. It is a scientific theory of consciousness, not a philosophical one.
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
Hmm, I'm afraid to share this theory. It's an interesting theory of gamma coherence and quantum backward-time consciousness, to remove the 500 ms delay in conscious awareness. It's interesting, I'd urge you to watch it, but I'm afraid it'll be misinterpreted.
I just finished painting a room in the house so I'm tired and on paint fumes...so I can;t add much at the moment.
...but I just have to say the woman that starts speaking at like 34 mins and 30 seconds totally reminds me of the stuttering kid with crutches on south Park. Hilarious!
The Q&A is quite interesting. Still watching...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I just finished painting a room in the house so I'm tired and on paint fumes...so I can;t add much at the moment.
...but I just have to say the woman that starts speaking at like 34 mins and 30 seconds totally reminds me of the stuttering kid with crutches on south Park. Hilarious!
The Q&A is quite interesting. Still watching...
Was that the young neurophysicist who says that the effect of anasthetic on gap junctions is inconsistent with the theory?
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
Was that the young neurophysicist who says that the effect of anasthetic on gap junctions is inconsistent with the theory?
Yeah that's the one... She totally tripped me out
I also like the Indian dude who rolls his R's talking about the guys whose right Hemisphere believes in God but the left hemisphere is an atheist... I'm going to have to watch more of these... interesting.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
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
I also like the Indian dude who rolls his R's talking about the guys whose right Hemisphere believes in God but the left hemisphere is an atheist... I'm going to have to watch more of these... interesting.
Yea man, so far it's all very interesting. It's a lot to watch but very intriguing. Much more interesting to me than The Simpsons
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
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I just want a good looking woman to talk to me about brain science. That'd be perfect, lol.
Yea, the temporal lobe seizure thing was interesting, the galvanitic responses in different people is intriguing. I do agree that it should be tested for galvanitic response in atheists and to see if there is possibly a neural correlate for atheism. Perhaps it's that A1 Seratonin Inhibitor as mentioned with mesculine, I think it's very easy to hypothesize about that, but certainly warrants testing for clarity.
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
I just want a good looking woman to talk to me about brain science. That'd be perfect, lol.
Yea, the temporal lobe seizure thing was interesting, the galvanitic responses in different people is intriguing. I do agree that it should be tested for galvanitic response in atheists and to see if there is possibly a neural correlate for atheism. Perhaps it's that A1 Seratonin Inhibitor as mentioned with mesculine, I think it's very easy to hypothesize about that, but certainly warrants testing for clarity.
I gotta find myself a sexy Neuroscientist.
I'd be interested to know how TLE progresses past the SPS stages and whether or not that even happens in X percentage of cases. It could have extremely wide implications.
"There are no good statistics on how many people have temporal lobe epilepsy, or what groups are most often affected."
What Annie Druyan said at the end re: science and religion was fantastic.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I'm happy to report that I watched the entire hour and 48 minutes (but who's counting) and that I really enjoyed it! I felt the subject matter was covered in a fairly balanced way, individually by the scientists, as well as through arguments/counter-arguments, even though the athiest slant was predominant. Ultimately, I felt my view was also represented. And of course my view ultimately won out since I'm a believer in the whole view and all valid points and sides of the coin being respected and heard so that truth is done justice to. I see that the conflicting points all meld together harmoniously, especially when all contrast is done respectfully. I love that most of this was pertaining to the implications of the facts. That is the stuff of science that I enjoy--the ramifications. It made the anal technicalities endurable.
Ahnimus, you said "The quantum world as I understand it now is absolutely causal. Atoms do not pop in and out of a person's head. Also being that we are not atoms, but merely are at the mercey of atoms, the behavior of atoms are beyond our control, so our abilities are unchanged by the seemingly random nature of the quantum world."
In the video the first dude said this:
"Quantum consciousness can account for: 1) realtime unified experience and conscious control. and 2) connection to deeper reality of quantum platonic information imbedded in the universe." He also said: In the quantum world, there is no flow of time.
I am wondering what you make of this--how do you interpret the two points? Also, if at the quantum consciousness level there is no flow of time, do you acknowledge we are talking about a dimension that does not work linearly?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm happy to report that I watched the entire hour and 48 minutes (but who's counting) and that I really enjoyed it! I felt the subject matter was covered in a fairly balanced way, individually by the scientists, as well as through arguments/counter-arguments, even though the athiest slant was predominant. Ultimately, I felt my view was also represented. And of course my view ultimately won out since I'm a believer in the whole view and all valid points and sides of the coin being respected and heard so that truth is done justice to. I see that the conflicting points all meld together harmoniously, especially when all contrast is done respectfully. I love that most of this was pertaining to the implications of the facts. That is the stuff of science that I enjoy--the ramifications. It made the anal technicalities endurable.
Ahnimus, you said "The quantum world as I understand it now is absolutely causal. Atoms do not pop in and out of a person's head. Also being that we are not atoms, but merely are at the mercey of atoms, the behavior of atoms are beyond our control, so our abilities are unchanged by the seemingly random nature of the quantum world."
In the video the first dude said this:
"Quantum consciousness can account for: 1) realtime unified experience and conscious control. and 2) connection to deeper reality of quantum platonic information imbedded in the universe." He also said: In the quantum world, there is no flow of time.
I am wondering what you make of this--how do you interpret the two points? Also, if at the quantum consciousness level there is no flow of time, do you acknowledge we are talking about a dimension that does not work linearly?
Umm, dude wasn't a physicist, and the physicists in the audience told him he was absolutely wrong about quantum mechanics.
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
I'm thinking of making a video, called "Free-will does not exist, doesn't do anything or is just another determinant."
Every argument in favor of free-will that I've heard falls into one of those categories and does not change the ultimate truth of determinism.
If I could illustrate, I would have to circles, one labeled determinism and one labeled free-will. Determinism is based on the brain's determination, so underlying that circle would be a picture of a brain, determinism uses information, input, data, experience, whatever you want to call it, to determine the best behavior and the elicits a behavior. So you would see indications of information and behavior or input and output around the circle of determinism. Now the circle of free-will is causeless, cannot be caused to be free. Doesn't respond to determinants like past experiences or observations and ultimately cannot elicit a response. So you have an empty circle with nothing around it. Determinism is everything, free-will is nothing.
For the sake of argument, we can say that everyone has free-will, and we can define it as an underlying moral knowledge innate to all life in the universe. Since it is a static knowledge, something we are all expected to have and exercise in the same manner, with the same capacity, in the grand scheme it basically does nothing. If we are looking at differences between individual decisions, we'd discount it, because both individuals free-will is exactly the same.
If the free-will varies from person to person then it becomes another determinant. It affects the decision making of the individual, along with all the experience, observations and so on. This also means that in order for it to be different, it must be affected by something else to cause variation. It cannot be affected by it's self alone, something else must determine it's properties. In this view, free-will simply is another determinant that is determined by something else and hence, is not free.
So, Free-will does not exist, does nothing or is just another determinant.
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
I'm wondering why you shared the video. It seems like you don't really buy into some of it's principles.
It was an interesting theory, I certainly don't agree with it.
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
All the theory theorizes is that there is no delay of 500 ms, which may suggest with limited knowledge that this allows consciousness to be an active agent in decision making. It doesn't actually affect much. Still it was interesting to watch and quite possibly true, assuming the quantum physics is correct, which it doesn't seem to be.
But also, the theory that consciousness arises from front-back coherence was intersting, that is something I'd like to hear more about.
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
I'm thinking of making a video, called "Free-will does not exist, doesn't do anything or is just another determinant."
Every argument in favor of free-will that I've heard falls into one of those categories and does not change the ultimate truth of determinism.
If I could illustrate, I would have to circles, one labeled determinism and one labeled free-will. Determinism is based on the brain's determination, so underlying that circle would be a picture of a brain, determinism uses information, input, data, experience, whatever you want to call it, to determine the best behavior and the elicits a behavior. So you would see indications of information and behavior or input and output around the circle of determinism. Now the circle of free-will is causeless, cannot be caused to be free. Doesn't respond to determinants like past experiences or observations and ultimately cannot elicit a response. So you have an empty circle with nothing around it. Determinism is everything, free-will is nothing.
For the sake of argument, we can say that everyone has free-will, and we can define it as an underlying moral knowledge innate to all life in the universe. Since it is a static knowledge, something we are all expected to have and exercise in the same manner, with the same capacity, in the grand scheme it basically does nothing. If we are looking at differences between individual decisions, we'd discount it, because both individuals free-will is exactly the same.
If the free-will varies from person to person then it becomes another determinant. It affects the decision making of the individual, along with all the experience, observations and so on. This also means that in order for it to be different, it must be affected by something else to cause variation. It cannot be affected by it's self alone, something else must determine it's properties. In this view, free-will simply is another determinant that is determined by something else and hence, is not free.
So, Free-will does not exist, does nothing or is just another determinant.
You were saying that free-will, by definition, means without determinants or causes the other day, if my memory serves me.
I personally make it a point to define my own philosophies. And I define free-will differently than what you say is the "proper" definition. This is about each one of us defining what we see in our worldview the way we see fit. It's all obviously the same external universe, independent of our definitions. I can be at peace that you choose a different framework than me. You will live within your philosophical framework with the consequences of your beliefs, and I will live within my own framework with the consequences of my own beliefs, all within the objective and neutral universe.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You were saying that free-will, by definition, means without determinants or causes the other day, if my memory serves me.
I personally make it a point to define my own philosophies. And I define free-will differently than what you say is the "proper" definition. This is about each one of us defining what we see in our worldview the way we see fit. It's all obviously the same external universe, independent of our definitions. I can be at peace that you choose a different framework than me. You will live within your philosophical framework with the consequences of your beliefs, and I will live within my own framework with the consequences of my own beliefs, all within the objective and neutral universe.
Ok, but we don't respect each other's beliefs, rather we evaluate each other's reasons.
So, how can we redefine things. If I redefine the term "brain" as my knee-cap, it doesn't change the fact that I have a brain and a knee-cap, it just makes communication about the two difficult.
The concept of free-will as I've defined it, is the concept in question and the philosophical community, dating back to the first philosophical thought, has termed this concept "free-will".
I would like to hear your definition of "free-will", but for the sake of this conversation pertaining to the classical concept of "free-will" it's important that we discuss the concept intended, rather than trying to call a knee-cap a brain.
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
It was an interesting theory, I certainly don't agree with it.
Do you recognize that many varied and educated people, going based on facts, had quite diverse views about the facts? Often opposing? Do you feel you can pick out which one is right? And does it make sense that anyone would be 100% right at all times?
Ultimately, to me, it looks like who we choose to believe and when is all about us individually, and how we process information.
I love watching the scientist illusions play out. It's fun. Granted, they are arbiters of fact finding and their very discipline at root has built in truth tellers, and yet they are as biased and in possession of the same preconceived notions as anyone. I love how all kinds of people contribute different things to the whole, and that scientists are a part of that, like all people trained in all disciplines.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Do you recognize that many varied and educated people, going based on facts, had quite diverse views about the facts? Often opposing? Do you feel you can pick out which one is right? And does it make sense that anyone would be 100% right at all times?
Ultimately, to me, it looks like who we choose to believe and when is all about us individually, and how we process information.
I love watching the scientist illusions play out. It's fun. Granted, they are arbiters of fact finding and their very discipline at root has built in truth tellers, and yet they are as biased and in possession of the same preconceived notions as anyone. I love how all kinds of people contribute different things to the whole, and that scientists are a part of that, like all people trained in all disciplines.
The scientific community often discovers truth through opposing views.
This is some dude talking about stuff he doesn't understand. Perhaps he understands some of it, but not all. Which is why I give credit to his own personal work with front-back gamma coherence, but not quantum physics.
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
Ok, but we don't respect each other's beliefs, rather we evaluate each other's reasons.
Both can be successfully done at the same time.
So, how can we redefine things. If I redefine the term "brain" as my knee-cap, it doesn't change the fact that I have a brain and a knee-cap, it just makes communication about the two difficult.
A belief or philosophy about free will is not something concrete like a knee -cap.
The concept of free-will as I've defined it, is the concept in question and the philosophical community, dating back to the first philosophical thought, has termed this concept "free-will".
In your understanding, yes.
I would like to hear your definition of "free-will", but for the sake of this conversation pertaining to the classical concept of "free-will" it's important that we discuss the concept intended, rather than trying to call a knee-cap a brain.
I told you my concept of free-will yesterday in post #61 at the top of page 5 of this thread.
You want me to define my purposes within purposes set forth by other people. This is where I assert the power of the individual, or the observer. I am the observer in my life. My philosophies serve me. Therefore I don't choose philosophies that don't serve me. For example, I do not use medical illness models. I use prevention models, although they are the norm. Therefore rather than treat illness when I am sick, I prevent illness. And I recognize signs of illness before they are fully manifest, and head them off before I have manifested full-blown illness.
The basics of mental illness for example can be culturally perceived as natural mystic traits, or as illness. Because I believe in the former, I have that experience. When I believed in illness and western reductionist medicine, I lived out illness. When I believed my consciousness was the result of determinants through time, I lived the outcome of those causes--and I have had some awful causes in my life, so the outcome was equally awful. When I developed the philosophy that 'now' is they only time we have, and that we are never ever in the past or future, and that the idea of the past is merely a thought, I tapped into my potential that is all around me. I developed the idea that I can change all of my thoughts, even the one's pertaining to the past. I can also change my emotional experiences from the past. I can recreate myself in each moment based on the thoughts I give my power to and perpetuate. I have come to dramatically loosen the hold of determinants over me, while grounding myself in the now, in my potential which has been there all along. For many people, this is the untapped power of the brain or will. For me, I focus on tapping this power. Therefore, I'm not interested in personally adopting any theory or philosophy that is framed in such a way that it implies that what I am doing does not work.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
Ok, I guess we have to agree to disagree Angelica, I happen to believe the laws of thermodynamics are true. Therefor the effect cannot be "far beyond" the cause, it cannot be any greater in energy.
I agree that a mindset can affect your health. A study showed that thinking about generating muscle tissue generated 10% more muscle tissue than the control group. That's just one example of several, but the brain already controls everything. PPAR-Delta is a hormone the brain sends to the muscle tissue to trigger growth and absorption of adiposity. Thinking about generating muscle tissue may be accelerating PPAR-Delta hormones. That's microscopic, but not quantum and it's a very well known truth.
I don't see how any of it applies to free-will though.
There is a very big difference between objective systems and humanitarian systems and therefore they have different dimensions than one another, all within the same reality system. If you try to fit the human systems ONLY into linearity, you lose understanding.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So we should limit our view to avoid confusion? That's what you're basically saying here. That brings up the whole question of how we then go about limiting, and who decides those limits for one thing.
Free will does not demand total independence of everything else in the universe. Free will only requires that 100% is not explained and laid out by forces outside our minds. You only use free-will in the strongest possible sense, while I doubt many of your opponents do. Even if 99% of what we do is deterministic in nature, that still leaves a little bit for free will.
Besides, should free will be an illusion, it is definitely a necessary one. Otherwise motivation would be meaningless pretty much. A modicum of free will is necessary for any change, action and whatnot. Even if it can be closely predicted what we will most likely do. And we are creatures of habit in 99% of our actions certainly. But as long as we are nowhere close to 100% knowledge about anything about consciousness I also find it impossible to determine (sic) beforehand that it's 100% free will or 100% determinism. I find it hard to legitimately hold an adamant view on it at least.
Free will is not without causation and influences. It merely posits that we are able to NOT act on them if we so actively choose. Some would then also say that we have the ability to act without it necessarily being determinants all over the place making sure of it.
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
"The failure of the theories of classical physics in accounting for atomic phenomena was further accentuated by the progress of our knowledge of the structure of atoms."
Above all, Rutherford's discovery of the atomic nucleus (1911) revealed at once the inadequacy of classical mechanical and electromagnetic concepts to explain the inherent stability of the atom.
"Einstein's great original contribution to quantum theory (1905) was just the recognition of how physical phenomena like the photo-effect may depend directly on individual quantum effects. In these very same years when, in developing his theory of relativity, Einstein laid a new foundation for physical science, he explored with a most daring spirit the novel features of atomicity which pointed beyond the whole framework of classical physics. "
"These ideas, which were soon confirmed by the experiments of Franck and Hertz (1914) on the excitation of spectra by impact of electrons on atoms, involved a further renunciation of the causal mode of description, since evidently the interpretation of the spectral laws implies that an atom in an excited state in general will have the possibility of transitions with photon emission to one or another of its lower energy states."
"The peculiar individuality of the quantum effects presents us, as regards the comprehension of well-defined evidence, with a novel situation unforeseen in classical physics and irreconcilable with conventional ideas suited for our orientation and adjustment to ordinary experience."
http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...ks/dk/bohr.htm
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I disagree with that and I see no need to introduce an alternate universe to explain thought.
If one thing exists without cause, then many or all things may exist without cause?
Perhaps there is no causality outside of our human perception, what then goes on? Why does causality work? Why can we understand absolutely everything with causality, except that which can not be seen or tested?
How can we hypothesize that dark matter must exist because we observed the cause of it, then decades later observe dark matter?
The answer, because everything has a cause. There is nothing without cause.
You are a very linear and logical person, Ahnimus. It's my impression that you are waking up in the existential world. The giveaway sign is that you've used the word "absurd" seemingly unending times in the past few days. You are like me in that you need to find order to the absurdity. And you will. But first you've got to stop trying to put the absurdity into the old linear model. The new models are fighting to emerge for you. It's very exciting to behold quite frankly.
There are all kinds of energetic patterns that move all around us within the linearity that we see.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Through the years science advances have given us new cutting edge models for understanding our surroundings on all kinds of levels. I'm almost purely relating quantum physics principles as a LIFE principles where they exist beyond atoms. Unless I'm quoting the scientist, or talking specifically about the actions of atoms themselves, I am using the concept symbolically to explain relativity patterns in human interactions.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Session 4 of the Beyond Belief series
http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/watch.php?Video=Session%204
Why does causality explain so much? Like I said, it is a whole and also a part of the greater systems to which it belongs that we are evolving to perceive and understand. It is fundamental. We only understand objective things with causality. We don't fully understand inter-subjective or cultural effects entirely with causality--we need to add hermeneutics and interpretation to that mix. And we don't understand subjective effects by causality. This is why for a true theory of everything, we need to expand our models beyond causality. In terms of classical physics, causality is perfectly effective for our purposes.
I will be out for hours, but I will check out the video later. I'll be looking at it with a philosophical eye, though, rather than a science one because I can't help it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
lol, then you will no doubt buy the theory 100% despite the fierce opposition to it. It is a scientific theory of consciousness, not a philosophical one.
I just finished painting a room in the house so I'm tired and on paint fumes...so I can;t add much at the moment.
...but I just have to say the woman that starts speaking at like 34 mins and 30 seconds totally reminds me of the stuttering kid with crutches on south Park. Hilarious!
The Q&A is quite interesting. Still watching...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Was that the young neurophysicist who says that the effect of anasthetic on gap junctions is inconsistent with the theory?
Yeah that's the one... She totally tripped me out
I also like the Indian dude who rolls his R's talking about the guys whose right Hemisphere believes in God but the left hemisphere is an atheist... I'm going to have to watch more of these... interesting.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I thought she was hot
Yea man, so far it's all very interesting. It's a lot to watch but very intriguing. Much more interesting to me than The Simpsons
You can watch it all at
http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/
I'd dock at her gap junction...
The temporal lobe seizure thing...whoa.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I just want a good looking woman to talk to me about brain science. That'd be perfect, lol.
Yea, the temporal lobe seizure thing was interesting, the galvanitic responses in different people is intriguing. I do agree that it should be tested for galvanitic response in atheists and to see if there is possibly a neural correlate for atheism. Perhaps it's that A1 Seratonin Inhibitor as mentioned with mesculine, I think it's very easy to hypothesize about that, but certainly warrants testing for clarity.
I gotta find myself a sexy Neuroscientist.
I'd be interested to know how TLE progresses past the SPS stages and whether or not that even happens in X percentage of cases. It could have extremely wide implications.
"There are no good statistics on how many people have temporal lobe epilepsy, or what groups are most often affected."
http://www.epilepsy.com/epilepsy/epilepsy_temporallobe.html
What Annie Druyan said at the end re: science and religion was fantastic.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Ahnimus, you said "The quantum world as I understand it now is absolutely causal. Atoms do not pop in and out of a person's head. Also being that we are not atoms, but merely are at the mercey of atoms, the behavior of atoms are beyond our control, so our abilities are unchanged by the seemingly random nature of the quantum world."
In the video the first dude said this:
"Quantum consciousness can account for: 1) realtime unified experience and conscious control. and 2) connection to deeper reality of quantum platonic information imbedded in the universe." He also said: In the quantum world, there is no flow of time.
I am wondering what you make of this--how do you interpret the two points? Also, if at the quantum consciousness level there is no flow of time, do you acknowledge we are talking about a dimension that does not work linearly?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Umm, dude wasn't a physicist, and the physicists in the audience told him he was absolutely wrong about quantum mechanics.
Every argument in favor of free-will that I've heard falls into one of those categories and does not change the ultimate truth of determinism.
If I could illustrate, I would have to circles, one labeled determinism and one labeled free-will. Determinism is based on the brain's determination, so underlying that circle would be a picture of a brain, determinism uses information, input, data, experience, whatever you want to call it, to determine the best behavior and the elicits a behavior. So you would see indications of information and behavior or input and output around the circle of determinism. Now the circle of free-will is causeless, cannot be caused to be free. Doesn't respond to determinants like past experiences or observations and ultimately cannot elicit a response. So you have an empty circle with nothing around it. Determinism is everything, free-will is nothing.
For the sake of argument, we can say that everyone has free-will, and we can define it as an underlying moral knowledge innate to all life in the universe. Since it is a static knowledge, something we are all expected to have and exercise in the same manner, with the same capacity, in the grand scheme it basically does nothing. If we are looking at differences between individual decisions, we'd discount it, because both individuals free-will is exactly the same.
If the free-will varies from person to person then it becomes another determinant. It affects the decision making of the individual, along with all the experience, observations and so on. This also means that in order for it to be different, it must be affected by something else to cause variation. It cannot be affected by it's self alone, something else must determine it's properties. In this view, free-will simply is another determinant that is determined by something else and hence, is not free.
So, Free-will does not exist, does nothing or is just another determinant.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It was an interesting theory, I certainly don't agree with it.
But also, the theory that consciousness arises from front-back coherence was intersting, that is something I'd like to hear more about.
I personally make it a point to define my own philosophies. And I define free-will differently than what you say is the "proper" definition. This is about each one of us defining what we see in our worldview the way we see fit. It's all obviously the same external universe, independent of our definitions. I can be at peace that you choose a different framework than me. You will live within your philosophical framework with the consequences of your beliefs, and I will live within my own framework with the consequences of my own beliefs, all within the objective and neutral universe.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ok, but we don't respect each other's beliefs, rather we evaluate each other's reasons.
So, how can we redefine things. If I redefine the term "brain" as my knee-cap, it doesn't change the fact that I have a brain and a knee-cap, it just makes communication about the two difficult.
The concept of free-will as I've defined it, is the concept in question and the philosophical community, dating back to the first philosophical thought, has termed this concept "free-will".
I would like to hear your definition of "free-will", but for the sake of this conversation pertaining to the classical concept of "free-will" it's important that we discuss the concept intended, rather than trying to call a knee-cap a brain.
Ultimately, to me, it looks like who we choose to believe and when is all about us individually, and how we process information.
I love watching the scientist illusions play out. It's fun. Granted, they are arbiters of fact finding and their very discipline at root has built in truth tellers, and yet they are as biased and in possession of the same preconceived notions as anyone. I love how all kinds of people contribute different things to the whole, and that scientists are a part of that, like all people trained in all disciplines.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The scientific community often discovers truth through opposing views.
This is some dude talking about stuff he doesn't understand. Perhaps he understands some of it, but not all. Which is why I give credit to his own personal work with front-back gamma coherence, but not quantum physics.
A belief or philosophy about free will is not something concrete like a knee -cap.
In your understanding, yes.
I told you my concept of free-will yesterday in post #61 at the top of page 5 of this thread.
You want me to define my purposes within purposes set forth by other people. This is where I assert the power of the individual, or the observer. I am the observer in my life. My philosophies serve me. Therefore I don't choose philosophies that don't serve me. For example, I do not use medical illness models. I use prevention models, although they are the norm. Therefore rather than treat illness when I am sick, I prevent illness. And I recognize signs of illness before they are fully manifest, and head them off before I have manifested full-blown illness.
The basics of mental illness for example can be culturally perceived as natural mystic traits, or as illness. Because I believe in the former, I have that experience. When I believed in illness and western reductionist medicine, I lived out illness. When I believed my consciousness was the result of determinants through time, I lived the outcome of those causes--and I have had some awful causes in my life, so the outcome was equally awful. When I developed the philosophy that 'now' is they only time we have, and that we are never ever in the past or future, and that the idea of the past is merely a thought, I tapped into my potential that is all around me. I developed the idea that I can change all of my thoughts, even the one's pertaining to the past. I can also change my emotional experiences from the past. I can recreate myself in each moment based on the thoughts I give my power to and perpetuate. I have come to dramatically loosen the hold of determinants over me, while grounding myself in the now, in my potential which has been there all along. For many people, this is the untapped power of the brain or will. For me, I focus on tapping this power. Therefore, I'm not interested in personally adopting any theory or philosophy that is framed in such a way that it implies that what I am doing does not work.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!