The Astonishing Hypothesis

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

It's understandable that you are frustrated hearing what I am saying, because you see things differently, and you don't understand my point of view....yet.

If we are talking about love, we can talk about it from different perspectives or contexts. We can talk about the brain chemical aspects, where we talk about chemicals and their interactions and what effects might happen when one experiences love. You might prefer looking at things from that context based on your background, and your natural wiring. You might look up lectures with scientists talking about chemicals in order to clarify your understanding. A different context would be the human interaction perspective, including looking at how the people feel in love, and what background the two individuals brought to their union, etc. I would be more inclined to looking at it from this perspective based on my natural predispositions coupled with my background. I would probably get my backing from psychology or sociology. Someone else might be concerned with their own personal feelings of love, only concerned with the happenings they are directly experiencing in their lives, when considering the topic of love. Each of these three contexts are valid perspectives to approach the topic of love from. Each of them take a different look at "reality" and each of them rely on different tools and resources for the different understandings. These three views although different are not contradictory in nature, with one being 'right' and another 'wrong', but instead, they are actually complementary to one another--each has something to be understood that the other does not. Do you agree?

I completely agree. However, we must understand the topology of the topic. For example Love; The lowest level of the structure of love is biochemistry. The biochemistry gives rise to the experience of love which makes the interaction of love possible. The interaction of love cannot exceed the experience of love, nor can either exceed the biochemistry of love. A real example of this would be suggesting that a physical object could be symbolic of love, for example a diamond ring. This appears as an interaction of love, based in an experience of love, and should therefor not exceed the biochemistry. This symbolism is what I would consider an act of self-interest, as well as trust. In-fact by providing someone with a material object causes an increase in oxytocin production in the receiving individual, then it would be an act of trust, and therefor would affect the overall biochemistry of love.. This is how we need to look at issues of morality or reality, we need synchronicity at all levels. The best way to start looking for synchronicity is at the very basic, objective level. Most behavior, if not all, boils down to self-interest. A person may contribute to charity to obtain social trust and respect. They may present a loved one with a diamond ring to maintain and develop greater trust with their mate and therefor enhance the experience of love and the interaction of love.

So when we are talking about decision making, on the very basic encapsulating level of decision making, there is no independent will. Within decision making there are several other concepts to consider, but none violate the basic fundamentals of the physical, objective, reality. I don't fully understand your perspective, and I think the words you choose to describe it tend to imply that it exceeds it's objectivity.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I completely agree. However, we must understand the topology of the topic. For example Love; The lowest level of the structure of love is biochemistry. The biochemistry gives rise to the experience of love which makes the interaction of love possible. The interaction of love cannot exceed the experience of love, nor can either exceed the biochemistry of love. A real example of this would be suggesting that a physical object could be symbolic of love, for example a diamond ring. This appears as an interaction of love, based in an experience of love, and should therefor not exceed the biochemistry. This symbolism is what I would consider an act of self-interest, as well as trust. In-fact by providing someone with a material object causes an increase in oxytocin production in the receiving individual, then it would be an act of trust, and therefor would affect the overall biochemistry of love.. This is how we need to look at issues of morality or reality, we need synchronicity at all levels. The best way to start looking for synchronicity is at the very basic, objective level. Most behavior, if not all, boils down to self-interest. A person may contribute to charity to obtain social trust and respect. They may present a loved one with a diamond ring to maintain and develop greater trust with their mate and therefor enhance the experience of love and the interaction of love.

This is definitely one way of looking at it. Of course you prioritize it this way, based on that you are wired to prefer the objective perspective, and therefore science and neuro-science provides the vehicle that works for you. This framework is natural for you.

In terms of the topic of love, I can be being myself, sitting with my boyfriend on the couch, and my behaviours and my psychology and who I am, can generate feelings of love in my boyfriend, creating a chemical response of love for him.

I can generate different moods. Everyday I deliberately generate moods of love, and infuse that energy in all of my endeavors. I do that so that my actions naturally and unconsciously flow from a higher order, in my view. This makes perfect sense based on the fact that I am wired to be aligned with what I see as higher order. So, conversely to your way, my spiritual/psychological ways can generate chemical responses. I'm fairly certain that you agree chemicals reactions can either generate an experience at the same time an experience can generate a chemical reaction. It's bi-directional. All kinds of effects are going one at all times, coming from different directions. All forces are not moving in the same direction. When we break them down scientifically, or in linear form to communicate about them, we lose the big picture and the system how it appears at a glance. Communication and logic requires us to talk about parts at a time, which keeps us distanced from understanding the whole. Whether the system is the brain system, or whether it's the family system. I believe we have synchronicity at all levels, only most people and systems of thought do not encompass that.

So when we are talking about decision making, on the very basic encapsulating level of decision making, there is no independent will. Within decision making there are several other concepts to consider, but none violate the basic fundamentals of the physical, objective, reality. I don't fully understand your perspective, and I think the words you choose to describe it tend to imply that it exceeds it's objectivity.

I am not sure if the above explains more of my perspective. My view explained above does not violate the basic fundamental physical reality. It embraces it. It includes it and transcends it. Like a molecule includes an atom and transcends it. Like quantum physics embraces and expands beyond classical physics. What I understand is that I use processes that are not commonly known, accepted or understood. They stem from a human potential most people don't even consider tapping.

What I am saying is just by flipping a switch in my mind, and deciding to generate the general programming of my thoughts, and eliciting my unconscious to go along with the program, because it is aligned with my unconscious needs, I become the willful creator, rather than the passive experiencer. And yet, I also passively experience my creation as well.

You must believe this is possible, or your would not work to change your own brain patterns. If you did not believe this is possible you would not want to stimulate, trigger and encourage others to wake up. You would not have complimented my myspace blog "Asleep at the Wheel of Life". This is the basic issue farfromglorified takes with you: if you believe we are predisposed by forces beyond our control, and that we cannot get control of that, why do you bother raising this issue at all in the name of social change? I believe you are aware that we CAN do this on some very strong level within you. And I believe you are attracting to yourself unconsciously the variables to further develop this for yourself.

Rats of Multa

Ahnimus wrote:

So when we are talking about decision making, on the very basic encapsulating level of decision making, there is no independent will. Within decision making there are several other concepts to consider, but none violate the basic fundamentals of the physical, objective, reality. I don't fully understand your perspective, and I think the words you choose to describe it tend to imply that it exceeds it's objectivity.

there is no "fundamental definition" for "reality"--there may be a fundamental law that defines reality, but humanity does not know that yet, therefore "reality" is not "absolutely objective".

the fact is [exists]: psychology is subjective, and part of the Natural world.

the fact that angelica keeps relating various "contexts" is because without the infinite contexts of language--of which every individual is privy to the potentials of an exclusive set--then two separate individuals cannot communicate.

you want to say that because "the philosophical comunity" defines something then that is fact as they say, but that would infer fascism, not philosophy. philosophy can only lead you to your own conclusions and experiences, any other place and youve become decieved.

angelica

"David Hume discussed the possibility that the entire debate about free will is nothing more than a merely "verbal" issue."

This is what myself, soulsinging, and apparently Rats of Multa in his just prior post are saying: this issue is about what words and concepts we each individually choose to express our view. For example, Ahnimus, you have called me a compatibalist before. And I see myself as a co-creator with God and the universe. You are adamant that I am wrong, and really, we're talking about the same thing at essence with differences in how we look at those things, based on our individuality and how we construct and verbalize the concepts we perceive.

"John Locke, for example, denied that the phrase "free will" made any sense. He also took the view that the truth of determinism was irrelevant. He believed that the defining feature of voluntary behavior was that individuals have the ability to postpone a decision long enough to reflect or deliberate upon the consequences of a choice: "...the will in truth, signifies nothing but a power, or ability, to prefer or choose"

This reminds me of how I discovered my will. I had obsessive-compulsive disorder to a severe degree and was literally compelled to act out actions each day, monopolizing my life for many years. This is how I learned that we are a product of our brain structures, and where I came to understand determinants. I was 'will-less'. During many years wracking my brain, looking for a solution, I discovered the window of opportunity that changed everything. This window of opportunity is dealt with in well-known book on OCD "The Boy Who Couldn't Stop Washing" as second level intentions in terms of free-will. I could not control my actions and my observable will, but I could control what I thought and felt about my actions. By changing my thoughts and perceptions about my actions, I effectively took conscious control of my brain chemistry and re-programmed my brain to become healthy. I stepped into this dimension of the power of the mind, and I discovered a magical world of immense untapped power that many cannot comprehend.

By the basic wikipedia article on free-will, it's clear that there are many valid ways of looking at free-will throughout all science or philosophical schools. There may be some general schools of agreement. At at the same time, there is a philosophical/psychological concept wherein humans are observed to start out ego-centered. We eventually progress to embrace cultural norms and used them for supports for how we perceive life. We trust the basic going ideology that is accepted, independent of whether we can know it's truthfulness. The next stage is beyond that where we are willing to go beyond normally accepted schools of thought in order to understand the truth.