Just out of curiosity, without the spiritual aspect do you still see a case for free will?
I very much recognize cause and effect. The key is that I focus on developing many of my intelligences besides just my analytical/logical intelligence. Through a holistic framework, the linear view is a distinct part of reality, and yet it is only a part. If we focus merely on one way of viewing life without complementing it with other intelligences, in my mind, we are limiting our understanding.
Personally I consider free will an illusion. I view our decision making process as being influenced by an enormous number of determinant factors. These factors determine non-conscious neural processes that give our decisions the illusion of being voluntary.
Synaptic pathways in our brain can be strengthened over time (although this occurs with greatest significance when we are young), which makes them more likely to be followed. In other words the deterministic factors influence which synaptic pathways are likely to be followed which influence our decisions.
Of interest also is something I read just recently, relating the illusion of free will to quantum mechanics and the self collapse of wave functions. I will be honest and say that I skimmed over it and didn't really get a deep understanding of it, but in light of this thread I will track down the article and attempt to summarise it for you all.
Cheers, Steve
I very much believe in determinism. The catch to me is that when we come to accept and align with those deterministic factors which are our life, we can widen our horizons and move from seeing ourselves as the drop of water, to appreciating ourselves as also being the ocean. To be more clear, I've personally healed from numerous very serious chemical imbalances, including obsessive-compulsive disorder and bi-polar disorder. I did so by aligning with my own distorted thought processes experientially/subjectively, from my own experience, which is the other side of the objective coin. By taking a wider perspective of being the thinker of these thoughts and not just the product of them, I was able to change them. Therefore, I know I am "spiritually" (but very naturally in terms of natural law) BEYOND being merely the brain functions. Due to this experience, I cannot go back to believing that such determinants control me. Although I recognize until people awaken to their actual power, they are essentially controlled by such determinants. Further, my waking up to my power entitles me to live in a holistic moment, knowing the past and the future are merely constructs of our minds, which allow us to theorize and create more complexly in the now. In reality all we have is the ongoing "now".
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I very much believe in determinism. The catch to me is that when we come to accept and align with those deterministic factors which are our life, we can widen our horizons and move from seeing ourselves as the drop of water, to appreciating ourselves as also being the ocean. To be more clear, I've personally healed from numerous very serious chemical imbalances, including obsessive-compulsive disorder and bi-polar disorder. I did so by aligning with my own distorted thought processes experientially/subjectively, from my own experience, which is the other side of the objective coin.
Although I have less of an understanding of the brain then I would like to have, I was under the impression that bi-polar (and other mental illnesses) were far more complex then just a chemical imbalance.
I would suggest that it is possible to change brain processes and correct such conditions through certain behaviors (thought patterns etc.)- although it may be rare, and perhaps not understood even by the individual affecting such changes. I do not believe that this is an argument for free will.
By taking a wider perspective of being the thinker of these thoughts and not just the product of them, I was able to change them. Therefore, I know I am "spiritually" (but very naturally in terms of natural law) BEYOND being merely the brain functions. Due to this experience, I cannot go back to believing that such determinants control me. Although I recognize until people awaken to their actual power, they are essentially controlled by such determinants.
And so it comes to this... you have 'awakened' and we have not. I mean this with the greatest respect as you obviously someone who thinks about this frequently, and my motto for life is to appreciate everyone's beliefs, as long as they have thought about them and can honestly justify what they believe to themselves (even if I disagree). It is just that it is hard to argue with someone who believes they have awoken to something that the rest of us have missed, ( but perhaps we all feel like that).
Further, my waking up to my power entitles me to live in a holistic moment, knowing the past and the future are merely constructs of our minds, which allow us to theorize and create more complexly in the now. In reality all we have is the ongoing "now".
This statement I agree with- the illusion of the past and future. I once read that the time frame for the present is 3 seconds. It relates to the time it takes to interpret events and their meanings- in other words we make our way through consciousness 3 seconds at a time.
A simple analogy is to imagine that everybody is viewing their own movie of existence. Like a standard movie, frames are continuously displayed. In our present, each frame lasts for 3 seconds, before being replaced by the next. Our movie lasts as long as we do, and despite being related to all other movies of existence, our movie is unique, and plays our consciousness at speeds related to our position and motion. Anyway, sorry... distracted.
I would say the movie, that is conciousness, is in about 500 ms frames. That's based on the time it takes between the firing of an action potential and our awareness of it. (Libet. 1980)
Free-will is a necissary illusion for those who choose to point blame, feed their own pride and be intolerant of others. Without those things, free-will has no place.
Even my closest friends and relatives, the nicest people I know, have pride and blame others. I do myself. It's unavoidable. But I don't attribute it to freedom of my will.
Before I was awaken to determinism. I got so frustrated with things. But I also recognized to a degree that I was not in control. So I would go head first into something and watch as an observer. If anyone has ever spoken to the media infront of 5000 people, including the PM, you might now how beneficial being an observer can be. I wasn't nervous, just going for the ride.
The most difficult part for people to grasp is that all of their thoughts, every one of them is the result of an action potential in the brain. When they think "Well, I can make a choice, watch, see I made that choice of my own free-will" that is a series of neurons firing in a sequence that produces those thoughts and is a direct result of the physical 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
Just out of curiosity, without the spiritual aspect do you still see a case for free will?
Personally I consider free will an illusion. I view our decision making process as being influenced by an enormous number of determinant factors. These factors determine non-conscious neural processes that give our decisions the illusion of being voluntary.
Never opened the cabinet and had to choose from Froot Loops and Cap'n Crunch?
Maybe YOUR free will is an illusion. Maybe you should shut down for awhile
C-3PO.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Never opened the cabinet and had to choose from Froot Loops and Cap'n Crunch?
Maybe YOUR free will is an illusion. Maybe you should shut down for awhile
C-3PO.
Making a choice is not evidence of free-will.
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
This statement I agree with- the illusion of the past and future. I once read that the time frame for the present is 3 seconds. It relates to the time it takes to interpret events and their meanings- in other words we make our way through consciousness 3 seconds at a time.
A simple analogy is to imagine that everybody is viewing their own movie of existence. Like a standard movie, frames are continuously displayed. In our present, each frame lasts for 3 seconds, before being replaced by the next. Our movie lasts as long as we do, and despite being related to all other movies of existence, our movie is unique, and plays our consciousness at speeds related to our position and motion. Anyway, sorry... distracted.
If you recognize the illusion of the past and future, I'm wondering why you would consider determinism valid. Within the context of the now being the only time, the rest of it is a construct of our minds, our linear portion of our minds at that. What comes before and what comes after is a logical construct that we use to assess what is before us. I personally choose to utilize such a tool, while at the same time not confusing it's lens with being reality.
I would suggest that it is possible to change brain processes and correct such conditions through certain behaviors (thought patterns etc.)- although it may be rare, and perhaps not understood even by the individual affecting such changes. I do not believe that this is an argument for free will.
I thought in the below quote you were suggesting that ingrained synaptic pathways indicated the opposite of free will. Therefore I thought it made perfect sense to believe that conversely, the opposite of your stance could then make a valid case for free will. Either way, I don't see my linear understanding as showing the whole picture of my existence and where I've stemmed from, nor does logic assess value, purpose, meaning and full understanding, imo. I consider it a view through which I look at my life. To me how a brain filters life and experience does not necessarily capture the truth of reality.
Synaptic pathways in our brain can be strengthened over time (although this occurs with greatest significance when we are young), which makes them more likely to be followed. In other words the deterministic factors influence which synaptic pathways are likely to be followed which influence our decisions.
And so it comes to this... you have 'awakened' and we have not. I mean this with the greatest respect as you obviously someone who thinks about this frequently, and my motto for life is to appreciate everyone's beliefs, as long as they have thought about them and can honestly justify what they believe to themselves (even if I disagree). It is just that it is hard to argue with someone who believes they have awoken to something that the rest of us have missed, ( but perhaps we all feel like that).
I understand how to alter my mental/emotional patterns in a way that is conducive to my own harmony and to my own personal benefit. Others have done so, while many others have not. Many continue to argue against our ability to do so. I am able to be the thinker of my thoughts, rather than see myself as the product of them. Where others put themselves on this continuum is about their own view of themselves, and is independent of me. I value all views and understand the validity of each from each context. And still, my own worldview can only be what it is.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The other day, like i do many days, i sat down with my four year old son to color a picture. My son colored the boys hair purple, his face lime green, and his hands lemon yellow. i asked him "why did you color the boys hair purple"? His response: "i just wanted to". i asked the same question about the boys lime green face and lemon yellow hands, as well as why the two didn't even, at least match. Same response. "thats just how i wanted to do it.
My sons hair is brown, both of his brothers have brown hair as well, as does my wife and i (mine speckled with more than a little gray). He has never seen anyone with purple hair, or lime green and lemon yellow skin. There really are no pre determinates there. There was a brown crayon in the box, as well as several other colors more appropriate for hair, and plenty of fleshtones as well. The colorscheme he chose was a pure excercise of imagination and free-will. no question about it. Alogical, illogical, or whatever you wish to call it. But definitely expression of freewill.
(i can't believe i'm still bothering withthis conversation)
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
The other day, like i do many days, i sat down with my four year old son to color a picture. My son colored the boys hair purple, his face lime green, and his hands lemon yellow. i asked him "why did you color the boys hair purple"? His response: "i just wanted to". i asked the same question about the boys lime green face and lemon yellow hands, as well as why the two didn't even, at least match. Same response. "thats just how i wanted to do it.
My sons hair is brown, both of his brothers have brown hair as well, as does my wife and i (mine speckled with more than a little gray). He has never seen anyone with purple hair, or lime green and lemon yellow skin. There really are no pre determinates there. There was a brown crayon in the box, as well as several other colors more appropriate for hair, and plenty of fleshtones as well. The colorscheme he chose was a pure excercise of imagination and free-will. no question about it. Alogical, illogical, or whatever you wish to call it. But definitely expression of freewill.
(i can't believe i'm still bothering withthis conversation)
How is that evidence of free-will?
I wouldn't expect a 4 year old to color a person as they are colored in nature. That's just fucking boring. A 4 year old is likely to color based on what colors they want to see. Also, a 4 year old isn't going to be able to tell you why they chose those colors. A child psychologist, might be able to tell you why though. Just like most adults can't tell you why they do everything because they don't know enough about themselves. A psychologist might be able to answer that question though.
Your son may have answered "I picked the first color that came to mind" that would seem like a reasonable parallel to "I don't know why", "I just thought of a color and used it.". So whatever color that came to mind was the color used. Where did that color come from? The BRAIN. It was the result of an algorithm performed by the brain. People can not choose what they think. You can't choose your favorite color, it's your favorite because (i) your retinas allow for definition in that color, (ii) it has sentimental significance.
You cling to the concept of free-will by ignoring the deeper aspects of thought. By ignoring the question "Where do thoughts come from?"
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've always had trouble buying this theory. Sounds like a load of crap to me.
One alternative, of course, being a solid-state universe.
Any thoughts?
you should email john mather at NASA who just won the Nobel prize for his book on the big bang, The Very First Light: The True Inside Story of the Scientific Journey Back to the Dawn of the Universe (Paperback)
and tell him how you feel
9/98, 9/00 - DC, 4/03 - Pitt., 7/03 - Bristow, 10/04 - Reading, 10/05 - Philly, 5/06 - DC, 6/06 - Pitt., 6/08 - Va Beach, 6/08 - DC, 5/10 - Bristow, 10/13 B'more
8/08 - Ed solo in DC, 6/09 Ed in B'more,
10/10 - Brad in B'more
you should email john mather at NASA who just won the Nobel prize for his book on the big bang, The Very First Light: The True Inside Story of the Scientific Journey Back to the Dawn of the Universe (Paperback)
and tell him how you feel
Fuck that nut, he won't listen to opponents of Big Bang.
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 presume Ahnimus's point is that choice, or at least the illusion of it, can exist under determinism without freewill.
Under determinism your choice would always be determined beforehand, and whenever you think you could made a different choice it's not actually true. Ie if the exact situation was re-run countless times then you would make the same choice under determinism every time. Under that framework the notion of free will is just an illusion.
The kicker is that every situation encountered is unique, so there is no easy way to test freewill vs determinism.
I wouldn't expect a 4 year old to color a person as they are colored in nature. That's just fucking boring. A 4 year old is likely to color based on what colors they want to see. Also, a 4 year old isn't going to be able to tell you why they chose those colors. A child psychologist, might be able to tell you why though. Just like most adults can't tell you why they do everything because they don't know enough about themselves. A psychologist might be able to answer that question though.
?"
Of course he used the colors he wanted to see! thats the point. its called free will, mayonnaise brain!
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Of course he used the colors he wanted to see! thats the point. its called free will, mayonnaise brain!
mayo brain? that's cute
I think mayo brain is appropriate for a message board poster who thinks he knows more than a nasa scientist, a Nobel prize winner at that. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, ahnimus(sp?)
9/98, 9/00 - DC, 4/03 - Pitt., 7/03 - Bristow, 10/04 - Reading, 10/05 - Philly, 5/06 - DC, 6/06 - Pitt., 6/08 - Va Beach, 6/08 - DC, 5/10 - Bristow, 10/13 B'more
8/08 - Ed solo in DC, 6/09 Ed in B'more,
10/10 - Brad in B'more
I do not have nor subscribe to any theory regarding the beginning of earth or universe. Do Ie really need one? I think it would be more fun to make up stories on how you really think it all began.
Of course he used the colors he wanted to see! thats the point. its called free will, mayonnaise brain!
Don't call me mayonnaise brain. From my perspective, you are seriously myopic, you are bordering on total ignorance.
Why did he want to see those colors? Because they are pleasent to him? Why?
Why do I like to see pink, while Bob likes to see blue and Adrienne likes to see red?
Why is Red the most common favorite color amongst women?
I can answer all of those questions and have, but you fail to acknowledge them. You fail. I've already discovered the answers, and I've shared them with you. You ignore these facts to stop the debate at choice and thought, not what contributes to choice and thought. Because as soon as we identify a single determining factor of choice and/or thought, you lose free-will.
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 think mayo brain is appropriate for a message board poster who thinks he knows more than a nasa scientist, a Nobel prize winner at that. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, ahnimus(sp?)
Are NASA scientists comparable to mayonnaise?
The thing is, you cannot be a cosmologist without researching Big Bang related phenomena. You can't research a steady-state universe or your funding is cut and your booted from the observatories. If you don't believe it, ask Halton Arp. Of course each and every NASA scientist is going to support Big Bang, they wouldn't have a job otherwise.
I am coming from an unbias perspective that recognizes that science should be open to debate and scientists should be allowed to research whatever they want. I recognize Arp's research and Hawking's research, as much as they conflict. That is where the uncertainty lies, in accepting all research and not being selective or elitist.
Piece of repeating shit.
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
The thing is, you cannot be a cosmologist without researching Big Bang related phenomena. You can't research a steady-state universe or your funding is cut and your booted from the observatories. If you don't believe it, ask Halton Arp. Of course each and every NASA scientist is going to support Big Bang, they wouldn't have a job otherwise.
I am coming from an unbias perspective that recognizes that science should be open to debate and scientists should be allowed to research whatever they want. I recognize Arp's research and Hawking's research, as much as they conflict. That is where the uncertainty lies, in accepting all research and not being selective or elitist.
Piece of repeating shit.
Be nice, bro.
I'm googling repeating shit theory right now.
I would say the movie, that is conciousness, is in about 500 ms frames. That's based on the time it takes between the firing of an action potential and our awareness of it. (Libet. 1980)
I remember thinking that 3 seconds seemed like a long time when I read thiss, but they gave a reason for it which I have long since forgotten.
If you recognize the illusion of the past and future, I'm wondering why you would consider determinism valid. Within the context of the now being the only time, the rest of it is a construct of our minds, our linear portion of our minds at that. What comes before and what comes after is a logical construct that we use to assess what is before us. I personally choose to utilize such a tool, while at the same time not confusing it's lens with being reality.
I would argue that the 'tool' we use to assess what is before us if affected by the millions of experiences that have occured to us before that point. The millions of experiences that have determined how our brain responds to things on an automatic and sub conscious level.
I don't see any paradox between this point of view and the illusion of past/present.
I thought in the below quote you were suggesting that ingrained synaptic pathways indicated the opposite of free will. Therefore I thought it made perfect sense to believe that conversely, the opposite of your stance could then make a valid case for free will.
Sorry, I wrote that first sentence way too late at night and it needs a little clarification. The thought processes that change brain processes are not, I believe, a conscious thing. And it is the synaptic pathways that are changed- research suggests that whilst it does occur later in life, it is more likely to occur when we are young.
Anyway-I am by no means a brain expert, so that is just my interpretation of what I have read on how the brain works. I think we will both agree that the brain is an amazing thing and that there is still alot left that we do not understand.
Never opened the cabinet and had to choose from Froot Loops and Cap'n Crunch?
Maybe YOUR free will is an illusion. Maybe you should shut down for awhile
C-3PO.
Cap'n Crunch? Never heard of it. Must be a US cereal- don't have that one in OZ. I remember whilst dirt bagging it through the US a while back being super impressed with the diversity and tastiness of your cereals- still cannot find a cereal back home that combines cinamon with all my favorite other bits. Reason number #47 why I am moving back overseas in 11 months.
Anyway, as for the free will thing... 2 points- regardless of the cereals in question- we choose one cereal based on thousands/millions of determinant factors that have influenced the way our brain interprets every event.
Secondly the C-3PO reference is a little disconcerting, given that the human brain has over 200 billion synapses and the record so far for any computer is about 100 000 simulated synapses. Whilst my mental capacity has been questioned with justified cause on many occasions, I would hope that even on the worst of days I am still firing a little better then the CPU.
I would argue that the 'tool' we use to assess what is before us if affected by the millions of experiences that have occured to us before that point. The millions of experiences that have determined how our brain responds to things on an automatic and sub conscious level.
I don't see any paradox between this point of view and the illusion of past/present.
Fair enough. Do you see that the tool and what it shows us may indicate a small degree of reality while missing out on the many complex contexts we will undoubtedly uncover in the "future", which are entirely different than those which are beyond our human comprehension?
Sorry, I wrote that first sentence way too late at night and it needs a little clarification. The thought processes that change brain processes are not, I believe, a conscious thing. And it is the synaptic pathways that are changed- research suggests that whilst it does occur later in life, it is more likely to occur when we are young.
The thing I see though is there is a conception that because something is unconscious that we cannot access it. My aforementioned healing came from uncovering more and more of my unconscious issues. I see an unfortunate problem that when we objectify our understanding through science, etc., we sometimes take the information to be true, and really information is a reflection of what is true and real. For example, psychiatry itself could not offer me healing, however that was due to the limits of psychiatric understanding at this time. It was the front-runner visionary types who left their fields and taught something otherwise that showed me how to alter my own brain programming with dramatic results. Who is the "me" who decides to uncover my subconscious issues and reprogram my brain? It is in this gap beyond science that I perceive free will as being that ability we each have in this moment to change out of our preconceived ways. In my case, doing so was precipitated by a spiritual experience that showed me what I would do. That spiritual aspect of my nature is beyond physical law and determinism.
Anyway-I am by no means a brain expert, so that is just my interpretation of what I have read on how the brain works. I think we will both agree that the brain is an amazing thing and that there is still alot left that we do not understand.
Agreed.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Who is the "me" who decides to uncover my subconscious issues and reprogram my brain? It is in this gap beyond science that I perceive free will as being that ability we each have in this moment to change out of our preconceived ways. In my case, doing so was precipitated by a spiritual experience that showed me what I would do. That spiritual aspect of my nature is beyond physical law and determinism.
No it isn't. You just can't comprehend it, because you believe it's beyond comprehension. I can comprehend it. It's myriad of determinents that control your every thought. The thought and decision to change your preconceived ways, was predetermined by the synaptic firing of neurons in your brain. Absolutely everything that happens within your head, is a result of the brain. You are your 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
Fair enough. Do you see that the tool and what it shows us may indicate a small degree of reality while missing out on the many complex contexts we will undoubtedly uncover in the "future", which are entirely different than those which are beyond our human comprehension?
I certainly agree that the 'tool' only interprets a small degree of reality- but I guess we would disagree on the reality that is beyond out interpretation. I would suggest it is beyond our interpretation because it is complex/hidden and we lack the tools to observe its true nature.
Without wanting to put words into your mouth (but I am gonna try anyway), I would suggest that you perhaps would believe that we already have the tools to interpret these aspects of reality, but the ability to do so needs a greater level of self awareness of how our mind works?
The thing I see though is there is a conception that because something is unconscious that we cannot access it. My aforementioned healing came from uncovering more and more of my unconscious issues. I see an unfortunate problem that when we objectify our understanding through science, etc., we sometimes take the information to be true, and really information is a reflection of what is true and real. For example, psychiatry itself could not offer me healing, however that was due to the limits of psychiatric understanding at this time. It was the front-runner visionary types who left their fields and taught something otherwise that showed me how to alter my own brain programming with dramatic results. Who is the "me" who decides to uncover my subconscious issues and reprogram my brain? It is in this gap beyond science that I perceive free will as being that ability we each have in this moment to change out of our preconceived ways. In my case, doing so was precipitated by a spiritual experience that showed me what I would do. That spiritual aspect of my nature is beyond physical law and determinism.
I guess this discussion comes down to 2 different world views. There are things that many people believe in that fall outside the physical laws of the universe- I, for reasons based on my own life experiences, do not believe in these things (please don't feel sorry for me... for some reason that is a common response- I am quite happy, honest).
I do not proclaim, even for a second, that science can tell us everything- however this is due to our limited capacity for understanding, not a flaw in science. And whilst we may improve this capacity for understanding, I believe that some things will always remain unknown.
I can respect that some people think that there are alternate ways to understanding reality- I just do not believe them.
I certainly agree that the 'tool' only interprets a small degree of reality- but I guess we would disagree on the reality that is beyond out interpretation. I would suggest it is beyond our interpretation because it is complex/hidden and we lack the tools to observe its true nature.
I don't disagree with this.
Without wanting to put words into your mouth (but I am gonna try anyway), I would suggest that you perhaps would believe that we already have the tools to interpret these aspects of reality, but the ability to do so needs a greater level of self awareness of how our mind works?
You know what happens when you assume. I feel that there is much beyond our ability to perceive.
I guess this discussion comes down to 2 different world views. There are things that many people believe in that fall outside the physical laws of the universe- I, for reasons based on my own life experiences, do not believe in these things (please don't feel sorry for me... for some reason that is a common response- I am quite happy, honest).
I can appreciate all kinds of views, yours included. I do not/would not project sorrow on you for your own experience and beliefs that simply are what they are.
I do not proclaim, even for a second, that science can tell us everything- however this is due to our limited capacity for understanding, not a flaw in science.
I agree. I only differentiate that a methodology of understanding something is not the same as that something, and therefore I believe there will always be a gap between reality and science.
And whilst we may improve this capacity for understanding, I believe that some things will always remain unknown.
I can respect that some people think that there are alternate ways to understanding reality- I just do not believe them.
And of course, I respect your view as well.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
All universe creation theories are inherently flawed because something always arises out of nothing. Take the "Big Bang" for example. It's a fairly logical and plausable theory until you ask one question. What was before the big bang? You can't create something from nothing and that is why the Universe is and always will be a mystery.
Excuse me while I go find my bong.
one foot in the door
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
Comments
I very much believe in determinism. The catch to me is that when we come to accept and align with those deterministic factors which are our life, we can widen our horizons and move from seeing ourselves as the drop of water, to appreciating ourselves as also being the ocean. To be more clear, I've personally healed from numerous very serious chemical imbalances, including obsessive-compulsive disorder and bi-polar disorder. I did so by aligning with my own distorted thought processes experientially/subjectively, from my own experience, which is the other side of the objective coin. By taking a wider perspective of being the thinker of these thoughts and not just the product of them, I was able to change them. Therefore, I know I am "spiritually" (but very naturally in terms of natural law) BEYOND being merely the brain functions. Due to this experience, I cannot go back to believing that such determinants control me. Although I recognize until people awaken to their actual power, they are essentially controlled by such determinants. Further, my waking up to my power entitles me to live in a holistic moment, knowing the past and the future are merely constructs of our minds, which allow us to theorize and create more complexly in the now. In reality all we have is the ongoing "now".
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Although I have less of an understanding of the brain then I would like to have, I was under the impression that bi-polar (and other mental illnesses) were far more complex then just a chemical imbalance.
I would suggest that it is possible to change brain processes and correct such conditions through certain behaviors (thought patterns etc.)- although it may be rare, and perhaps not understood even by the individual affecting such changes. I do not believe that this is an argument for free will.
And so it comes to this... you have 'awakened' and we have not. I mean this with the greatest respect as you obviously someone who thinks about this frequently, and my motto for life is to appreciate everyone's beliefs, as long as they have thought about them and can honestly justify what they believe to themselves (even if I disagree). It is just that it is hard to argue with someone who believes they have awoken to something that the rest of us have missed, ( but perhaps we all feel like that).
This statement I agree with- the illusion of the past and future. I once read that the time frame for the present is 3 seconds. It relates to the time it takes to interpret events and their meanings- in other words we make our way through consciousness 3 seconds at a time.
A simple analogy is to imagine that everybody is viewing their own movie of existence. Like a standard movie, frames are continuously displayed. In our present, each frame lasts for 3 seconds, before being replaced by the next. Our movie lasts as long as we do, and despite being related to all other movies of existence, our movie is unique, and plays our consciousness at speeds related to our position and motion. Anyway, sorry... distracted.
Free-will is a necissary illusion for those who choose to point blame, feed their own pride and be intolerant of others. Without those things, free-will has no place.
Even my closest friends and relatives, the nicest people I know, have pride and blame others. I do myself. It's unavoidable. But I don't attribute it to freedom of my will.
Before I was awaken to determinism. I got so frustrated with things. But I also recognized to a degree that I was not in control. So I would go head first into something and watch as an observer. If anyone has ever spoken to the media infront of 5000 people, including the PM, you might now how beneficial being an observer can be. I wasn't nervous, just going for the ride.
The most difficult part for people to grasp is that all of their thoughts, every one of them is the result of an action potential in the brain. When they think "Well, I can make a choice, watch, see I made that choice of my own free-will" that is a series of neurons firing in a sequence that produces those thoughts and is a direct result of the physical brain.
Never opened the cabinet and had to choose from Froot Loops and Cap'n Crunch?
Maybe YOUR free will is an illusion. Maybe you should shut down for awhile
C-3PO.
Making a choice is not evidence of free-will.
I thought in the below quote you were suggesting that ingrained synaptic pathways indicated the opposite of free will. Therefore I thought it made perfect sense to believe that conversely, the opposite of your stance could then make a valid case for free will. Either way, I don't see my linear understanding as showing the whole picture of my existence and where I've stemmed from, nor does logic assess value, purpose, meaning and full understanding, imo. I consider it a view through which I look at my life. To me how a brain filters life and experience does not necessarily capture the truth of reality. I understand how to alter my mental/emotional patterns in a way that is conducive to my own harmony and to my own personal benefit. Others have done so, while many others have not. Many continue to argue against our ability to do so. I am able to be the thinker of my thoughts, rather than see myself as the product of them. Where others put themselves on this continuum is about their own view of themselves, and is independent of me. I value all views and understand the validity of each from each context. And still, my own worldview can only be what it is.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The other day, like i do many days, i sat down with my four year old son to color a picture. My son colored the boys hair purple, his face lime green, and his hands lemon yellow. i asked him "why did you color the boys hair purple"? His response: "i just wanted to". i asked the same question about the boys lime green face and lemon yellow hands, as well as why the two didn't even, at least match. Same response. "thats just how i wanted to do it.
My sons hair is brown, both of his brothers have brown hair as well, as does my wife and i (mine speckled with more than a little gray). He has never seen anyone with purple hair, or lime green and lemon yellow skin. There really are no pre determinates there. There was a brown crayon in the box, as well as several other colors more appropriate for hair, and plenty of fleshtones as well. The colorscheme he chose was a pure excercise of imagination and free-will. no question about it. Alogical, illogical, or whatever you wish to call it. But definitely expression of freewill.
(i can't believe i'm still bothering withthis conversation)
How is that evidence of free-will?
I wouldn't expect a 4 year old to color a person as they are colored in nature. That's just fucking boring. A 4 year old is likely to color based on what colors they want to see. Also, a 4 year old isn't going to be able to tell you why they chose those colors. A child psychologist, might be able to tell you why though. Just like most adults can't tell you why they do everything because they don't know enough about themselves. A psychologist might be able to answer that question though.
Your son may have answered "I picked the first color that came to mind" that would seem like a reasonable parallel to "I don't know why", "I just thought of a color and used it.". So whatever color that came to mind was the color used. Where did that color come from? The BRAIN. It was the result of an algorithm performed by the brain. People can not choose what they think. You can't choose your favorite color, it's your favorite because (i) your retinas allow for definition in that color, (ii) it has sentimental significance.
You cling to the concept of free-will by ignoring the deeper aspects of thought. By ignoring the question "Where do thoughts come from?"
you should email john mather at NASA who just won the Nobel prize for his book on the big bang, The Very First Light: The True Inside Story of the Scientific Journey Back to the Dawn of the Universe (Paperback)
and tell him how you feel
8/08 - Ed solo in DC, 6/09 Ed in B'more,
10/10 - Brad in B'more
Fuck that nut, he won't listen to opponents of Big Bang.
Under determinism your choice would always be determined beforehand, and whenever you think you could made a different choice it's not actually true. Ie if the exact situation was re-run countless times then you would make the same choice under determinism every time. Under that framework the notion of free will is just an illusion.
The kicker is that every situation encountered is unique, so there is no easy way to test freewill vs determinism.
never mind
8/08 - Ed solo in DC, 6/09 Ed in B'more,
10/10 - Brad in B'more
Of course he used the colors he wanted to see! thats the point. its called free will, mayonnaise brain!
mayo brain? that's cute
I think mayo brain is appropriate for a message board poster who thinks he knows more than a nasa scientist, a Nobel prize winner at that. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, ahnimus(sp?)
8/08 - Ed solo in DC, 6/09 Ed in B'more,
10/10 - Brad in B'more
And if a robot used colors it wanted to see would that be free will too?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Don't call me mayonnaise brain. From my perspective, you are seriously myopic, you are bordering on total ignorance.
Why did he want to see those colors? Because they are pleasent to him? Why?
Why do I like to see pink, while Bob likes to see blue and Adrienne likes to see red?
Why is Red the most common favorite color amongst women?
I can answer all of those questions and have, but you fail to acknowledge them. You fail. I've already discovered the answers, and I've shared them with you. You ignore these facts to stop the debate at choice and thought, not what contributes to choice and thought. Because as soon as we identify a single determining factor of choice and/or thought, you lose free-will.
Are NASA scientists comparable to mayonnaise?
The thing is, you cannot be a cosmologist without researching Big Bang related phenomena. You can't research a steady-state universe or your funding is cut and your booted from the observatories. If you don't believe it, ask Halton Arp. Of course each and every NASA scientist is going to support Big Bang, they wouldn't have a job otherwise.
I am coming from an unbias perspective that recognizes that science should be open to debate and scientists should be allowed to research whatever they want. I recognize Arp's research and Hawking's research, as much as they conflict. That is where the uncertainty lies, in accepting all research and not being selective or elitist.
Piece of repeating shit.
Be nice, bro.
I'm googling repeating shit theory right now.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Is that what we are? Robots?
Robots don't WANT anything. They perform the operations they were designed and programmed to do.
I remember thinking that 3 seconds seemed like a long time when I read thiss, but they gave a reason for it which I have long since forgotten.
I would argue that the 'tool' we use to assess what is before us if affected by the millions of experiences that have occured to us before that point. The millions of experiences that have determined how our brain responds to things on an automatic and sub conscious level.
I don't see any paradox between this point of view and the illusion of past/present.
Sorry, I wrote that first sentence way too late at night and it needs a little clarification. The thought processes that change brain processes are not, I believe, a conscious thing. And it is the synaptic pathways that are changed- research suggests that whilst it does occur later in life, it is more likely to occur when we are young.
Anyway-I am by no means a brain expert, so that is just my interpretation of what I have read on how the brain works. I think we will both agree that the brain is an amazing thing and that there is still alot left that we do not understand.
Cap'n Crunch? Never heard of it. Must be a US cereal- don't have that one in OZ. I remember whilst dirt bagging it through the US a while back being super impressed with the diversity and tastiness of your cereals- still cannot find a cereal back home that combines cinamon with all my favorite other bits. Reason number #47 why I am moving back overseas in 11 months.
Anyway, as for the free will thing... 2 points- regardless of the cereals in question- we choose one cereal based on thousands/millions of determinant factors that have influenced the way our brain interprets every event.
Secondly the C-3PO reference is a little disconcerting, given that the human brain has over 200 billion synapses and the record so far for any computer is about 100 000 simulated synapses. Whilst my mental capacity has been questioned with justified cause on many occasions, I would hope that even on the worst of days I am still firing a little better then the CPU.
Agreed.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No it isn't. You just can't comprehend it, because you believe it's beyond comprehension. I can comprehend it. It's myriad of determinents that control your every thought. The thought and decision to change your preconceived ways, was predetermined by the synaptic firing of neurons in your brain. Absolutely everything that happens within your head, is a result of the brain. You are your brain.
I certainly agree that the 'tool' only interprets a small degree of reality- but I guess we would disagree on the reality that is beyond out interpretation. I would suggest it is beyond our interpretation because it is complex/hidden and we lack the tools to observe its true nature.
Without wanting to put words into your mouth (but I am gonna try anyway), I would suggest that you perhaps would believe that we already have the tools to interpret these aspects of reality, but the ability to do so needs a greater level of self awareness of how our mind works?
I guess this discussion comes down to 2 different world views. There are things that many people believe in that fall outside the physical laws of the universe- I, for reasons based on my own life experiences, do not believe in these things (please don't feel sorry for me... for some reason that is a common response- I am quite happy, honest).
I do not proclaim, even for a second, that science can tell us everything- however this is due to our limited capacity for understanding, not a flaw in science. And whilst we may improve this capacity for understanding, I believe that some things will always remain unknown.
I can respect that some people think that there are alternate ways to understanding reality- I just do not believe them.
You know what happens when you assume.
I can appreciate all kinds of views, yours included. I do not/would not project sorrow on you for your own experience and beliefs that simply are what they are.
I agree. I only differentiate that a methodology of understanding something is not the same as that something, and therefore I believe there will always be a gap between reality and science.
And of course, I respect your view as well.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Excuse me while I go find my bong.
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
We are indistinguishable from very complex robots. Our actions are indistinguishable from being pre-determined.