The Astonishing Hypothesis

Ahnimus · March 2007

angelica wrote:

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.

Ahnimus · March 2007

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.

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Umm, dude wasn't a physicist, and the physicists in the audience told him he was absolutely wrong about quantum mechanics.

I'm wondering why you shared the video. It seems like you don't really buy into some of it's principles.

Ahnimus · March 2007

angelica wrote:

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.

Ahnimus · March 2007

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.

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus · March 2007

angelica wrote:

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.

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus · March 2007

angelica wrote:

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.

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus · March 2007

angelica wrote:

Both can be successfully done at the same time.

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.

Your belief in free-will is a determinant to your behavior, and thus why it's sometimes referred to as "the neccissary illusion of free-will". It doesn't change how your brain actually works, it just changes your dream.

You can deny physical reality all you want, it still exists, it still affects you, nothing can change that. If you don't want to acknowledge the physical world, why even talk to me about this? Just imagine I don't exist.

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

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 agree that they hone theories through opposing views. And they may hone truth. And discover new theories. However, the idea that if enough people agree on something makes it true doesn't work for me. What is true is true independent of people's opinions.

You may be right about the dude. It's also possible that he is talking about something we, or the other scientists don't yet understand--hence the fact that he is presenting a new theory. People are notorious for denying changes if it causes cognitive dissonance--scientists, too. It takes a process before people come around to new ideas, so it makes sense that there is disagreement with all emergent theories. I will be interested to find out what is commonly accepted in 10 years. That will give me a clearer idea of what is "true" than opposing views right off the bat upon hearing a new idea.

Ahnimus · March 2007

angelica wrote:

I agree that they hone theories through opposing views. And they may hone truth. And discover new theories. However, the idea that if enough people agree on something makes it true doesn't work for me. What is true is true independent of people's opinions.

You may be right about the dude. It's also possible that he is talking about something we, or the other scientists don't yet understand--hence the fact that he is presenting a new theory. People are notorious for denying changes if it causes cognitive dissonance--scientists, too. It takes a process before people come around to new ideas, so it makes sense that there is disagreement with all emergent theories. I will be interested to find out what is commonly accepted in 10 years. That will give me a clearer idea of what is "true" than opposing views right off the bat upon hearing a new idea.

I don't see how a neuroscientist studying gamma waves can postulate a break-through theory on quantum physics. Seems kind of far-fetched.

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Your belief in free-will is a determinant to your behavior, and thus why it's sometimes referred to as "the neccissary illusion of free-will". It doesn't change how your brain actually works, it just changes your dream.

Did you forget that I have changed how my brain works in terms of numerous very obvious disorders?

You can deny physical reality all you want, it still exists, it still affects you, nothing can change that. If you don't want to acknowledge the physical world, why even talk to me about this? Just imagine I don't exist.

Show me where I'm denying the physical world? The cornerstone of my belief is accepting what exists. I take an active role with the physical world. I acknowledge how it affects me and then I respond to turn a situation into something that is conducive to my happiness, goals and dreams. The difference that I see between you and I is that I focus on what I can change, which is my own mindset, so that my mind works in ways that work for me. (and for the record, I thought you also believed in doing so) You believe science and medicine and operations on frontal lobes will correct the problem of people's social problems. I believe my going into the world and teaching people to change their lives by changing their brain chemistry from within will provide an answer. We're both taking a different approach to the same natural world problems.

I realize I have absolute control on how I look at and process the physical world all along recognizing the physical world I am processing. Surely you realize that we have the ability to change our thoughts? I can not only mentally control how I experience reality now, but I can change my mental/emotional experience of past painful experiences, so that they no longer unconsciously control me in the now.

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't see how a neuroscientist studying gamma waves can postulate a break-through theory on quantum physics. Seems kind of far-fetched.

It may seem that way. Which is why I'll be interested to know what future discovery tells us as fact.

Ahnimus · March 2007

angelica wrote:

Did you forget that I have changed how my brain works in terms of numerous very obvious disorders?

Show me where I'm denying the physical world? The cornerstone of my belief is accepting what exists. I take an active role with the physical world. I acknowledge how it affects me and then I respond to turn a situation into something that is conducive to my happiness, goals and dreams. The difference that I see between you and I is that I focus on what I can change, which is my own mindset, so that my mind works in ways that work for me. (and for the record, I thought you also believed in doing so) You believe science and medicine and operations on frontal lobes will correct the problem of people's social problems. I believe my going into the world and teaching people to change their lives by changing their brain chemistry from within will provide an answer. We're both taking a different approach to the same natural world problems.

I realize I have absolute control on how I look at and process the physical world all along recognizing the physical world I am processing. Surely you realize that we have the ability to change our thoughts? I can not only mentally control how I experience reality now, but I can change my mental/emotional experience of past painful experiences, so that they no longer unconsciously control me in the now.

You can't actually, you can look at optical illusions and believe they are not illusions, but never-the-less they are still illusions.

What I'm referring to though is your choice to disregard philosophical concepts as real, regardless of wether they are or not. You can change the name of free-will and redefine it all you want, but the classical concept of free-will still exists. So why don't you state wether or not you believe in the classical concept of free-will instead of skating the topic.

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

You can't actually, you can look at optical illusions and believe they are not illusions, but never-the-less they are still illusions.

What I'm referring to though is your choice to disregard philosophical concepts as real, regardless of wether they are or not. You can change the name of free-will and redefine it all you want, but the classical concept of free-will still exists. So why don't you state wether or not you believe in the classical concept of free-will instead of skating the topic.

Are you saying the perspective I use to look at my life is not real?

I do not claim that the classical concept of free-will does not exist. I'm saying rather that if it is what you say it is, it is not the whole picture for me.

As for 'skating the topic', I once defended you to soulsinging for the same thing. I'm expressing my point of view how I see it. Your point of view may be tied into the classical one. Mine is not. I'm not even equipped to talk about the classical one. I only debate what I know and understand. What I see in philosophies are the truths within the context. I'm sure I would study the classical free-will view and I would come to appreciate and understand it within the context it defines itself by. I might understand what you are saying. At the same time, I do believe I understand what you are saying and that it is valid within your context. There are many different maps of the world. It's interesting that although you and I have different ones, we've come to essentially the same destination. I'm also convinced that if we want to get really anal, we could come to almost perfect agreement. We could do so by deconstructing our differing terms and concepts, like we've done on the physical world stuff. However, I'm so convinced we do agree that I don't really feel the desire to do so. If you want to, I can--if I decide it's not a good plan, I'll back out. But, I feel that you can add to my view with information and ideas that I am not normally perceiving, such as when you start interesting threads, and raise interesting topics, etc, whereupon we debate, and are "forced" to consider a complementary aspect to what we naturally perceive.

Ahnimus · March 2007

angelica wrote:

Are you saying the perspective I use to look at my life is not real?

I do not claim that the classical concept of free-will does not exist. I'm saying rather that if it is what you say it is, it is not the whole picture for me.

As for 'skating the topic', I once defended you to soulsinging for the same thing. I'm expressing my point of view how I see it. Your point of view may be tied into the classical one. Mine is not. I'm not even equipped to talk about the classical one. I only debate what I know and understand. What I see in philosophies are the truths within the context. I'm sure I would study the classical free-will view and I would come to appreciate and understand it within the context it defines itself by. I might understand what you are saying. At the same time, I do believe I understand what you are saying and that it is valid within your context. There are many different maps of the world. It's interesting that although you and I have different ones, we've come to essentially the same destination. I'm also convinced that if we want to get really anal, we could come to almost perfect agreement. We could do so by deconstructing our differing terms and concepts, like we've done on the physical world stuff. However, I'm so convinced we do agree that I don't really feel the desire to do so. If you want to, I can--if I decide it's not a good plan, I'll back out. But, I feel that you can add to my view with information and ideas that I am not normally perceiving, such as when you start interesting threads, and raise interesting topics, etc, whereupon we debate, and are "forced" to consider a complementary aspect to what we naturally perceive.

What context are you talking about? The context of reality?

See, I don't mean to be mean. This is why I get frustrated talking with you. I am discussing reality, what exists within reality. I'm talking about the concept of free-will as it is defined by the philosophical community. I'm trying to discuss it within the context of reality. But, you are talking about other realities, or other contexts, other definitions of free-will. Changing the discussion, distorting it and making it incomprehensible. It's no wonder no one seems to know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a very simple thing, determinism vs indeterminism. There is no alternate reality that we can inhabit where this issue is not a valid one.

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

What context are you talking about? The context of reality?

See, I don't mean to be mean. This is why I get frustrated talking with you. I am discussing reality, what exists within reality. I'm talking about the concept of free-will as it is defined by the philosophical community. I'm trying to discuss it within the context of reality. But, you are talking about other realities, or other contexts, other definitions of free-will. Changing the discussion, distorting it and making it incomprehensible. It's no wonder no one seems to know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a very simple thing, determinism vs indeterminism. There is no alternate reality that we can inhabit where this issue is not a valid one.

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?

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Your belief in free-will is a determinant to your behavior, and thus why it's sometimes referred to as "the neccissary illusion of free-will". It doesn't change how your brain actually works, it just changes your dream.

I fully understand determinism, and agree that the illusion of choice through my life has been an illusion. I agree that I am a product of all my determinants. Then, when I talk about a different, complementary level of perception that goes along with the determinist view where I see a whole new level of choice, I can't be partaking of the illusion you talk about. The necessary illusion you speak of, if I am understanding, is for those who tune out determinism and live an illusion because they can't understand or otherwise accept how programmed the are. I embrace determinism, and prove that to you over and over by my understanding and complete belief in it, so I can't be looking at an illusion.

The Astonishing Hypothesis

Comments

Welcome!

Quick Links

Categories