Are you in control of your own thoughts, actions and decisions?

This forum is for anything not Reason related, if you just want to talk about other stuff. Please keep it friendly!
avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3932
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

02 Aug 2017

CaliforniaBurrito wrote:
02 Aug 2017
platzangst wrote:
02 Aug 2017
Suppose you are a bit hungry, and a bit sleepy. You could go to the kitchen and get a snack. Or you could relax in an easy chair and take a nap. Or you might ignore both impulses and do something else entirely, like watch a few YouTube videos.
Actually, you just realized you can't do any of those things because your job called you into work today. Now you have to defy your own biological impulses because you are socially conditioned. What do you scientists have to say about that eh? I suppose you can rationalize with saying that going to work provides food and shelter which are basic biological needs but that is a long term result of a grind that is not impulsive at all. Living for long term results doesn't coincide with an existence that is based on impulsive biology. People work for the long term in different ways e.g. school, career, family, religion, hell - even music production which leads me to believe that human beings are not just biological creatures.

Delayed gratification = death if you're not a human being.
You terribly misunderstand the position of neurologists. Also nobody is suggesting all decisions are purely impulsive :?

I think you have an overly simplistic idea of what you think neurologists are saying, and are arguing against that rather than what is actually being said.

User avatar
CaliforniaBurrito
Posts: 574
Joined: 11 Nov 2015
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

02 Aug 2017

avasopht wrote:
02 Aug 2017
I picked a video about free will to start the discussion.
You picked a video which received a thumbs down from me due to the fact that it was sensational, unconcise, social media clickbait. :thumbs_down:

We all know of ways that we are literally not in control of our brains but the very video you chose to share is titled with the ignorant blanket statement "Why You Don't Have Free Will: Your Breakfast Food, Biology and Culture". Biggest load of horse dookie I've seen in a while but thanks for sharing. I appreciate when somebody challenges me to think about things on a deeper level even if I don't agree with the process.

I don't have free will?! I think neuroscientists should stay the hell away from philosophy.

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3932
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

02 Aug 2017

CaliforniaBurrito wrote:
02 Aug 2017
You picked a video which received a thumbs down from me due to the fact that it was sensational, unconcise, social media clickbait. :thumbs_down:

We all know of ways that we are literally not in control of our brains but the very video you chose to share is titled with the ignorant blanket statement "Why You Don't Have Free Will: Your Breakfast Food, Biology and Culture". Biggest load of horse dookie I've seen in a while but thanks for sharing. I appreciate when somebody challenges me to think about things on a deeper level even if I don't agree with the process.

I don't have free will?! I think neuroscientists should stay the hell away from philosophy.
I picked that video because I thought it would be a lot easier to digest ;)

In terms of neurology and philosophy, I think that what we now know through neurology provides vital information for the philosophical discussion. The problem being encountered right now is that we just don't have a framework to integrate the low level biology with the high level social behaviours.


User avatar
CaliforniaBurrito
Posts: 574
Joined: 11 Nov 2015
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

02 Aug 2017

avasopht wrote:
02 Aug 2017
The problem being encountered right now is that we just don't have a framework to integrate the low level biology with the high level social behaviours.
I agree. I'd kick it Bill Nye instead of Robert Sapolsky any day of the week. Sapolsky is liable to make me act out on some psychopathic tendencies with his garbage. :lol:

User avatar
platzangst
Posts: 728
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

02 Aug 2017

CaliforniaBurrito wrote:
02 Aug 2017
Actually, you just realized you can't do any of those things because your job called you into work today. Now you have to defy your own biological impulses because you are socially conditioned. What do you scientists have to say about that eh?
I think you're severely missing the point.

Even you, being all aware of (and rebelling against) social conditioning are only doing so because of the biology of your brain. You happened to go through a process in your life which has (apparently) conditioned you to respond against "mainstream" conditioning. But even if it's against society it's still a type of conditioning.

Whether or not that's a good or pleasing way to live is irrelevant to the point. Even your rebellion is a result of your biology. The things in your life happened the way they did and were never going to happen any other way, and so here you are now. It doesn't matter if you go along with society or go against society or stand around on a streetcorner yelling at individual nitrogen atoms. You are the way you are and so you do what you do. Even if someone reads this and goes "oh, heck no! I'm gonna change my life entirely and do everything completely different from now on just to prove free will," that happens because at that particular moment in time, due to those particular inputs, the chemicals in their brain just happen to hit the right way to propel them into an act of rebellion.

Everything we do is a biological impulse, everything. Some are just more primal than others.

People reject this idea, often because they think "I don't like the idea of chemicals telling me what to do!" But they see it all wrong. We are the chemicals. We're nothing but chemicals.

User avatar
CaliforniaBurrito
Posts: 574
Joined: 11 Nov 2015
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

02 Aug 2017

platzangst wrote:
02 Aug 2017
I think you're severely missing the point.
I get your point but I'm just too spiritual and philosophical to embrace a squared mentality of scientific function. Looking at things so literally, for me at least, I think is pretty detrimental to my well-being. You're the guy who believes art is anything people do that isn't essential to existence while I think of it as so much more.

I guess I'm just a hopeless romantic.

:)

User avatar
jappe
Moderator
Posts: 2438
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

02 Aug 2017

platzangst wrote:
02 Aug 2017

People reject this idea, often because they think "I don't like the idea of chemicals telling me what to do!" But they see it all wrong. We are the chemicals. We're nothing but chemicals.
I'm curious about if quantum physics could be a joker in the human brain. And since we don't yet fully understand it, there could possibly exist non deterministic processes from that?

Some scientists seem to still believe true randomness can exist

http://www.askamathematician.com/2009/1 ... andomness/

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3932
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

02 Aug 2017

CaliforniaBurrito wrote:
02 Aug 2017
I get your point but I'm just too spiritual and philosophical to embrace a squared mentality of scientific function. Looking at things so literally, for me at least, I think is pretty detrimental to my well-being. You're the guy who believes art is anything people do that isn't essential to existence while I think of it as so much more.

I guess I'm just a hopeless romantic.

:)
Being spiritual doesn't have to mean rejecting science, neurology or psychology. And being philosophical certainly doesn't mean denial of scientific function.

At the end of the day the end goal is the same - to understand the nature of reality and conscious experience.

You can try to do it purely on how you feel it is, but on its own it can draw you off of a cliff of sorts, especially when our perceptions deceive us. But given so much was considered thousands of years before we had the scientific measurements to confirm it, I do think intuition and introspection can go a long way, just done so with the utmost care and philosophical subtlety.

User avatar
platzangst
Posts: 728
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

02 Aug 2017

jappe wrote:
02 Aug 2017
I'm curious about if quantum physics could be a joker in the human brain. And since we don't yet fully understand it, there could possibly exist non deterministic processes from that?
Possibly. But it's kind of a "God of the gaps" situation. Since we don't understand those things enough, it's like building a theory on a foundation of our ignorance.

User avatar
CaliforniaBurrito
Posts: 574
Joined: 11 Nov 2015
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

02 Aug 2017

avasopht wrote:
02 Aug 2017
Being spiritual doesn't have to mean rejecting science, neurology or psychology. And being philosophical certainly doesn't mean denial of scientific function.

At the end of the day the end goal is the same - to understand the nature of reality and conscious experience.
Sure. No rejections or denials here and I just prefer to be more rounded than squared off in a cold existence with knowledge that doesn't do much for people outside of the given field of work. Life will continue as it is supposed to be written. Time for some music now. :D

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3932
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

02 Aug 2017

platzangst wrote:
02 Aug 2017
jappe wrote:
02 Aug 2017
I'm curious about if quantum physics could be a joker in the human brain. And since we don't yet fully understand it, there could possibly exist non deterministic processes from that?
Possibly. But it's kind of a "God of the gaps" situation. Since we don't understand those things enough, it's like building a theory on a foundation of our ignorance.
I forgot to respond to that.

The idea that quantum randomness can give free will becomes quite redundant when considered deeply.

A random element being involved simply means your decision has randomness to it. It doesn't make it any freer.

Our decisions can have a certain amount of randomness to them anyway, where monitoring equipment can see our brains flittering between decisions. And given that our cognitive performance is not absolutely constant suggests our neural functions differ from time to time and will not always give the same result.

What does matter in the subject of free will is that our decisions are based on or highly influenced by our prior experiences and preferences. It is when they do not that I think the ideal of free will does not exist.

To me the ideal of free will is simply that the person is making decisions based on their unique set of assumptions, and that they have a reasonable capacity to examine and question their assumptions and emotions.

User avatar
jappe
Moderator
Posts: 2438
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

02 Aug 2017

avasopht wrote:
02 Aug 2017


I forgot to respond to that.

The idea that quantum randomness can give free will becomes quite redundant when considered deeply.

A random element being involved simply means your decision has randomness to it. It doesn't make it any freer.
Existence of true randomness is a requirement, but not a guarantee, for free will to exist, right?

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3932
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

02 Aug 2017

jappe wrote:
02 Aug 2017
Existence of true randomness is a requirement, but not a guarantee, for free will to exist, right?
Well, ... as Bill Nye said, whether you have free will or not depends on how you define it.

The free will debate began long before we had even confirmed atoms. So on one hand free-will pertains to whether your future is predetermined by the current state, and on another it is whether you are acting at your own discretion.

Those are two separate and unconnected measures.

The significance of free will on a personal level is whether our sense of making decisions reflects reality, and a lot of the debate is whether determinism contradicts that.

I would say that determinism does not prevent us making decisions on our own discretion, and actually is a prerequisite.

Quantum randomness would would mean that the outcomes are not deterministic, presuming the randomness was from a source of pure randomness. It would not make our will any freer.

But that's not even what is suggested by theoretical physics anyway, especially since it pushes physics beyond testability and the physical universe.

So then my question to you is, what definition of free will are you most concerned with? Do any of them make you uncomfortable? like determinism?

User avatar
jappe
Moderator
Posts: 2438
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

02 Aug 2017

avasopht wrote:
02 Aug 2017
jappe wrote:
02 Aug 2017
Existence of true randomness is a requirement, but not a guarantee, for free will to exist, right?
Well, ... as Bill Nye said, whether you have free will or not depends on how you define it.

The free will debate began long before we had even confirmed atoms. So on one hand free-will pertains to whether your future is predetermined by the current state, and on another it is whether you are acting at your own discretion.

Those are two separate and unconnected measures.

The significance of free will on a personal level is whether our sense of making decisions reflects reality, and a lot of the debate is whether determinism contradicts that.

I would say that determinism does not prevent us making decisions on our own discretion, and actually is a prerequisite.

Quantum randomness would would mean that the outcomes are not deterministic, presuming the randomness was from a source of pure randomness. It would not make our will any freer.

But that's not even what is suggested by theoretical physics anyway, especially since it pushes physics beyond testability and the physical universe.

So then my question to you is, what definition of free will are you most concerned with? Do any of them make you uncomfortable? like determinism?
I'm open to explore different definitions of free will.
When suggesting that existence of true randomness is a requirement, but not a guarantee, for free will to exist, I guess that's one option I find interesting.
If I'd get to choose(!) how I like my free will to be built, I think perhaps I'd like :
1. To keep the illusion that I make my own decisions
2. To have some degree of true randomness involved in my decisions.

It would be like watching a really captivating movie with some predictability but also unexpected quirks.

Then again, perhaps there's more to it that I or anyone else could be capable of understanding.

User avatar
sublunar
Posts: 507
Joined: 27 Apr 2017

02 Aug 2017

platzangst wrote:
02 Aug 2017

The things in your life happened the way they did and were never going to happen any other way, and so here you are now. It doesn't matter if you go along with society or go against society or stand around on a streetcorner yelling at individual nitrogen atoms. You are the way you are and so you do what you do. Even if someone reads this and goes "oh, heck no! I'm gonna change my life entirely and do everything completely different from now on just to prove free will," that happens because at that particular moment in time, due to those particular inputs, the chemicals in their brain just happen to hit the right way to propel them into an act of rebellion.
This right here. This is exactly what I have a problem with when it comes to the idea of free will vs determinism. This is the typical philosophical way of taking a concrete stand on an unproven matter. No matter what, you can't argue this because everything you say or do is pre-ordained by your biology. It's such a convenient argument to make. Ultimately convenient. Completely un-provable. Every day countless decisions are made. Life changing things happen and split second reactions occur. Yet, without tangible proof, the deterministss will tell you that decision was already made. Prove to me that every movement of my mind and body was pre-ordained (you can't because you'd have to first locate the alternate universe in which the same decisions were repeated 100% of the time by the same biological organism) or cram the philosophical nonsense up your patchouli chute.

On top of that, there isn't even a solid definition of free will. On top of that, the subconscious mind is pretty well uncharted territory. All in all a dead-end argument that doesn't really help me understand the world around me any better. I'd rather research dream symbolism and alchemy.

I'm admittedly pretty rusty in these topics but I found a lot of philosophical arguments throughout college and elsewhere generally covered a lot of similarly un-provable things. Sometimes it is fun and challenging and eye opening, depending on the subject matter. Other times it amounts to self absorbed ego stroking fart sniffing contests for which I don't have the patience.

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3932
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

02 Aug 2017

sublunar wrote:
02 Aug 2017
On top of that, there isn't even a solid definition of free will.
This I think creates the most confusion in the debate.

But let's consider this, if we are talking about you making your own choice, wouldn't a random element mean that your choice is effectively being deferred to something completely external to you?

It's for that reason that I don't think randomness makes my choices any more my own, nor do I think they would add any more value of any kind. Even if some quantum fluctuations affected a decision, our decisions would still largely be determined by the formation of our brain, with the randomness resulting in occasional differences in signalling.

Randomness or other quantum effects could be playing a role, but I don't think it is necessary in any way for our conscious experience, unless our conscious experience is the seemingly random fluctuations playing puppetmaster to a deterministic vessel.

User avatar
gak
Posts: 2840
Joined: 05 Feb 2015

03 Aug 2017

Fuck yes, but I'm not in control of a world that is TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL.

So, not sure what to say?

I don't like criminals. I don't like the dog-crap-cookie-cutter stuff that is ruling the planet. I don't like trump. I don't like most people, it's hard. I'd love to be "that guy" ... you know, that guy that is so stupid that they don't understand how irrational 98% of the world is? But I can't.

So, I'm in control of my thought and actions, but I'm VERY VERY angry that the world is a shitty place and I can't just make myself happy. Drugs just don't cut it anymore.

User avatar
platzangst
Posts: 728
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

03 Aug 2017

sublunar wrote:
02 Aug 2017
It's such a convenient argument to make. Ultimately convenient. Completely un-provable. Every day countless decisions are made. Life changing things happen and split second reactions occur. Yet, without tangible proof, the deterministss will tell you that decision was already made. Prove to me that every movement of my mind and body was pre-ordained (you can't because you'd have to first locate the alternate universe in which the same decisions were repeated 100% of the time by the same biological organism) or cram the philosophical nonsense up your patchouli chute.
Dude, first, fuck your antagonism.

Okay.

Look, nothing can be "proved" in the sense of irrefutable facts from Heaven, and I suspect you're not even that willing to listen to any evidence whatsoever, but here goes:

We are assuming, in my argument, that nothing supernatural exists. That everything happens as a result of natural processes with no magical interventions. (If you want to believe in some higher power then you can disregard the rest of the argument entirely, but then you have far less evidence for your position than a determinist.)

What we do know about the observable universe, is that everything follows predictable rules. Gravity operates just so. Light has a particular speed. Atoms combine in certain ways under certain conditions. And these rules don't just spontaneously abrogate themselves - a gold coin isn't going to suddenly turn into a helium balloon. Gravity doesn't just turn off randomly. We can observe asteroids and predict their paths, they don't "wander" randomly.

Chemistry and electricity follow these rules. And as far as anyone's been able to see, the human brain is made up of chemicals, with tiny electrical impulses going around.

Therefore, the human brain either must completely follow these physical laws, or we have to imagine some kind of "x-factor" that we currently have no indication of or evidence for.

Since there is no evidence for this "x-factor", I operate under the assumption that the brain is wholly organic and consciousness is a product of rules-following chemical systems.

If all this is true - and as yet there's no compelling evidence that it isn't - then the chemicals are always going to react in certain ways. They cannot react in ways not in accordance with their nature. Wherever two or more types of chemicals meet in the brain, they are going to react in a certain way and deliver a certain result in accordance with the physical laws of the world.

Now, none of this means that some scientist can just sit down with a scratchpad and work out what you'll choose for dinner two weeks from now. The brain's systems are bafflingly complex and we're far from a complete understanding of them all. In a practical sense, we can't predict how any person's life will turn out - there's simply too many variables and unknown factors.

But we don't have to be able to completely predict a person's actions to understand that it all comes from processes that obey chemical laws and as a result, will only happen one way in accordance with whatever chemical balance is running through one's system at the moment a choice is made. The fact that you can imagine an alternate course of action that you might have taken is largely irrelevant: when the actual time for choosing came, you made a choice and it was always going to be that choice, because all your choices before that brought you to that point, and all those previous choices were also the result of chemical reactions that were only going to happen in one particular way, just as the matter that formed our solar system was only going to solidify in one way according to physical laws.

Now, I can't point to a specific neuron in your brain and say that's the one that made you do such and so. But I can make a statement about determinism based on things we know to be true. For me to be wrong, some part of this chain of reasoning has to be shown to be false. But so far, nobody challenges the actual facts, they just say the equivalent of "well, you don't know!"

User avatar
raymondh
Posts: 1776
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

03 Aug 2017

I guess the question here is, do we really know? Or do we just think we do.

The "rules" and "physical laws" are just human-made theories and models that we build to understand the world around us. And then we change the model when something happens that doesn't fit the model. What we 'know' to be true is only what conforms to the model we understand today.

There are many unexplained observations that don't yet fit within the models we have (e.g. the placebo effect) and a lot of research that is coming up with possible explanations.

That's all fine, but where this falls a bit short, is the definition of evidence. It all gets a bit tricky when you overlay quantum physics, and it gets even muddier when you bring in the views of meta-physics, because what you see is the factions in the science community form where critical thinking starts to shut down. I have a few healthy debates with friends about this and it is amazing how when people's world view is challenged, they immediately jump to a defensive/justification position rather than one of curiosity. I think for many people, no amount of 'evidence' will be enough to change their 'belief' about the way everything works.

Wouldn't it be interesting putting Newton and Einstein in the same room if they were both alive today!
Last edited by raymondh on 03 Aug 2017, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
aeox
Competition Winner
Posts: 3222
Joined: 23 Feb 2017
Location: Oregon

03 Aug 2017

We know nothing.

User avatar
CaliforniaBurrito
Posts: 574
Joined: 11 Nov 2015
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

03 Aug 2017

aeox wrote:
03 Aug 2017
We know nothing.
Apparently the neuroscience fans in this thread know some things. :?

I'm all for science but people need to draw the line when science fans think they can leave skid marks on philosophy and spirituality. Absolutely unacceptable.

User avatar
stratatonic
Posts: 1507
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: CANADA

03 Aug 2017

CaliforniaBurrito wrote:
02 Aug 2017

I guess I'm just a hopeless romantic.
It's just the chemicals. :puf_bigsmile:

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3932
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

03 Aug 2017

raymondh wrote:
03 Aug 2017
I guess the question here is, do we really know? Or do we just think we do.
Past a certain point I think it's comfortable to say we know well enough in certain areas, otherwise you'll forever be saying, but what if we're just in a simulation? or, but what if this is a dream? or, but what if this dimension is just an error correction?

I think that even when everything is known, it can always be asked whether there is something else to be known, or whether there is a somewhere else where the rules are different.

But right now in our immediate reality the sun sets in the west, things fall down, and water is wet. Maybe water isn't really wet, but our investigations into wetness are thorough enough that it's most likely that it will always be wet.

So if reality is far removed from what we see and measure objectively, the illusion is persistently convincing enough to assume this is all there is. The 27 km Hadron Collider's 6 quadrillion accelerated particle collisions has yet to challenge the standard model, so I think it's accurate enough ;)

User avatar
sublunar
Posts: 507
Joined: 27 Apr 2017

03 Aug 2017

platzangst wrote:
03 Aug 2017
Dude, first, fuck your antagonism.
Whew. Glad you got that out of the way first. We're keeping it civil I see. It's ok though, I don't hold you morally responsible for your outburst. Determinism and all.
platzangst wrote:
03 Aug 2017
the human brain either must completely follow these physical laws, or we have to imagine some kind of "x-factor" that we currently have no indication of or evidence for.
You seem to think science has the functions of the brain all figured out. So because science isn't currently aware of this x-factor* that it surely doesn't exist. You leave no room for future advances in understanding. If we don't know of its existence now, that it never will exist. Further, that the chemicals can't be altered or processes stimulated in surprising ways by any number of things that could have different outcomes based on any number of factors. There's no mysteries left. Science knows everything there is to know. You're certain of these things.

The critical flaw in your argument is that you speak in absolutes.
platzangst wrote:
03 Aug 2017
Since there is no evidence for this "x-factor", I operate under the assumption that the brain is wholly organic and consciousness is a product of rules-following chemical systems.
*Since science already knows everything, tell me what science knows about the subconscious mind.
platzangst wrote:
03 Aug 2017
If all this is true - and as yet there's no compelling evidence that it isn't - then the chemicals are always going to react in certain ways. They cannot react in ways not in accordance with their nature. Wherever two or more types of chemicals meet in the brain, they are going to react in a certain way and deliver a certain result in accordance with the physical laws of the world.
If you wish to define everything based on a limited set of criteria, then, within the confines of that criteria, you have a good argument.

platzangst wrote:
03 Aug 2017
If all this is truewhen the actual time for choosing came, you made a choice and it was always going to be that choice, because all your choices before that brought you to that point, and all those previous choices were also the result of chemical reactions that were only going to happen in one particular way
Prove it. Except you can't. You want me to go all in with this hypothesis. I choose not to.
platzangst wrote:
03 Aug 2017
so far, nobody challenges the actual facts, they just say the equivalent of "well, you don't know!"
Yes. Neither you or science currently know all there is to know. We are only humans. We are limited by our human sense perceptions. Science is an art practiced by humans. The actual facts are only facts as we currently know them. Facts from 1,000 years ago were far different than facts of today. This is a fairly typical philosophical argument where if we agree on a strict set of criteria then you get to speak in absolutes and claim to know the unknowable. The simple truth here is that anyone can choose not to believe in determinism. Or in free will. Or in the gods.

Determinism is really just a hypothesis. It's similar to the Nature vs Nurture argument, only more arrogant and sure of itself. Nature vs Nurture eventually merged together. As will Free will vs Determinism. The failure of determinism lies in its use of absolute language. It cannot absolutely know the unknowable. It conveniently leaves no room for facts yet to be discovered. I accept that many of my thoughts and actions are based on my biology and conditioning. But I believe that as a human of strong willpower and (an opinion based on the world around me) slightly above average intellect, I have control over my actions far more so than say an animal or a robot or even another human of below average cognitive abilities. Free will vs Determinism will meet in the middle eventually. See Nature vs Nurture.

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3932
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

03 Aug 2017

sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017
But I believe that as a human of strong willpower and (an opinion based on the world around me) slightly above average intellect, I have control over my actions far more so than say an animal or a robot or even another human of below average cognitive abilities. Free will vs Determinism will meet in the middle eventually. See Nature vs Nurture.
Determinism is not necessarily saying that you have zero control, though some schools of thought do believe this.

In terms of what is known for certain:
1. Neurological processes show zero signs of relying on behaviour beyond classical physics.
2. There is nothing about human capability that requires new physics.
3. All human behaviour (or moreso its capability) can be accounted for with neurology, chemistry, biology and physics (with a little epigenetics for fringe behaviours).

The subconscious mind and other constructions of the brain are very high level and somewhat emergent. You aren't going to discover the subconscious by looking at neurons in the same way that looking at quarks will not tell you about integrated circuits. Understanding the unique cognitive processes produced by neurons requires a new framework.

The subconscious mind and the conscious experience may be slightly moving targets since they are shaped not only by biology but by exposure to the environment.
sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017
Further, that the chemicals can't be altered or processes stimulated in surprising ways by any number of things that could have different outcomes based on any number of factors.
Rational inquiry has not mapped out all possible things, but our understanding of neurology does make looking for some x-factor beyond materialism largely redundant.

We can never know whether the current moment is an illusion and all science, logic, form and substance a deception, but if it is a deception it's a strikingly persistent one.

Or maybe it's not.

Which is why I have a problem with the "but what if?" trails of thought. Since the only thing, even in a material world, that can ever be known for sure is that you are experiencing the current moment, it can be easy and tempting to deny just about anything beyond that premise.

I also think it's tempting for some to become quite nihilistic, but I really don't think that's a productive response to scientific findings, nor do I think it rules out spiritual practices and ideas. I do think that science and spirituality at times say the exact same things but in different words and from different vantage points.

Spirituality looks from the human perspective. Science looks from the environmental perspective. Some spiritual schools of thought teach that there is only the inner world, and I suppose an ardent materialist would say that only the objective world exists and the sense of self is just an illusion or a convenient construction that was produced by the process of evolution for survival, and that "feeling" is merely state.

Where I think the most contention is, is whether our qalia, our sense of feeling and experiencing is just the result of mechanical interactions between molecules, and that if simulated in a computer it would be experienced in exactly the same way.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests