Are we essentially biological robots?

MungBean

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It's my argument that your awareness and perception of the world is also predetermined and a domino effect.Your mind chooses based on a complex domino affect of reactions. When you are weighing up the possible consequences of your decisions that is simply a complex domino affect of reactions taking place. That's why it is an illusion, we can do what ever our "free will" wants to do but that "free will" is determined by all those little chemical processes taking place. We don't control the laws of chemistry and physics with our "free will".

I get what your saying but I'd still disagree to an extent. Its giving me a headache trying to think about it to be honest.

The clockwork business doesnt work though. You cannot know what will happen even if it is predetermined.

I'll have to ponder on this one for a few evenings I think. I havent encountered this much mental resistance since I tried to figure out what was outside the universe.

sbsquarepants

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Where else could thoughts come from if they aren't simply reactions taking place in the brain? Do they simply appear from no where?

If the whole universe appeared from nowhere, why can't the urge to eat cornflakes, or watch porn?
I don't know, but I would imagine thoughts themselves are more than a simple chemical reaction. The brain and the mind are not the same thing - they are obviously very closely linked but they aren't the same. It's not known what the mind is. Your mind does the thinking, your brain processes and responds to these thoughts, what the thoughts actually consist of, nobody has the slightest clue. It could well be that it's beyond our reasoning to ever understand. To think that we as a race can explain and understand everything is quite arrogant, there is a limit to our intelligence and understanding.

zyxwvu

sbsquarepants wrote: »

To think that we as a race can explain and understand everything is quite arrogant, there is a limit to our intelligence and understanding.

To think that we are the only "branch" on the tree of life to have free-will could also be construed as quite arrogant! Was a switch flicked in our brains at some point during our evolution where we went from not having free will to having it? It's such a coinicidence that most people believe humans have free-will rather than don't and that this belief also happens to be the un-depressing one

sbsquarepants

zyxwvu wrote: »

To think that we are the only "branch" on the tree of life to have free-will could also be construed as quite arrogant! Was a switch flicked in our brains at some point during our evolution where we went from not having free will to having it? It's such a coinicidence that most people believe humans have free-will rather than don't and that this belief also happens to be the un-depressing one

Who said we're the only species with free will? Seems to me that all but the most basic animals have minds of their own, to a greater or lesser extent. Ours are just more pronounced.

ScumLord

foxyboxer wrote: »

It's like sleeping. I don't conciously say to myself "Wake up now"
I can't tell myself "Sleep. Now"

No control over any biological mechanisms.
It's the same with reflexes. If I put my hand on something hot it's not a case of
"Hmm, this is a bit too hot and is causing me to experience pain"

Your hand is jerked away instantly by a primitive reflex.

You can have control over those mechanisms, Buddhist monks are evidence of that. They can control body temperature, pain reflexes, coming in and out of sleep and even making them selves trip through meditation.

take everything

zyxwvu wrote: »

To think that we are the only "branch" on the tree of life to have free-will could also be construed as quite arrogant! Was a switch flicked in our brains at some point during our evolution where we went from not having free will to having it?

I don't get this anthropocentrism either when it comes to this.
People like to invoke this mysterious stuff when it challenges the ego. If you invoked such mystery when talking about the God issue, you'd be laughed out of it. There's an egocentric hypocrisy at work when it comes to this stuff- for some it's too close to home to accept.

zyxwvu

In my experience, you get people all too willing to accept the idea that there is no god, and push this idea on people. But when you ask these same people about free-will/ determinism, they'll generally either not have thought about it, or else they will insist we do somehow have free-will. It seems the whole topic is too depressing a philosophy for them to contemplate.

MungBean

zyxwvu wrote: »

In my experience, you get people all too willing to accept the idea that there is no god, and push this idea on people. But when you ask these same people about free-will/ determinism, they'll generally either not have thought about it, or else they will insist we do somehow have free-will. It seems the whole topic is too depressing a philosophy for them to contemplate.

What does god have to do with it ?

zyxwvu

MungBean wrote: »

What does god have to do with it ?

Nothing at all; I'm just comparing the philosophical topic of god (which many people seem open to discussing, thinking about and denouncing as bunk) to the topic of determinism and free-will (which much fewer people seem to like discussing). I could have picked some other philosophical topic, like ethics or logic or something.

saa

zyxwvu wrote: »

In my experience, you get people all too willing to accept the idea that there is no god, and push this idea on people. But when you ask these same people about free-will/ determinism, they'll generally either not have thought about it, or else they will insist we do somehow have free-will. It seems the whole topic is too depressing a philosophy for them to contemplate.

God - just a theory
No God - just a theory
(The Smiths - just a band)

So I think its fair to assume everyone should stopping pushing agenda's and beliefs. The idea of a God totally irrelevant here, you could discuss anything and try and paste the idea of a God in there.

Oh and any atheists I know are against religious institutions not an individual believing something.

zyxwvu

In my opinion, most people feel liberated by the idea of there being no god but feel boxed in and constrained by the idea of determinism and free-will being an illusion.. this is why people readily reject god but hang on to the notion of a will separate from causation.

edit: I should say that I myself find determinism and the absence of free-will very depressing, but my reasoning tells me it's true, so I have to accept that and live with it.

MungBean

take everything wrote: »

I don't get this anthropocentrism either when it comes to this.
People like to invoke this mysterious stuff when it challenges the ego. If you invoked such mystery when talking about the God issue, you'd be laughed out of it. There's an egocentric hypocrisy at work when it comes to this stuff- for some it's too close to home to accept.

The difference between those is one is about the free will which we experience (even if its not what we know as free will) and the other is about the supernatural which is a belief.

We know we exist, we are aware of the choices we make. Trying to validate free will while discounting the existence of the supernatural is not the same.

Your argument seems rather egocentric to me to be honest.

MungBean

zyxwvu wrote: »

In my opinion, most people feel liberated by the idea of there being no god but feel boxed in and constrained by the idea of determinism and free-will being an illusion.. this is why people readily reject god but hang on to the notion of a will separate from causation.

edit: I should say that I myself find determinism and the absence of free-will very depressing, but my reasoning tells me it's true, so I have to accept that and live with it.

Your saying hang onto the notion as if it arose with belief in the supernatural though. There is no illusion of god in the sense that free will may be an illusion. We experience "Free will", we make choices everyday, its extremely difficult to understand one way or the other if free will actually exists so I think it very unfair to pass it off as people making excuses to avoid a depressing concept.

zyxwvu

MungBean wrote: »

Your saying hang onto the notion as if it arose with belief in the supernatural though. There is no illusion of god in the sense that free will may be an illusion. We experience "Free will", we make choices everyday, its extremely difficult to understand one way or the other if free will actually exists so I think it very unfair to pass it off as people making excuses to avoid a depressing concept.

By "hanging-on" to the notion, I meant like from childhood/teenage years... similar to the way some people "hang-on" to the notion of a god from those formative years (or similarly hang-on to a love of liverpool fc etc..); I'd agree that the supernatural wouldn't even come into consideration in a discussion of free will for most people, myself included.

But what we experience as "free will", those choices we make everyday, is in my opinion the ultimate illusion for human beings.. the sense of agency is part of the illusion.. by the time we are conscious we are making a decision, the decision has already been made hundreds of milseconds ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Implications_of_Libet.27s_experiments

take everything

The difference between those is one is about the free will which we experience (even if its not what we know as free will) and the other is about the supernatural.

"Free will...even if it's not what we know as free will"?

We know we exist, we are aware of the choices we make.

So.

Trying to validate free will while discounting the existence of the supernatural is not the same.

It's not dissimilar.
Both things are basically imaginary constructs (until proven otherwise at least ) IMO.

Your argument seems rather egocentric to me to be honest.

Nothing i said was egocentric.
It was the opposite if anything.

MungBean

zyxwvu wrote: »

But what we experience as "free will", those choices we make everyday, is in my opinion the ultimate illusion for human beings.. the sense of agency is part of the illusion.. by the time we are conscious we are making a decision, the decision has already been made hundreds of milseconds ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Implications_of_Libet.27s_experiments

That doesnt mean the conscious mind doesnt play any part in decision making. I concede most decisions are made subconsciously and in that case you linked to it was about volitional acts which arise from urges and are instinctively acted upon. This isnt the case with all acts though.

zyxwvu

MungBean wrote: »

That doesnt mean the conscious mind doesnt play any part in decision making. I concede most decisions are made subconsciously and in that case you linked to it was about volitional acts which arise from urges and are instinctively acted upon. This isnt the case with all acts though.

True enough. I still believe that conscious, planned decisions come about deterministically.. but who knows, ya know..

MungBean

take everything wrote: »

"Free will...even if it's not what we know as free will"?

Sorry bad wording, I meant the experience whether actual free will or the illusion of free will.

So.

We experience those choices, belief in the supernatural is more based on superstition and irrational belief than actual experience.

It's not dissimilar.
Both things are basically imaginary constructs (until proven otherwise at least ) IMO.

As above, one is experienced and a person is not only aware of making a choice but can actually deliberately (once again debatable) make a choice. I am in no way spiritual, religious or prone to believing anything supernatural. But I'm not convinced there is no free will. Why ? Because I experience it, I can see its results when I test it, (I just knocked an empty crisp packet off my desk) I am aware of its existence even if its not free will it is chemical/neurological reactions which I am experiencing. The supernatural does not exist in that sense.

Nothing i said was egocentric.
It was the opposite if anything.

Calling others hypocritical because they fail to see it from your viewpoint which cannot possibly be wrong is a slight bit egocentric now. :P

Scanlas The 2nd

zyxwvu wrote: »

In my opinion, most people feel liberated by the idea of there being no god but feel boxed in and constrained by the idea of determinism and free-will being an illusion.. this is why people readily reject god but hang on to the notion of a will separate from causation.

edit: I should say that I myself find determinism and the absence of free-will very depressing, but my reasoning tells me it's true, so I have to accept that and live with it.

Completely agree with this. I wish free will were really true but the only conclusion I can come to is that it would have to be supernatural to be true. But then again, who cares, the illusion is so good it doesn't matter. Obviously I still think society needs to be structured as if it were true.

MungBean

zyxwvu wrote: »

True enough. I still believe that conscious, planned decisions come about deterministically.. but who knows, ya know..

Who knows indeed. I'm certainly not much clearer, I'm more aware of the issue but less aware of "facts" as it were.

texidub

Sweet wrote: »

Speed of operation? They've already usurped us in that!

It's a pretty loose phrase I'll admit... but in what sense do you think they have usurped us in that?

Using the cocktail party problem example --we filter out noise and focus our attention on single sound sources in cluttered sonic environments pretty effortlessly and with great speed. Robots can't even come close to human performance on that score.

But I'd be interested to know where you think they are indeed faster than us...

zyxwvu

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Completely agree with this. I wish free will were really true but the only conclusion I can come to is that it would have to be supernatural to be true. But then again, who cares, the illusion is so good it doesn't matter. Obviously I still think society needs to be structured as if it were true.

Exactly; the law should still stand as if it were true. I don't care either way because I'm willing to take responsibility for my own actions.

take everything

As above, one is experienced and a person is not only aware of making a choice but can actually deliberately (once again debatable) make a choice. I am in no way spiritual, religious or prone to believing anything supernatural. But I'm not convinced there is no free will. Why ? Because I experience it, I can see its results when I test it, (I just knocked an empty crisp packet off my desk) I am aware of its existence even if its not free will it is chemical/neurological reactions which I am experiencing. The supernatural does not exist in that sense.

Any supernatural aspect seems to be invoked by yourself when you subscribe to this real sense of agency inferred from the observed behaviour and the feeling you described when moving the crisp packet.
At best the feeling can only possibly be an illusory sense of agency (psychologically, admittedly this is probably not a bad thing IMO).

MungBean

take everything wrote: »

Any supernatural aspect seems to be invoked by yourself when you subscribe to this real sense of agency inferred from the observed behaviour and the feeling you described when moving the crisp packet.
At best the feeling can only possibly be an illusory sense of agency (psychologically, admittedly this is probably not a bad thing IMO).

What supernatural aspects have I invoked ? What feeling did I describe ?

What you quoted was me explaining why I see the supernatural as something that cannot be equated with free will.

I dont invoke any supernatural aspects when thinking of free will. I see the mind as you do, awareness of the chemical reactions that are taking place. But just as one chemical can affect another I think we (the chemical reactions that makes our minds) can affect change in our minds consciously. Its not magic, its not an illusion (I dont think) its just the process which makes us aware reacting to that awareness. You'd call that awareness predetermined and the reaction to it I'd call it determining through awareness.

take everything

MungBean wrote: »

I dont invoke any supernatural aspects when thinking of free will. I see the mind as you do, awareness of the chemical reactions that are taking place. But just as one chemical can affect another I think we (the chemical reactions that makes our minds) can affect change in our minds consciously. Its not magic, its not an illusion (I dont think) its just the process which makes us aware reacting to that awareness. You'd call that awareness predetermined and the reaction to it I'd call it determining through awareness.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at tbh.
Are you saying that awareness about awareness (meta-awareness if you will) is in some way special. That it is constituted differently to simple awareness.
The level of abstraction of the thought/awareness/experience i would imagine is irrelevant.

MungBean

take everything wrote: »

I'm not really sure what you're getting at tbh.
Are you saying that awareness about awareness (meta-awareness if you will) is in some way special. That it is constituted differently to simple awareness.
The level of abstraction of the thought/awareness/experience i would imagine is irrelevant.

I dont think it is irrelevant, I think that the reactions which create awareness also reacts to awareness, that reaction is the decision. You dont consciously make that many decisions and most are done subconsciously as in the study linked to earlier where the decision is made slightly before your aware of it.

But when a person is aware that they are making a decision, then that awareness affects the decision being made. That awareness doesnt have to be separate and it is born of the reactions that make you aware but it effects the outcome. You will say its all a chain reaction and that we are just aware of it all happening while under the illusion we are doing something, but I'm saying that the fact that we are aware affects the outcome.

To go back to QM for a second, if you attempt to locate a particle you have to interfere with it and affect it so the only way a particle can be predetermined is if nobody is aware of its current state (weak attempt at explaining the uncertainty principle). I'm saying something similar with regards to decision making, the fact that we are aware affects the outcome. We can be aware of that awareness and deliberately affect the outcome. Although the action is born from its previous reactions its awareness affecting awareness which affects change in the brains activity.

I'm not sure this has cleared anything up to be honest. To sum it up I'm not saying awareness is separate from the mind in any way and that it is a chain reaction of events in the brain but when subjected to observation even in the form of a reaction of the mind to the reactions preceding it then that is awareness affecting change and not not us being aware of change.

Is any of that clear ? I hope I at least got across that I'm not inferring supernatural aspects on the mind or awareness even if I'm completely wrong.

take everything

I dont think it is irrelevant, I think that the reactions which create awareness also reacts to awareness, that reaction is the decision.

Are you saying this agency is unique to awareness of awareness. Or do you think it apply to all levels of thought. If so, what gives rise to it. What distinguishes the two. At what exact level does this putative agency arise. It seems very arbitrary to me.

You dont consciously make that many decisions and most are done subconsciously as in the study linked to earlier where the decision is made slightly before your aware of it.

FWIW, that study involves volition (wilfulness/deciding to act). It shows this sense of volition is underpinned by preceding unconscious processes. In other words, even though it feels like you made a decision, the process started unconsciously before you felt this.

To go back to QM for a second, if you attempt to locate a particle you have to interfere with it and affect it so the only way a particle can be predetermined is if nobody is aware of its current state (weak attempt at explaining the uncertainty principle). I'm saying something similar with regards to decision making, the fact that we are aware affects the outcome. We can be aware of that awareness and deliberately affect the outcome. Although the action is born from its previous reactions its awareness affecting awareness which affects change in the brains activity.

Pretty sure QM has nothing to do with it. Hopefully some of the physics people on here can comment on this. Again is it your contention that QM would only apply at a certain level of thought? And what would be the mechanism. If it did apply, it wouldn't strike me as being organised or directed (the nature of QM is randomness, isn't it).

MungBean

take everything wrote: »

Are you saying this agency is unique to awareness of awareness. Or do you think it apply to all levels of thought. If so, what gives rise to it. What distinguishes the two. At what exact level does this putative agency arise. It seems very arbitrary to me.

I'd just say it as its unique to awareness. That awareness reflecting on itself would be what I assume would give rise to it. And as such that affects the chain reaction and a slightly different one is created. Still all chain reaction but as far as I see awareness changed the outcome when it reflected on itself. Meaning the decision was made by awareness. So in my view if your aware of whats happening and your aware that a decision is being made then if your aware that you can change that decision and do so its free will.

Pretty sure QM has nothing to do with it. Hopefully some of the physics people on here can comment on this. Again is it your contention that QM would only apply at a certain level of thought? And what would be the mechanism. If it did apply, it wouldn't strike me as being organised or directed (the nature of QM is randomness, isn't it).

I'm not saying QM has anything to do with it just likening the effect observation has on the particle with a person being aware of their mind making a decision. Just as observation affects the particle I think observation may affect the process of the decision being made. Thats not to say some aspects of the mind may be affected directly from QM or randomness or whatever but I'm just using it as an analogy to get across the idea of what I'm talking about.

Half asleep writing this so havent a clue if its decipherable.

take everything

MungBean wrote: »

I'd just say it as its unique to awareness. That awareness reflecting on itself would be what I assume would give rise to it. And as such that affects the chain reaction and a slightly different one is created. Still all chain reaction but as far as I see awareness changed the outcome when it reflected on itself. Meaning the decision was made by awareness. So in my view if your aware of whats happening and your aware that a decision is being made then if your aware that you can change that decision and do so its free will.

I'm not saying QM has anything to do with it just likening the effect observation has on the particle with a person being aware of their mind making a decision. Just as observation affects the particle I think observation may affect the process of the decision being made. Thats not to say some aspects of the mind may be affected directly from QM or randomness or whatever but I'm just using it as an analogy to get across the idea of what I'm talking about.

OK.
Can't see how it describes free will though.

si_vis_pacem

Quantum mechanics is a bit of a dodge: its doesn't actually introduce any randomness, it just describes a system which potentially extends into other dimensions and universes. But theres no reason to expect that said universes are any less based on rigid physical laws than this one.

As for whether free will and conciousness exist? I'd say its at least possible, if not likely, that conciousness is an illusion we've evolved for some reason or other.

parrai

MungBean wrote: »

I dont think it is irrelevant, I think that the reactions which create awareness also reacts to awareness, that reaction is the decision. You dont consciously make that many decisions and most are done subconsciously as in the study linked to earlier where the decision is made slightly before your aware of it.

But when a person is aware that they are making a decision, then that awareness affects the decision being made. That awareness doesnt have to be separate and it is born of the reactions that make you aware but it effects the outcome. You will say its all a chain reaction and that we are just aware of it all happening while under the illusion we are doing something, but I'm saying that the fact that we are aware affects the outcome.

To go back to QM for a second, if you attempt to locate a particle you have to interfere with it and affect it so the only way a particle can be predetermined is if nobody is aware of its current state (weak attempt at explaining the uncertainty principle). I'm saying something similar with regards to decision making, the fact that we are aware affects the outcome. We can be aware of that awareness and deliberately affect the outcome. Although the action is born from its previous reactions its awareness affecting awareness which affects change in the brains activity.

I'm not sure this has cleared anything up to be honest. To sum it up I'm not saying awareness is separate from the mind in any way and that it is a chain reaction of events in the brain but when subjected to observation even in the form of a reaction of the mind to the reactions preceding it then that is awareness affecting change and not not us being aware of change.

Is any of that clear ? I hope I at least got across that I'm not inferring supernatural aspects on the mind or awareness even if I'm completely wrong.

I think I'm following what you are saying, but can you give a practical situation/example applying it, it would illustrate the point more clearly...

MungBean

parrai wrote: »

I think I'm following what you are saying, but can you give a practical situation/example applying it, it would illustrate the point more clearly...

Your sitting at a table and have to decide whether to pick up a red ball or a blue ball.

You decide blue, now at this point I'll agree that your subconscious has chosen for you, and the process takes place with you aware of it under the illusion your conscious mind chose it.

I stop you before you pick up the ball. I ask you do you want to change your mind, think about the decision, mull it over for a while. Now the decision is not to pick a ball its whether or not to change the decision your subconscious has made. You are now aware of that decision and consciously thinking about changing it.

Now the final decision of which ball to choose after reflecting on it may be made by the subconscious before the conscious but that doesnt mean the reactions in your conscious mind did not affect the outcome. Your subconscious made the decision based on all preceding reactions leading up to it, some of which were reactions arising from your awareness of it. So the decision was influenced by awareness.

This still conforms to the chain reaction as some people see it but its a different perspective on one thing. We are not just experiencing these decision being made, we influence them through our awareness of experiencing them. So in some situations even though your conscious mind is lagging behind your subconscious controller which is what makes the decisions, your conscious mind can affect those decisions simply by being aware of it. When your subconscious makes its final decision it is based not only on what happened in your subconscious but also your conscious mind. That affect is what I see as the "free will", our mind is not just awareness of whats happening its the interaction of that awareness with body and has the ability to affect change in the subconscious mind that makes the decisions.

Might not be the definition of free will but I dont see the mind as some separate supernatural entity, nor do I subscribe to the idea of the conscious mind being a narrative of what the subconscious is doing. I think the conscious mind developed to allow us to adapt and have the ability to influence the subconscious to better interact with its environment. To do that some decisions are made based on what happens in the conscious mind and the fact that the mind is aware it is making those decisions and can change them based on that awareness is not the same as simply experiencing decisions being made under the illusion that your making them. Awareness affects the outcome its not just a by product of the decision process in your subconscious in my opinion.

Scanlas The 2nd

MungBean wrote: »

Your sitting at a table and have to decide whether to pick up a red ball or a blue ball.

You decide blue, now at this point I'll agree that your subconscious has chosen for you, and the process takes place with you aware of it under the illusion your conscious mind chose it.

I stop you before you pick up the ball. I ask you do you want to change your mind, think about the decision, mull it over for a while. Now the decision is not to pick a ball its whether or not to change the decision your subconscious has made. You are now aware of that decision and consciously thinking about changing it.

Now the final decision of which ball to choose after reflecting on it may be made by the subconscious before the conscious but that doesnt mean the reactions in your conscious mind did not affect the outcome. Your subconscious made the decision based on all preceding reactions leading up to it, some of which were reactions arising from your awareness of it. So the decision was influenced by awareness.

This still conforms to the chain reaction as some people see it but its a different perspective on one thing. We are not just experiencing these decision being made, we influence them through our awareness of experiencing them. So in some situations even though your conscious mind is lagging behind your subconscious controller which is what makes the decisions, your conscious mind can affect those decisions simply by being aware of it. When your subconscious makes its final decision it is based not only on what happened in your subconscious but also your conscious mind. That affect is what I see as the "free will", our mind is not just awareness of whats happening its the interaction of that awareness with body and has the ability to affect change in the subconscious mind that makes the decisions.

Might not be the definition of free will but I dont see the mind as some separate supernatural entity, nor do I subscribe to the idea of the conscious mind being a narrative of what the subconscious is doing. I think the conscious mind developed to allow us to adapt and have the ability to influence the subconscious to better interact with its environment. To do that some decisions are made based on what happens in the conscious mind and the fact that the mind is aware it is making those decisions and can change them based on that awareness is not the same as simply experiencing decisions being made under the illusion that your making them. Awareness affects the outcome its not just a by product of the decision process in your subconscious in my opinion.

Awareness most certainly affects the outcome, I don't think anyone is arguing against that, but your awareness is merely a biological process just like your subconscious.When you are thinking about the decision your thinking is still just part of a domino effect causation. You were always going to make the decision you finally made just like the dominos were always going to all fall down no matter how complicated the pattern. There is nothing you can do to change the path you are on, it's set in stone. You may think, I'll show him, I would have turned left so I'll turn right. You were always going to think like that and turn right.

When the balls are released in the lotto there is only 1 outcome. If we understood how the balls interacted perfectly we could say with certaintly which balls would come out. There is only one path once the initial conditions are set.

It seems like any balls could come out but really there is only one possible outcome.

parrai

MungBean wrote: »

Your sitting at a table and have to decide whether to pick up a red ball or a blue ball.

You decide blue, now at this point I'll agree that your subconscious has chosen for you, and the process takes place with you aware of it under the illusion your conscious mind chose it.

I stop you before you pick up the ball. I ask you do you want to change your mind, think about the decision, mull it over for a while. Now the decision is not to pick a ball its whether or not to change the decision your subconscious has made. You are now aware of that decision and consciously thinking about changing it.

Now the final decision of which ball to choose after reflecting on it may be made by the subconscious before the conscious but that doesnt mean the reactions in your conscious mind did not affect the outcome. Your subconscious made the decision based on all preceding reactions leading up to it, some of which were reactions arising from your awareness of it. So the decision was influenced by awareness.

This still conforms to the chain reaction as some people see it but its a different perspective on one thing. We are not just experiencing these decision being made, we influence them through our awareness of experiencing them. So in some situations even though your conscious mind is lagging behind your subconscious controller which is what makes the decisions, your conscious mind can affect those decisions simply by being aware of it. When your subconscious makes its final decision it is based not only on what happened in your subconscious but also your conscious mind. That affect is what I see as the "free will", our mind is not just awareness of whats happening its the interaction of that awareness with body and has the ability to affect change in the subconscious mind that makes the decisions.

Might not be the definition of free will but I dont see the mind as some separate supernatural entity, nor do I subscribe to the idea of the conscious mind being a narrative of what the subconscious is doing. I think the conscious mind developed to allow us to adapt and have the ability to influence the subconscious to better interact with its environment. To do that some decisions are made based on what happens in the conscious mind and the fact that the mind is aware it is making those decisions and can change them based on that awareness is not the same as simply experiencing decisions being made under the illusion that your making them. Awareness affects the outcome its not just a by product of the decision process in your subconscious in my opinion.

Cheers.

So in a way, your decision making abilities are based on conditioning, and therefore pre-emptive? Also to realise conscious decision making would require hyper awareness?

parrai

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Awareness most certainly affects the outcome, I don't think anyone is arguing against that, but your awareness is merely a biological process just like your subconscious.When you are thinking about the decision your thinking is still just part of a domino effect causation. You were always going to make the decision you finally made just like the dominos were always going to all fall down no matter how complicated the pattern. There is nothing you can do to change the path you are on, it's set in stone. You may think, I'll show him, I would have turned left so I'll turn right. You were always going to think like that and turn right.

When the balls are released in the lotto there is only 1 outcome. If we understood how the balls interacted perfectly we could say with certaintly which balls would come out. There is only one path once the initial conditions are set.

It seems like any balls could come out but really there is only one possible outcome.

Not taking away from the point, trying to understand it....

Surely this would be based on the time it happened, as anything could happen to change this outcome in milliseconds?

Scanlas The 2nd

parrai wrote: »

Not taking away from the point, trying to understand it....

Surely this would be based on the time it happened, as anything could happen to change this outcome in milliseconds?

The reason even if you release the balls into the drum in the same order and get a different outcome is because every air molecule is different, the tempereture is different the balls are probabley atomically different and also the timing of the gate opening is different. But if you knew the initial conditions and understood how every component interacted precisely you could only come to the conlcusion that there can only possibly be 1 outcome, otherwise the laws of physics must change all the time.

parrai

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The reason even if you release the balls into the drum in the same order and get a different outcome is because every air molecule is different, the tempereture is different the balls are probabley atomically different and also the timing of the gate opening is different. But if you knew the initial conditions and understood how every component interacted precisely you could only come to the conlcusion that there can only possibly be 1 outcome, otherwise the laws of physics must change all the time.

What are the implications of this regarding humans? If this is so, thatmeans it would be possible to predict 'the future', no? If certain criteria were set down to analyse a 'person' you could predict their choices... ie mind control, no?

sbsquarepants

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

When the balls are released in the lotto there is only 1 outcome. If we understood how the balls interacted perfectly we could say with certaintly which balls would come out. There is only one path once the initial conditions are set.

It seems like any balls could come out but really there is only one possible outcome.

This is true of course, a sufficiently sophisticated computer could model all the collisions and predict which balls will be drawn. That's obvious, but the difference is that the balls are not sentient, people are. You are still using brain and mind as if they were interchangeable. A mind is not just a brain any more than a brain is just a mind, they seem to be symbiotically connected but we do not understand the hows or whys, not even close. You seem to be just dismissing this and all your answers are assuming we have some sort of knowledge of what exactly conciousness consists off. We are, only now, slowly getting to grips with how the brain works - the mind is a completely seperate entity.
When scientists look at brain scans and see areas lighting up corresponding to external stimuli it's not the same thing as seeing where a thought comes from. Your whole argument assumes that thoughts are reactions to various chemical cascades. Who says the cascades aren't reactions to thoughts?

Scanlas The 2nd

sbsquarepants wrote: »

This is true of course, a sufficiently sophisticated computer could model all the collisions and predict which balls will be drawn. That's obvious, but the difference is that the balls are not sentient, people are. You are still using brain and mind as if they were interchangeable. A mind is not just a brain any more than a brain is just a mind, they seem to be symbiotically connected but we do not understand the hows or whys, not even close. You seem to be just dismissing this and all your answers are assuming we have some sort of knowledge of what exactly conciousness consists off. We are, only now, slowly getting to grips with how the brain works - the mind is a completely seperate entity.
When scientists look at brain scans and see areas lighting up corresponding to external stimuli it's not the same thing as seeing where a thought comes from. Your whole argument assumes that thoughts are reactions to various chemical cascades. Who says the cascades aren't reactions to thoughts?

Ok but what causes thoughts to take place?

When I notice athought pop up in my awareness where did that thought come from?

Scanlas The 2nd

parrai wrote: »

What are the implications of this regarding humans? If this is so, thatmeans it would be possible to predict 'the future', no? If certain criteria were set down to analyse a 'person' you could predict their choices... ie mind control, no?

Far too complicated to ever predict.

MungBean

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Awareness most certainly affects the outcome, I don't think anyone is arguing against that, but your awareness is merely a biological process just like your subconscious.When you are thinking about the decision your thinking is still just part of a domino effect causation. You were always going to make the decision you finally made just like the dominos were always going to all fall down no matter how complicated the pattern. There is nothing you can do to change the path you are on, it's set in stone. You may think, I'll show him, I would have turned left so I'll turn right. You were always going to think like that and turn right.

But the point I'm making is that awareness of the dominos affect them, awareness of making a decision affects that decision just as a hand put out to stop the dominos and send them falling in a different direction. The outcome is not predetermined its determined on how your mind deals with and affects those dominos.

If the dominos themselves were aware of which way they were falling and that awareness influenced the fall then the dominos wouldnt follow your projected path, they would be subject to unpredictability based on how each individual domino reacted to the situation. That reaction if it is conscious is not the same as the other reactions as it opens up more paths which can be taken depending on what happens in the conscious mind.

You view the mind as billions of reactions both chemical and electrical or whatever in the brain correct ? Your saying that its like a computer ticking away and can only do what its programmed to do, each reaction only capable of reacting to what preceded it with only one outcome inevitable.

But the mind is aware of itself, it can interject though that awareness and uses that awareness to re-program and change the outcome, so each reaction is not just subject to the reaction preceding it but also to all other reactions and capable of being re-directed depending on the mind (reactions as a whole). If you dont think about something you dont influence the reaction, if you do you do influence it. If you decide to think about it specifically to influence it then its self regulation the mind is imposing directions on itself to change the direction of thought.

Now all that sounds suspiciously similar to a crab reacting to a new smell of rotting fish a mile up the beach. Smell hits the brain, brain says "hold on, new orders, we are going up the beach" with the smell causing the reaction. The difference in a human is that those orders may come from awareness and as such are orders are not reactions to its preceding reactions but reactions of self awareness itself. Thats self awareness directing the reactions.

MungBean

parrai wrote: »

Cheers.

So in a way, your decision making abilities are based on conditioning, and therefore pre-emptive? Also to realise conscious decision making would require hyper awareness?

Yeah I'd imagine so on both accounts. From what I understand the subconscious does 99% of the work, your conscious mind may even be aware of stuff thats already been decided and just reacting to that information. But I think that once aware and intentionally using your conscious mind to direct information back to the subconscious is your mind/you imposing its will on the process. It may not be plucked out of the blue but its self direction born of awareness and seeing as we are nothing but our awareness thats us choosing a direction.

sbsquarepants

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Ok but what causes thoughts to take place?

When I notice athought pop up in my awareness where did that thought come from?

I have absolutely no idea! I wish i did.
But that doesn't mean we can assume they are predetermined chemical reactions.

Scanlas The 2nd

MungBean wrote: »

You view the mind as billions of reactions both chemical and electrical or whatever in the brain correct ? Your saying that its like a computer ticking away and can only do what its programmed to do, each reaction only capable of reacting to what preceded it with only one outcome inevitable.

.

Yes billions of trillions of trilllions of interactions. Your mind can change the course of events but so can a computer chip be programmed to change the outcome of events in a computer. When you use your mind to change what happens that is just one more domino in the chain hitting the next domino. Whatever decision you make to change the outcome was always going to be the decision that you made

MungBean

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Yes billions of trillions of trilllions of interactions. Your mind can change the course of events but so can a computer chip be programmed to change the outcome of events in a computer. When you use your mind to change what happens that is just one more domino in the chain hitting the next domino. Whatever decision you make to change the outcome was always going to be the decision that you made

Programmed by who ? This is the impasse, you think all we have done and still do is reaction including programming ourselves and computers and that reaction is unchangeable.

I think the human mind is capable of imposing its will (will born from conscious thought) on ourselves and the world around us. And that this means that a mind aware of its own existence is not subject to the action reaction predetermined path like other but is capable of deciding consciously for its own benefit which path to take.

MungBean

MungBean wrote:

Programmed by who ?

Not by whom, but by what: evolution by natural selection.

We are biological robots, built from carbon instead of silicon. We do not know what effects quantum mechanics have on our consciousness, so in that sense there may be an inherent randomness to our thoughts, but there is no reason to think that humans are special; if we have free will, so do all sentient beings.

Some people seem to not understand the concept of prediction. With all possible information about the current state (and all past states) of the universe available for analysis as well as a perfect understanding of the laws of nature, it would be possible to predict the future with astonishing accuracy. Just because something is practically unpredictable does not mean it is hypothetically so.

take everything

MungBean wrote: »

But the point I'm making is that awareness of the dominos affect them, awareness of making a decision affects that decision just as a hand put out to stop the dominos and send them falling in a different direction. The outcome is not predetermined its determined on how your mind deals with and affects those dominos.

If the dominos themselves were aware of which way they were falling and that awareness influenced the fall then the dominos wouldnt follow your projected path, they would be subject to unpredictability based on how each individual domino reacted to the situation. That reaction if it is conscious is not the same as the other reactions as it opens up more paths which can be taken depending on what happens in the conscious mind.

You view the mind as billions of reactions both chemical and electrical or whatever in the brain correct ? Your saying that its like a computer ticking away and can only do what its programmed to do, each reaction only capable of reacting to what preceded it with only one outcome inevitable.

But the mind is aware of itself, it can interject though that awareness and uses that awareness to re-program and change the outcome, so each reaction is not just subject to the reaction preceding it but also to all other reactions and capable of being re-directed depending on the mind (reactions as a whole). If you dont think about something you dont influence the reaction, if you do you do influence it. If you decide to think about it specifically to influence it then its self regulation the mind is imposing directions on itself to change the direction of thought.

Now all that sounds suspiciously similar to a crab reacting to a new smell of rotting fish a mile up the beach. Smell hits the brain, brain says "hold on, new orders, we are going up the beach" with the smell causing the reaction. The difference in a human is that those orders may come from awareness and as such are orders are not reactions to its preceding reactions but reactions of self awareness itself. Thats self awareness directing the reactions.

Sorry, but this just sounds like nonsense to me.

The whole idea of free will (ie something inside us not constrained by physical law) is itself illogical.
There is no ghost in the machine.

MungBean

Deleted User wrote: »

Not by whom, but by what: evolution by natural selection.

We are biological robots, built from carbon instead of silicon. We do not know what effects quantum mechanics have on our consciousness, so in that sense there may be an inherent randomness to our thoughts, but there is no reason to think that humans are special; if we have free will, so do all sentient beings.

Some people seem to not understand the concept of prediction. With all possible information about the current state (and all past states) of the universe available for analysis as well as a perfect understanding of the laws of nature, it would be possible to predict the future with astonishing accuracy. Just because something is practically unpredictable does not mean it is hypothetically so.

If we have free will so does other sentient beings is a bit of a cop out. Maybe your right and maybe your wrong. Our minds are also not strictly programmed by evolution. The self is something that develops and changes with experience. You are programmed to a basic level by evolution but the person you are now is the product of your individual experiences and how you deal with or define those experiences.

I understand the concept of prediction but a hypothetical prediction is just that, hypothetical. There exists in all these hypothetical situations and theories whether its prediction, time travel or anything affecting the knowledge of information paradoxes. If you had all the information in the universe and predicted something will happen could you stop it from happening ? The reasons these things are not practical may just be because they are impossible.

sbsquarepants

take everything wrote: »

Sorry, but this just sounds like nonsense to me.

The whole idea of free will (ie something inside us not constrained by physical law) is itself illogical.
There is no ghost in the machine.

So, do you believe that everything, every single action that every living thing on this planet, from bacteria to giant whale, has done in the past and will do in the future has been set in stone since the very beginning?

MungBean

take everything wrote: »

Sorry, but this just sounds like nonsense to me.

The whole idea of free will (ie something inside us not constrained by physical law) is itself illogical.
There is no ghost in the machine.

So your ignoring all I have said, writing it off as nonsense and just assuming any opposing argument is supernatural in theory because your incapable or unwilling to try and understand what I'm saying then ?

I think you need to have another look at the definition of egocentric. :rolleyes: