Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2015 - 10:19pm PT
|
The unconscious mind has decided
This is stupid.
The mind is never unconscious.
Other wise how could it even decide.
You are bewildered and have no clue what consciousness really is and it's source nor what free will really is.
This is the whole problem with modern science.
They have no clue and are just plain guessing ......
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2015 - 10:23pm PT
|
No disrespect WB, but I suppose you have all the answers?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2015 - 10:49pm PT
|
I hold people responsible for their actions, but I don't think it's their fault.
You don't think ..... and
The world is just robots .....
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 04:45am PT
|
Ok, so I'm one part Polish, two parts Athiest, three parts Viking, and the rest of me is just bewildered...
Good thing I'm not more bewildered or the rest of me would be one pissed off Polish Atheist Viking!
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 07:42am PT
|
Scientific principles do support the possibility of free will or at least imperfect predeterminism.
The nervous system is electrical and molecular in scale. This puts parts of it at least possibly within the realm of quantum mechanical variability.
The strong impression of being able to "make" a decision is pretty hard to shake although I cannot make a perfect test for it. If that is an illusion it feels like a critical one for effective human social interactions.
That it appears to me that I can make decisions on some things is one of the things makes me strongly suspect that science is missing something fundamental regarding consciousness.
As a student of the scientific process it would be very foolish to assume that science is close to having this stuff figured out.
Cmon.. we just found out in the last decade or so that we can't even observe over half the actual universe right around us. Castenada was right about that.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 08:04am PT
|
"Scientific principles do support the possibility of free will or at least imperfect predeterminism... The nervous system is electrical and molecular in scale. This puts it within the realm of quantum mechanical variability... -climbski2
With all due respect, your statements are novice, akin to a once in a year gym climber. Sorry.
There is a world of difference in experience between one who's worked the subject 20 plus years and a once-a-year-for-a-few-hours amateur.
Sorry. You should ask yourself. "Really, how much due dilgence have I given this subject?" "How much are my public pronouncements (stated as fact) more a part of the inertia of ignorance problem than a solution?"
Going forward the biggest challenge for public acceptance of our evolutionary mechanistic nature is this. For some reason, unlike climbing and sports play in general (not to mention countless other arts and trades where expertise / experience actually matters), pretty much everyone thinks they're an expert in the subjects of consciousness, morality, volition, the natures thereof. Nevermind the underlying physics and chemistry and information processing science and neuroscience and psychology - what do they have to do with it? /sarc
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 08:07am PT
|
HFCS: There is a world of difference in experience between one who's worked the subject 20 plus years and a once-a-year-for-a-few-hours amateur.
Hmmmm, . . . I think you mean there is a world of difference in knowledge.
When it comes to experience, no one is more of an expert in theirs than they are.
Science exists within experience, not the other way around.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 08:11am PT
|
"Science exists within experience, not the other way around..." -MikeL
Hey I thought we'd agreed to stop sharing since you decided experience or expertise in the sciences (eg neuroscience, molecular biology, biochem) don't amount to much if anything.
But you keep coming back with your crazy non sequiturs. Again and again.
When you can ack expertise (otherwise credentials) in science matter (eg in these mind topics) then perhaps we can start again.
Let me see if I can find that ridiculous quote of yours a couple months back... (may take awhile, I'm busy, but I'll find it.)
.....
Of course 40 plus years experience climbing in the ditch, say by a WBraun, is critical, crucial incalculable in thinking and decision-making in regards to all the pertinent dynamics of the system... to problem solving... to getting things right.
So is 40-plus years of free solo. This level of experience expertise is essential to opining correctly, rightly, skillfully on the subject.
But unlike climbing in the ditch or soloing, pursuits in science are altogether different. No experience required. No expertise required. Isn't that right? lol/sarc
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 08:13am PT
|
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 08:18am PT
|
I did make some slight changes to the wording of my post above to be more accurate.
HFCS.. Consciousness has been my main scientific question since I was probably 12. Earlier in some ways. To me it is by far the most basic mystery and one that science has not shed any fundamental light on.
By fundamental I mean really explaining the experience of existing.
I don't use much fancy jargon. But if you want to discuss the pretty basic concept of evolution having built much of our behavioral habits I can. I agree and find that interesting.. but not really touching on a nearly fundamental question of whether we have some ability to make some decisions.
One mistake I think folks are making is not having a good definition of "free will". Perhaps confusing a lack of complete freedom with a lack of any freedom of will.
Another error some seem to be making is a classic scientific one that even Einstein was prone to beleiving.. That randomness does not exist. That universal "law" means exact predictable outcomes.
There do seem to be structures within the nervous system that look small enough to be subject to some amount randomness.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 08:20am PT
|
HFCS.. Consciousness has been my main scientific question since I was probably 12.
Really? Sorry, I call bs.
Same baseless claims as your ISIS statements (not having anything to do with theism or theology) many months ago.
"a nearly fundamental question of whether we have some ability to make some decisions." -climbski2
Obviously we have ability (agency) to make decisions, silly. That we have so-called "liberterian" free will (that is not obedient to any underlying physics and chem) is an entirely different manner - and there is no scientific basis whatsoever for it.
There is some major league play around these parts occasionally. If you intend to play at that level, you need to raise your game. (Esp as a student of science, esp bio as I remember, you've had biochem, if memory serves. So it should behoove you to speak more factually, get your facts straight, I would think.)
.....
One mistake I think folks are making is not having a good definition of "free will". -climbski2
We can agree on this. Perhaps a good place to stop.
"Another error some seem to be making is a classic scientific one that even Einstein was prone to beleiving.. That randomness does not exist. That universal "law" means exact predictable outcomes... There do seem to be structures within the nervous system that look small enough to be subject to some amount randomness." -climbski2
This statement here telegraphs your naivete in the subject, the overall "free will" subject." Sorry.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 08:31am PT
|
HFCS. If you and I are going to have a conversation.. which I would like to have.. please trust me that I am being honest with you as I know how to be.
I don't even pretend to have much in the way of answers when it comes to this subject.. it really is the greatest fundamental mystery that I know of. But I am aware of the weaknesses in many common lines of inquiry and especially the weaknesses in those purporting some philosophical position as "scientific fact".
I have a pretty solid Scientific foundation. Science and religion have always been my biggest interests. I have a degree in Biochemistry.
Quantum mechanical principles as regarding the molecular structure and function of biochemistry is a huge area of research in biochemistry right now. Biochemists are fascinated by the possible implications of the knowledge to be gained.
To equate free will with randomness in some functions is an error I am not making. But for there to be "free will" the possibility of randomness does seem like a necessity. Without any apparent randomness in the nervous system any "free will" would seem likely to be an illusion. Not perfect assumptions since if there is a "ghost in the machine" The machine need not have any randomness. This is pretty basic stuff that has been considered since before I was born.
Like I said I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the debates out there.
That is the problem with this subject and why I rarely get into it anymore. We are at such a basic level of even questioning that progress towards answers seems very very far down the road at this time.
I keep hoping to see some new great insight in this thread.. but if it has happened I have missed it.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 08:54am PT
|
Cintune:
Why must there be only two choices ("agree" or "disagree")?
If a child were to ask you if the stick-figure she drew of her mother was her mother, would you say you agreed or disagreed?
Too much premature closure, false choices, dogma.
If science (to include neuroscience) shows anyone anything these days, it would appear to be that almost anything lies within the realm of possibility imaginatively.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:11am PT
|
My limited understanding is that quantum mechanical effects become significant only with very high energy collisions, where the outcome can be this or that. They do not appreciably effect the outcome of the kind of electro-chemical processes in our nervous system - giving such processes a very high level of predictability at the level of individual neurons.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:12am PT
|
Obviously we have ability (agency) to make decisions,
It's not obvious at all. It feels obvious, but I'm not sure of it. It may be an illusion. My opinion is that we do. This is what I mean Such a basic question which we do not have a solid answer or even consensus for.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:14am PT
|
The behavior of an avalanche is entirely predictable, but it's tough to do that in practice. So many damn snowflakes. The shear size of a system can mask causality and thus predictability. This is particularly true of the system involves many layers of hierarchy - like our neural system.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:15am PT
|
My limited understanding is that quantum mechanical effects become significant only with very high energy collisions, where the outcome can be this or that. They do not appreciably effect the outcome of the kind of electro-chemical processes in our nervous system - giving such processes a very high level of predictability at the level of individual neurons.
I don't think that is true Tvash. Otherwise my understanding is we could make computer circuitry much smaller.
I suspect our nevous system is as efficient as it can be and still function as it does. The limit of the size of the nervous "circuitry" I would think is due in part to quantum issues.
Not an expert at all in this though.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:18am PT
|
One mistake I think folks are making is not having a good definition of "free will".
Please provide a "good definition."
Cmon.. we just found out in the last decade or so that we can't even observe over half the actual universe right around us. Castenada was right about that.
interesting statement, what do you think Castaneda was right about regarding cosmology? and how does the modern cosmology validate Castaneda's "magical world's" hypothesis?
If science (to include neuroscience) shows anyone anything these days, it would appear to be that almost anything lies within the realm of possibility imaginatively.
I think it is a mistake to assert that because we don't yet have a physical explanation of something (e.g. consciousness) that anything is possible. First of all, science takes as a basic premise that physical affects have physical causes. That would eliminate a large realm of imaginative possibilities.
Another error some seem to be making is a classic scientific one that even Einstein was prone to beleiving.. That randomness does not exist. That universal "law" means exact predictable outcomes.
Einstein's criticism of quantum mechanics is much deeper, and rests on sounder grounds than the idea that universal laws must make exact predictions. The original criticism is the EPR paradox, which was developed into a more complete set of theorems by John Bell.
Note also that quantum electrodynamics is the most precise physical theory we have... and is based on making predictions of the probabilities of outcomes. We believe that quantum electrodynamics is a "physical law" at the same time we know that it is wrong in a particular domain. But we have no problem with its "randomness."
"Randomness" exists, but the particular nature of quantum "randomness" is not at work in the brain, which operates at a very high temperature, meaning the entanglement of quantum states necessary for the "spookiness" to happen is destroyed long before it can happen, by the interaction of those states with the environment.
This requirement of isolation of the quantum states provides a paradox for those who would try to apply it as an explanation of "free will" (or any other attribute), to wit, the quantum states have to be isolated, but as a part of the brain, they have to be connected... so some mechanism that lets you have both conditions have to be described.
Let me say that I haven't seen anything, even from "experts," who make a convincing case for it (or actually any case, most of it is speculation).
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:20am PT
|
That is true, climb2ski
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!