We dont seemingly have free will. We only get a feeling of "decicion making" and it of course must feel like the I made it or we would be contradicting with the idea and would indicate that our consciousness has its own will and intelligence apart from brains, like they had a dialogue. But we cant really say according to Heisenbergs uncertainty principle what future holds so in that way we have free will. Its anyway only a random factor in the will not suggesting that we are actually in charge.
Iv tried to implement this idea that you cannot explain yourself away by understanding physics but some people just dont get it. I dont mean by the means of learning or processing thought patterns etc. I think neurology has pretty good idea what happens in our brains. But lets assume that our subjective consciousness is an illusion.. then to who it is an illusion? You will always bump up with the self evident thing that modern science doesnt like, the you. How can you be an illusion to yourself?
I suggest you go through some neurobiology, neuropsychology textbooks, there's not much in the way of mysterious forces within the brain. Most of the main framework of the working structures and neuro-chemistry underlying the functional structures creating the experience of 'consciousness' are quite well understood.
There are constant small 'quantum events' within tiny structures within the brain. Yet, nothing that could hide 'free will' within it's workings.
@Christopholaes : I have researched this. I find it astounding you would say this implying you understand how subjective experience is built from a chemical reaction. I can only say, if you have the explanation, that you should give it and help out the scientists working full time on these issues. You could save them a lot of time, evidently.
@pyrrho314 No, I'm not saying that the whole of subjective experience is understood, but much of the 'mechanical' working or functionality of the structures is understood, and so are much of their 'limits'.
All I am suggesting is given the current understanding of the 'mechanics' of consciousness it is extremely hard to see where 'free-will' could be hiding in amongst all these chemical interaction and/or reactions at the level of the brain.
@Christopholaes Your reply seems more predicated on trying to suggest I am claiming knowledge beyond that of the contemporary scientists of today.
Which I did not, someone who claims to have done research in this field would actually have an idea of what I'm speaking to. Whilst also understanding that 'quantum mechanics' has no hidden 'genie' like force to be discovered within the mind/brain.
Nothing in the science actually suggests that at all? Where are you getting your info?
@Christopholaes : why should a genie be needed, do you think the will is magic. Must it's explanation be magic? I don't think so. Stop asking me where I got the info, tell me the info I'm missing. Explain how the subjective experience arises.
@pyrrho314 'Free-will','will power' and/or 'experiential autonomy' has become a bit of a 'god of the gaps' argument. As exampled by the continued reference of it's supporters to the ideas within quantum mechanics, and/or any suggestion of 'randomness' within physics. Seemingly unaware that this actually has no bearing as to the realities of the functioning brain. That's why I said 'genie' like within apostrophes. Meaning I'm using the term for want of a better word.
@Christopholaes : lol, god in the gaps? pray tell what god am I putting in the gaps? what result have I said the exploration of these gaps is sure to reveal? Nothing except information on the phenomena we've labelled will. It is certainly you that is projecting a need for magic. I expect it to be purely physical in every way. I also think there is a strong distinction between the probability of QM and "randomness". It's not me that's being obtuse.
@pyrrho314 Yes, you seem eager to misunderstand my comments, zero in on key words while ignoring the rest of the sentence etc. That's called being obtuse...It's not meant to be an insult, many behave this way for many reasons, it does not inherently make one a simpleton.
You have labelled it 'will' I see no others doing such a thing...
You really do need to explain what you mean by 'will'...
@pyrrho314 Also, 'stop asking me'? that's the first time I asked you to explain yourself? Yet, your response is to demand that I lay out the entire framework of neuropsychology over a comment section?
Given that my first suggestion is that you do more reading on the subject as it is obvious to me you have a few gaps in you knowledge in this area. This seems a very lazy, and a little dishonest type of response.
As I have already pointed out the 'how or 'why' of experience is not fully understood
Pure and simple, I'm not trying to have a go, I just think you need to explain your ideas a little better. Whilst doing a little more research, as you seem to have an over-simplified version of the reality...
Is that such a bad thing to suggest? It could hardly hurt you to read up more on the subjects involved, maybe from other perspectives than just philosophers, or physicists. Maybe the people who actually study the function of the brain maybe?
@pyrrho314 That's a very feeble attempt at relabelling a concept to try and shake old arguments that refute it. Come on mate! You can do better than that!
Your still talking about a kind of 'experiential autonomy', no matter what you label it. The ability to either 'will' the choices you make, or 'freely choose' choices is but a matter of semantics.
If you have created an entirely new term with new meaning then you have to first define what you mean by 'will power' before you even start...
@Christopholaes : no it's not that, and I've explained what's different about it besides the sound of the label, namely what I think it changes and improves about an investigation into the phenomenon of apparent choice. It's not new, you are simply inexperienced I guess. I did not invent these questions. I wish.
@pyrrho314 Okay what are the names of the scientists currently looking into this question that use the terms 'will' or 'willpower' as it's completely new to me.
Plus, I don't see how changing the focus from 'free-will' (freely choosing), to purely 'will' (maybe the ability to increase chances of making the desired choice??) changes much in the discussion of whether the mind actually ever allows for ANY autonomy over the choices we make at all..
@Christopholaes : names of scientists using the term will power? no, I did not say they used the term will power. There are scientists looking into the will, like Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammeroff, but only a few. I am the one pointing out that "power" has a material coorespondence while "freedom" doesn't.
The question as I ask it investigates what are the forces of will, without presupposing which force is supposed to be the most powerful in the end.
@pyrrho314 You implied quite explicitly that I was under-read in the area and 'inexperienced' which suggests the terms and definitional nature of those terms is used within the literature and research itself
Now you say it is not? Then how could you have possibly have blamed me for seeing it as merely relabelling then? When it's a new term, your endowing with your own meaning
I've read quite a few Roger Penrose books, not a mention of will that i can rememeber being significant to this argument
@pyrrho314 You implied quite explicitly that I was under-read in the area and 'inexperienced' which suggests the terms and definitional nature of those terms is used within the literature and research itself
Now you say it is not? Then how could you have possibly have blamed me for seeing it as merely relabelling then? When it's a new term, your endowing with your own meaning
I've read quite a few Roger Penrose books, not a mention of will that i can rememeber being significant to this argument
@Christopholaes : lol, you came in and first comment implied my opinion was merely lack of reading, then you got blowback for taking that prickish tack.
@pyrrho314 Please point me to where (which book, as I may own it) Roger Penrose speaks of 'will' in terms of the working of the brain, the physical reality of a functioning 'experience stream', and how this relates to the question of making autonomous choices within the 'experience stream'. What we call consciousness.
I mean, I'd be interested to hear what he has to say about it from a physicist's perspective, yet he can only guess at the implications of what he sees in psychology, nothing more.
@Christopholaes : Penrose started speculating that QM might hold the answer to consciousness. He wrote some of these ideas in The Emperor's New Mind. Anestesiologist Stuart Hameroff was fascinated and found that some of the sort of processes Penrose speculates about may be going on in the microtubules in nerves, which Hameroff was and continues to study. They have developed Orch OR, a theoretical approach to the hard problem.
@Christopholaes : He started speculating on the role of QM in consciousness in The Emperor's New Mind, and has collaborated with Stuart Hameroff developing a theory called Orch OR which is a theoretical approach to solving the hard problem, combined with some of Hameroff's belief that important neural processing is going on in micrtubules in the brain, which he was studying before he started reading Penrose's ideas.
@pyrrho314 Okay, and the inner workings of microtubules relates to 'willpower' how?
As far as i understood it's a purely functional structure(working part), there is no cognition taking place.
Plus any of the working of such a structure is in no way recognised by ANY level of consciousness so how in the hell would you be able to effect these processes in order to create 'will' etc.
You've actually just shown me you don't really understand to what Penrose is speaking to...
@Christopholaes : that's a matter of research, which is made of questions. If you are curious where their research is, he's writing about it. You are stretching. I have not said what Penrose is saying beyond that consciousness is related to QM, and I have not endorsed that except as a posibility and identifying it as physical research into consciousness. Penrose was speculating, but a group of people have enacted research based on that speculation. It's amazing how quickly...
you went from suggesting that as a well read student of Penrose you had never heard of such speculation by him --- to an expert on the subject of his speculation. Btw, you said he only speculates, but I mentioned in my comment to you his -speculation- so what could possibly be the point? Should you have perhaps said, "ah, I wasn't familiar with that work, I will read it." Or alternately don't start of making it a battle of reading. There are ideas as well as books to discuss here.
@pyrrho314 No, I merely suggested he can ONLY speculate since it is not his field and he has not formally studied the biology of the brain..he guesses.
Is that not reason enough to say he 'speculates', or do you have another new definition of that word?
Why would you even suggest I was preposing myself as an 'expert' on Penrose by merely suggesting I have read many of his works, and have never heard your interpretation of his works? Oh that's because you think your's is the ONLY interpretation
@Christopholaes : I had already referred to The Emperors New Mind as speculation. However, Hammerof is not just speculating and is collecting lost of theoretical and emperical results, including lists of falsifiable predictions.
I didn't suggest it, you did... you said you never heard of such a thing from him and you acted as though you were familiar enough with him you expected to be familiar with it.
Why not just integrate the fact I was right about that.
@pyrrho314 Not really, what I'm finding very amusing though is your inability to 'integrate' anything that is contradictory to your preconceptions of reality, facts, people etc.
Still haven't reading back through 'the emperors new mind' now where's this 'will-power' that's what I actually asked you, or just 'will' but it has to be given the same significance as you ascribe to it....
Oh, that's right it's right after that all the obfuscating began. You've still yet to clarify your terms...
@pyrrho314 BTW in the psychological community Hameroff's conclusions are at the least questionable, and reaching. At the worst entirely misguided, and selling stories of a possible afterlife...
@Christopholaes : I didn't say otherwise, I SAID there were very few people reasearching consciousness scientifically and used his work with Penrose as an example of people that were doing so. Your peer reviewing his work does not change the example or it's aptitude. He is a scientist studying consciousness as a solvable physical problem and we should have more doing so. I think the QM biology community is going to do so.
@pyrrho314 But you more than heavily inferred that he had something, Also you seemed to drop his name like he was a central player in this field. When actually he's a little on the fringe, because of his wacky spiritual conclusions...
I originally said get read the neuroscience texts, you said you had researched this, then you cite a physicist and an anesthesiologist. Only two sources, and no neuroscientists or psychologist, or anyone who actually deals with the mechanics of minds?
@Christopholaes : um actually I said there were very few scientists even approaching questions of consciousness. I also said HIS STUFF WAS SPECULATION and have told you the research I'm talking about, and the theory Orch OR. I like reading recomendations, I do not appreciate recommendations to just go read, period, because that's stupid. I never said he was mainstream. I said he's one of the two active, and that Hameroff is the more active working on the theory.
@pyrrho314 Well actually, I suggested reading neuroscience/psychology 'texts' by which I was inferring go find a first years textbook and read through a little...
It still appears to me this will help clean up some of your misconceptions about what is or isn't possible within the brain, whilst also giving you some more realistic perspective on the concept of 'will' and QM and how it all fits into the function of the brain. Do you want me to find a text for you, is that it?
@Christopholaes : just lazy. I happen to know these questions are subject to research and debate. A standard text, chosen at random will not inform me at all about these debates.
You think there is nothing mysterious about the brain, it's all understood? I know you are ill informed then. Sorry.
@C : no, that's not true. To the contrary I said there were remarkably few people even with theories. I do happen to think Orch OR is onto something, which came from his ideas as well as Hameroff's research, and now many sources. I do think there is something to it, but you implied I was merely uninformed. Perhaps you were uninformed. It's a theory, it's better than nothing, I like it. The neurocomputational people also have a theory I don't like. I mention both.
@pyrrho314 I really don't care, and wonder why you care, if you 'like' an idea. Would not the fact that it's truthful or not be more important. I think you betray your resistance to more research in this field right here..
Mentioning both, and being open biased to one are two different things my friend.
Yet again, would it kill you to pick up a neurology textbook?
I know it's going to crush some of your illusions, but that should not stop you!?
Well at least your being a little less defensive...
@Christopholaes : I like it because it's following falsibiable predictions. Hello, that's how we find truth. If you follow research, this is a common state of affairs and can last years, decades or centuries. I also mentioned the alternate school, which I don't like as much.
Funny I mentioned that one I don't like. Funny you've mentioned nothing but to read random text books. So yeah, seems to me you are the one that doesn't understand there is need for research.
Could AI be created to be aware of itself and its processes? Would that be consciousness? If the AI was good enough there would be no way you could test for consciousness could you? But then, what would be the difference between self-awareness and consciousness? We can’t test animal consciousness can we? More brain equals more consciousness? Is it binary, on or off? I need to read a book!
@Charlesdance : If the AI is honest, it will relate if it has subjective experience. But it doesn't matter, b/c I have an internal experience... so there is exists an x such that x is a subjective experience. I write programs all the time with self-models, to track the system, but there is no reason to think that creates a subjective experience.
@pyrrho314 It’s weird. If you had a computer program that mimicked physics properly you could construct a virtual human piece by piece that would be just as human as any other real human. Or am I wrong. That can’t be right can it? What would they see? Ah fuck it it’s too much.
@charles : the issue is you cannot mimick physics with a computer. The math works differently, there are phenomenon that can't be simulated computationally (at least not without infinite time for just that one step which in nature is just one of many steps NOT taking infinite time. Computers are limited and the limits are well known in many respects. A computer is a turing machine, and it is limited to certain operations which imo are clearly incomplete with respect to physics.
@paxguerilla : but we know there is no explanation for subjective experience. Thus it's either some application we havn't thought of of current ideas, or it is physics we don't know about at all yet. In either case, it can't be classical physics, because it avoids all questions of subjectivity. It's built on subtracting subjectivity from the equation.
@pyrrho314 - Part two: Maybe you do believe this is true but is part of will power? I don't know how that could make sense... or maybe the word choice is throwing you? Free will is reconising and being aware before willing it in to action. Like noticing you should be doing something? Or not noticing you had a choice and followed it. IE: Washing the pots, OK ill leave it for now. Noticing their still messy... OK ill do it now... but not noticing you made that choice before you did it or didn't.
@TheaDragonSpirit : the word choice is not throwing me. The point is we identify choice from a feeling, and that moment is choice... is it "free"... no but that's a problem with the term free, and not with will.
@InvincibleNumanist : Many people have said the hard problem is unanswerable. The short version of my point is that I believe of course it is answerable, relatively, that is, more answers than currently. As a skeptic, I simply expect new, more fundamental unanswerables which themselves will get partially answered, and so on. There is no final answer, but there is clearly much more physical knowledge to get about these obviously physical systems, which we are.
@InvincibleNumanist : Many people have said the hard problem is unanswerable. The short version of my point is that I believe of course it is answerable, relatively, that is, more answers than currently. As a skeptic, I simply expect new, more fundamental unanswerables which themselves will get partially answered, and so on. There is no final answer, but there is clearly much more physical knowledge to get about these obviously physical systems, which we are.
@AEVautomatic : I agree it's the result of that. Do you feel you have explained much of how that works? There are lots of things going on in neurons. None of our models for them, practically, give any hint of firing up a conscious subjective experience. Considering we ARE that, I find it somewhat interesting. That you don't I think reflects on you aev, you don't have to join the conversation on it imo.
@pyrrho314 - I see so your saying all choice is restricted to a extent so it's not free will. But more Open will. Or something that means free with in limitations you have. I don't know if a word exists for that. I mean to be honest I think anyone who uses free knows that you are only free within the limitations you have. Do you know a word that means free within the limitations you have because it should be a word that means limited with in body restraints not world system limitations.
@army2k08 - Degrees of free will. Would be better, freedom is not possible you are always limited by something... free is not as fixed to me as freedom.
@TheaDragonSpirit There is no absolute freedom...degrees of freedom is correct..It's not like I made it up. Freedom comes with boundaries and rules. It is paradoxical I know, but this is why people have difficulties in defining free will.
@army2k08 - possible but freedom, means something with no limitations so degrees of freedom makes sense... but not in the sense of will. Free does not mean completely free... or freedom. It means free, as in movable... open to movement. Free will means that the environment only has so much effect on your will... so deep down if you say that things affect you this is true... but in reality you always have free choice and will. You just have to be rational to make them. Keep calm.
@army2k08 - oh and will power to go through with them. You can let go of responsibility and be rude... or see a advert and go no... addiction affects free will because it makes the person more likely to do it even though they know it's bad for them because they feel they need it for some reason or it will get them to a state they wish... I don't think any meat or food products should be advertised on a channel that is that about this thing. Otherwise it is manipulation of will.
@TheaDragonSpirit Will, will power and consciousness is all about transcending or overcoming something that is determinate..In the case you provide, it is addiction that is determinate and acts to limit choice. It is your will power that overcomes this addiction, be it drugs, food or whatever else is addictive. Rehab just temporarily restricts the addiction by adding boundaries, but ultimately it is up to the individual themselves to overcome the addiction in question.
@army2k08 - Not quite to me will power can over come addiction but not always it depends how strong your will is. Some people can not over come there addiction they can only avoid that which causes the problem and some people don't even know there addicted so they think it is fine. These products then come up rekindle the addiction and then they willing go do the addiction, they make a bad choice not knowing its bad. You can only use will to over come bad if you know it's bad.
@army2k08 - What you talk about is the question of addiction not the emotion of addiction, what is the addiction hidding... and so on. Rehab actually helps them by blocking it and allowing them to find out what there real problems are meaning they then realise what there will is and in effect regain free will, and then can use will power to over come problems. When someone doesn't make a choice and something is advatised at them, this to me is manipulation. Believe what you wish though
@army2k08 - manipulation means pushed in to a choice they might not have made otherwise. If someone wants to know about games they would be on a games channel so games adverts should be on this channel... if someone is walking along the street they don't choose to see adverts. This is manipulation. Same with food or anything that you have not choosen to see. A tv channel should only have adverts relating to the context of the channel. Else it is manipulation, making people have thoughs
@TheaDragonSpirit I hear what you are saying, but you need a holistic approach to understanding what free will is and what is deterministic..It seems counter-intuitive by restricting freedom, yields more freedom if the will is there. This is what rehab is. Where consciousness yields freedom, unconsciousness yields imprisonment. This is why advertising is so effective.
@army2k08 - Yes but people choose rehab to regain there own will, it a choice they choose because they know they can't do it with out doing this. People in rehab choose to be in rehab... they should not be forced or that is dangerous to there health. Advertising restricts freedom because it manipulates people by reminding them of there addictions or by making them crave something they didn't crave. I am not against adverts, I just think they should be on the correct channels.
@army2k08 - I think they should not just be random adverts all over I think this creates choas, and manipulates people in to doing things they was not thinking about. But if you watch a games channel where people play games... or youtube then the adverts should be related to the channel. Or films... or soaps. Things should be more organised rather than random meat adverts you don't want to see when you have just gone vegan. And random toys on a bbc channel during family programs. Etc.
@pyrrho314 - Part one: Be awesome if you did a video explaining why you believe their is no choices at all and just will power, rather than choices that kick in just before you use will power. I call that free will the small choices you make before will power kicks in.
You reminded me of I, Robot..Three seemly simple rules lead to an emergent behavior that was unanticipated. Debugging programming is like that..something so simple and assumed lead to failure and unexpected outcomes.
So you think modern chemestry can help us understand consciousness better? Or what is in your opinion the best way to find the right path on consciousness? How do we solve say the understanding from say, I can apply a logical formula on quantum chaos that will tell me that nope, Consciousness is not here, but there. But where is there, ha, that is the rum. In your opinion how can we understand what consciousness really is.
@zombeepicture : I was very impressed to find anesthesiologists studying consciousness because anesthesia is probably the best empirical example of attacking specifically what we call the consciousness and nothing else. Also getting an understanding of what chemistry/electricity is doing during conscious brain wave frequencies seems like it will tell us the next step on consciousness. I also think that cognitive science can tell us how to use the will, if not how it works.
We dont seemingly have free will. We only get a feeling of "decicion making" and it of course must feel like the I made it or we would be contradicting with the idea and would indicate that our consciousness has its own will and intelligence apart from brains, like they had a dialogue. But we cant really say according to Heisenbergs uncertainty principle what future holds so in that way we have free will. Its anyway only a random factor in the will not suggesting that we are actually in charge.
StardustSpaceMonkey 2 weeks ago
Iv tried to implement this idea that you cannot explain yourself away by understanding physics but some people just dont get it. I dont mean by the means of learning or processing thought patterns etc. I think neurology has pretty good idea what happens in our brains. But lets assume that our subjective consciousness is an illusion.. then to who it is an illusion? You will always bump up with the self evident thing that modern science doesnt like, the you. How can you be an illusion to yourself?
StardustSpaceMonkey 2 weeks ago
@StardustSpaceMonkey : yes.
pyrrho314 2 weeks ago
I suggest you go through some neurobiology, neuropsychology textbooks, there's not much in the way of mysterious forces within the brain. Most of the main framework of the working structures and neuro-chemistry underlying the functional structures creating the experience of 'consciousness' are quite well understood.
There are constant small 'quantum events' within tiny structures within the brain. Yet, nothing that could hide 'free will' within it's workings.
Really, go do the reading...
Christopholaes 1 month ago
@Christopholaes : I have researched this. I find it astounding you would say this implying you understand how subjective experience is built from a chemical reaction. I can only say, if you have the explanation, that you should give it and help out the scientists working full time on these issues. You could save them a lot of time, evidently.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 No, I'm not saying that the whole of subjective experience is understood, but much of the 'mechanical' working or functionality of the structures is understood, and so are much of their 'limits'.
All I am suggesting is given the current understanding of the 'mechanics' of consciousness it is extremely hard to see where 'free-will' could be hiding in amongst all these chemical interaction and/or reactions at the level of the brain.
If you have done reading this would be obvious...
Christopholaes 1 month ago
@Christopholaes Your reply seems more predicated on trying to suggest I am claiming knowledge beyond that of the contemporary scientists of today.
Which I did not, someone who claims to have done research in this field would actually have an idea of what I'm speaking to. Whilst also understanding that 'quantum mechanics' has no hidden 'genie' like force to be discovered within the mind/brain.
Nothing in the science actually suggests that at all? Where are you getting your info?
Christopholaes 1 month ago
@Christopholaes : why should a genie be needed, do you think the will is magic. Must it's explanation be magic? I don't think so. Stop asking me where I got the info, tell me the info I'm missing. Explain how the subjective experience arises.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 'Free-will','will power' and/or 'experiential autonomy' has become a bit of a 'god of the gaps' argument. As exampled by the continued reference of it's supporters to the ideas within quantum mechanics, and/or any suggestion of 'randomness' within physics. Seemingly unaware that this actually has no bearing as to the realities of the functioning brain. That's why I said 'genie' like within apostrophes. Meaning I'm using the term for want of a better word.
Are you trying to be obtuse?
Christopholaes 1 month ago
@Christopholaes : lol, god in the gaps? pray tell what god am I putting in the gaps? what result have I said the exploration of these gaps is sure to reveal? Nothing except information on the phenomena we've labelled will. It is certainly you that is projecting a need for magic. I expect it to be purely physical in every way. I also think there is a strong distinction between the probability of QM and "randomness". It's not me that's being obtuse.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 Yes, you seem eager to misunderstand my comments, zero in on key words while ignoring the rest of the sentence etc. That's called being obtuse...It's not meant to be an insult, many behave this way for many reasons, it does not inherently make one a simpleton.
You have labelled it 'will' I see no others doing such a thing...
You really do need to explain what you mean by 'will'...
Christopholaes 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 Also, 'stop asking me'? that's the first time I asked you to explain yourself? Yet, your response is to demand that I lay out the entire framework of neuropsychology over a comment section?
Given that my first suggestion is that you do more reading on the subject as it is obvious to me you have a few gaps in you knowledge in this area. This seems a very lazy, and a little dishonest type of response.
As I have already pointed out the 'how or 'why' of experience is not fully understood
Christopholaes 1 month ago
@Christopholaes : whatever I don't like your attitude. Obviously I just prefer different authors.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 Well that's a cop-out...
Pure and simple, I'm not trying to have a go, I just think you need to explain your ideas a little better. Whilst doing a little more research, as you seem to have an over-simplified version of the reality...
Is that such a bad thing to suggest? It could hardly hurt you to read up more on the subjects involved, maybe from other perspectives than just philosophers, or physicists. Maybe the people who actually study the function of the brain maybe?
Just an idea!
Christopholaes 1 month ago
@Christopholaes : I don't believe in "free will", I believe in will power.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 That's a very feeble attempt at relabelling a concept to try and shake old arguments that refute it. Come on mate! You can do better than that!
Your still talking about a kind of 'experiential autonomy', no matter what you label it. The ability to either 'will' the choices you make, or 'freely choose' choices is but a matter of semantics.
If you have created an entirely new term with new meaning then you have to first define what you mean by 'will power' before you even start...
Christopholaes 1 month ago
@Christopholaes : no it's not that, and I've explained what's different about it besides the sound of the label, namely what I think it changes and improves about an investigation into the phenomenon of apparent choice. It's not new, you are simply inexperienced I guess. I did not invent these questions. I wish.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 Okay what are the names of the scientists currently looking into this question that use the terms 'will' or 'willpower' as it's completely new to me.
Plus, I don't see how changing the focus from 'free-will' (freely choosing), to purely 'will' (maybe the ability to increase chances of making the desired choice??) changes much in the discussion of whether the mind actually ever allows for ANY autonomy over the choices we make at all..
You still have the same problems...
Christopholaes 1 month ago
@Christopholaes : names of scientists using the term will power? no, I did not say they used the term will power. There are scientists looking into the will, like Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammeroff, but only a few. I am the one pointing out that "power" has a material coorespondence while "freedom" doesn't.
The question as I ask it investigates what are the forces of will, without presupposing which force is supposed to be the most powerful in the end.
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 You implied quite explicitly that I was under-read in the area and 'inexperienced' which suggests the terms and definitional nature of those terms is used within the literature and research itself
Now you say it is not? Then how could you have possibly have blamed me for seeing it as merely relabelling then? When it's a new term, your endowing with your own meaning
I've read quite a few Roger Penrose books, not a mention of will that i can rememeber being significant to this argument
Christopholaes 4 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 You implied quite explicitly that I was under-read in the area and 'inexperienced' which suggests the terms and definitional nature of those terms is used within the literature and research itself
Now you say it is not? Then how could you have possibly have blamed me for seeing it as merely relabelling then? When it's a new term, your endowing with your own meaning
I've read quite a few Roger Penrose books, not a mention of will that i can rememeber being significant to this argument
Christopholaes 4 weeks ago
@Christopholaes : lol, you came in and first comment implied my opinion was merely lack of reading, then you got blowback for taking that prickish tack.
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 You saw it as an insult to suggest more reading, that's really your insecurity, not mine...
So, what you're saying here is you just suggested I was without reading on the subject, because I suggested you needed more reading?
Are you admitting that you are childish? I don't get it? You laugh like that's the most logical and obvious response a sort of 'tit for tat' thing?
Jeez, I was told by others you actually have some interesting ideas, are thoughtful etc.
Not what i'm seeing here..
Christopholaes 4 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 Please point me to where (which book, as I may own it) Roger Penrose speaks of 'will' in terms of the working of the brain, the physical reality of a functioning 'experience stream', and how this relates to the question of making autonomous choices within the 'experience stream'. What we call consciousness.
I mean, I'd be interested to hear what he has to say about it from a physicist's perspective, yet he can only guess at the implications of what he sees in psychology, nothing more.
Christopholaes 4 weeks ago
@Christopholaes : Penrose started speculating that QM might hold the answer to consciousness. He wrote some of these ideas in The Emperor's New Mind. Anestesiologist Stuart Hameroff was fascinated and found that some of the sort of processes Penrose speculates about may be going on in the microtubules in nerves, which Hameroff was and continues to study. They have developed Orch OR, a theoretical approach to the hard problem.
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago
@Christopholaes : He started speculating on the role of QM in consciousness in The Emperor's New Mind, and has collaborated with Stuart Hameroff developing a theory called Orch OR which is a theoretical approach to solving the hard problem, combined with some of Hameroff's belief that important neural processing is going on in micrtubules in the brain, which he was studying before he started reading Penrose's ideas.
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 Okay, and the inner workings of microtubules relates to 'willpower' how?
As far as i understood it's a purely functional structure(working part), there is no cognition taking place.
Plus any of the working of such a structure is in no way recognised by ANY level of consciousness so how in the hell would you be able to effect these processes in order to create 'will' etc.
You've actually just shown me you don't really understand to what Penrose is speaking to...
Plus he only speculates
Christopholaes 4 weeks ago
@Christopholaes : that's a matter of research, which is made of questions. If you are curious where their research is, he's writing about it. You are stretching. I have not said what Penrose is saying beyond that consciousness is related to QM, and I have not endorsed that except as a posibility and identifying it as physical research into consciousness. Penrose was speculating, but a group of people have enacted research based on that speculation. It's amazing how quickly...
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago
you went from suggesting that as a well read student of Penrose you had never heard of such speculation by him --- to an expert on the subject of his speculation. Btw, you said he only speculates, but I mentioned in my comment to you his -speculation- so what could possibly be the point? Should you have perhaps said, "ah, I wasn't familiar with that work, I will read it." Or alternately don't start of making it a battle of reading. There are ideas as well as books to discuss here.
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 No, I merely suggested he can ONLY speculate since it is not his field and he has not formally studied the biology of the brain..he guesses.
Is that not reason enough to say he 'speculates', or do you have another new definition of that word?
Why would you even suggest I was preposing myself as an 'expert' on Penrose by merely suggesting I have read many of his works, and have never heard your interpretation of his works? Oh that's because you think your's is the ONLY interpretation
Christopholaes 3 weeks ago
@Christopholaes : I had already referred to The Emperors New Mind as speculation. However, Hammerof is not just speculating and is collecting lost of theoretical and emperical results, including lists of falsifiable predictions.
I didn't suggest it, you did... you said you never heard of such a thing from him and you acted as though you were familiar enough with him you expected to be familiar with it.
Why not just integrate the fact I was right about that.
pyrrho314 3 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 Not really, what I'm finding very amusing though is your inability to 'integrate' anything that is contradictory to your preconceptions of reality, facts, people etc.
Still haven't reading back through 'the emperors new mind' now where's this 'will-power' that's what I actually asked you, or just 'will' but it has to be given the same significance as you ascribe to it....
Oh, that's right it's right after that all the obfuscating began. You've still yet to clarify your terms...
Christopholaes 3 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 BTW in the psychological community Hameroff's conclusions are at the least questionable, and reaching. At the worst entirely misguided, and selling stories of a possible afterlife...
Christopholaes 4 weeks ago
@Christopholaes : I didn't say otherwise, I SAID there were very few people reasearching consciousness scientifically and used his work with Penrose as an example of people that were doing so. Your peer reviewing his work does not change the example or it's aptitude. He is a scientist studying consciousness as a solvable physical problem and we should have more doing so. I think the QM biology community is going to do so.
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 But you more than heavily inferred that he had something, Also you seemed to drop his name like he was a central player in this field. When actually he's a little on the fringe, because of his wacky spiritual conclusions...
I originally said get read the neuroscience texts, you said you had researched this, then you cite a physicist and an anesthesiologist. Only two sources, and no neuroscientists or psychologist, or anyone who actually deals with the mechanics of minds?
Research HA!
Christopholaes 3 weeks ago
@Christopholaes : um actually I said there were very few scientists even approaching questions of consciousness. I also said HIS STUFF WAS SPECULATION and have told you the research I'm talking about, and the theory Orch OR. I like reading recomendations, I do not appreciate recommendations to just go read, period, because that's stupid. I never said he was mainstream. I said he's one of the two active, and that Hameroff is the more active working on the theory.
pyrrho314 3 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 Well actually, I suggested reading neuroscience/psychology 'texts' by which I was inferring go find a first years textbook and read through a little...
It still appears to me this will help clean up some of your misconceptions about what is or isn't possible within the brain, whilst also giving you some more realistic perspective on the concept of 'will' and QM and how it all fits into the function of the brain. Do you want me to find a text for you, is that it?
That's just lazy mate.
Christopholaes 3 weeks ago
@Christopholaes : just lazy. I happen to know these questions are subject to research and debate. A standard text, chosen at random will not inform me at all about these debates.
You think there is nothing mysterious about the brain, it's all understood? I know you are ill informed then. Sorry.
Whatever,
pyrrho314 3 weeks ago
@C : no, that's not true. To the contrary I said there were remarkably few people even with theories. I do happen to think Orch OR is onto something, which came from his ideas as well as Hameroff's research, and now many sources. I do think there is something to it, but you implied I was merely uninformed. Perhaps you were uninformed. It's a theory, it's better than nothing, I like it. The neurocomputational people also have a theory I don't like. I mention both.
pyrrho314 3 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 I really don't care, and wonder why you care, if you 'like' an idea. Would not the fact that it's truthful or not be more important. I think you betray your resistance to more research in this field right here..
Mentioning both, and being open biased to one are two different things my friend.
Yet again, would it kill you to pick up a neurology textbook?
I know it's going to crush some of your illusions, but that should not stop you!?
Well at least your being a little less defensive...
Christopholaes 3 weeks ago
@Christopholaes : I like it because it's following falsibiable predictions. Hello, that's how we find truth. If you follow research, this is a common state of affairs and can last years, decades or centuries. I also mentioned the alternate school, which I don't like as much.
Funny I mentioned that one I don't like. Funny you've mentioned nothing but to read random text books. So yeah, seems to me you are the one that doesn't understand there is need for research.
pyrrho314 3 weeks ago
Could AI be created to be aware of itself and its processes? Would that be consciousness? If the AI was good enough there would be no way you could test for consciousness could you? But then, what would be the difference between self-awareness and consciousness? We can’t test animal consciousness can we? More brain equals more consciousness? Is it binary, on or off? I need to read a book!
Charlesdance 1 month ago
@Charlesdance : If the AI is honest, it will relate if it has subjective experience. But it doesn't matter, b/c I have an internal experience... so there is exists an x such that x is a subjective experience. I write programs all the time with self-models, to track the system, but there is no reason to think that creates a subjective experience.
pyrrho314 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@pyrrho314 It’s weird. If you had a computer program that mimicked physics properly you could construct a virtual human piece by piece that would be just as human as any other real human. Or am I wrong. That can’t be right can it? What would they see? Ah fuck it it’s too much.
Charlesdance 1 month ago
@charles : the issue is you cannot mimick physics with a computer. The math works differently, there are phenomenon that can't be simulated computationally (at least not without infinite time for just that one step which in nature is just one of many steps NOT taking infinite time. Computers are limited and the limits are well known in many respects. A computer is a turing machine, and it is limited to certain operations which imo are clearly incomplete with respect to physics.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 Thanks. I’ll have to take your word for it :)
Charlesdance 1 month ago
We don't even know what all the laws of physics are yet...
paxguerilla 1 month ago
@paxguerilla : but we know there is no explanation for subjective experience. Thus it's either some application we havn't thought of of current ideas, or it is physics we don't know about at all yet. In either case, it can't be classical physics, because it avoids all questions of subjectivity. It's built on subtracting subjectivity from the equation.
QM is build on chemistry, and is not so limited.
pyrrho314 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@pyrrho314 - Part two: Maybe you do believe this is true but is part of will power? I don't know how that could make sense... or maybe the word choice is throwing you? Free will is reconising and being aware before willing it in to action. Like noticing you should be doing something? Or not noticing you had a choice and followed it. IE: Washing the pots, OK ill leave it for now. Noticing their still messy... OK ill do it now... but not noticing you made that choice before you did it or didn't.
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
@TheaDragonSpirit : the word choice is not throwing me. The point is we identify choice from a feeling, and that moment is choice... is it "free"... no but that's a problem with the term free, and not with will.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 The “hard problem of consciousness” is nonsense. It is the result of neuron circuits firing in a specific manner.
AEVautomatic 1 month ago
@AEVautomatic
"It is the result of neuron circuits firing in a specific manner."
Youve not done anything but assert exactly what the hard problem of conscioussness states you cant know.
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago
@InvincibleNumanist : Many people have said the hard problem is unanswerable. The short version of my point is that I believe of course it is answerable, relatively, that is, more answers than currently. As a skeptic, I simply expect new, more fundamental unanswerables which themselves will get partially answered, and so on. There is no final answer, but there is clearly much more physical knowledge to get about these obviously physical systems, which we are.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@InvincibleNumanist : Many people have said the hard problem is unanswerable. The short version of my point is that I believe of course it is answerable, relatively, that is, more answers than currently. As a skeptic, I simply expect new, more fundamental unanswerables which themselves will get partially answered, and so on. There is no final answer, but there is clearly much more physical knowledge to get about these obviously physical systems, which we are.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@AEVautomatic : I agree it's the result of that. Do you feel you have explained much of how that works? There are lots of things going on in neurons. None of our models for them, practically, give any hint of firing up a conscious subjective experience. Considering we ARE that, I find it somewhat interesting. That you don't I think reflects on you aev, you don't have to join the conversation on it imo.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 I think if you answer it will be a long boring answer that can be reduced to my previous answer.
AEVautomatic 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 - I see so your saying all choice is restricted to a extent so it's not free will. But more Open will. Or something that means free with in limitations you have. I don't know if a word exists for that. I mean to be honest I think anyone who uses free knows that you are only free within the limitations you have. Do you know a word that means free within the limitations you have because it should be a word that means limited with in body restraints not world system limitations.
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
@TheaDragonSpirit It's called degrees of freedom
army2k08 1 month ago
@army2k08 - Degrees of free will. Would be better, freedom is not possible you are always limited by something... free is not as fixed to me as freedom.
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
@TheaDragonSpirit There is no absolute freedom...degrees of freedom is correct..It's not like I made it up. Freedom comes with boundaries and rules. It is paradoxical I know, but this is why people have difficulties in defining free will.
army2k08 1 month ago in playlist More videos from pyrrho314
@army2k08 - possible but freedom, means something with no limitations so degrees of freedom makes sense... but not in the sense of will. Free does not mean completely free... or freedom. It means free, as in movable... open to movement. Free will means that the environment only has so much effect on your will... so deep down if you say that things affect you this is true... but in reality you always have free choice and will. You just have to be rational to make them. Keep calm.
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
@army2k08 - oh and will power to go through with them. You can let go of responsibility and be rude... or see a advert and go no... addiction affects free will because it makes the person more likely to do it even though they know it's bad for them because they feel they need it for some reason or it will get them to a state they wish... I don't think any meat or food products should be advertised on a channel that is that about this thing. Otherwise it is manipulation of will.
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
@TheaDragonSpirit Will, will power and consciousness is all about transcending or overcoming something that is determinate..In the case you provide, it is addiction that is determinate and acts to limit choice. It is your will power that overcomes this addiction, be it drugs, food or whatever else is addictive. Rehab just temporarily restricts the addiction by adding boundaries, but ultimately it is up to the individual themselves to overcome the addiction in question.
army2k08 1 month ago
@army2k08 - Not quite to me will power can over come addiction but not always it depends how strong your will is. Some people can not over come there addiction they can only avoid that which causes the problem and some people don't even know there addicted so they think it is fine. These products then come up rekindle the addiction and then they willing go do the addiction, they make a bad choice not knowing its bad. You can only use will to over come bad if you know it's bad.
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
@army2k08 - What you talk about is the question of addiction not the emotion of addiction, what is the addiction hidding... and so on. Rehab actually helps them by blocking it and allowing them to find out what there real problems are meaning they then realise what there will is and in effect regain free will, and then can use will power to over come problems. When someone doesn't make a choice and something is advatised at them, this to me is manipulation. Believe what you wish though
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
@army2k08 - manipulation means pushed in to a choice they might not have made otherwise. If someone wants to know about games they would be on a games channel so games adverts should be on this channel... if someone is walking along the street they don't choose to see adverts. This is manipulation. Same with food or anything that you have not choosen to see. A tv channel should only have adverts relating to the context of the channel. Else it is manipulation, making people have thoughs
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
@TheaDragonSpirit I hear what you are saying, but you need a holistic approach to understanding what free will is and what is deterministic..It seems counter-intuitive by restricting freedom, yields more freedom if the will is there. This is what rehab is. Where consciousness yields freedom, unconsciousness yields imprisonment. This is why advertising is so effective.
army2k08 1 month ago
@army2k08 - Yes but people choose rehab to regain there own will, it a choice they choose because they know they can't do it with out doing this. People in rehab choose to be in rehab... they should not be forced or that is dangerous to there health. Advertising restricts freedom because it manipulates people by reminding them of there addictions or by making them crave something they didn't crave. I am not against adverts, I just think they should be on the correct channels.
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
@army2k08 - I think they should not just be random adverts all over I think this creates choas, and manipulates people in to doing things they was not thinking about. But if you watch a games channel where people play games... or youtube then the adverts should be related to the channel. Or films... or soaps. Things should be more organised rather than random meat adverts you don't want to see when you have just gone vegan. And random toys on a bbc channel during family programs. Etc.
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 - Part one: Be awesome if you did a video explaining why you believe their is no choices at all and just will power, rather than choices that kick in just before you use will power. I call that free will the small choices you make before will power kicks in.
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
You reminded me of I, Robot..Three seemly simple rules lead to an emergent behavior that was unanticipated. Debugging programming is like that..something so simple and assumed lead to failure and unexpected outcomes.
army2k08 1 month ago
@army2k08 You will find this link very interesting: tinyurl(dot)com/7tlazbk
army2k08 1 month ago
what are your thoughts on double-aspect theory?
tranquil87 1 month ago
@tranquil87 : I take it as a given though I was not familiar with that name for the idea.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
So you think modern chemestry can help us understand consciousness better? Or what is in your opinion the best way to find the right path on consciousness? How do we solve say the understanding from say, I can apply a logical formula on quantum chaos that will tell me that nope, Consciousness is not here, but there. But where is there, ha, that is the rum. In your opinion how can we understand what consciousness really is.
zombeepictureshow 1 month ago
@zombeepicture : I was very impressed to find anesthesiologists studying consciousness because anesthesia is probably the best empirical example of attacking specifically what we call the consciousness and nothing else. Also getting an understanding of what chemistry/electricity is doing during conscious brain wave frequencies seems like it will tell us the next step on consciousness. I also think that cognitive science can tell us how to use the will, if not how it works.
pyrrho314 1 month ago