Are we conscious?

[IJesusChrist]

Do you believe we have free will?

Do you believe there is such a thing as "choice" in the universe?

I am debating it. To be honest, I don't think the conscious mind is in control of anything. We have the illusion we are, we have the feedback that we have "made" decisions. I think these are just that - feedback from the system really at play.

But if we don't make the decisions, what does, exactly? A complex reaction of neurons? The subconscious mind is incredibly powerful, but can it truly be in control of everything??

I'm a bit high off kratom right now and very relaxed so I don't think my words are going to do my thoughts justice at the moment! Have at it...

PS: IF we were not in control, would that scare you? I.e. if free will was a complete illusion and consciousness was simply the observation of our subconscious' actions, would this remove some desirable piece of reality for you?

Dramatically important and relevant: http://www.scientificamerican.com/podca ... t-11-11-21

 

[gammagoblin]

I have been interested in this topic for some time and have come to the conclusion that there is no free will. Even if we consciously make decisions, which can be doubted as you said, these decisions are based on what you think is best according to the things you value the most which is the outcome of your genes and previous life experiences.

There was also research done which 'showed' that the unconscious mind made decisions before you consciously made them. Here is a link to the research (the title is in dutch but the movie itself is english spoken). I do have to say that the times they guessed correctly was about 60% which is more than if it were mere coincidence so the researchers came to the conclusion that they could really predict what someone was gonna do before he consciously decided. But sometimes you coincidentally guess more than 50% right so the fact that it was 60% could also be coincidental. But I do not know how much they repeated this kind of experiment.

I also noticed that the choices I made in my life (little choices, what to say for someone for example) may look like free will but I noticed a pattern, which was, in my case, trying to help people. I believe I do/did this because of some previous life experiences, for example me feeling not good enough and trying to compensate. So yes I do think the subconscious mind has a lot, if not all, to do with the choices I make.

 

[ararat]

what always kinda bothers me is this scientific reductionism. i.e. boiling down everything to the molecular plane. happiness is when you have enough serotonin, choice comes from long complex reactions of neurons, DNA programs our behavior etc.
if we say that this stuff is the basis of human beingness, then what we have is quite a machinistic world and self view, for all it needs is a millenia long reaction of having a primordial soup, reacting so long until we have a human being, and we can reduce the whole process to "molecule A hits molecule B". of course there is more to it, but it all follows similar linear logic.
I forgot what I was getting at, but I'll keep that paragraph, it's not entirely unrelated.



the question of choice is necessarily a question of identity. who chooses?
I don't think that there is a witness far removed from the workings of the material world, for how would the witness get the information of whatever the neuronal system works out if not by material ways? so the distinction doesn't make sense, the witness would have to interact with the material, making it material itself (at least in parts, which would be a ridiculous view to hold imho). if we want to keep the witness, we will have to conclude that it has no influence in anything at all: existence would be like watching a movie.

yesterday I had a small but insightful epiphany after having smoked some weed (fits well into the other thread), the ego is that which tries to control. to some extent it seems possible, to control or choose out of this small corner, but it seems like cramming ones own unbound nature into the narrow frame of an idea of what behavior and which thoughts are desirable, and which are not. it seems to me that one if not the function of choice is to maximize the things that are desirable and minimize those that are not. (it seems to be doing a bad job at that, though)
I'm rambling. ultimately it is also a question of duality, we have to invent a totality to contain an arbitrary part, which then can choose something. without duality, choice could not exist. or maybe it can? it'd be vain of myself to say I know

 

[MichaelVipperman]

Yeah, fuck reductionism. Every complex systems displays dynamicality.

 

[darkwolfunseen]

The way I see it, three schools of thought:

1) Science prevails: For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Enough serotonin, conditioning, etc. Already covered in the sense that with everything, there is a logical explanation, and often times it can be predetermined if enough data is available.

2) Fate: Not due to science, but due to a higher being's wishes, all is predetermined (religion would fall into this category, but is not the category itself, as there are other fate theories outside of the realm of religion).

3) Ghost in a machine: Not to be confused entirely with the British theory (forgive my few modifications). We are both mind and body acting together, but there is a disconnect that will never be explained by science. You can call it a soul, you can call it transcendentalism, you can call it evolution. In any case, it is the proof that in human beings the combined input into us has resulted in a larger output (something that in nature, should never occur). Under this theory, you do have control (closely tightened still by environmental and historical conditioning and biological constraints).

My personal opinion: Yes free will exists. Do most of us exercise it? Not really. Free will is a choice that is given while we are in the chains of conditioning. We can theoretically change our patterns (hence not fate), yet it is typically so statistically difficult that we will not.

Dictated, not read.

 

[MichaelVipperman]

The "science" you're referring to is about 50 years out of date.

Watch this lecture to understand why:

 

[IJesusChrist]

The "science" you're referring to is about 50 years out of date.

Watch this lecture to understand why:

What does reductionism/complexity/chaos theories have to do with whether or not we are conscious?

I'm watching the video now, but free will - I guess this isn't as what we usually equate to consciousness - is an ability, it is a yes or no. . .

Do we have free will? Can we make decisions that are not based on physical laws. Are our decisions unrelated, unconnected, to (but based upon) physical phenomena?

 

[darkwolfunseen]

Lol, same guy who proved that stress can take out an alpha baboon. Small world.

As for the "science", these are general buckets. Take them for what they represent, theory more then nuts and bolts. But that's just my opinion.

 

[ararat]

that the science is 50 years old changes little that it is nonetheless a view that a great deal of people still hold, consciously or unconsciously.

haven't watched the video yet, but I had wanted to watch one of this guys videos, so this one will be watched tonight


ijc, I don't get how you would think that there is the possibility of us not being conscious. of course there are people who merely seem to act out to whatever they've been conditioned to, but they are in my book nonetheless conscious, otherwise they wouldn't be able to live. same goes for animals. they may not be conscious of everything, but I can't claim that of myself either.

 

[MichaelVipperman]

When I mentioned "science" I was referring to the usage by darkwolfunseen. That is, science as arguing everything to have causes, be explainable, etc.

Science prevails: For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Enough serotonin, conditioning, etc. Already covered in the sense that with everything, there is a logical explanation, and often times it can be predetermined if enough data is available.

Chaos theory threw that right out the window, and over the past couple decades scientists have been increasingly getting into complexity. Reality is really, really weird... 150 years ago, people thought that science was on the verge of explaining everything. Now no (respected and contemporary) scientist actually holds that position... most would reject that such a thing is even possible in principle.

As for consciousness, I find the question "are we conscious" disingenuous. There's no good definition of consciousness... the best we've got is operationalising it in relation to our experience. At one point that was an attempt to say "see, this is why we're better than the animals," but every test we've invented to prove it has shown no firm divide between humans and animals. So on the one extreme you've got panpsychists who say that everything is conscious, on the other extreme you've got mechanists who think that we merely suppose ourselves to have a non-reducible conscious agency, and in the middle you've got people who suggest that consciousness is an emergent property of complex-enough systems, in which case the referent is our experience and, when it comes to determining whether another entity is "conscious," what we're doing is looking for what we consider to be definitive features from that experience.

Regarding mechanistic behaviour vs agency or whatever... it's clear that the vast majority of our behaviour is ruled by habits. But vast majority does not a totality make. "Consciousness" could be seen as the ability to, even once in a while, interfere with those habits and impose "will" despite what "comes naturally." This sort of thing becomes more obvious when we're faced with novel or surprising situations that break us out of our habits, and for which we have no established behavioural pattern: somehow we figure out something new to do.

 

[darkwolfunseen]

Okay, I might have leaned a bit more towards the "Do we have free will?" question. I would also argue that scientific predictability has long been questioned (and quite possibly refuted in theory). However, that's not to say that mass amounts of people don't still cling to this alternative, hence it being a grouping of thought.

As for consciousness, that's also a difficult question, because of it's subjective nature. In terms of self-awareness, I suppose humans would be considered conscious, but as mentioned animals and even plants exhibit certain reactions to stimuli in virtually the same way. Personally, I've always believed that if all things are inter-connected (whether it's through having a greater power that created all of the universe, or simply the idea that everything in it's most base form is made from the same thing), then pure consciousness is an achieved state of transcendental awareness.

That explanation is hard to convey because it is subjective, I admit that, but at a minimum there have been a handful of times in my life where I felt everything around me, not just my own existence, and for me that was enough to claim consciousness, whether or not it was empirically sufficient.

 

[MichaelVipperman]

I would also argue that scientific predictability has long been questioned (and quite possibly refuted in theory). However, that's not to say that mass amounts of people don't still cling to this alternative, hence it being a grouping of thought.

Yeah, some people definitely think that way, but it's untenable, and unscientific.

 

[BrainEater]

i've had enough with the artificial and compulsive scientific reductionism. who really gives a shit. why don't u go into the fabric and do what you are supposed to do you stupid robot or shall i say number. when will you realize you don't make the world a better place, by trying to push your own ignorant view on others? don't get me wrong i am just a bit angry... but don't ask me to justify my anger, because it may destroy you or rather what you think you are...sad story.. so better go cry right now mmmkay... and if i may i will give an advice too... kill your ego before it kills you. and fear is still the power of the dark side, mind you.... :snakeman: :rock: :rock: :rock: :rock: :rock: 8) 8) 8) 8)

on topic: choice is based on duality... you are either conscious or you are not. to be conscious means to be aware. feeling is knowing and if you don't feel you don't know. that's what the ego-mind can't seem to accept. it seems to think that thinking should be in a higher priority than feeling. but if you ask me, that's clearly ignorant and therefore the mind doesn't perceive and experience reality as it is. the problem is the false identification with the mind....
do you think you have to believe in free will?? well... if you knew then you wouldn't have to believe, right???
the thing about the thoughts(the mind) is whether they control you, or you them... and this determines how free your will is.
i hope this makes sense to you. it's about knowing what you do.


peace

 

[MichaelVipperman]

i've had enough with the artificial and compulsive scientific reductionism. who really gives a shit. why don't u go into the fabric and do what you are supposed to do you stupid robot or shall i say number. when will you realize you don't make the world a better place, by trying to push your own ignorant view on others? don't get me wrong i am just a bit angry... but don't ask me to justify my anger, because it may destroy you or rather what you think you are...sad story.. so better go cry right now mmmkay... and if i may i will give an advice too... kill your ego before it kills you. and fear is still the power of the dark side, mind you.... :snakeman: :rock: :rock: :rock: :rock: :rock: 8) 8) 8) 8)

Is this directed towards me? Because scientific reductionism is what I've been pointing out has been rejected by scientists, so to say that you've "had enough" of it is to agree with me and the other posters here, so I really don't know what you're on about. And to say something like "you don't make the world a better place" without full knowledge of what somebody has done in the lives of other people is pretty god damn ignorant on your part. Perhaps what you mean is some specific comment didn't make the world a better place, but to universalise that is pretty silly. Did your comments here make the world a better place? Do you, more generally?

Asking that question of ourselves regularly is probably a pretty good idea. What are the effects of your actions on the people around you? For almost all of us that's going to be mixed... sometimes we help, sometimes we hinder. Over time and through reflection maybe we can improve the ratio there. Expecting it to be absolute in either direction is a bad idea.

 

[BrainEater]

i was only ignorant, because you were. you contradict yourself too much for saying that you are not ignorant. because it seems you apply scientific reductionism, too.... well we all do, as quantum-physicists, having a human brain(filters). but the form in which it appears is always a different story. and i do think i make the world a better place, because i am honest.
anyway i guess my harsh reaction to some of the content you made is because i don't like some aspect of the personality you try to present. i can't tell exactly what part though... it's more like a general impression kind of thing... :? :roll:
i don't have to know everything you did in your life... i trust my feeling and it said something like maybe you are a good person etc etc but maybe you are just not as aware of what you are doing as you claim to be. and i love the population of the planet enough to try to make you aware of that. i know from experience how it can be when you think you act all right etc etc but in reality don't and later see the consequences but don't want to see them. so that's what i try to prevent for the good of all.
if i attacked you it was somewhat a ego-mind projection and shit like that.

but it provoked anger in me, because my mind and ego already got abused by sophisticated paradoxes like that, presented in a seemingly logical manner etc etc too much for taking it for granted anymore. and while it surely holds an opportunity for people learning out of shit like that etc etc i kind of prefer a more intelligent approach to that problem. i made horrible experiences, being too naive to what some people say, and not having enjoyed the experiences i kind of want other people to learn in advance better who they really are, because our world/the population is too much in a crisis already, so it should be like an opportunity for relief and proper self-reflection. its like growing a garden and caring for it. :lol:


so maybe instead of seeing my reaction and post as an attack, try to see it as an opportunity to learn. it could be there are a lot of persons like me, that could react similarly. think about that.... possibly there are sometimes better ways of saying something, even when you don't think there are.... stuff like that.... :wink:
thanks for reading.


peace

 

[IJesusChrist]

Scientific reductionism has its place. It is what all engineered pieces of anything have come from. Without scientific reductionism electricity would never have been invented, fresh (healthy) water would not be available to most of us, solar energy would be non-existant other than plants...

Reductionism has brought you books (via the printing press), the internet, your light bulbs, your food (eh... probably not a good thing).

We all adhere to reductionism, it is inevitable. Anything you have ever used logic for rather than intuition is reductionism, is logic, is scientific and mathematical thought. Language itself is reductionist - that a meaning can be placed into one word. Infact, we have to use reductionist thinking in order to read over the internet - what other information do we get? We get words, which are symbols on a page, which is symbolism, which is inevitably a reduction in this context. We take words, meanings, from all branches of perception and combine them to make flows of information, opinion, and observation.

To simply bash reductionism as the end of the world or ignorant places yourself in a deep hole. To believe that reductionism is some kind of evil thing is reductionist in itself. How can you not see that reductionism is necessary for understanding at all? Without reductionism you would have probably already died from some disease or an injury.

blah blah blah blah rant rant rant rant the rest of what I will say is just a summary of what I have already said.

Sorry - the original topic should be more on the lines of free will, which, as far as I can imagine, would only be possible from consciousness. Sometimes I use the two words interchangeably, however consciousness is obviously a broad topic. A point I'd like to make, however, is that you could always program a computer to say "Yes I'm conscious" - meaning me thinking I'm conscious has no bearing in whether I am or not.

 

[BrainEater]

i was initially saying that what i dislike so much is compulsive and artificial scientific reductionism. i knew all along
what you say and thanks for pointing it out. and you are right, but when it becomes compulsive it's not nice at all
anymore.

and well yeah... i knew already all along that it is possible to formulate lies and try to believe in them. the question is
whether believing in lies, does make them more true in any way.

some are sometimes more conscious and some sometimes less... it's a matter of balance, in the end. consciousness
is a very distinct and basic but at the same time very advanced phenomenom. it's the potential for the unification
as well as the reason for the the existence of opposites. 8)

if you ask me it's a matter of developing consciousness and the evolution of it or yourself. i sometimes think like i can't change anything/anyone but only my own consciousness. it is a paradigm that accepts the ego, but can also see the illusion it
perpetually attempts to create=itself. so consciousness has got to do a lot with self realization, because it seems
only through access to the subconscious things like dreams or other deep states, we can truly recognize what it is.
in that context it's all about knowing who you truly are, and the ego wants to prevent you finding it out, because that
would end its dominating role/existence.

and i already answered your question about free will IJC.... the question would be whether you control your thought
process or whether it controls you.
simple logics but very complex implications, because it depends on who/what you believe/think you are, which
is a very complex story all of itself. :lol: :lol: :lol:


peace

 

[ophiuchus]

both.

 

[johnscarbrough]

Recently I have watched a movie named "Green Lantern'' in which free will is focused vastly.I also believe that free will can makes men such positively powerful.it's the high time to think about this.

 

[BrainEater]

or the illusion of free will.... because the most effective slaves are those who think they are free, while they are not..
it can be a little bit of a mindfuck but hey it can be worth it, to invest some thought in the sovereignity of your own mind, i would say.... except of course your mind is so retarded or so that it would not worth the risk of "opening/freeing" it... LOL
i hope anyone understands what i mean... :lol: :lol: :lol:

peace