[List All Topics] [Start Topic] [Search] [Show Thread Index] [Help]

[Not Logged In / Login / Register]

Sort: [Threaded | Date]

		The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/03/2009 9:38 PM by PredictionBoy	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The latest issue of Scientific American Mind is excellent, lots of good articles. This is one of the shorter ones that addresses a central theme to many of our discussions. (I'm including the full text, because sometimes the articles after a period of time become paid.) Neurosurgeons evoke an intention to act during brain surgery Surely there must have been times in high school or college when you laid in bed, late at night, and wondered where your “free will” came from? What part of the brain—if it is the brain—is responsible for deciding to act one way or another? One traditional answer is that this is not the job of the brain at all but rather of the soul. Hovering above the brain like Casper the Friendly Ghost, the soul freely perturbs the networks of the brain, thereby triggering the neural activity that will ultimately lead to behavior. Although such dualistic accounts are emotionally reassuring and intuitively satisfying, they break down as soon as one digs a bit deeper. How can this ghost, made out of some kind of metaphysical ectoplasm, influence brain matter without being detected? What sort of laws does Casper follow? Science has abandoned strong dualistic explanations in favor of natural accounts that assign causes and responsibility to specific actors and mechanisms that can be further studied. And so it is with the notion of the will. Sensation and Action Over the past decade psychologists such as Daniel M. Wegner of Harvard University amassed experimental evidence for a number of conscious sensations that accompany any willful action. The two most important are intention and agency. Prior to voluntary behavior lies a conscious intention. When you decide to lift your hand, this intention is followed by planning of the detailed movement and its execution. Subjectively, you experience a sensation of agency. You feel that you, not the person next to you, initiated this action and saw it through. If a friend were to take your hand and pull it above your head, you would feel your arm being dragged up, but you would not feel any sense of being responsible for it. The important insight here is that the consciously experienced feelings of intention and agency are no different, in principle, from any other consciously experienced sensations, such as the briny taste of chicken soup or the red color of a Ferrari. And as a plethora of books on visual illusions illustrate, often our senses can be fooled—we see something that is not there. So it is with the sensation of intentionality and agency. Decades of psychology experiments—as well as careful observation of human nature that comes from a lifetime of living—reveal many instances where we think we caused something to happen, although we bear no responsibility for it; the converse also occurs, where we did do something but feel that something or somebody else must have been responsible. Think about the CEO of a company who takes credit—and bonuses worth many millions—if the stock market price of his company rises but who blames anonymous market forces when it tanks. It is a general human failing to overestimate the import of our own actions when things go well for us. Lest there by any misunderstanding: the sensations of the intention to act and of agency do not speak to the metaphysical debate about whether will is truly free and whether that even is a meaningful statement. Whether free will has some ontological reality or is entirely an illusion, as asserted forcefully by Weg­ner’s masterful monograph, does not invalidate the observation that voluntary actions are usually accompanied by subjective, ephemeral feelings that are nonetheless as real as anything else to the person who experiences them. Telling Clues from Surgeries The quiddity of these sensations has been strengthened considerably by neurosurgeons. During certain types of brain surgery, neural tissue must be removed, either because it is tumorous or because it gives rise to epileptic seizures. How much tissue to remove is a balancing act between the Scylla of leaving remnants of cancerous or seizure-prone material and the Charybdis of removing regions that are critical for speech or other near-essential operations. To probe the function of nearby tissue, the neurosurgeon stimulates it with an electrode that passes pulses of current while the patient—who is awake and under local anesthesia to minimize discomfort—is asked to touch each finger successively with the thumb, count backwards or do some other simple task. During the course of such explorations in 1991, neurosurgeon Itzhak Fried, now at the University of California, Los Angeles, and his colleagues stimulated the presupplementary motor area, part of the vast expanse of cerebral cortex that lies in front of the primary motor cortex. Activation of different parts of the motor cortex usually triggers movements in different parts on the opposite side of the body, for example, the foot, leg, hip, and so on. The medical team discovered that electrical stimulation of this adjacent region of cortex can, on occasion, give rise to an urge to move a limb. The patient reports that he or she feels a need to move the leg, elbow or arm. This classical account was elaborated on by a recent study from Michel Desmurget and his colleagues at the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience in Bron, France, that was published in the international journal Science. Here it was electrical stimulation of the posterior parietal cortex, gray matter involved in the transformation of visual information into motor commands—as when your eyes scan the scene in front of you and come to rest on the movie marquee—that could produce pure intentions to act. Patients made comments (in French) such as “It felt like I wanted to move my foot. Not sure how to explain,” “I had a desire to move my right hand,” or “I had a desire to roll my tongue in my mouth.” In none of these cases did they actually carry out the movement to which they referred. But the external stimulation caused an unambiguous conscious feeling of wanting to move. And this feeling arose from within, without any prompting by the examiner and not during sham stimulation. This was different from the cortical sector explored by the earlier Fried study. One difference between the two stimulated regions was that, at higher current levels, the patient actually moved the limb when the target site was the presupplementary motor area. Parietal stimulation, on the other hand, could trigger a sensation that actual movement had occurred, yet without any motion actually occurring (illusion of movement). The take-home lesson is that the brain has specific cortical circuits that, when triggered, are associated with sensations that arise in the course of wanting to initiate and then carry out a voluntary action. Once these circuits are delimited and their molecular and synaptic signatures identified, they constitute the neuronal correlates of consciousness for intention and agency. If these circuits are destroyed by a stroke or some other calamity, the patient might act without feeling that it is she who is willing the acting! In the debate concerning the meaning of personal freedom, these discoveries represent true progress, beyond the eternal metaphysical question of free will that will never be answered. [Reply]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/03/2009 9:40 PM by PredictionBoy	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Should have included the link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=t he-will-to-power http://tinyurl.com/yfzrxrs [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 9:37 AM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	To me, the brain undergoes the same laws of cause and effect as the universe, and the existence of a truly "free will" would violate this law, as something had to have caused the will, rather than simply a magical manifestation. Could this be correct ? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 10:06 AM by Zoosh Badlegs	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Of course it's correct. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 10:18 AM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	No need to be so sharp. If you're right, it's not like I had a choice about writing that, is it ? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 12:20 PM by Zoosh Badlegs	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	No you didn't, neither did i. Like dominoes.... [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/06/2009 9:09 AM by godchaser	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	. -Of course it's correct.- No it's not. Although the dominos thing was closer. -Cause & effect is uniformly thought. Remember, there's no such thing as time. It's an illusion. Think of a circle/cause within a circle/effect w/patitions representative of multi-expression, all moving about in synchronious cooperative. We have to take into account too; that we're currently relegated to a 3D perspective. - [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 10:26 AM by PredictionBoy	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The take-home lesson is that the brain has specific cortical circuits that, when triggered, are associated with sensations that arise in the course of wanting to initiate and then carry out a voluntary action. Once these circuits are delimited and their molecular and synaptic signatures identified, they constitute the neuronal correlates of consciousness for intention and agency. If these circuits are destroyed by a stroke or some other calamity, the patient might act without feeling that it is she who is willing the acting! The author is careful to distinguish the philosophical question of free will from the cranial circuitry of making a decision and acting on it. However, it makes perfect sense. Naturally the circuitry must be in our brain to make decisions, else we couldn't make decisions. As science learns more about the brain, it will both break down the metaphysical explanations of consciousness, and also provide important insights for AI. Eventually. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 10:42 AM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	As science learns more about the brain, it will both break down the metaphysical explanations of consciousness, and also provide important insights for AI. Eventually. Science might never break down the metaphysical explanations. The author seems to be sure it never will ; the eternal metaphysical question of free will that will never be answered. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 11:24 AM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Yup, in order to demonstratre if an action is 'free" you would hasve to view it from a complete different and separate perspective, one which exists outside this particular frame in its wholeness. But we know better than that from quantum physics, and the Godel thing. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 12:59 PM by exapted	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The problem of consciousness is either a set of coherent scientific problems or it is a "god of the gaps". Of course it is predictable that there would be some possible ideas that would be both unfalsifiable and invoke reverence. "The mystery of the hard problem of consciousness" is one of them. Sure it is a mystery how it operates, just like the beauty of a painting is seemingly "irreducible". Sure there are coherent questions about consciousness: [1] Is there some invariant pattern of self? [2] How does the pattern of consciousness operate? [3] How can we reconcile our ethics with a scientific understanding of mind? [4] etc. However, there is no coherent mystery to the "hard problem" of consciousness. That's just one of those things that people will continue to invoke as long as it is possible to attract attention. There is the issue of intention: Our mind is a pattern that refers to a mythical self. That pattern, invariant or not, whether we like it or not, is the closest thing to a "self" that we have. At this point we need to embrace the feelings of "I think X" and "I intend Y" because deconstructing this makes our thought processes hard to manage. People get confused and just assume that it is magic or something. They posit incoherent questions. The "but where is the consciousness?" is an incoherent question that needs to be reconciled with our scientific understanding of the mind and the moment to moment operation of the mind. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 1:18 PM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	this so proposterous!!! I protest!!! There is a glowing orb of bright white light that contains our essence...I know because I have seen on youtube a guy that explained it very well and with drawings and stuff.. and the pentagramm and the mayas and all that and sometimes when I am on crack I can see inside my skull in the other dimension where the glowing orb of white light exists vibrating harmoniously with all other glowing orbs of moreor less bright white light You see there is our free will because there is our spirit in the spirtual world [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 1:23 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Simple. We operatre a ccording to the genetic replicative algorithm. All decisions, all conscious patterns we make in any collective snese will be aimed toward maximization of reproduction with munimum of change. That's where religion comes from. For more deth on this see my series of essays at "doojie's pen" http://www.churchofdoojie.com I'm about to run up another essay called "Is there a conspiracy?" [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 1:26 PM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	lol [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 1:28 PM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	wholy shit, that site is real !?!?!?!?!?! [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 1:33 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Of course it's real. Would I lie? This very statement is false. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 1:36 PM by exapted	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Dude, you just put me in an infinite loop and my head is spinning. Could you stop that? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 1:28 PM by PredictionBoy	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	You see there is our free will because there is our spirit in the spirtual world I assume your post is in jest, and that you actually agree with the article. (Given this board, that can be a risky assumption.) [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 1:37 PM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	lol, of course I agree with the article In fact the post was just exhuberance because it just made my day, which was really stressfull you know, I only look for confirmation of my own beliefs irrespective of the truth [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 1:41 PM by PredictionBoy	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Cool :) [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 1:51 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Everybody looks for confirmation of their own beliefs. GENETIC REPLICATIVE ALGORITHM, DAMN IT! :) [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 1:38 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The truly ridiculous thing is that people will always try to boil the argument down to two choices: eliminative materialism or vitalism. Both are absurd, but people think it must be one or the other, and refuse to take an integrative perspective. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 1:45 PM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Pan you know I'm one of the eliminative materialists, but to be honest from my point of view, your dualistic position is better then the fairy tale adepts. From your position in the end you'll have had if not the whole truth at least half of it so it will be easier to adapt that is, if in the end we will know something final about consciousness [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 1:52 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Eliminative materialism seeks to deny the subjective, to assert that it isn't real. It favors the episteme over the ontos, to the point of essentially negating the ontos. This will fail in the end. Vitalism similarly attempts to negate the episteme in favor of the ontos. To hell with both of them, I'm enlightened. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 2:12 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	There is no such thing as an 'objective perspective', since the the idea of 'perspective' is entirely a subjective concept, and since eliminative materialism seeks the eradication of subjectivity itself, it cannot have perspective, therefore a truly objective (absolute) perspective cannot exist, because it eliminates the possibility of having a perspective, so there is no 'objective perspective'. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 4:21 PM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Pan I can't resist to express my STRONG disagreement with this kind of reasoning! the subjectivity that eliminative materialism seeks to eradicate is not the subjective perspective. Subjective PERSPECTIVE is just a frame of reference. Subjective perspective is just a perspective that is just a frame of reference. The fact that I do not believe I have identity or free will or a SUBJECT beyond my neuronal connections doesn't mean I cannot consider a perspective of the point of reference of me [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 4:26 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The fact that I do not believe I have identity or free will or a SUBJECT beyond my neuronal connections doesn't mean I cannot consider a perspective of the point of reference of me Without subjectivity, there is no 'you' to do any considering, or to have a POV at all. There are things to observe, but no observer. No perspective. That's the elegance of placing the 'observer' in the cosmic 'sing. It's always 'there'. Doojie likes to point at that we can't get 'there' from 'here'. My response to that is that we've always been 'there', we never left (the cosmic sing). Dimensionally, the observer always has to be one step ahead of whatever it's observing. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 4:29 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The fact that I do not believe I have identity Who is this "I" you refer to in the above quote, that doesn't believe in "I"dentity? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 5:30 PM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"Without subjectivity, there is no 'you' to do any considering, or to have a POV at all. There are things to observe, but no observer. No perspective." But of course there is a me and a POV! I am region in the causal net of interactions, and a region that can be delimitated from the environment. I am a system that is recipient to information/action from the environment and spits out information and action in return. An observer is just a point of interaction, a point of information exchange. I do not need subjectivity in your sense to define a point of reference which is in other words a POV. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 4:23 PM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	a perspective is not necessarily subjective in the sense you mean [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 2:19 PM by PredictionBoy	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	These are interesting terms, Pan, I had to refresh my understanding of them: Eliminative materialism Eliminative materialism (also called eliminativism) is a materialist position in the philosophy of mind. Its primary claim is that people's common-sense understanding of the mind (or folk psychology) is false and that certain classes of mental states that most people believe in do not exist. Some eliminativists argue that no coherent neural basis will be found for many everyday psychological concepts such as belief or desire, since they are poorly defined. Rather, they argue that psychological concepts of behaviour and experience should be judged by how well they reduce to the biological level. Other versions entail the non-existence of conscious mental states such as pain and visual perceptions. Vitalism: Vitalism, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is 1. a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from biochemical reactions 2. a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining Where vitalism explicitly invokes a vital principle, that element is often referred to as the "vital spark," "energy" or "élan vital," which some equate with the "soul." Vitalism has a long history in medical philosophies: most traditional healing practices posited that disease was the result of some imbalance in the vital energies which distinguish living from non-living matter. In the Western tradition founded by Hippocrates, these vital forces were associated with the four temperaments and humours; Eastern traditions posited similar forces such as qi and prana. Vitalistic thinking has also been identified in the naive biological theories of children. The article I posted is a scientific account, and does not fall into or support either of these philosophical approaches. So we are in agreement. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 2:33 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Okay, I have integrated it to vitalist eliminative perspectiivsit something. Now what do I know that I didn't know before? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 2:38 PM by PredictionBoy	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Okay, I have integrated it to vitalist eliminative perspectiivsit something. Now what do I know that I didn't know before? Is that a rhetorical question, or are you referring to the findings around the article? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 2:51 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I was just playing with Pan, mostly. I enjoyed the article. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 3:02 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The answer lies somewhere in here: Panexperientialism, panprotoexperientialism, and panprotopsychism Panexperientialism or panprotopsychism are related concepts. Alfred North Whitehead incorporated a scientific worldview into the development of his philosophical system similar to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. His ideas were a significant development of the idea of panpsychism, also known as panexperientialism, due to Whitehead’s emphasis on experience, though the term itself was first applied to Whitehead's philosophy by David Ray Griffin many years later. Process philosophy suggests that fundamental elements of the universe are occasions of experience, which can be collected into groups creating something as complex as a human being. This experience is not consciousness; there is no mind-body duality under this system as mind is seen as a very developed kind of experience. Whitehead was not a subjective idealist and, while his philosophy resembles the concept of monads first proposed by Leibniz, Whitehead’s occasions of experience are interrelated with every other occasion of experience that has ever occurred. He embraced panentheism with God encompassing all occasions of experience, transcending them. Whitehead believed that the occasions of experience are the smallest element in the universe--even smaller than subatomic particles. Process philosophy (or Ontology of Becoming) identifies metaphysical reality with change and dynamism. Since the time of Plato and Aristotle, philosophers have posited true reality as "timeless", based on permanent substances, whilst processes are denied or subordinated to timeless substances. If Socrates changes, becoming sick, Socrates is still the same (the substance of Socrates being the same), and change (his sickness) only glides over his substance: change is accidental, whereas the substance is essential. Therefore, classic ontology denies any full reality to change, which is conceived as only accidental and not essential. This classical ontology is what made knowledge and a theory of knowledge possible, as it was thought that a science of something in becoming was an impossible feat to achieve [1]. On the contrary, Process philosophy, or an ontology of the becoming, does not characterize change as illusory or as purely accidental to the substance, as in Aristotle's thought, but as the cornerstone of reality, or Being (thought as Becoming). Modern process philosophers include Henri Bergson, Charles Peirce, John Dewey, Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, Martin Heidegger, Friedrich Nietzsche, Nicholas Rescher, and Gilles Deleuze, a list to which some add Arthur Schopenhauer, Hegel, and even Spinoza. In physics Ilya Prigogine[2] distinguishes between the `physics of being' and the `physics of becoming'. Panpsychists often reverse the physicalist's belief that the mental emerges from the mechanistic operation of matter. Instead, they say, mechanical behaviour is derived from primitive mentality of atoms and molecules — as are sophisticated mentality and organic behaviour, the difference being attributed to the presence or absence of complex structure in a compound object. So long as this inverted emergence, the derivation of non-mental properties from mental ones, is in place, panpsychism is not a form of property dualism. From the mind of /:setAI Ontology: the Cosmic Singularity/ Omega Singularity/ the Ouroboros- the Cosmic Singularity acts as a fundamental feedback logic gate that computes the Multiverse- universes are the decoherred patterns of feedback reflected bit-states forming an attractor space around the event horizon [formed by feed back paths] of the Cosmic Singularity Cosmology: the universe we observe is virtually produced by a computational version of Lee Smolin's Fecund Universes or Alan Guth's Eternal Inflation where the immanent fractal configuration space of the Cosmic Singularity's feedback computation produces reflections of the Singularity ITSELF throughout the fractal hierarchy- singularities which compute a copy to the Multiverse- each universe with physical laws emergent from computational process of the Singularity [Entropy=Time/accelerated expansion of space- Gravity/locality/space=slowed bandwidth from increased information density- Many World Quantum Mechanics= recursive algorithmic sorting] containing more singularities which again compute the Multiverse- an endless fractal hierarchy of singularities and complex event horizons which repeat the fractal- each a reflection of the Cosmic Singularity- each singularity giving birth to and given birth by the same singularity in an eternal fractal recursion- Technology: by using nanotechnology in the form of nano-lasers technology will reach it's optimal and ultimate level when regions of the quantum vacuum can be stimulated by high energy nano-scale gamma lasers into behaving like the event horizon of a black hole and thus perform optimal classical/quantum computation- if the quantum vacuum can be programmed then we will be gods- able to create any physically possible object at will- teleport/access to any region or universe in the Multiverse and any possible knowledge- outlive and outlast matter and spacetime itself [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 3:05 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Should have included this as well: Process philosophy (or Ontology of Becoming) identifies metaphysical reality with change and dynamism. Since the time of Plato and Aristotle, philosophers have posited true reality as "timeless", based on permanent substances, whilst processes are denied or subordinated to timeless substances. If Socrates changes, becoming sick, Socrates is still the same (the substance of Socrates being the same), and change (his sickness) only glides over his substance: change is accidental, whereas the substance is essential. Therefore, classic ontology denies any full reality to change, which is conceived as only accidental and not essential. This classical ontology is what made knowledge and a theory of knowledge possible, as it was thought that a science of something in becoming was an impossible feat to achieve [1]. On the contrary, Process philosophy, or an ontology of the becoming, does not characterize change as illusory or as purely accidental to the substance, as in Aristotle's thought, but as the cornerstone of reality, or Being (thought as Becoming). Modern process philosophers include Henri Bergson, Charles Peirce, John Dewey, Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, Martin Heidegger, Friedrich Nietzsche, Nicholas Rescher, and Gilles Deleuze, a list to which some add Arthur Schopenhauer, Hegel, and even Spinoza. In physics Ilya Prigogine[2] distinguishes between the `physics of being' and the `physics of becoming'. Whitehead's background was an unusual one for a speculative metaphysician. Educated as a mathematician, he became, through his coauthorship and 1913 publication of Principia Mathematica' with Bertrand Russell, a major logician. Later he wrote extensively on physics and its philosophy, proposing a theory of relativity rivaling Einstein's. He was conversant with the quantum mechanics that emerged in the 1920s. Whitehead did not begin teaching and writing on process and metaphysics until he joined Harvard at 63 years of age.[citation needed] The process metaphysics elaborated in Process and Reality proposes that the fundamental elements of the universe are occasions of experience. According to this notion, what people commonly think of as concrete objects are actually successions of occasions of experience. Occasions of experience can be collected into groupings; something complex such as a human being is thus a grouping of many smaller occasions of experience. According to Whitehead, everything in the universe is characterized by experience (which is not to be confused with consciousness); there is no mind-body duality under this system, because "mind" is simply seen as a very developed kind of experiencing. However, Whitehead is not an idealist in the strict sense. Whitehead's ideas were a significant development of the idea of panpsychism (also known as panexperientialism, because of Whitehead’s emphasis on experience). Several fields of science and especially medicine seem to make liberal use of ideas in process philosophy, notably the theory of pain and healing of the late 20th century. The philosophy of medicine began to deviate somewhat from scientific method and an emphasis on repeatable results very late 20th century by embracing population thinking, and a more pragmatic approach to issues in public health, environmental health and especially mental health. In this latter field, R. D. Laing, Thomas Szasz and Michel Foucault were instrumental in moving medicine away from emphasis on "cures" and towards concepts of individuals in balance with their society, both of which are changing, and against which no benchmarks or finished "cures" were very likely to be measurable. In the philosophy of mathematics, some of Whitehead's ideas re-emerged in combination with cognitivism as the cognitive science of mathematics and embodied mind theses. In plant morphology, Rolf Sattler developed a process morphology (dynamic morphology) that overcomes the structure/process (or structure/function) dualism that is commonly taken for granted in biology. According to process morphology, structures such as leaves of plants do not have processes, they are processes [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 3:10 PM by PredictionBoy	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The answer lies somewhere in here There's a lot of ideas there. What question is being answered? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 3:12 PM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	you know, allthough I cannot say I believe Set's theories, I pretend to understand them somewhat and I like them. I actually think they make sense if you accept the premises. It is possible he may be right but I currently don't think we have sufficient evidence for it. However I really don't see how Set's theory comes in support of panpsychism and all. It could support any theory of mind... maybe I got Set's theory wrong [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 3:20 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	It's an ongoing work. What I'm really trying to get across is the need to get past the polarisation of 'everything must be made of concrete objects' OR 'everything must be made of special sauce (soul)'. It's not that black and white. I believe that panpsychism, or panexperientialism, or protopanpsychism (the point is, I'm not hung up on any specific 'flavor' of pan-theories) is the correct place to start from. It's the right side of bed to get out of. The right foot to get off on, etc. It's the basis from which we should go forward, not this silly war between "objectivity" and "subjectivity". You cannot honestly eliminate subjectivity itself, since there is no perspective from which to eliminate it from (that's just one way I put it). Ben Goertzel has some interesting thoughts to add to this endeavor: http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2004/HardProblem. htm Conclusion Many other questions lurk here – for example, the emotional valence of qualia, and the relationship between qualia and free will. These are important, and I believe they can be explored within this framework, but I will do so elsewhere. My goal in this essay has been merely to propose a philosophical solution to the “hard problem of consciousness” as I conceive it. I realize that my solution will not please everyone. However, if you’re displeased, I urge you to think hard about what sort of solution will ever be possible. No one is going to find an answer to “why experience exists” any more than one can find an answer to “why patterns exist.” These questions are too basic to be answered. Also, no one is ever going to find an answer to the precise question Chalmers has posed, namely “how do physical processes give rise to conscious experiences” – because in fact this is not what happens. Experience exists at a more basic level than physical systems, and experiences are associated with physical systems because of principles that have to do with the underlying nature of reality, at a level deeper than the level at which the physical/non-physical distinction exists. What I have proposed here is a concrete and formal theory of this “deeper level,” and an explanation of the association between awareness and physical processes in terms of this theory. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 6:32 PM by PredictionBoy	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	OK, I think I understand your meaning a little better here. When you say Eliminative materialism you don't mean the actual definition of that term, which I looked up and shared earlier in the thread. You mean, I think, consciousness as the result of material and chemical agency, like neurons in a brain. I think the article is describing our slowly evolving understanding on just how the mystery of consciousness could arise from just such a set of material agents. Maybe there are other agents involved, such as those you and setAI describe, but which I confess I do not understand at all. I guess I would make a poor philosopher. I would just say, that we should really hope to achieve an understanding of intelligence and consciousness based on physical explanations. If it is not physical, it cannot be described by science; if it cannot be described by science, it cannot be engineered; if it cannot be engineered, it cannot be translated into technology, and there go the prospects for advanced AI the technological Singularity. I will keep my confidence in science for awhile longer, it seems to be making at least some progress on these questions, for so long wrapped in the veil of mystery. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 6:54 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	OK, I think I understand your meaning a little better here. When you say Eliminative materialism you don't mean the actual definition of that term, which I looked up and shared earlier in the thread. That depends on who is using the term. The very idea of 'physical' or 'material' isn't even clearly defined, by scientists or materialists. So you when you say "actual definition" you're implying some kind of consensus, or total agreement. What does 'physical' actually mean? Generally speaking, I take it to mean that part of reality which could be described as epistemic, emergent, phenomenal, objective, or transcendent. In contrast, I associate 'subjective' with the ontological, or immanent part of reality (which to me is the cosmological singularity). Looking at cosmology, I see two things in the 'verse: singularities and their event horizons. There is nothing else in this world. I've come to associate what we think of as 'physical' reality with the event horizons (as I've been showing that all physical reality is an event horizon - remember that all 'particles' also have a singularity, and are therefore part of an event horizon) in this 'verse, and the subjective aspects as being inherent in the singularity part of the 'verse. That's it. "Eliminative Materialism Eliminative materialism agrees with materialism that everything is physical, that we do not have immaterial minds. It goes beyond this, however, and advances a specific linguistic thesis: we ought to eliminate from our vocabulary all language associated with dualism. Much thought occurs in language. Our language therefore affects what thoughts we can have. If we do not have a word for a concept, then we will not be able to formulate thoughts about it. According to eliminative materialism, our language includes much that is misleading. Words such as “pain”, “joy”, and “desire” all imply the existence of qualia, subjective mental states that are irreducible to physical states. These words, according to materialists, mislead us; there are no qualia to go with these mental states. We should therefore eliminate this ‘folk-psychology’ from our language, in order to eliminate it from our thought." The problem I have is not with the elimination of viatalism (there is no 'special soul sauce' - this I agree with) but with the elimination of subjectivity itself, which is illogical. My proposal of simply moving subjectivity to the cosmological singularity seems to me to solve this seeming problem, what they call the 'hard problem of consciousness'. I also differentiate between 'consciousness' and 'subjectivity'. When I refer to any of the following as being part of the singularity: consciousness, self, I, observer, I'm specifically referring to that part of the universe that is subjective. You mean, I think, consciousness as the result of material and chemical agency, like neurons in a brain. I think the article is describing our slowly evolving understanding on just how the mystery of consciousness could arise from just such a set of material agents. Again, see my differentiation between 'consciousness' (different brain states) and subjectivity (or the "observer"). Maybe there are other agents involved, such as those you and setAI describe, but which I confess I do not understand at all. I guess I would make a poor philosopher. Probably. It's just that most materialists completely avoid ontology. You can see it in the literature. There's a biased preference for epistemology, and it's extreme form of eliminative materialism simply tries to completely eliminate the ontos from reality. I agree with everything they say about the epistemic world, what I disagree with is their views on the ontological root. I would just say, that we should really hope to achieve an understanding of intelligence and consciousness based on physical explanations. If it is not physical, it cannot be described by science; if it cannot be described by science, it cannot be engineered; if it cannot be engineered, it cannot be translated into technology, and there go the prospects for advanced AI the technological Singularity. I believe we will reach the planck scale eventually with technology. I will keep my confidence in science for awhile longer, it seems to be making at least some progress on these questions, for so long wrapped in the veil of mystery. Good, I too believe science will unravel these mysteries. When I talk about 'mystics' I'm not talking about superstitious primitive belief systems, I'm talking about the fact that a few thinkers from other cultures have discovered much the same things I have through their philosophies and meditation and altered states of awareness (whether this be through mediation, trauma, or drugs). The ideas of a cosmic singularity are reflected in middle path buddhism and taoism. If you can look past the cultural trappings, the underlying pattern (which is basically identical with panpsychism or some derivation of it) emerges. They're the same. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 7:06 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Or, here's a concession that may satisfy you: I don't believe we will find anything that can scientifically be labelled as "subjective" until we can actually empirically look inside a singularity, whether that is a singularity on a massive scale (such as the center of our galaxy) or on a micro-scale (like has been suggested that particles contain micro-singularities). My proposal is that is the only place left to look for 'subjectivity', because I agree that everything else we observe is 'objective'. So when (and/or/if) we attain the capability to observe that, and find no subjectivity there, then I will concede that subjectivity does not exist at all. So, in a way, I agree with you: everything is objective...everything except singularities (this will be falsifiable as soon as we're actually able to empirically observe inside one). [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 3:27 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Virgilic For SetAI’s ideas to be correct, the mind has to be based on pure causality, with free will being an illusion and consciousness being based purely on now known classical physics. You seem to agree with this so you must accept all of SetAI’s ideas as being correct, including his resurrection proposals. He has often said : Causality = Resurrection. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 3:50 PM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	you know, I am never sure if you are just playing with me or you're really serious. anyway, I don't have to agree with Set's teories in order to believe that there is no free will and that consciousness is a physical process. I don't know where you pulled that from... it is some sort of inverse logic... OTOH, materialist views do fit quite well in Set's theoretical framework. Set's theory is very interesting and I think there is high probability he is right at least in part. Specifically that part that claims that all or most of existence is information. This REALLY makes sense! I have no opinion though on the singularity thing that self-interacts and thus produces the information that makes up existence. I understand it and I see how such a thing can work but I can imagine 100 different scenarious which can produce enough 0's and 1's to create existance... I have many ideeas that I debate in my head related to Set's theories (in order to try and better understand his POV) but I do not think this thread is the place to do it. I tried on another thread I started but nobody answered, seems nobody was interested. Which is a pitty because it doesn't matter if you agree or not, it is just a fun theory to think and debate about, at least it is to me [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 4:02 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Specifically that part that claims that all or most of existence is information. This REALLY makes sense! You are the fly. SetAI is the spider. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 4:40 PM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I am the fly. You are all spiders, you and everyone else but sometimes I am the spider and you are the flies I believe we all learn from each other (except maybe from a certain weirdo that I do not want to offend directly and I have no ideea what he is looking for on this forum) [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 5:26 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I believe we all learn from each other (except maybe from a certain weirdo that I do not want to offend directly and I have no ideea what he is looking for on this forum) Sorry Virgilic, I know I deserved that. I’ll try to be more mature in future. ( Though if I have no free will you can’t blame me if I fail ). there is no free will and that consciousness is a physical process. all or most of existence is information. This REALLY makes sense! If you believe these two quotes, you must believe that if an atomically precise copy of your brain was made, then it would be the same person as you instead of a different person. I think logic says that such a copy would be a different person. This is why I doubt that classic physics can explain free will and consciousness. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 5:38 PM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	OMG,no, I was not referring to you! I find your comments generally balanced and inquisitive. It is good to have someone to bring us down to earth once in a while, and there are several around here that do that. I really was not referring to you at all, please believe me. Come on, who is the whackiest guy around? Lets see who can find him :)) On the rest: I do not think a perfect copy of me with memories and all would be the same person as me. It will just be a different person thinking he is me, but that does not mean he and I are the same person. Not at all. What do you mean by "person"? a perfect copy of a picture is not the same picture is just another picture representing the same things [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 6:03 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	OK, I believe you. I know who you’re talking about now. I do not think a perfect copy of me with memories and all would be the same person as me. Classical physics says there is no difference between the original and the copy. They should be interchangeable for all purposes. However, you seem to agree that “something” makes the two objects different and not interchangeable. The nature of that “something” is what I worry about. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 6:14 PM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	OK, look: Say somehow in my sleep, a mad scientist kills me and replaces me with a perfect copy in my bed, which we name V2. Next morning V2 wakes up, thinks he is me and goes on living a life probably identical in all respects as I would have lived, because the premises are the same so causality says his life will be as my life would have been in all respects. Am I dead? Yes, I am. V2s molecules are not the same molecules that are in my dead body. V2s atoms probably even came from a different dying star then mine did. Are we interchangeably "for all intents and purposes"? For most yes. Not for the issue of our molecules... I have two identical video cards in my PC, same brand, same type, same specs. They probably came from the same assembly line, one behind the other. How many video cards do I have? That's about all there is to it, IMHO. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 6:33 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Are we interchangeably "for all intents and purposes"? For most yes. Not for the issue of our molecules... You’re suggesting that molecules are NOT interchangeable ? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/05/2009 12:44 AM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	OK, now I am lost.. maybe I do not understand your point or question correclty what means interchangeable? what point are you trying to make? my point was to say that V1 si not V2 because V1s body and V2s body do not occupy the same space in the same time. therefore there are two of them not one of them. two identical objects are still TWO identical obejects NOT one object It might be that I had the same problem with the movie 6th Day (Schwartzenegger) as you have now. At first I thought that the ideea of the movie to upload memories into a clone after one's death is a good ideea to circumvent death and achieve sort of a personal immortality then someone pointed out to me the fact that I am still dead, that that clone is not me but someone else believeing to be me. Therefore uploading my memories into a clone is useless for my own survival. For this particular reason I do not care for any singularity scenario that proposes uploading in the usual way it is described on this forum. destructive uploading proposes to kill the original and keep the copy and non-destructive uploading proposes to keep both the original and the copy and then periodically sinchronize their memories. for personal survival both are useless. I have a third proposal but unfortunately I have no ideea how it could work: I would extend (whatever this could mean!?) my consciousness from the brain into the machine, like adding brainmass to my existing brain. It is more a quantitative and incremental process. I would do this until somehow the consciousness function will come to reside physically more on the machine then in the physical brain. and then, if I lose the brain, then I would not lose much, like losing a small part of your neurons that does not affect the general functionality of the brain. I am not sure how and if this would work. Further understanding of how the neurons work will provide an answer, in time. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/05/2009 12:59 AM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	objectively V1 and V2 may be intercheageable at least some time after V2 is born so to speak. For any third person there will be no difference. but V1s experiences are not experienced by V2 and conversly V2s experinces are not experienced by V1 (if both were alive at the same time). the key here is continuity. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/05/2009 6:16 AM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	my point was to say that V1 si not V2 because V1s body and V2s body do not occupy the same space in the same time. therefore there are two of them not one of them. two identical objects are still TWO identical obejects NOT one object Virgilic Classical physics says that if the two objects are identical, there is NO difference between them for ANY purpose, and an object’s position in space-time shouldn’t make any difference either. However you clearly agree that there is a difference between them. For this particular reason I do not care for any singularity scenario that proposes uploading in the usual way it is described on this forum. destructive uploading proposes to kill the original and keep the copy and non-destructive uploading proposes to keep both the original and the copy and then periodically sinchronize their memories. for personal survival both are useless. I think you’re right about this. However, as all information is preserved in the copies I would say that “something” is lost in the process. What is that something ? I would extend (whatever this could mean!?) my consciousness from the brain into the machine, By saying this you are implying that consciousness has a quality that is not comprised of matter or conventional information. the key here is continuity. I think this is right, but according to classical physics, it shouldn’t matter. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/05/2009 10:34 AM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	No, I was probably not clear about what I want to say. Lets assume that V1 sleeps and V2 is made.then V1 and V2 wake up simultaneously. In the fraction of a second in which they wake up they are the same "person" as in "personality", indistinguishable from one-another except for the fact that they are two different (identical)bodies, one laying in the bed on the left and one laying in the bed on the right. From that point on, V1 and V2 will become two different persons/personalities due to the fact that their experices will diverge. So, yes, at the very moment of their awakening, V1 and V2 will be identical, will be the same PERSONality. But not telepathic, V1 will not share in the current and future experiences of V2 and conversly. V1 will always look to the left to see the right-side bed and V2 will always look to the left to see the left-side bed. If you want to raise an issue of identity, there is no issue in my opinion. It does not matter that V2 standing beside me has the same personality as I do because the very moment we become aware we diverge. Also, even in the very first moment of awakening, subjectively V1 and V2 will know that the other one is another human, or they will consider to have an out-of-body experience. The only difference I see at the moment of awakening, is just, as I have said, the physical difference of being to physically separate bodies even if identical, even if they have the same personality. I do not understand at all your problem in accepting that there can be to identical objects that are two objects and not one object. I do not see any other special difference. By saying that it should be possible to extend my consciousness/awareness into the machine I do not imply that there is something immaterial about consciousness or that it is not just information. The brain is not a unitary thing. You can damage part of the brain and still remain functional or you can expand your consciousness/awareness by learning new skills. You know that the brain is plastic and changes physically during childhood but also during adulthood, neurons cluster together in certain areas responsible for the learned skills, new connections are made. With every new skill learned one actually expands his/her consciousness and becomes quantitatively as well as qualitatively more aware in the aspects relevant to the new skill. For instance if I were to connect to my brain a vidocamera I would need to learn how to use it and the brain would change physically in the process until suficient neuronal connections are assigned to controlling the videocamera. My consciousnes and my awareness changes as a result, as I integrate a new sensory perception. It would be the same with a third hand. So my hypothesis is that I could connect my existing brain to artificial neuron clusters that I can train to take over functions currently carried out by natural neuron clusters. For instance I could add artifical neuron clusters to my vision center and as those artificial neurons start working, I could incrementally disconnect the natural neurons until the whole function is taken over by the artificial neurons. I could thus, step by step replace my biological brain with an artificial brain that hopefully will be easier to modify to intergate new skills and new sensory input. Another "simpler" method would be to have nanobots replace neuron by neuron. Also in this way the continuity would be preserved. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/05/2009 12:14 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The only difference I see at the moment of awakening, is just, as I have said, the physical difference of being to physically separate bodies even if identical, even if they have the same personality. Virgilic I think logic indicates that even if they awoke in identical but separate rooms and their environment was manipulated to give them identical experiences, they would be two subjectively different people, even though no divergence has occurred. I do not understand at all your problem in accepting that there can be to identical objects that are two objects and not one object. I have never said they would be one object. I have said from the outset that they would be two different objects. What I said was that classical physics says that there is NO difference between them for ANY purpose. However I think we both agree that, even though they are physically identical (no divergence having occurred), there is a difference between them in that they are two different people. In other words, we are disagreeing with what classical physics tells us. Another way to look at it is to say that if V1 is destroyed you say you are dead. However classical physics says that nothing has been lost as all information is preserved in the (non-diverged) V2. By saying you are dead when V1 is destroyed you are disagreeing with what classical physics says. By saying you are dead you are saying that “something” has been lost. That “something” is not matter or information. What is it ? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 6:21 PM by PredictionBoy	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I believe we all learn from each other (except maybe from a certain weirdo that I do not want to offend directly and I have no ideea what he is looking for on this forum) omg, I know who you mean. What a freak! Of course, that could describe most anyone here :) [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 6:38 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Of course, that could describe most anyone here :) One could spread the net too widely, and find oneself enmeshed in it. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/05/2009 12:49 AM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	yeah, but this guy is completely out of context... I mean most of us are weirdos, I know I am compared to most of the people I know, but this guy stands out right here on this forum. He must feel like a priest in a whorehouse [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/05/2009 1:16 AM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	He must feel like a priest in a whorehouse So he feels right at home? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 3:33 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I actually think they make sense if you accept the premises. The number one premise to understanding what he says is the 'cosmological singularity'. Since I have experienced glimpses of the cosmic singularity in the past, I had an easy time getting what he's saying, even though I find it hard to follow the computerese. For me, getting across the idea of a cosmic singularity is best done visually. It's kind of like oil floating on top of water (the water being the 'sing, the oil being epistemic "matter") Or maybe that visualization doesn't grok well with you. Perhaps an ice cube floating in water is a better one. In this case, the ice cube is the epistemic reality, and the water is the ontological reality. Or imagine a web stretched out over space. The spaces between threads in this web are the sing, while the strands of the web itself are the 'matter/energy' (although, due to fractality, if you were to magnify any portion of the threads, you'd see 'spaces' interspersed inside it). Is any of this making sense yet? What it boils down to, is that there is only ONE singularity (opposed to the idea that there are multiple singularities - such as the super-massives at the center of our galaxy - not saying there isn't a singularity "there", but that all singularities share the same space - and if you accept that all "particles" also harbor a singularity (which they do) then these micro-singularities also share the same space - hence 'cosmic SINGULARity') I have advanced the thought in this area by proposing that this underlying (ontological) singularity is also the same location as our 'subjective observer', it is the very 'place' where subjective observation occurs, and the only place to 'look' for it would be at the planck scale, because that's where the micro-singularities of particles begin. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 3:40 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Since I have experienced glimpses of the cosmic singularity in the past Please tell. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 3:47 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Sure, you know those things they refer to as 'virtual particles'? I've seen those directly. There is no end to the light at that scale, it's infinite, fractal. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 3:50 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	What it boils down to, is that there is only ONE singularity Which is to say (in a linear, slightly more graspable way) that the super-massive black hole at the center of the milky way is the SAME super-massive black hole at the center of Andromeda which is also the SAME super-massive black hole at the center of ALL galaxies, which is also the SAME black hole (or micro-singularity) at the center of all 'particles'. My conjecture is that subjective observation occurs inside this Singularity. A circle whose center is nowhere and whose circumference is everywhere, like the mandelbrot set. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 4:03 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	And all of it is based on some form of geometric process, which is to say, mathematics, which is to say, none of it, from our human perspective, can be consistent or complete, which means it will continue to speciate infinitely. Unfortunately, there is no other process by which we can even get at physical truth. So, where Set and I disagree is that I maintain "God" cannot be computed, and Set maintains that "God" can be computed, and we're God. The flaw I see in this is that we must assume all of reality is something we will eventually reach, but we still must deal with Godel's theorem and Chaitin's Algorithm Information theory, which says we may have to go through infinite selection processes to get there. This leaves us with yet another dilemma: even assuming we make the right foundational choice, how will we know? This is similar to the point I made before. If God did reveal himself in someway, would it even make sense, and if it made sense, how would we prove it didn't simply come from our own reasoning process? It's simply undecidable, and that is why we are free. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 4:35 PM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Doojie First of all let me point out that I couldn't give a horse's shit if god exists or not. I simply do not care...If he exists, well, good luck to him But to the main point: I do not pretend to fully understand Godel's theorem and Chaitin's Algorithm Information theory (actually I know nothing about chaitin's theory) but I have a feeling that these theories must be put in the appropriate framework. what I mean is that they apply in a very very very general way, they speak about the horizon that no matter how far you go will never reach. We don't necessarily need to reach the horizon. It may be irrelevant to go further at some point. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 4:37 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	We don't necessarily need to reach the horizon. This is because we ARE the horizon (of the cosmic singularity). We are already "there". All things are achieved. A circle whose center is nowhere, and whose circumference is everywhere. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 4:44 PM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	you see, this is where you lose me... [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 4:00 PM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I have the impression I understand very well the concept of the Omega Singularity and how its self-interaction spawns the metaverse. It is not so complicated. It is just infinite information in infinite combinations which of course logically creates anything and everything in infinite dimensions because such a thing has infinite degrees of freedom. not so hard but you need to grasp the ideea that the metaverse is in fact on the "surface" of the singularity because the singularity does not create information in itself, the information is just the structure of its "waves" or whatever. But, as I said, information can come also from other soureces not necesarily an Omega sing [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 4:05 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	not so hard but you need to grasp the ideea that the metaverse is in fact on the "surface" of the singularity Right. Only I'd remove the word "on" from that statement, and replace it with the word "is". A minor detail, but I think it makes it just a tad bit more lucid. If you were to take the perspective of this 'surface metaverse' together with the 'sing, you'd have 'omniverse'. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 4:16 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	You guys are so funny. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 4:29 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Why would you say there's no such thing as an objective perspective? Once you begin exploring any mathematical concept, you eventually get so involved in the measurements that you become part of the measurements. But once you enter infinity, how much of infinity is actually illusion? Maybe a duck realy is a duck and not a collection of little mathematical thingies we call atoms. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 4:43 PM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	hey, I said that I do not belive it to be true, just that I like the scenario just to be clear... [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/04/2009 4:41 PM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	you are right, I should have said is [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/05/2009 10:39 AM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Even assuming we are already "there", the problem is in defining the landscape. And even assuming that you know where 'there" is, there's that little thing called space/time. "There" is somewhere else from each perspective, especially when we're talkng concepts. As I've stated before, if you can communicate it, it can be translated into language. If language, then, algorithms. If algorithms, then programmable. All "theres" become subject to one system of decisions. Information has been defined as the difference that makes a difference. The attempt to define something collecitvely as one continues to fail. Religion, for example, has tried to define everyone in terms of one collective decision procedure. Governments tend toward the sam rpocess, yet in areas where freedom of choice is allowed, speciation tends toward infinity. The only thing preventing government from doing the same is that government can stick a gun to your head. Can you define difference? It's infinitely small and infinitely large. Reduce pi to one digit, or the square root of 2, etc. Within the smallest difference, there is a universe. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/05/2009 11:28 AM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	And even assuming that you know where 'there" is It's 'here'. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" IN THE MULTIVERSE posted on 11/05/2009 11:51 AM by Leo Vuyk	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I would like to bring this alternative approach of Free Will inside the multiverse. Benjamin Libet measured the so called electric Readiness Potential (RP) time to perform a volitional act, in the brains of his students and the time of conscious awareness (TCA) of that act, which appeared to come 500 msec behind the RP. The "volitional act" was the by free choice pressing on an electric bell button. see: http://skeptically.org/spiritualism/id11.html The results of this experiment gives still an ongoing debate in the broad layers of the scientific community, because the results are still (also in recent experiments) in firm contrast with the expected idea of Free Will and causality. We would expect that based on causality the Time of Conscious Awareness (TCA) ALWAYS comes before the electric RP, which is found to be present in our head because this would be the proof that we humans are equipped with the free will to press on the button at the moment WE are also conscious to do that!!!. HOWEVER Libet (and later all other researchers) measured the opposite for most of the students. Only a FEW students reported to have "PREPLANNED their ACTION" (RPI in the next figure) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ArDoWzECXSo/SIi5189lBhI/ AAAAAAAAAq0/DEFA0FAQbBY/s1600-h/LIBET+PERCENTAGES+ 2.jpg A causal but weird Multiverse solution. If we assume that we are living inside one of the 12 postulated copy universes, which are each others observer by "mutual entanglement" to trigger randomly and alternating the collapse of the copy wavefunctions, (thus also to trigger a volitional act, like Libet's subjects) in the other 11 universes. Then as a consequence, we may expect that only a small part of the students will report to have had the conscious intention to act earlier. Thus in the case of 12 entangled universes we may expect that 1/12 part or 8,3 % of all (human) timing of conscious intention to act, will show a reversed timing sequence between the so called Time of conscious awareness (TCA) which will come BEFORE the electric Readiness Potential (RP). http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ArDoWzECXSo/SIi5189lBhI/ AAAAAAAAAq0/DEFA0FAQbBY/s1600-h/LIBET+PERCENTAGES+ 2.jpg Indications of those percentages, are already found by Judy Trevena and Jeff Miller (Otago university NZ). See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12191935&dopt=Abs ------------------------------------- The Benjamin Libet percentage results of pre-planning (RPII) are very poor quantified in his and later experiments. Reason to do it again with more precision on the readiness potential percentage differences between RPI and RPII.. If humans are entangled cooperating decision makers inside the postulated 8 or 12 entangled but separated universes, then for every decision we need always only one preplanning test-person who pre-plans his choice. The other 7 or 11 test copy-persons are only able to follow OR VETO this decision. So; the base for Free Will is the possibility to VETO and act or decision. As a result we may be able to measure (in the future) the number of copy universes involved, by counting the average percentages of preplanning persons in test situations like the Libet test.. For 12 universes the RPI percentage will be 100/12=8,3%. For 8 universes RP I will be 12,5% For RP II it will be 91,7 respectively 87,5% Leo Vuyk. http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/ [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" IN THE MULTIVERSE posted on 11/05/2009 12:37 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	You seem to be talking about reduction to percentages as an explanation. Faced with an inability t determine the true, percentage makes an interesting substitute. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" IN THE MULTIVERSE posted on 11/06/2009 3:17 AM by Leo Vuyk	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	God plays dice, with at least two entangled dice, each located inside one of the separated universes at a distance. Every time there is a wavefunction collapse, the opposite wavefunction collapse happens inside the entangled anti-copy universes a split second later. SO: The base for Fee Will is the possibility to VETO an act, and NOT THE INTENTION OR URGE TO ACT. That was also the conclusion which Benjamin Libet made about free will, without the multiverse foundation. I personally assume that we are equipped with a so called intuition PUMP which is responsible for our intentions and urges and which is connected to our global world heritage of our past and act as a world consciousness ( or Noösphere, suggested by Teilhard de Chardin). Our intuition pump is filled with all the knowledge of the our local and even family related past. Consequently if our past is aggressive, we and our children will also have an intuition pump offering us aggressive dreams and ideas! Perhaps is this also one of the origins of ancestor cults. Leo Vuyk. http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/ [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" IN THE MULTIVERSE posted on 11/06/2009 6:53 AM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	hmmm, that's a loop isn't vetoing also another free will act - intention? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" IN THE MULTIVERSE posted on 11/06/2009 7:18 AM by Leo Vuyk	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	There are many loops inside the multiverse if you realize that we are possibly entangled with copy MEs living inside our copy-mirror anti-universe far away, who change position between observer and observed. However In my view "free will" can be rescued if we accept that our will is only free if real altruism is incoorporated.!! see: Humans and the Cosmic Law of Free choice between Hatred and Forgivingness . We humans are quantum mechanical systems, who are only able to follow the quantum mechanical rules of the Universe, which we merely partly know and understand. Consequently we have to search and innovate these rules to find out who we are, and how reality can be described ontologically . Our understanding of the world is restricted by an ontological gap, between scientific language and reality, therefore we have to search for a bridge. This thesis is an attempt to describe possible outlines of that bridge. It is postulated, that the basic features of the Universe must be of a type that allows the evolution of dual mirror symmetric, EPR correlated observers outside the "system", which means that "we and elementary particles" are always correlated by "instantaneous action at-a-distance" acting between dual correlated universes. If we take a Chiral Quantum Mechanical Universe as a "system", then The Universe that we know is only a half-truth, without a "broken symmetry", and we should have a mutual observer- and guiding relation with at least one spatial separated anti-mirror Universe. Consequently, the so called "superposition- and collapse events" in the universe are only the half truth, all these events are based on "instantaneous information flow" called "actions at a distance" or "Big Bang entanglement " between at least two spatial separated events in different universes. Even if we measure a collapse event in the laboratory between "local" related particles in an EPR experiment, which is also supposed to have an instantaneous non-local collapse relation, this dual universal "BB entanglement" should be also present on top of it. Then I suggest that each elementary particle is instantaneous observed and/or guided without the time for "reflection", by its distant shadow anti-particle in our dual anti-mirror Universe. The difference with human choices is supposed to be, that humans are equipped with enough time for reflection (retarded EPR correlation or retarded Big Bang entanglement ) to develop what we call Free Will by Vetoing urges and intentions (Benjamin Libet), and become aware of moral differences, and even altruism and forgivingness. Consequently if this increase in reflection time is related to the evolutionary increase of complexity of cells, the goal of human evolution seems to be the creation of moral awareness, made by animate dual synchronized logic quantum computers with enough time for "reflection", like our dual synchronized brains. The Cosmic Law seems to be, that we are only free to VETO our deterministic urges and intentions and only Free to VETO those urges based on egoistic or Altruistic awareness. However it is supposed that we never will be able to prove some kind of relation between our life after dead and the way we have managed to become "moral aware" and were able to choose for egoism or altruism, for hatred or forgivingness, as described in the bible. If we could prove such a relation, we would not have this RESTRICTED VETOING FREE WILL any more. Thus: Descarte's: "I think therefore I am" should change into: "I am a QM system, which is always non-local instantaneous EPR correlated, and in competition for Free Will by VETOING the choices of my opposite anti-I, living in a dual anti-mirror universe, therefore We are! We are dual co-authors of our common life". Leo Vuyk. http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/ [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/05/2009 12:33 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	It's 'here' No it's not. You're "there". I'm "here". [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/05/2009 12:49 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	No it's not. You're "there". I'm "here". I'm, totally with you on that one. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/05/2009 1:33 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I'm totally with you on that one Where? I don't see you. You're not even "there"! [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/05/2009 1:35 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Where? I don't see you. You're not even "there"! Look within young padwan. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/05/2009 1:36 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Do I have to unzip my pants? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/06/2009 3:01 PM by PredictionBoy	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Look within young padwan. The original article is "looking in" - inside the brain. I'll betcha a diet coke that's where the answer is revealed. Just an aggressive speculation on my part, I could be entirely wrong of course. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/06/2009 3:03 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	And what if it turns out that there is no 'inside' to the brain? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/06/2009 3:06 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Let me clarify a little....saying "inside the brain" is making a geometric assumption that there is an 'inside' and an 'outside' to begin with, so what I'm asking you, is to dilineate PRECISELY what you mean by 'inside' and 'outside'....if you're talking about inside/outside the skull, then we're not actually talking about inside/outside the brain...so I want to be clear on exactly what you mean by "inside the brain"... thanks [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/06/2009 5:04 PM by PredictionBoy	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I don't mean "inside" the brain. I mean simply "the brain". The heart circulates blood. Do you look to cosmic singularities or whatever to explain the circulation of blood? Most would not. Similarly, the brain is the organ that thinks. Remove someone's brain, it tends to diminish their ability to think. An external agent to explain thinking is no more reasonable than an external agent to explain the circulation of blood. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/06/2009 5:28 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Yes, I know. It's the manner in which these questions are framed that becomes confounding. What is the substance of thought? See, materialists will say the brain is the organ that 'thinks', but then what is thought made of, physically? they're leaving loose ends. They'll say things like, the 'mind' is an emergent 'pattern', but then fail to tell us what that pattern consists of, physically. I understand emergence, but what emerges? What is it after it's 'emergent'? This is the problem with material reductionism, no how much you magnify any part of the brain, you can never put your finger on something you find there, and say "This is it! This is a thought!" What is the thought at that point? The electrical impulse? The chemical signals? This is why I point out that materialism is certainly great for exploring and understanding the epistemology of existence, but it does NOTHING for ontology. Eliminative materialism essentially has to NEGATE the ontological completely, and I just don't buy it. The shameful part is that there doesn't really need to be an either/or. People tend to divide themselves up into 'camps', with materialists on one side, declaring that only the episteme exists, and vitalists on the other side, claiming that only the ontos exists. Both are wrong. There is a bridge between the two, and that's why I say look to the synthesist philosophies to figure out how to bridge that explanatory gap. Both sides of this argument tend to be smug and often accuse the other side of making the same errors they themselves make. Integrating these two views is absolutely essential to understanding reality. Epistemic = emergent, fractal, multiple, physical, material, event horizon, transcendent, unfolded, extracted, objective, "outer", phenomenal reality. Ontological = immanent, folded, "inner", subjective, singular, observer, 'ground of being' reality. The precise border between the two is where life occurs. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/06/2009 6:12 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Here's a linear way to look at it: In standard BBC, chronologically speaking, the universe emerges from a singularity, correct? So Singularity-------->Universe. By this, you could say that this singularity that the universe emerged from is the ontological root of the universe, right? With me so far? Now, what if I told you that the 'universe' was still (currently) emerging from that original singularity? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/06/2009 6:19 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Which should (I hope) lead one to ask: When exactly did the universe go from "emerging" from that singularity, to being completely (finally, ultimately) "emerged"? What would lead anyone to assume that the universe stopped *emerging*, and is now *emerged*. If you think that the universe is still emerging from said singularity (as I do), then it's failry easy to see that every moment the entire universe *emerges* over and over again, moment to moment - this is what I propose is happening. The evidence I see for this is the observed fractality that keeps popping up EVERYWHERE we look. This is also why people are discovering micro-singularities at the planck scale, because the "existence" of a particle happens due to it's constant emergence from the singularity at that level. As far as subjectivity goes, I've simply placed the "self", "subject", or "observer" at the same ontological scale of reality as those micro-singularities. This has nothing to do with immaterial 'spirits' or 'souls', I've just properly classified the scale/location/space of the 'subjective observer', and it's due to this conclusion that I've come up with the term 'subjective space' to replace ideas like 'soul' or 'self', etc. Idk, makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/07/2009 5:59 AM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	As far as subjectivity goes, I've simply placed the "self", "subject", or "observer" at the same ontological scale of reality as those micro-singularities. This has nothing to do with immaterial 'spirits' or 'souls', I've just properly classified the scale/location/space of the 'subjective observer', and it's due to this conclusion that I've come up with the term 'subjective space' to replace ideas like 'soul' or 'self', etc. Idk, makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. I am sorry Pan, it seems to me that this is just another form of vitalism. The fact that you do not call it soul but call it "observer", "subject", "self" or "subjective observer" or "subjective space" doesn't make it any less immaterial and vitalist... even if it is panpsychist it is still the same take the soul, put it inside the sngularity and what is the difference to you theory? Do you have any description of this "subjective observer", "self" etc that exists inside the sing? I know now you would like to rip my head off for accusing you of vitalism but I had to do it [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/06/2009 10:08 PM by PredictionBoy	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	What is the substance of thought? Thought and consciousness are cool, no question. But in all honesty, they're not this cool, Pan. So amazingly imponderable that you have to invoke all these things to explain it. 100 trillion neurons, each with a connection to 10,000 others, is almost certainly sufficient to provide the thought and consciousness that rattles around in our heads. I could be wrong. But it is not inconceivable that you might be too. Just a thought. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/06/2009 10:34 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Thought and consciousness are cool, no question. But in all honesty, they're not this cool, Pan. So amazingly imponderable that you have to invoke all these things to explain it. Well, I'll at least take it as a compliment that you find the idea appealing, it may simmer in the back of your brain for just this reason. 100 trillion neurons, each with a connection to 10,000 others, correct me if I'm wrong (I'll probably look it up sometime tonight, cus now I have doubts), but I was under the impression that we had on the order of 100 or 200 billion neurons, not 100 trillion, with roughly 500 trillion synaptic connections. is almost certainly sufficient to provide the thought and consciousness that rattles around in our heads. Certainly, and that isn't my issue. 'Thought' and 'consciousness' don't mean the same thing to me as 'subjective' or 'observer' or 'self'. I differentiate between these terms (but it be pointed out that in these discussions people will often use them interchangeably - particularly to justify their position). When I speak of 'subjective observer' I'm talking about that which observes those thoughts that are doing the rattling around in the head. Our brains produce states to be conscious of, but (ontologically speaking) are not the 'observing' agent itself. Let's imagine a metal sphere 1 cm thick, 10 cm diameter. This sphere has an interior and an exterior. It's the 'interior' of this sphere that I'm calling the 'observer'. Now imagine many of these spheres; however, at the top and bottom of these spheres, there is an opening, and a connection to another sphere. Imagine an hourglass shape, with the 'bulbs' of the hourglass being the sphere-like portion, and the 'neck' of the hourglass as the opening that connects them. Imagine that all particles are like this, connected to each other in this formation, one to the other, in an unbroken chain, and the 'interior' of this configuration is the cosmological singularity. This is how "micro-singularities" connect to each other, at all scales, and why I say there is only one singularity. In this configuration, it is this 'interior' space inside this shape that is the 'subjective observer', and the 'walls' of the hourglass that constitute what we refer to as physical 'matter'. I could be wrong. But it is not inconceivable that you might be too. Just a thought. Neither of us are 'wrong' in my perspective, I just like my perspective better, it seems more complete to me. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/06/2009 10:40 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I should have added that this 'interior' singularity and the 'emergent' or 'exterior' matter or essentially of the same substance, I'm not implying two separate substances. That which we call 'matter' by our current state of knowledge is this singularity 'unfolding' or 'explicating' or 'extrapolating' or 'emerging' from the ontos/singularity. Which is to say, matter and energy are the substance of the singularity unfolding, this gives it it's fractal appearance, and why middle path buddhists talk about 'emptiness' within 'things', they're really referring to the 'inherent' (or interior) singularity within each 'thing', that allows any 'thing' to be possess simultaneously both qualities of 'unity' and multiplicity. In fact, you couldn't have a multiplicity of 'things' without an underlying 'unity' (the cosmic 'sing). I think that's what Bucky was getting on to when he said "Unity is plural, and at minimum two." [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/06/2009 10:41 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	or essentially of the same substance corr: are essentially of the same substance [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/06/2009 10:51 PM by PredictionBoy	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I was under the impression that we had on the order of 100 or 200 billion neurons, not 100 trillion, with roughly 500 trillion synaptic connections. Actually, I just looked this up, I think you are right, it is estimated at around 100 billion neurons. Not sure where I got the 100 trillion number - maybe that's the number of cells in the body or something. Despite the fact that I was off by 3 orders of magnitude, it doesn't really matter - the number of neurons and their connections are sufficient to produce thought and consciousness. In fact, the point of the article is that it is a relatively small part of this 100 billion that produces conscious intention and will. In other words, consciousness is the result of some circuitry in the brain, a useful control mechanism. The reason that it doesn't really matter is because you are not basing your external theories of cosmic-singularity consciousness on detailed calculations that 100 billion neurons with 500 trillion connections are insufficient to produce human levels of conscious thought. Are you? Bottom line, with a healthy and intact brain, you are a conscious and thinking human. With a damaged or removed brain, you are not. That seems reasonably certain, wouldn't you say? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/06/2009 11:03 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I consider the cosmological singularity itself to be 'conscious' or 'aware' or 'subjective' (this is why I often say: choose whichever term suits you best - I just refer to it as 'subjective space', good enough for me). I think, from an empirical point of view, my hypothesis will be proven or disproven when we get close to observing the planck scale, where I believe we will encounter the cosmic sing. Until then, it is pretty moot to talk about, but then I'm not satisfied with most people's answers. However, you know that article I keep referencing about how particles harbor micro-singularities? I had been ranting about that for over a year prior to that article hitting the news. Now aside from whether one personally agrees with it or not, you might ask yourself how someone could reach the same conclusion as a mathematician/physicist (and the guy is no "dummy", whether you concur with his results or not) through visualization and logic alone. I don't pretend to have the 'smoking gun' that will vindicate my premises yet (YET!), but I AM confident that we will find it, if only because everything I've learned about fractals and singularities supports my conclusion (and as far as I see, the continued accumulation of data keeps pointing to this pervasive fractality every time I check up on current research). It's just (to me) the logical conclusions one must reach after you've looked at the evidence and see that the world is fractal, and that there is a SINGLE underlying singularity. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/06/2009 11:14 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	<facepalm> I should have used soap bubbles for my visual analogy, it's a lot clearer. The fine grained structure of the 'verse (either multi or uni) is like a population of soap bubbles. They merge and split off from each other, forming boundaries, and sometimes coalescing into each other. The space inside the bubbles is the cosmic sing, the membranes of the bubbles themselves is matter/energy. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/07/2009 6:15 AM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I agree about the fractal nature of the universe. I agree fully. I do not see why this necessitates a "subjective observer" and then, why this "subjective observer" needs to be placed inside the singulariy? why can't there be a fractal unvierse in which evertything is a combination of something more fundamental down to whatever there is down there that combines fractally to give rise to the forms we see, and all this WIHTOUT the soul of the singularity that leaks through planck scale vortices and re-combines to become each our subjective observer on this side of the singularity? WHY? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/07/2009 2:15 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I do not see why this necessitates a "subjective observer" and then, why this "subjective observer" needs to be placed inside the singulariy? Perhaps you should do more reading on fractals? Many people (including mathematicians, physicists, and cosmologists) often reach this or a similar flavor of this conclusion after spending years contemplating just how fractals shape our universe. One might ask why do people from many different fields, and many different backgrounds look at fractals, and suddenly see how the forms itself? And often reach similar if not identical conclusions. Read up on fractals and chaos. And Spinoza. why can't there be a fractal unvierse in which evertything is a combination of something more fundamental down to whatever there is down there that combines fractally to give rise to the forms we see, and all this WIHTOUT the soul of the singularity that leaks through planck scale vortices and re-combines to become each our subjective observer on this side of the singularity? I've actually reversed engineered this question. People have, for all their history, insisted on this 'soul' or 'self' or (what-have-you). I said to myself (as I was, for the better part of my life, a reductionist materialist also), WHY do people keep insisting? See, I try to approach problems like this with the idea that there is probably a grain of truth lost in every haystack of nonsense. So I set myself to get at this needle they call 'soul' or 'self' or 'consciousness' or (what-have-you). What I found, was that we don't need to think of this as two fundamentally separate substances. Whatever is in the cosmic sing, is fundamentally made of the same substance as all the stuff swirling about it's event horizon. BUT, the inside of the singularity and the outside of the singularity have slightly different attributes. One substance: two attributes. I've found that in a fractal universe with a cosmological singularity, the enfolded (immanent) singularity portion of it behaves with all the same qualities that people ascribe to 'subjectivity' or 'self' or 'observer' or (what-have-you) and that the event horizon (infinite reflection as set might put it) behaves just as we find out matte behaves. One possesses the quality of 'objective' stuff, and one possesses the quality of 'subjective' stuff, but on the most fundamental level they are the SAME 'stuff'. So I agree with both sides of the argument, I just say I have a more complete perspective. The polarised sides of this argument just want to say: "It's all...." or "It's all...." (insert mind or matter). I'm saying their is no fundamental difference in the substance of mind or matte, they are just two differentiated attributes we assign to it. This is because this 'substance', at the singularity level, is all folded up nice and tight and merges it's opposites (it's an "unbounded" infinite) while the stuff on the event horizon (matter and what not) is the same 'stuff' unfolded, emerged, extracted (like a .zip). Get it now? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Will to Power--Is "Free Will" All in Your Head? posted on 11/07/2009 5:48 AM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	They'll say things like, the 'mind' is an emergent 'pattern', but then fail to tell us what that pattern consists of, physically. I understand emergence, but what emerges? What is it after it's 'emergent'? This is the problem with material reductionism, no how much you magnify any part of the brain, you can never put your finger on something you find there, and say "This is it! This is a thought!" What is the thought at that point? The electrical impulse? The chemical signals? The pattern is a pattern on a substrate...what kind of question is that? the pattern is a configuration of something, in the case of the brain, of the brain itself, of neuron connections and electrical activity... Software is a pattern in a computer, is a configuration of electrical states of transistors. [Reply] [Parent]

		Becoming Human posted on 11/06/2009 2:59 PM by PredictionBoy	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	This is a 3 part Nova series that looks pretty good. I missed the first one, going to see if it is showing again. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/?utm_campaign=icons&u tm_medium=300x250&utm_source=livescience http://tinyurl.com/yj3h4cs [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Becoming Human posted on 11/06/2009 3:42 PM by someday69	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	hey don't get mad,but I ain't read but the last two post in the thread.... Free will--e--....Freewill....was the whole point of evolution.... You can build si-ko- fants easy as pie.... But to get free think'n is not so easy.. "They'er ..use'n.' Evolution to produce it.... Where it re-side's...wheather the "mind" is traped inside you skull is ......a no brain'er Just look at someone's Or"A...(it's the energy field given off bye our= minds... if you dont belive me....just look at the way=== People feel/think--there face'se take on that Aspect.... New at eleven.....take care...I'll read this..someday.. [Reply] [Parent]