Jump to content
Science Forums

Biology's Grasp Over Conciousness.


CaelesMessorem

Recommended Posts

How are we able to comprehend free will then if true freedom of choice isn't possible,

 

if freedom of choice is an illusion then so is free will, which means they don't exist. so there is nothing to comprehend.

 

and what benefits does this existential ideology provide for humans?

 

that pre-supposes that there should be a benefit. there is no reason there should be one.

 

Does our brain create these illusions in an effort to nurture our self-awareness that also stems from brain function?

 

it's not the brain per se that is creating the illusion, it's just how the system operates. we are mere expression of the system.

 

that's why you can't comtemplate or imagine what is outside of the universe.  because that lies outside of the system.

 

a toaster can realize it is a toaster, but in realizing that, it still can only "think" like a toaster, it's going to think toaster thoughts no matter what. it can't think or act like a dish washer because it doesn't have those properties.

 

mind you these are just speculations based on lines of logic, but, at least at this point, we don't have any real understanding of what is or isn't possible.  who knows how what we'll learn over the next 10,000 years will affect our understanding.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to rephrase: How do we have any idea of what free will is/ could be if freedom of choice is an illusion. It implies that we built an idea and definition around a notion that is only a figment of consciousness, and act on it.

 

 

 

 

that pre-supposes that there should be a benefit. there is no reason there should be one.

 

 

It was determined that our brain enacts biological dictations in the form of decisions, with the continuation of self and the human species being the intent. To that effect, in theory, there should be some form of benefit for this action, as arbitrary actions and functions don't seem to go in line with how humans work. Or nature as a whole for that matter.

 

 

it's not the brain per se that is creating the illusion, it's just how the system operates. we are mere expression of the system.


 

that's why you can't comtemplate or imagine what is outside of the universe.  because that lies outside of the system.

 

a toaster can realize it is a toaster, but in realizing that, it still can only "think" like a toaster, it's going to think toaster thoughts no matter what. it can't think or act like a dish washer because it doesn't have those properties.

 

mind you these are just speculations based on lines of logic, but, at least at this point, we don't have any real understanding of what is or isn't possible.  who knows how what we'll learn over the next 10,000 years will affect our understanding.

 

   Are you referring to self-awareness or the neural "illusions"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are we able to comprehend free will then if true freedom of choice isn't possible, and what benefits does this existential ideology provide for humans? Does our brain create these illusions in an effort to nurture our self-awareness that also stems from brain function?

We can comprehend many things which aren't possible. We can comprehend the idea of magic, the concept of pure determinism, even gods - none of which are possible.  Whether something exists or not has no bearing on our ability to comprehend it.  And you're weirdly ascribing anthropomorphic attributes to a brain, as though our *brains* have free will and want to guide us?  Our brain doesn't "create" things in an "effort" to do anything. Our brains exist. Neurons exist. They interact in specific ways. Thought is the result.  There's no deeper purpose or reason for these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can comprehend many things which aren't possible. We can comprehend the idea of magic, the concept of pure determinism, even gods - none of which are possible.  Whether something exists or not has no bearing on our ability to comprehend it.  And you're weirdly ascribing anthropomorphic attributes to a brain, as though our *brains* have free will and want to guide us?  Our brain doesn't "create" things in an "effort" to do anything. Our brains exist. Neurons exist. They interact in specific ways. Thought is the result.  There's no deeper purpose or reason for these things.

 

   There was an idea I remember learning about in philosophy my first semester in college (though I can't remember the name of it; I'll have to find my notes from the class at some point), and I'm paraphrasing, stating that in order for us to even have an idea of something, that idea has to be a reality in some form in some dimension, universe, time or place. I think we used this idea when we were discussing the notions of God and perfection. Using this, it gives a possibility as to how we can perceive what isn't in order to theorize what could or cannot be.

 

   I apologize for my strange phrasing. What I meant was are these illusions a result of the self-awareness caused by our brain functioning; why are these illusions, which do not exist, byproducts of a consciousness begot by a functioning brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   There was an idea I remember learning about in philosophy my first semester in college (though I can't remember the name of it; I'll have to find my notes from the class at some point), and I'm paraphrasing, stating that in order for us to even have an idea of something, that idea has to be a reality in some form in some dimension, universe, time or place. I think we used this idea when we were discussing the notions of God and perfection. Using this, it gives a possibility as to how we can perceive what isn't in order to theorize what could or cannot be.

 

   I apologize for my strange phrasing. What I meant was are these illusions a result of the self-awareness caused by our brain functioning; why are these illusions, which do not exist, byproducts of a consciousness begot by a functioning brain.

Plato's cave allegory is like this, but what does that have to do with reality?  Not only is it useless and impossible to show any meaningful "existence" of these platonic ideals, it leads to obvious and silly paradoxes (I can imagine an object for which a platonic ideal could not exist, or an object which is non-existence, or an object which destroys all other objects in all other universes, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can comprehend many things which aren't possible. We can comprehend the idea of magic, the concept of pure determinism, even gods - none of which are possible.  Whether something exists or not has no bearing on our ability to comprehend it.  And you're weirdly ascribing anthropomorphic attributes to a brain, as though our *brains* have free will and want to guide us?  Our brain doesn't "create" things in an "effort" to do anything. Our brains exist. Neurons exist. They interact in specific ways. Thought is the result.  There's no deeper purpose or reason for these things.

 

i want to say somewhere in there you are wrong, but the notions being touched upon get really murky upon finer examination. and whether it makes sense or not depends on one's point of view which is speculative at a finer resolution.

 

for example i don't think this statement "Whether something exists or not has no bearing on our ability to comprehend it" makes sense.

 

none of the examples you cite are valid. magic exists, real magic is science, fake magic is entertainment. god exists, it is the universe, that which factually has given raise to all things, fake god(s) exist as people's beliefs, determinism most assuredly exists. misinformation, disinformation is somehow(i don't know how, as i said it depends on the rules one is using to view things) akin to a tangible thing just as actual information is. if it wasn't no one could fool another, it would be too absurd. do tables and chairs exist? not really according to you because in reality they are just a bunch of particles arranged in a pattern, only quantum physics exists. but if one was to say they didn't exist they would be taken as crazy.

 

if something actually truly doesn't exist, then we cannot comprehend it because we couldn't even concieve it to know we could comprehend it.

 

what Caeles is saying, i think, is if you are right how can we think of such things to begin with? why would the brain work that way? why do we have these illusions, why don't we just realize right off the bat that free choice doesn't exist just like we realize we can't walk through walls.

 

anything that your brain can concieve exists, not materially, but informationally. all it takes to make a unicorn, a god or anything else is to know how,  you just need to posses the information. why would that be impossible.

 

It implies that we built an idea and definition around a notion that is only a figment of consciousness, and act on it.

 

that's right. just like that.

 

It was determined that our brain enacts biological dictations in the form of decisions, with the continuation of self and the human species being the intent. To that effect, in theory, there should be some form of benefit for this action, as arbitrary actions and functions don't seem to go in line with how humans work. Or nature as a whole for that matter.

 

 yes, but we are also ignorant, just like the bee that humps a beer bottle thinking it is a queen, it's brain is not actually serving it, but it is trying.  like at one time we didn't even know where the brain was, we thought it was in the heart. our own brain led us to believe that. was that to our benefit? of course not. we lack understand of the whole so we make mistakes, take one thing for another, but because what you just said is true the brain proceeds to correct it in time. why this discussion has even come to be is evidence of the brain doing just that, seeking to provide us a benefit.

 

   Are you referring to self-awareness or the neural "illusions"?

 

   i'm referring to a product of the universe, us. our thinking it limited to what the universe can produce and we cannot think of things that it can't produce. which would mean that if we can think of it the universe can in fact produce it. my only point in stating that last part was to show that since we are limited to the potential of the universe, we cannot truly have free will. i want to live outside of the universe but that is not possible, so where is my free will? we think we have free will to choose among choices, but we don't consider that we are limited to what is on the menu, because there are options on the menu we think we have a choice, but if you are in a Chinese universe you can't order lasagna.  free will and choice only exists to the extent that it is allowed by the system we are in, hence there is no actual free will or choice.( irrespective of time).

 

Edited by layman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

none of the examples you cite are valid. magic exists, real magic is science, fake magic is entertainment. god exists, it is the universe, that which factually has given raise to all things, fake god(s) exist as people's beliefs, determinism most assuredly exists. 

 Oh!  I didn't realize that we could just re-define things into existence or non-existence.  My apologies. (If you redefine apologize as snide annoyance, that is)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Oh!  I didn't realize that we could just re-define things into existence or non-existence.  My apologies. (If you redefine apologize as snide annoyance, that is)

 

 

look i know it sounds like i'm redefining things as it suits me, but we are talking about things that are not understood. we may have our positions but they have not been validated. i don't know why you are annoyed. you can't know these things for sure, and i was just phrasing things a certain way to suggest that maybe the way we define things is incomplete. that why i didn;t say you were wrong, just that it feels that way to me. to me these kinds of topics are to explore not to educate someone else on what is "known". caeles could have just read the same things you did if that's all it was about.

Edited by layman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if something actually truly doesn't exist, then we cannot comprehend it because we couldn't even concieve it to know we could comprehend it.

 

what Caeles is saying, i think, is if you are right how can we think of such things to begin with? why would the brain work that way? why do we have these illusions, why don't we just realize right off the bat that free choice doesn't exist just like we realize we can't walk through walls.

   

   This is precisely what I was attempting to describe. It's difficult to put into words such a seemingly abstract idea, at least for me apparently.

 

   Just the same as some cultures do not posess words or phrases that may describe something and therefore cannot truly understand what that something is, if something does not exist in any form anywhere, there's nothing for us to comprehend. We couldn't say that it doesn't exist because it never first existed to allow us to draw that conclusion. Matter cannot be created from nothing, energy cannot be produced from nothing, and much to the same effect, we cannot conceive a concept that comes from nothing.

 

   So following that same principle, how can a brain, which does exist, even conceive of the notion of free will, which does not exist and cannot exist, and then act according to the belief that it does exist thinking that free will is being carried out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as a free will. Our decisions are controlled by id, ego and superego. I would suggest that it would believe that the notion of free will exists, because we do have a choice; a choice to chose between the decisions of the superego and the id. 

This wikipedia article gives a good summary of id, ego and superego: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego

So where does the choice enter into it? Do the chemicals floating around the brain choose which neurons to touch? Do the electrical impulses choose which directions to go in? When does the physics and chemistry break down to allow there to be meaningful choice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   This is precisely what I was attempting to describe. It's difficult to put into words such a seemingly abstract idea, at least for me apparently.

 

   Just the same as some cultures do not posess words or phrases that may describe something and therefore cannot truly understand what that something is, if something does not exist in any form anywhere, there's nothing for us to comprehend. We couldn't say that it doesn't exist because it never first existed to allow us to draw that conclusion. Matter cannot be created from nothing, energy cannot be produced from nothing, and much to the same effect, we cannot conceive a concept that comes from nothing.

 

   So following that same principle, how can a brain, which does exist, even conceive of the notion of free will, which does not exist and cannot exist, and then act according to the belief that it does exist thinking that free will is being carried out?

it would seem to me to be an error. those do exist. our brain is simply making a mistake because it doesn't have ALL the information there is to be had. so it does the best it can with what it does have. if something is fixed but some parts are yet to be known it's going to appear as if options exist, but really it just that the picture incomplete to the brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it would seem to me to be an error. those do exist. our brain is simply making a mistake because it doesn't have ALL the information there is to be had. so it does the best it can with what it does have. if something is fixed but some parts are yet to be known it's going to appear as if options exist, but really it just that the picture incomplete to the brain.

 

   I'm not saying that choice and free will don't exist. If I were to follow the train of thought mentioned in my last post I would be contradicting myself. It was more a question directed at the assumption that they do not which was brought up earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I..... am not really sure what you are trying to get at there. Could you clarify further?

 

 

what gives rise to the ablity to choose between those things to begin with? when you say we have these things, it has to be accounted for how we got those things to begin with.

 

free will or free choice can just as easily be translated to randomness. as far as i can tell true randomness does not exist, only the appearence of randomness exists because things can be very complex.

 

there are scientists who's personal belief is that free will does exist because the uncertainty principle exists, we can never actually know where the electron is, we can only have a probilistic idea of where it is. personally i believe that is true at this point in time, but eventually we will understand even that principle with certainty.

Edited by layman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

   I'm not saying that choice and free will don't exist. If I were to follow the train of thought mentioned in my last post I would be contradicting myself. It was more a question directed at the assumption that they do not which was brought up earlier.

 

 

i din;t take that is what you were saying. i was addressing this question you posed

 

"So following that same principle, how can a brain, which does exist, even conceive of the notion of free will, which does not exist and cannot exist, and then act according to the belief that it does exist thinking that free will is being carried out?"

 

i'm saying the brain is making an error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

let me pose this, lets just say the acutal reality is that free will doesn't exist.

can the brain make a mistake in thinking that it does? if it can make that mistake, what can cause that mistake?

i would say that incomplete information can lead the brain to make that mistake. it will lead to the apparency of free will.

 

i don't see why an illusion isn't actually the brain making a mistake.

Edited by layman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i din;t take that is what you were saying. i was addressing this question you posed

 

"So following that same principle, how can a brain, which does exist, even conceive of the notion of free will, which does not exist and cannot exist, and then act according to the belief that it does exist thinking that free will is being carried out?"

 

i'm saying the brain is making an error.

 

   Ahh My mistake. I didn't mean to presume. I couldn't quite tell what you were referring to, so thank you for the clarification. :)

 

I definitely believe it's possible for the brain to make mistakes, but could it be our underlying misunderstanding of what free will actually is/ could be that is causing the production of such an illusion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Ahh My mistake. I didn't mean to presume. I couldn't quite tell what you were referring to, so thank you for the clarification. :)

 

I definitely believe it's possible for the brain to make mistakes, but could it be our underlying misunderstanding of what free will actually is/ could be that is causing the production of such an illusion?

 

no prob, i should have been clearer myself.

 

hmmm....if i understand that correctly you're say, is it possible we are mistakenly defining free will which makes us think we have it and then coming up with explanations for why it doesn't exist.

 

yeah i guess it is. have to think on that further.

 

at first blush i would say free will is when a thing can act in any manor it chooses and anything less than that is only a degree of free will, which to me equates to not really free will at all because that thing is still being limited by something.

so it's a zero sum game, all or nothing.

 

it would seem to me that if free will does exist, it has to be a constant, as in it had to exist, say, 2,000 years ago or the beginning of time and it has to exist 2,000 years from now til the end of time. with that in mind, lets say we finally learn the totality of what the universe allows us to be, that would be our limit. a being in that time could say they have free will to be anything possible.

 

sounds like free will to me.............but then that means it comes down to the system's potential. if the system has limited potential then we don't have it, if the system has unlimited potential then we do have free will.

 

it never occured to me that the universe could have unlimited potential, i just assumed it has to be limited, but now that i think about it i'm not sure if there is any real basis for that assumption.........so you have me re-thinking things.

Edited by layman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...