On Oct 20, 11:06 am, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >> >> The thought > >> >> experiment doesn't mean much in that case, it is simply neurons > >> >> determining > >> >> the behaviour of two brains. I don't see that it matters what the > >> outcome > >> >> of > >> >> the experiment is. > > >> > But the neurons are also having their behavior determined as well. > >> > That's the point. One person's high level behavior is now determining > >> > the low level behavior of another person's neurons. That is what is > >> > being argued cannot happen, so I'm showing that it can. > > >> It only works with the premise is that it can happen, otherwise neurons > >> are > >> determining the behaviour and some experience may arise alongside (or > >> not). > >> The thought experiment doesn't show anything beyond what the normal > >> functioning of the brain and the feelings that correlate with it show. > >> That's not a fault of the thought experiment, I don't think it is > >> possible. > >> I think what the thought experiment shows the most is the absurdity of > >> control. If there is a controller, who controls the controller, and who > >> controls that controller, etc...? Ultimately, there can't be any control, > >> or > >> controller, just as there can't be any designer to the universe. > >> The same goes for causes. > > > Mm, I don't know, I don't have a problem saying that there is a > > difference between voluntary actions and involuntary actions in our > > body. > > Obviously there is. But what you call voluntary and involuntary, is, seen > from a deeper level, more like "happening within your attention" and > "happening outside of your attention". The feeling of it being voluntary (or > not) is more like something added to this for the purpose of making it > clearer, but it is not deeper than that. > > Take the example of breathing. Normally it is happens without our attention > being on it, involuntarily. If we focus our attention on it, it may seem > voluntary (I "control" the breath) or involuntary (I just breath naturally). > There is nothing special about feeling to have control over it, it works > even better if you don't - it is more natural, the feeling of control is > confusing (it seems to make a seperation between your mind and your body, > which feels artificial and not true).
I understand what you're saying, but no. You can feel your heart beating too but its being within your attention doesn't give you direct control over it. Yogic practices or biofeedback may allow you more control over various somatic functions, but just for simplicity, I think we can agree that there is a difference to the degree to which we can control our own breathing versus our heartbeat. I think you are caricaturing my use of words like control or will. Not-doing can be control also. If you are the one deciding to relax, then that is your will. > It is a bit like seeing something beautiful on the one hand and seeing > something beautiful and thinking "This is beautiful" on the other hand. That > we can think "This is beautiful" is not what makes it beautfiful, in the > same way the feeling of control is not what makes something happen, but is a > feeling that comes as we attribute an action / impulse to "us" as personal > agents. I'm not talking about the intellectualization of voluntary action though, I'm talking about control as the actual gesture of motive actualization and it's third person manifestation as electromagnetic impulses through the nervous system. I get what you're saying though, and I agree, action and assertion are not control just because they make us feel active and assertive. > > Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >> > The mutual control is supposed to expose the absurdity of the absence > >> of > >> > top-down > >> > determination. If we have no say in our own neurons behavior, how can > >> > we say that we can have a say in someone else's neural behavior? > > >> The answer would be: We can't, just as it seems we control our neurons > >> behaviour, so it seems that we control other persons behaviour. I don't > >> see > >> any difference, except that the situation in the thought experiment is > >> more > >> absurd, and so probably shows even less. > > > Right, we can't. That is what I'm arguing. Others are perfectly fine > > with the idea of creating an artificial brain but they don't follow > > the consequences through to what that means as far as our own high > > level will to influence and control low level neurology. The thought > > experiment just spells it out. > > Ah, OK. If we pretend that neurology is the controlling factor, and we don't > want to make it into something magical, we indeed get problems if the > neurons are controlled by other neurons, as then the question is "Where does > the control really arise, then?". 'Zacly. > We could then say that the neurons are controlled by past factor and outside > influence, but we can't continue that forever. So where do we stop? Is the > big bang the ultimate controller? I think the paradox evaporates if we allow that control can be shared. You can make your adrenals produce epinepherine by thinking about something exciting, or you can introduce epinepherine directly into your bloodstream and it will make you excited. It's the same physiological <> psychological process running in opposite directions. > But we can't even describe it (and if we > could, this would be abitrary - as we have no clue that our description is > true, or why it is true), so to state that would get us back to magic, which > materialist wanted to avoid. > So ultimately they are either dishonest ("BS - you just don't understand > it"), or make excuses ("There is nothing magical about, we just don't > understand it *yet*..." - which you could say for every other mysterious > explanation) or they ignore the problem ("That's not a real problem anyway" > - like the hard problem of cosciousness) or, if they are honest, they admit > that matter is inherently mysterious (which rises the question why we can't > use consciousness as a primitive mysterious source, *that we can directly > experience*, in contrast to the mysterious essence of matter, which makes it > infinitely more plausible). > > I think I get now where you are coming from with this experiment... Cool. It's not a particularly well constructed exercise, it was just something I thought of that was like 'hey...if we are just an epiphenomenon of our neurology, what happens when that epiphenomenon changes someone else's neurology? Surely we can't say that the target's neurology is in control if it is being manipulated by a machine which is manipulated by a person being manipulated by their neurology. So it just followed that if both sets of neurons were controlling each other, that would show the epiphenomenon hypothesis all the more nakedly incomplete. > > Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >> >> > The psyche can voluntarily control entire > >> >> > regions of the brain, and does so routinely. > > >> >> I don't think so. The psyche is reflected in the brain, but I don't > >> see > >> >> how > >> >> it controls it. The brain doesn't do what the person want, it reflects > >> >> what > >> >> the person want. For it to be control, the person had to have a choice > >> in > >> >> which way the brain mirrors the state of the psyche, and from my > >> >> experience > >> >> this is not the case. > > >> > What distinction do you make between reflection and control? > > >> I see my reflection in the mirror, but I can't control it, since it is > >> not > >> an independent entity that could be controlled in the first place > >> (ultimately nothing is, so nothing can be controlled). > > > Why can't you control it? > > There is nothing to control. The reflection is no independent "real" object > that can be influenced in the first place. > > That's a good metaphor for everything, really. If there is just the subject > / consciousness, and everything simply appears in it, there is no one that > could control anything, so ultimately whatever control there seems to be is > just a feeling that stemps from a distorted perspective. > I guess if you assume that there is a person and a world seperate from it, > you can say it can "control" its mirror image, or its brain. However, you > could as well say that mirror image controls you (you may make strange > gestures, but only since the mirror is there!), or the brain controls you, > then. To say the human control is merely an egocentric viewpoint (not > necessarily invalid, though). But if everything mutually controls > everything, the word control doesn't mean much anymore. I think control is still a viable word, it's just relative. Terms like up and down or forward and backward have no basis in an ultimate sense but they are quite useful and non-trivial in an ordinary proximate sense. > > > >> The brain is a > >> phenomena that arises in consciousness as a means of self-reflection, and > >> it > >> is not an external object that could be controlled. > > > The brain can be controlled easily. Bullets, drugs, electroshock, > > images and sounds... take your pick. The brain is as much an external > > object as anything. It's just that objects have subjective qualities > > that we can't experience directly unless they are the objects that we > > happen to actually be. > > I don't see how any of what you mentioned actually controls the brain. It > influences, that's for sure, but in order for it to be control it would have > to have a predictable, broad/deep, and directable influence. You can control > all sorts of "superficialities" (like whether a person feels good or bad), > but there is MUCH more to the functioning of the brain than that. Anesthetic is pretty predictable, deep, and directable. You seem to be arguing on the one hand that any control is an illusion but that illusion is also highly resistant to control. I don't see that it has to be that absolute. Influence controls to a degree and control influences. There are all kinds of voluntary, involuntary, and semi- voluntary experiences within our ordinary lives. > > >> > If I had anMRI that would show me patterns in real time of my brain, I > >> > could > >> > practice different feelings or motions until I might be able to draw a > >> > pattern on the MRI that looks like the letters 'IBM' or a smiley face > >> > or something. Is that not control? > > >> I don't think that would be possible ;). > > > Oh of course it's possible. It's just advanced biofeedback. > >http://factoidz.com/pain-and-willpower-biofeedback/ > > Influencing pain is a long way from what you say... It would be quite a feat to write 'IBM' in your own brain, but if you trained for a long time with realtime MRI feedback, I think that you could work up to a | or O pattern within a few months. Some parts of the brain might be easy to master in a few hours. If you look at the parts of the brain associated with finger movements or something I don't think it would be very difficult to get a feel for it. > > >>The brain is not some machine that > >> is controlled by a homunculus. > > > It's not a machine completely, but many aspects of it are mechanical > > and certainly many are controlled by us. > > Who exactly is this "us" that you speak of? If there is no magical soul > entity that is seperate from the brain that can control something, where can > it come from? It's not an it, it's a who. He or she comes from the experiences of all of the subordinate molecules, cells, and tissues, as well as the mesocosm experiences of socialization, and the macrocosmic cultural, geological, and astrophysical experiences. A person is not just the sum of these influences though, they also contribute idiosyncratically from their own unique identity, which is a primitive on it's own native scale, no more reducible than CO2 or the number 17. > > Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >>Even though you admit that control is not > >> necessarily fundamental, you talk as if it is. Just be realistic, we > >> can't > >> even control our own thoughts, or habits, why should we be able to > >> control > >> the way the neurons fire in the brain? > > > Do you think that you can control whether or not you stand up? > > No... It just happens, and a feeling of control appears. There is no > "actual" control to find, nor even an entity that could control anything. So if I tell you to stand up, it's actually a complete surprise to you, and all decision making processes are false memories implanted after the fact. Yeah, I used to think of it that way, but no. It's dumb. It's transparently tortured reasoning to prop up a pre-existing assumption to me. Why not just let reality be what it seems to actually be? > > > If so that means that you must control the firing of the neurons in your > > brain which fire the neurons which contract the muscles which > > articulate your legs. > > Or the firing is the simply a correlation of my feeling. It doesn't mean > that I cause it. In theory it doesn't, but in fact, what other reason could such a feeling have for even being possible? Not that every feeling has to accurately reflect the reality we think it does, but that possibility of fraud is no justification to doubt the existence of voluntary control in general. If nothing makes any choices really, why do experiences of making choices exist at all? > > Just because we can't control all of our > > thoughts or habits doesn't mean that we have no control over anything. > > If that were the case the idea of control itself would be > > inconceivable. > > That's not true. We can imagine to be in control, even if there is no > substantially real control - just as you can imagine a unicorn, which is > only real in so far as it is an appearance that "really" appears. That's a false equivalence. When we imagine a unicorn, we don't believe that it exists. The fantasizing is intentional. We don't imagine that we have the ability to imagine though. There is no doubt that we can imagine something. Imagination is a pure form of will or control. Imagination is the only evidence we need that will is legitimate and causally efficacious. > > We could have no laws or courts. > > These could simply function to show the consequences of certain action and > enforce compensation in terms of eg money. There is no necessary relation to > control, just psychlogically there may be. Any time someone says the word 'simply' they are 'simply' wrong. That's one of my red flags. There is no point of showing the consequences of certain actions if nobody has any control of their actions. You're just holding onto this idea that it could theoretically be that way because you want to be right. But me saying that has no effect on you I suppose since you have no control over your own opinions anyways and reading this may as well be the label on a vitamin bottle. > > >> >> You can't tell your brain: "Use this neurons and this neurons!". It'll > >> >> just > >> >> "do what you want" because it is your avatar that reflects what you > >> do. > > >> > When I move my finger, I am telling my brain 'use this and this bundle > >> > of neuron', I just don't know it. > > >> I don't think you are telling the brain anything. Instead it is you > >> telling > >> what the physical reflection of your experience looks like. It is like a > >> mirror, not like a car that you can drive. > > > I agree that it is like a mirror, but it's a funny kind of mirror in > > that sometimes you are moving the mirror and other times the mirror is > > moving you. We can change someone's state of consciousness by putting > > drugs into their bloodstream. We can also change the chemistry of our > > brain by thinking about certain things and having certain feelings. > > Both sides of the mirror can drive and be driven. But yes, it's like a > > reflection not a mechanism. > > That's why I see it as more accurate to not label it control in the first > place. If control is entirely mutual, what is the meaning of control? It's not mutual at the same time for the same phenomena. I either move my arm or something moves my arm, but there is a difference between my arm suddenly moving on it's own and my just making myself feel more comfortable by moving it. > Control normally means that some kind of domination is going on, That's a much more political sense of the word. To say that we have control over our thoughts and actions doesn't have to mean that we dominate all processes of the self, it just means there is a difference between voluntary and involuntary, and that voluntary allows us to participate directly and deliberately. > which > obviously can't be true if it is mutual. I think this is nicely reflected in > our history. We try to mutually control and dominate each other, and it just > leads to total unorganized chaos (effects of war) - which is itself not > controllable. So control+control=non-control. But war also brings alliances and consolidates empires. Control + control = a larger agency of control + conflict resolution. > >> >> >> >>Honestly I that we think that we > >> >> >> >> have "free", independent will is just the arrogance of our ego > >> that > >> >> >> feels > >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> has to have a fundamentally special place in the universe. > > >> >> >> > I used to think that too, but now I see that it's every bit as > >> much > >> >> of > >> >> >> > an egotistical arrogance to De-anthropomorphize ourselves. It's > >> an > >> >> >> > inverted, passive aggressive egotism to perpetually look to other > >> >> >> > processes above and below our native level of individual cohesion > >> to > >> >> >> > give credit or blame, while all the while hiding invisibly behind > >> >> the > >> >> >> > voyeur's curtain. > > >> >> >> I understand where you coming from, but I don't see the necessary > >> >> >> relationship to will. We can be the genuine free source of our > >> >> actions, > >> >> >> whether our will is free or not. > > >> >> > Sure, it's never free in the sense that our will is only a > >> >> > relativistic means to an end which is already defined by sense. We > >> are > >> >> > presented with 'the good choice' and 'the bad choice', so there > >> really > >> >> > is no free choice about it. We will choose whatever we think is > >> better > >> >> > (even though determining that isn't always easy - sometimes we > >> prefer > >> >> > what might be seen as the 'bad choice') or more appropriate. But the > >> >> > fact that we experience this formality of decision shows that the > >> >> > universe is not mere automation. > > >> >> Not really if it is just a meaningless by-product, which makes sense > >> if > >> >> the > >> >> universe is meaningless in the first place. > >> >> This is a sad way of viewing the world, but I don't see our experience > >> >> shows > >> >> something here in any rationally arguable way. > >> >> We can only directly appeal to experience, but there is not much to > >> argue > >> >> about in this case. "But you experience it that way!" - "So what? It > >> is > >> >> an > >> >> illusion." - "But how can it be an illusion if it is direct > >> experience! > >> >> Just > >> >> look, it is here!" - "Direct experience an illusion." - "How can it be > >> an > >> >> illusion if it is direct?" - "It isn't really direct, it just appears > >> to > >> >> be." etc... We can do that for an abitrary long time, it most likely > >> >> won't > >> >> have any effect. > > >> > That's why I have organized the two extremes into a continuum: > >> >http://s33light.org/ACMEOMMM > > >> > You can see the universe from a purely objective perspective, and it > >> > will make one kind of sense, or you can see it from a purely > >> > subjective perspective and it will make the opposite kind of sense. > >> > Both extremes I think, if taken seriously, are pathological. > > >> Hm, I would take a radical trans-personal subjective standpoint (only the > >> absolute subject, God, exists). This doesn't really fit with any category > >> (it certainly has nothing to do with superstition and imagination, but > >> neither with matter). But it is also not really a middle ground, but more > >> an > >> extreme of both sides (total subjectivity and total absoluteness; no room > >> for interpretation). > > > That is what I call the profound meridian. (http://s33light.org/post/ > > 11179599552) The extreme ends of the continuum meet in the opposite > > way that they do at the mundane meridian (ordinary naive perception of > > the outside world as exterior to oneself). The profound meridian is > > the most masculine-abstract orientation along the continuum, seeing > > the cosmos as logos and both physical and subjective containers as > > illusory. > > It is not abstract at all, and not really masculine (except for the fact > that it is radical, but it is also "feminine" as it is non-rational). Masculine in terms of being monastic and solitary, typically of interest to males. Abstract as far as being an idealistic approach which regards the pedestrian world as unreal. >It is > directly experiencable, and in that way the opposite of abstract. Right now > you are simply conscious. There is no real world outside of that to find, > and neither a real subject aside from that (who posses consciousness). The idea of 'simply conscious' is completely abstract. Conscious of what? Of course there is a real world, all around me and within me. The real subject is me, Craig Weinberg. > > >> > Tounderstand what is really going on, we need to see the relationship > >> of > >> > the extremes and that they both need each other to make any sense. > >> > Fact is a kind of fiction, fiction is a kind of fact, but also they > >> > are opposites to each other as well. It is an involuted continuum. The > >> > inside becomes the outside but the two topologies remain separate > >> > also. > > >> That's kind of a mish-mash vague perspective. I like it more radical and > >> clear. I doesn't seem to me like reality is like cocktail of different > >> things, but one unified absolute. > > > It's both a cocktail of different things and one unified absolute. > > It's only our limited participation in this specific form that sees a > > difference between the two. > > I agree in a relative sense (our relative everyday reality is certainly is a > mish mash of many different things), but ultimately reality can't be a > cocktail, as there are no different things it could be a cocktail of. It doesn't have to be different things, it's just a mixture of the one thing and the pantomime of the absence of that thing. That's why I say the Big Diffraction. It pretends space to divide into an objective topology and it pretends time to multiply into a subjective experience of that division. Think about it. They are really the same thing, one spacetime void, but we are not an object, so we are biased in our view of what perception is. Our being conscious perceivers cleaves us to one phenomenology, leaving the other by definition, to be perceived as the opposite of what we are. > > >> Not that it is wrong to find a middle ground of different perspectives, > >> but > >> your page seems to want to deal with the fundament of all ("A > >> ManifesTOE"), > >> and this approach doesn't work there. > > > It's not a middle ground, it's just a map of every ground and how they > > relate. It's an approach which works everywhere. > > I find something essential missing. I guess that every map misses > 99,999....9% of the grounds. That's why I put a ? at the bottom: http://www.stationlink.com/art/SEEmap2.jpg Sense itself is mirrored by it's absence. What cannot be detected or known. > > You could make dozens of spectrums that are as fundamental as the ACME OMMM > spectrum. > Like seeing from a perspective of unicity and diversity They can all be understood as part of ACME OMMM Unity is ACME facing, diversity is OMMM facing. (Time collects, space disperses) perceiving and feeling, Perception and feeling straddle the subjective 'I' meridian - perception being the outward facing sense of I, feeling being the inward. concrete and vague, simple and complex, naive and skeptic, open and narrow, ACME is vague, simple, naive, and open; OMMM is concrete, complex, narrow, and skeptic good and bad, Good and bad are different. They are not the X axis of A-O, they are Y axis parameters on the subjective qualitative side. Basically more or less like the self or the self's idealization of it's own significance. Good, positive, or affirmative would be close to the mundane meridian, while the more oriental versions would be 'great', high, highest, best, top, royal, heroic, divine, etc. multdimensional and nondimensional, That's more of a computational abstraction and not really a spectrum. Everything is multidimensional and nothing is nondimensional. static and variable, subtle and obvious, cosmic and earthbound, subjective and objective. ACME is subjective, OMMM is objective. Cosmic and earthbound are the opposite ends, the opposing midpoints between ACME and OMMM - mundane meridian is earthbound, profound meridian is cosmic. Static and variable are subjective Y-axis considerations; more and less energy. Subtle and obvious are subjective side on the X-axis, so that A facing subjectivity is increasingly subtle as it approaches the interior boundary of the profound meridian, and O facing subjectivity is increasingly obvious as it approaches the pedestrian mesocosm/mundane meridian. > I am not saying what you write is worthless. But it is not a description of > the "extreme edges of possible worldviews". You just compiled some of the > poles into stereotypes. No, it works for all stereotypes I think. It is *the* meta-stereotype. All significant dualities can be described in it's terms. > For example you can be very well be a spiritual hard core skeptic > (experience is obviously there and everything that the content seems to > suggest is totally open to doubt) and a very naive materialist ("we have the > TOE in the next years"), a pessimistic superstitious person (belief in bad > spirits or hell) and an optimistic materialist (the singularity will come > soon and bring heaven on earth), a subjective materialist (the variety that > is not interested in science and rationality and is just sure that matter is > all there is anyway, and even believes qunatum mechanics is BS because it is > to unmaterialist), an objective spiritual person (bruno - there are > objective 3p facts that are the ontology, yet the 1p world is fundamentally > spiritual), an open minded materialist ("yeah, matter is all there is, but > it may fundamentally be linked to consciousness") and close minded spiritual > person ("2012 all people that are as spiritual as me will ascend, and all > others are fucked") so on... Oh absolutely. Real people are complex phenomena with trillions of moving parts. The point is not to constrain reality to this stereotype is it to identify the stereotypes so that we can transcend them if we want to. I'm just drawing a newer, better map of the universe - the simplest possible map of everything without leaving anything important out. > > We really can't touch the reality of "everything" with words. I am not > critizing your attempt (I think what you write is fun and somehow poetic), I > am just trying to open you to a broader perspective. If we "think it > through" we miss SOOO much, especially if we think we "get really close". > And as you use words like "extreme edges of possible worldviews" I am a bit > worried you get lost in your map of what you think the possibilites are, > especially as almost everyone gets lost in thoughts regularly. I am > preaching to myself that I should give more attention to my subjective > experience instead of thinking, yet am I still thinking and thinking and > thinking and thinking.... > Words and concepts are such powerful pointers that we are almost guaranteed > to mistake them as the actual important thing, which leads us straight into > unconsciousness. I agree, language is only one sense, and a very limited one at that. But if anything can touch the reality of 'everything' I don't see that there is any better alternative for human beings. > > Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >> >> >> When I say that your will is not really free, I am not saying that > >> you > >> >> >> are a > >> >> >> puppet that is controlled by your brain. An opinion is valuable to > >> >> you, > >> >> >> whether you just have it, or you claim to use your will to have it. > >> >> >> The cosmos does not need free will, as it is free without a will. > >> It > >> >> just > >> >> >> does what it does, including having opinions, talking to > >> interesting > >> >> >> people, > >> >> >> etc... Why is all of that nothing worth if there is no controller > >> of > >> >> >> them? > > >> >> > Why isn't just doing 'what it does' free will? > > >> >> Because the feeling of will need not be involved, so why call it will > >> >> then? > > >> > Why should we assume there is no need for a feeling of will to be > >> > involved? > > >> Because humans can be freely living without feeling to exert will. > > > We would have to exert the will to live that way in the first place. > > But it is not the result of the will (ask any spiritual teacher, you can't > will your way to enlightenment!). The feeling of will is just a by-product > of the self-reflective capability of indiviudals, so ultimately, there is no > reason to call the spontaneous activity of consciousness "free will". Not all of the spontaneous activity of consciousness is free will, but that doesn't mean that none of it is either. You may not be able to will your way to enlightenment but you can't get there without it either. You can try so much, and then give up, and then you may experience grace, but you won't get there by just eating donuts and playing video games either. The point of a spiritual teaching is to be align one's free will to the spiritual endeavor - a path to self development and refinement of the will. If there were no free will, there would be no need for spiritual teachers as those who were destined for enlightenment would not have to lift a finger, and those who are in the dark would be forever helpless to be taught anything. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.