AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

In response to Romansh's posts under "Knowledge and Illusion":-We had a pretty exhaustive discussion on this topic about 18 months ago. I objected then that your definition of free will as "the ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe" automatically defines free will out of existence, since NOTHING we know of is independent of the universe. I proposed an alternative definition, which I believe is far more in line with what most people understand by the term, and which leaves open the question of whether or not it exists: "an entity's conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints". These were 1) outside constraints imposed by the situation or by Nature, and 2) constraints affecting the decision-making process itself, such as heredity, upbringing, education, illness, accidents, chance encounters. I concluded this particular post (20 September 2010 at 12.04) with the following: "For me the question of free will is simply part of the even more complex one of identity [...] Just what is it that directs our minds to take decisions? Brain cells directing brain cells? Or the ghost in the machine?"-I agree with David that the question can only be resolved by discovering the source of consciousness, and since no-one knows what that is, I don't see how anyone can make a definitive statement either way.

5639 views

We had a pretty exhaustive discussion on this topic about 18 months ago. I objected then that your definition of free will as "the ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe" automatically defines free will out of existence, since NOTHING we know of is independent of the universe.
So you choosing a definition to give free will a sporting chance? Yes NOTHING is independent (at least as far as we can tell). So what tortuousnesss are you going to include.-> I proposed an alternative definition, which I believe is far more in line with what most people understand by the term, and which leaves open the question of whether or not it exists: "an entity's conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints".
Here you are defining one ineffable in terms of another. I disagree that something has to be conscious per se to be independentdent of the environment, though when we think about it, if it's nonsense for the unconscious why would it necessarily make any more sense for the conscious. Remember only a few lines ago you said NOTHING is independent, is that NOTHING except consciousness?-What on earth are given constraints? As opposed ungiven constraints?-> These were 1) outside constraints imposed by the situation or by Nature, 
OK what part of nature is not part of the environment or indeed the universe?-> and 2) constraints affecting the decision-making process itself, such as heredity, upbringing, education, illness, accidents, chance encounters.-I would also include body chemistry, biochemistry, physics, quantum mechanics/phenomena. -> I concluded this particular post (20 September 2010 at 12.04) with the following: "For me the question of free will is simply part of the even more complex one of identity [...] Just what is it that directs our minds to take decisions? Brain cells directing brain cells? Or the ghost in the machine?"-Here I agree with you. But if we can for the disentangle free will from self and consciousness and if we come to the conclusion we have no free will then we quickly see that self and consciousness are illusions too. We also see that disentangling these concepts were unnecessary as well.-The ghost in the machine is a fatuous argument. Either the ghost interacts with matter and therefore is measurable in some way (I'll be happy to hear of any evidence you have for this proposition!) or it does not interact then it is irrelevant.
 
> I agree with David that the question can only be resolved by discovering the source of consciousness, and since no-one knows what that is, I don't see how anyone can make a definitive statement either way.-That's nice. But the interesting thing is if we don't have free will, and consciousness and self are illusions what are the practical ramifications. Your default postion despite your admirable agnosticism seems, to me, to be on the side of free will. What are the causes for this?

5623 views

I object to Romansh's definition of free will as "the ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe". It defines free will out of existence, since NOTHING we know of is independent of the universe.
 
ROMANSH: So you choosing a definition to give free will a sporting chance? Yes NOTHING is independent (at least as far as we can tell). So what tortuousnesss are you going to include.-It's not tortuous. Our choices can't be "independent" of the things between which we are to choose, and all of these are part of the universe. If the menu offers raspberry jelly and apple crumble, my choice is not "independent" of them, but that doesn't mean I don't have the freedom to decide. (However, NB (2) below.)-Dhw: The definition I proposed leaves open the question of whether or not free will exists: "an entity's conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints".
 
ROMANSH: What on earth are given constraints? As opposed ungiven constraints?-"Given" is a philosophical term which counters the sceptical claim that we can know nothing. "Givens" are those things which non-sceptics argue we can be certain of. Without them, there is no point in discussing anything. In the above example, raspberry jelly and apple crumble are the givens. I can't change the items on the menu (= given constraint), but maybe I'm free to choose between them (NB (2) below).-Dhw (classifying the constraints): These were (1) outside constraints imposed by the situation or by Nature...
 
ROMANSH: OK what part of nature is not part of the environment or indeed the universe?-None. That is why I object to your definition. Examples of outside constraints: If I'm in prison (given), I can't choose to go to a football match (situation), but ... if I have free will ... I can choose whether to sing or scream in my cell. I don't have wings (given), so I can't choose to fly (Nature), but I can choose whether to walk or run.-DHW: (2) constraints affecting the decision-making process itself, such as heredity, upbringing, education, illness, accidents, chance encounters.-It's this category which makes free will so difficult to pin down. WHY do I choose raspberry jelly rather than apple crumble, to sing rather than scream, to run rather than walk? To what extent am I driven by inborn, ingrained, uncontrollable factors? Answer: I don't know.
 
Dhw: For me the question of free will is simply part of the even more complex one of identity [...] Just what is it that directs our minds to take decisions? Brain cells directing brain cells? Or the ghost in the machine?-ROMANSH: Here I agree with you. But if we can for the disentangle free will from self and consciousness and if we come to the conclusion we have no free will then we quickly see that self and consciousness are illusions too. We also see that disentangling these concepts were unnecessary as well.-Your "if" is precisely what we're trying to sort out! If we come to the conclusion that we do have free will, then we quickly see that self and consciousness are not an illusion. I don't see the point of these "ifs".-ROMANSH: The ghost in the machine is a fatuous argument. Either the ghost interacts with matter and therefore is measurable in some way (I'll be happy to hear of any evidence you have for this proposition!) or it does not interact then it is irrelevant.-Either we accept the materialist argument that the brain is the source of consciousness, or we allow for the possibility that there is some other form of energy (the "ghost in the machine") which uses the brain to transmit its signals. If you regard the latter as "fatuous", you have opted for the materialist explanation of consciousness. You are entitled to your beliefs. I prefer to wait for the evidence. Possible evidence for a non-material source (apart from all the mental processes we cannot explain, like ideas, emotions, memory etc.) goes back over thousands of years of so-called psychic experiences. We've spent many hours discussing near-death experiences in which patients have obtained information or witnessed events corroborated by independent third parties at a time when the brain was clinically dead. I take such experiences seriously. Maybe you don't. But I'm not coming down on either side. -Dhw: I agree with David that the question can only be resolved by discovering the source of consciousness, and since no-one knows what that is, I don't see how anyone can make a definitive statement either way.-ROMANSH: That's nice. But the interesting thing is if we don't have free will, and consciousness and self are illusions what are the practical ramifications. Your default postion despite your admirable agnosticism seems, to me, to be on the side of free will. What are the causes for this?-Another "if", but I agree that the practical ramifications are interesting. That hardly proves that the very idea of free will is "nonsense" or "fatuous". I have no default position. I'm putting the case for agnosticism against your apparently fixed position!

5700 views

I object to Romansh's definition of free will as "the ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe". It defines free will out of existence, since NOTHING we know of is independent of the universe.-This is not meant to avoid direct discussion with rom, but my observation of my enlightening conversation with him, which helped clarify my own thoughts, is his concept of interaction of chemical, electrical and quantum influences on our mental states. He ascribes some sort of primordial influence,which is hard for me to fathom. An organic chemical is totally inert. it must be placed in a living milieu full of interaction with other chemicals to show its own activity. A photon is a photon, is a photon. It is emitted by something, but from our standpoint, it takes intelligent input in experiment for it to do its thing. When it hits the eye, there is an enormous cascade of events, and I propose that what we 'see' is really what there is to be seen. There is too much rumination otherwise. The action spike a fraction of a second before we act is a sign of our intentionality preceding our consciousness. This comment is my conscious attempt to make a contributikon to this discussion. I intended to do it, and here it is, by my free will.

5615 views

I have objected to Romansh's definition of free will as "the ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe". It defines free will out of even the possibility of existence, since NOTHING we know of is independent of the universe (see below).-DAVID: This is not meant to avoid direct discussion with rom, but my observation of my enlightening conversation with him, which helped clarify my own thoughts, is his concept of interaction of chemical, electrical and quantum influences on our mental states. He ascribes some sort of primordial influence,which is hard for me to fathom. An organic chemical is totally inert. it must be placed in a living milieu full of interaction with other chemicals to show its own activity. A photon is a photon, is a photon. It is emitted by something, but from our standpoint, it takes intelligent input in experiment for it to do its thing. When it hits the eye, there is an enormous cascade of events, and I propose that what we 'see' is really what there is to be seen. There is too much rumination otherwise. The action spike a fraction of a second before we act is a sign of our intentionality preceding our consciousness. This comment is my conscious attempt to make a contribution to this discussion. I intended to do it, and here it is, by my free will.-Thank you, David. Your proposal that "what we 'see' is really what is there to be seen" is precisely my argument in the context of commonsense philosophy. However, in view of my earlier conversations with Romansh, this needs clarification. It doesn't mean that our interpretation of what we perceive is correct, but only that the object itself exists. For instance, there is an unusual shape in the water. X thinks it's the Loch Ness Monster, Y thinks it's a dolphin, and Z thinks it's a freak wave. The consensus is that there's an unusual shape in the water, so that is what X,Y and Z "know". And that is the "given". -As for free will, first of all we have to agree on what we mean by it! The universe encompasses everything, including the laws of Nature, the environment, our own body. And so according to Romansh's definition, if I have free will (= able to act independently of the universe), I should be able to fly, go swimming in the middle of the desert, or grow to be 20 ft tall. This is not what I mean by free will, and I doubt if it's what he means either, but that's why we have to be precise with definitions. I'd be interested to know if you and others agree with my own version: "an entity's conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints." -If we can agree on a definition, we can then discuss whether or not we do have that ability. Romansh's concept of interaction of chemical etc. influences would be one of my category (2) constraints. We don't know the extent to which our material cells and chemical processes ... or our upbringing, illnesses, education etc. ... determine our decisions. And we don't know whether brain cells give orders to other brain cells to make choices, because we don't know the source of consciousness. And so, since we don't know a damn thing, I take up my usual position on the picket fence!

5620 views

dhw: I'd be interested to know if you and others agree with my own version: "an entity's conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints." 
> 
> If we can agree on a definition, we can then discuss whether or not we do have that ability. Romansh's concept of interaction of chemical etc. influences would be one of my category (2) constraints. We don't know the extent to which our material cells and chemical processes ... or our upbringing, illnesses, education etc. ... determine our decisions. And we don't know whether brain cells give orders to other brain cells to make choices, because we don't know the source of consciousness. -Your definition is fine. The constraints IMHO are less than you think. Neurons do not have a mind of their own ( I like that pun). Libet aside, we learn to grow them and control them as childhood studies show. My pattern of connections and cell rowth in the brain is something that develops from my mental interests and habits of thought. I am thoroughly convinced we control our conscious thoughts and we are not unconsciously controlled by our own renegade neurons.

5599 views

DAVID: I am thoroughly convinced we control our conscious thoughts and we are not unconsciously controlled by our own renegade neurons.-The question that arises from this is WHAT (not who) IS (not are) "we"? If my identity is not forever bound to my physical self but can observe and communicate independently of my body, as in NDEs, what does it consist of? We use words like "soul" and "spirit" as if they conveyed something, but if this unknown form of energy really exists, how does it even come into being? Babies (BBella's illustration) already have recognizable traits of character very early on. Your latest post on "Epigenetics and life stress" (thank you) confirms that the identity is already being influenced before birth, both in humans and in mice. (Presumably, then, if we have souls, so do mice.) Does this mean the "unknown form of energy" is already present in the embryo, i.e. that physical conception somehow engenders the non-physical?-I see no way of separating will from consciousness from emotion from memory from imagination from identity...either they are all engendered by the chemicals in the brain or they are all engendered by a separate something which uses and works on the brain. David, you use the term "emergence" ... consciousness emerges from the brain. But if X emerges from Y, Y is the source. And so if "we" control our conscious thoughts, the source of "we" is the brain, which means the brain controls the brain. Otherwise, "emergence" can only mean that the brain produces and goes on producing an immaterial something which is independent of the brain and is able to control it! That's unimaginable. I find each theory ... material/spiritual ... just as hard to believe as the theories that chance created life, and a Universal Intelligence didn't need to be created but is just there. BBella, your perception was accurate, and I'm laughing too!

5578 views

"the ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe". It defines free will out of even the possibility of existence, since NOTHING we know of is independent of the universe (see below).-> As for free will, first of all we have to agree on what we mean by it! -I AGREE to your definition! It fits the way I see free will [example]--> A baby in a baby crib with a multitude of toys and a bottle. The baby only has the choices of what to do given his constraints: age, ability, hunger, tiredness, etc.-> ...We don't know the extent to which our material cells and chemical processes ... or our upbringing, illnesses, education etc. ... determine our decisions. And we don't know whether brain cells give orders to other brain cells to make choices, because we don't know the source of consciousness. And so, since we don't know a damn thing, I take up my usual position on the picket fence!-"My" perception of frustration in your voice here made me giggle. lol! -bb

5558 views

dhw,
Romansh,-"Does free will exist?"-I think that free will exists, but I also think for most people it is an illusion.-What do I mean?-These past weeks I've been meditating more and more. What I notice has scared me--and has also been the source of some anxiety as the experience has been challenging my perspectives on the world--oddly in a negative light. -The key idea is this:-The beginning of Buddhist meditation, concentrates on nothing more than sitting still, and continuously bringing your concentration to your breathing. This simple task is the most insanely difficult task I've ever had to do. -Why? Your mind never stops! It doesn't like to be controlled. The fact that it is so difficult to obtain exclusive control of your thoughts is truly a frightening idea. -This has lead me to reconsider Dennett's view on free will--as illusion yet again. -(I like Romansh's distinction of delusion and illusion.) -If we're only capable of controlling our minds for narrow gaps... then this necessarily means that most of the time, we're NOT in active control. Not in the way we think we are. It means our subconscious likely has much more to say about how we act than we think we do. Free will is really a "gate." And really... all this gate does (for most people, most of the time) is say "no" to certain kinds of actions. Otherwise, you just keep right on doing whatever filters into your mind.-We don't need to know about consciousness in the abstract to be able to answer the question about free will. All you need to do is observe your mind in action, and think about what it is that you find. -For the record: Free will as in the classical Western paradigm "We are free to do whatever we want" as a necessary condition to being a human is what I'm calling illusory. We're less free than we think, definitely less free than we'd like to be... but I think its something very much like a muscle... you can exercise it and make it stronger.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5699 views

"Does free will exist?".......
> The beginning of Buddhist meditation, concentrates on nothing more than sitting still, and continuously bringing your concentration to your breathing. This simple task is the most insanely difficult task I've ever had to do. 
> 
> Why? Your mind never stops! It doesn't like to be controlled.-Matt, I've been meditating for years and have a slightly different perspective on the mind and it's workings than you stated above ... thought I'd share.-To me, it's not the mind that never stops, it's the thought process that doesn't stop. I think of the two separately. The mind or mindfield/space is where the thought enters to be observed by your observer (the actual you). You, as the observer, can choose to follow the thought as it enters your mindfield...or not. So, for me, it's not that "it doesn't like to be controlled", as if thought has a mind of it's own..lol, it's that thought can't be controlled. Only what you choose to focus on can be controlled. -Also, you may know this, but I focus on the movement of breath in the area beneath my heart and not around my face, etc. Doing this brings the focus away from the mindfield and gives it a "place" to focus. ->The fact that it is so difficult to obtain exclusive control of your thoughts is truly a frightening idea.-I believe it's not just difficult, it's impossible to control thought. But it is possible to control what you choose to observe/focus on. If you choose to focus on a thought and then follow it where ever it leads, that thought has exclusive control over you (which can be a truly frightening idea!) until you choose to focus on something else. I think of thought like a radio wave and your focus as a receiver. If you choose to focus on something else the thought continues on it's way, into the ether. -For me, the trick is not to be busy trying to obtain control over the air space of the mindfield (which is where thoughts flow thru and which is impossible), but to practice "choosing" what to focus on or what to observe - like focusing on breathing, family life, school, etc. The more you control your choice of what to focus on, the less thought is attracted to your mindspace. ->We're less free than we think, definitely less free than we'd like to be... but I think its something very much like a muscle... you can exercise it and make it stronger.-Maybe the question to ask isnt "if" we have free will but "what" do we have free will of? We are not free to control thought or to control the space of the mindfield. But we do have free will to choose what to focus on.-Just lending a slightly different perspective.-bb

5590 views

BBella,-> >The fact that it is so difficult to obtain exclusive control of your thoughts is truly a frightening idea.
> 
> I believe it's not just difficult, it's impossible to control thought. But it is possible to control what you choose to observe/focus on. If you choose to focus on a thought and then follow it where ever it leads, that thought has exclusive control over you (which can be a truly frightening idea!) until you choose to focus on something else. I think of thought like a radio wave and your focus as a receiver. If you choose to focus on something else the thought continues on it's way, into the ether. 
> -The frightening part of the experience is exactly what I've highlighted in red. It is so easy to not realize that you're caught in the thought, and every time it happens its as if I'm "waking up" while awake. -Then I consider the fact that most people I don't think ever think about the fact that they do this, that most people are completely absorbed in their thoughts most of the time. -> For me, the trick is not to be busy trying to obtain control over the air space of the mindfield (which is where thoughts flow thru and which is impossible), but to practice "choosing" what to focus on or what to observe - like focusing on breathing, family life, school, etc. The more you control your choice of what to focus on, the less thought is attracted to your mindspace. 
> -I've seen this two different ways: Thich Nhat Hanh and other contemporaries have an approach similar to what you discuss here, but I've lately been working with a different book that is applying the "when you catch yourself thinking, stop, and go back to breathing." Most Zen is more like what you say--observe only, don't interfere. This technique is much more "hands on" if you will.-Perhaps the exercise is designed to make the practitioner realize the difficulty, but its certainly made me acutely aware of how often I derail. -> >We're less free than we think, definitely less free than we'd like to be... but I think its something very much like a muscle... you can exercise it and make it stronger.
> 
> Maybe the question to ask isnt "if" we have free will but "what" do we have free will of? We are not free to control thought or to control the space of the mindfield. But we do have free will to choose what to focus on.
> 
> Just lending a slightly different perspective.
> 
> bb-I agree: But its a severely limited free will when you take into consideration that it takes a great deal of exercise in order to 'master' the ability to be able to choose. No one has 'unfettered' free will...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5548 views

BBella,
> 
> [Matt] The fact that it is so difficult to obtain exclusive control of your thoughts is truly a frightening idea.
> > 
> [bb] I believe it's not just difficult, it's impossible to control thought. But it is possible to control what you choose to observe/focus on. If you choose to focus on a thought and then follow it where ever it leads, that thought has exclusive control over you (which can be a truly frightening idea!) until you choose to focus on something else. I think of thought like a radio wave and your focus as a receiver. If you choose to focus on something else the thought continues on it's way, into the ether. 
> 
>[Matt] The frightening part of the experience is exactly what I've highlighted in red. It is so easy to not realize that you're caught in the thought, and every time it happens its as if I'm "waking up" while awake.-Right, I agree. And is the reason so many people "wake up" from being caught in following a thought into tragic situations and then says, I can't believe I did that! What was I thinking? But, at least "you" now are coming to this realization and so can practice becoming aware of thought, breathing, and growing your "free" will to focus on what you choose. 
 
> Then I consider the fact that most people I don't think ever think about the fact that they do this, that most people are completely absorbed in their thoughts most of the time.-That is true, but more people are becoming aware of the value of mediation, more for health reasons at this time (here in the states), but who cares why, it's just good that people are becoming more aware of their need to gain control of their focus. 
 
>[bb] For me, the trick is not to be busy trying to obtain control over the air space of the mindfield (which is where thoughts flow thru and which is impossible), but to practice "choosing" what to focus on or what to observe - like focusing on breathing, family life, school, etc. The more you control your choice of what to focus on, the less thought is attracted to your mindspace. -> [matt] I've seen this two different ways: Thich Nhat Hanh and other contemporaries have an approach similar to what you discuss here, but I've lately been working with a different book that is applying the "when you catch yourself thinking, stop, and go back to breathing." Most Zen is more like what you say--observe only, don't interfere. This technique is much more "hands on" if you will.-Thru my time of learning to gain control of my focus I've also grown a number of my own tools in coping with the procession of thought that has brought the procession down to a minimum...sometimes very long times of silence in the mindfield (true peace for me). Focusing on the lower register below my heart as I breathed when I became aware I was following a thought, was the first way I began to grow my ability to focus away from thought, gaining control of my focus. Eventually I created my own methods that helped me not just avert away from the thought but to meet the thought head on and change it to my own will. -> 
> Perhaps the exercise is designed to make the practitioner realize the difficulty, but its certainly made me acutely aware of how often I derail.-No doubt the exercise definitely helps us to become aware of our lack of control (derailing) over a part of ourselves that most people believe they do have control over. And simultaneously, the exercise gives us knowledge of one thing we do "own" that we can control with our free will...what to focus on.
 
> 
> [Matt] We're less free than we think, definitely less free than we'd like to be... but I think its something very much like a muscle... you can exercise it and make it stronger.
> > 
> [bb] Maybe the question to ask isnt "if" we have free will but "what" do we have free will of? We are not free to control thought or to control the space of the mindfield. But we do have free will to choose what to focus on.->I agree: But its a severely limited free will when you take into consideration that it takes a great deal of exercise in order to 'master' the ability to be able to choose. -We exercise choosing what to focus on a million times or more a day (just a guesstimation), we're just not aware we are choosing. Meditation helps us slow down the whole process of choice to make better choices ...gaining more of a sense of free will maybe? ->No one has 'unfettered' free will...-In light of our conversation, I'm not sure what you mean by the statement above?

5579 views

MATT: We don't need to know about consciousness in the abstract to be able to answer the question about free will. -MATT: ...it is so difficult to obtain exclusive control of your thoughts [...] If we're only capable of controlling our minds for narrow gaps... then this necessarily means that most of the time, we're NOT in active control. Not in the way we think we are. It means our subconscious likely has much more to say about how we act than we think we do. Free will is really a "gate." And really... all this gate does (for most people, most of the time) is say "no" to certain kinds of actions. Otherwise, you just keep right on doing whatever filters into your mind. [I've juggled the quotes.]-I'd also include the times your talking gate says "yes", but free will in my view has nothing whatsoever to do with controlling your thoughts, unless you want to do that as part of your Buddhist exercises. As I define it ("an entity's conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints") free will only comes into play when decisions are to be made. If there is no conflict (I feel like going for a walk, so I do), the decision itself is conscious, even if influenced by subconscious forces, but we may not be conscious that we are exercising free will. The extra layer of awareness will probably only come into play if there are problems affecting our choice. I feel like going for a walk, but my wife wants me to mow the lawn. Then I consciously weigh the pleasure of a leisurely stroll against the pleasure of pleasing my wife (or the displeasure of displeasing my wife) and I take my decision: I mow the lawn! Similarly, we do not control our desires, we only control whether we give in to our desires. I consciously decide to eat my piece of chocolate ... free will in operation, but no problem, so no conscious effort to overcome the desire. My weight shoots up, and so I consciously decide not to eat any chocolate till my weight comes down again. (I actually do this. Honest!) That is where the will comes into conscious play. I agree with you that it is like a muscle, and theoretically I could even will myself out of the desire to eat chocolate ... though not today of course! In other words, there are different levels at which free will operates, but it always involves conscious decisions. The question remains as to how far those decisions themselves are influenced by factors outside our control (the interaction between our genes, our upbringing, our state of health etc.), and that is why I don't know how free our will really is.-******* -I drafted this before reading BBella's extremely revealing thoughts on meditation. She has hit the nail bang on the head: "...thought can't be controlled. Only what you choose to focus on can be controlled."

5552 views

Bella, But it is possible to control what you choose to observe/focus on.
Is choosing what to control a thought?-Matt, I'll post Blackmore's first zen question again now that you have taken up the practice of meditation - does it ring any truer now. I felt Blackmore was dismissed out of hand last time I posted this link.-http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/Tenzen/question1.htm-congratulations by the way.-rom

5574 views

Bella, But it is possible to control what you choose to observe/focus on.
> Is choosing what to control a thought?
> 
> Matt, I'll post Blackmore's first zen question again now that you have taken up the practice of meditation - does it ring any truer now. I felt Blackmore was dismissed out of hand last time I posted this link.
> 
> http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/Tenzen/question1.htm
> 
> congratulations by the way.
> 
> rom-Rom: I'm the guy who dismissed her out of hand. I have carefully read her book Dying to Live. Her attempt to debunk Pam Reynold's story was a sophomoric muddle. She has no understanding of medical physiology, and is just selling herself as a half-assed skeptic in that book. Michael Sabom's (M.D.)account is quite clear, taken from his book. She may have other reasonable qualities re meditation to which you are referring, but I have a terribly bad taste in my mouth about her, from my experience in reading her book.-http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

5582 views

Bella, But it is possible to control what you choose to observe/focus on.-> Is choosing what to control a thought?-Rom, 
I'm not sure what you are asking (and not sure you are asking me)? Can you expand on the question or ask it another way?-> Matt, I'll post Blackmore's first zen question again now that you have taken up the practice of meditation - does it ring any truer now. I felt Blackmore was dismissed out of hand last time I posted this link.
> 
> http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/Tenzen/question1.htm
> 
> congratulations by the way.
> 
> rom-Re: the article above: I've read many experiences like what this article goes into...(i've expressed my own experience thru poetry), and most seem to express it differently with some similarities. But, it seems to me, for the most part, what they all seem to have in common is the act of re-cognizing, re-membering, re-I(eye)-dentifying with the observer within. -Just my take. 
bb

5473 views

ROMANSH: Bella, But it is possible to control what you choose to observe/focus on.
Is choosing what to control a thought?-BBELLA: I'm not sure what you are asking (and not sure you are asking me)? Can you expand on the question or ask it another way?-I am equally baffled, as your post was addressed to me. In my own post of 27 February I thought I'd answered all your questions concerning my definition of free will and was hoping to hear that you'd discarded your own! I later quoted BBella's admirable summing up, concerning meditation: "Thought can't be controlled. Only what you choose to focus on can be controlled." I regard that as valid in the more general context of the will, but the question of whether it's "free" still remains an open one for me, as I don't know to what extent my decisions are influenced by factors outside my control. But I had hoped that all this was clear from my earlier post.-Susan Blackmore's piece seems as superficial to me now as it did first time round. I expect most of us realized even when we were in our teens that there are different levels of consciousness, and that is indeed a source of sheer wonderment (how the heck could cells in the brain be aware of being aware?) ... but her article makes it seem as if she has never previously been aware of this fact!-However, it's not irrelevant to our discussion on free will. If we begin, say, with a desire that springs from the unconscious (BBella's "thought"), the first level will be our awareness of that desire. Then comes the decision as to whether or not we should give in to it. It's at this level of consciousness that the will comes into play, especially if it involves sacrifice: we make a conscious decision within the given constraints. Then comes our awareness of the fact that we are consciously making decisions, and so on.
 
Incidentally (nothing to do with free will), awareness of awareness can be extremely damaging. It's quite deadly, for instance, if you're an actor. You're playing a part. You're aware that you're playing a part (and you're aware of the other characters and the audience), but the moment you step outside yourself and become aware that you're aware that you're playing a part, you lose all naturalness. The audience will sense this, and you'll be looking for another job. The same process applies if you're walking down the street. You know you're walking down the street, but the moment someone turns a film camera on you, you'll be aware of being aware that you're walking down the street, and you may well forget how to walk naturally. For highly introvert people, the danger is that they will lose all spontaneity. I don't know why Susan Blackmore should think she's discovered something unusual, but I hope her students will learn to control how they switch from one level to another.

5595 views

I expect most of us realized even when we were in our teens that there are different levels of consciousness, and that is indeed a source of sheer wonderment (how the heck could cells in the brain be aware of being aware?) ... but her article makes it seem as if she has never previously been aware of this fact!-I find it very believable that she had just became aware of this fact, because I myself did not become aware of it until my early to mid forties. And, I know many people that have still yet to become aware of it, and a few I know are just becoming aware of it at an even older age than I did.-> Incidentally (nothing to do with free will), awareness of awareness can be extremely damaging. It's quite deadly, for instance, if you're an actor. You're playing a part. You're aware that you're playing a part (and you're aware of the other characters and the audience), but the moment you step outside yourself and become aware that you're aware that you're playing a part, you lose all naturalness. The audience will sense this, and you'll be looking for another job. -I understand where you are coming from, as it is imperative for an actor to stay within the mode of the character, but not sure what you mean by "deadly?" Maybe you mean deadly for his job. But the awareness you are speaking of above sounds to me more of a self-consciousness, which isn't what I feel we have been discussing, and what doesn't seem to me to be what she is referencing. I could be wrong though. -> The same process applies if you're walking down the street. You know you're walking down the street, but the moment someone turns a film camera on you, you'll be aware of being aware that you're walking down the street, and you may well forget how to walk naturally. For highly introvert people, the danger is that they will lose all spontaneity. I don't know why Susan Blackmore should think she's discovered something unusual, but I hope her students will learn to control how they switch from one level to another.-I'm wondering if there isn't a confusion about just what's being discussed in this article and what we were discussing before. For me, when I identify with the observe within, I do not become self-conscious and begin to act unnaturally. I feel I actually become more natural. I don't know.-bb

5540 views

Science to the rescue. All the studies are over-hyped by the press and by the scientists. All PET and fMRI scans do is study blood flow. Neuron networks, no way!!! Results are horse excrement, is my ranch comment (or raunch comment, if you wish). Free will is like Powell's comment on pornography in our supreme court: I know it when I see it; in this case I know it when I feel it. Anti-free-will screes are materialistic attempts to get rid of the designer:-http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/neurons-v-free-will

5542 views

Science to the rescue. All the studies are over-hyped by the press and by the scientists. All PET and fMRI scans do is study blood flow. Neuron networks, no way!!! Results are horse excrement, is my ranch comment (or raunch comment, if you wish). Free will is like Powell's comment on pornography in our supreme court: I know it when I see it; in this case I know it when I feel it. Anti-free-will screes are materialistic attempts to get rid of the designer:
> 
> http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/neurons-v-free-will-A more optimistic view:-http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/04/25/does-brain-scanning-show-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/

5399 views

Another important negative viewpoint. An area may light up but for multiple psychological reasons:-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304537904577277760260276148.html

5463 views

Another important negative viewpoint. An area may light up but for multiple psychological reasons:
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304537904577277760260276148.html-Raymond Tallis and I approve of this:-http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/09/3499101.htm -A philosopher reminds. Brain scans are a bit of the real human brain being scanned, a tiny bit.

5500 views

DAVID: Raymond Tallis and I approve of this:-http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/09/3499101.htm
 
A philosopher reminds. Brain scans are a bit of the real human brain being scanned, a tiny bit.-Interesting article, much of it in line with our own arguments about areas of human experience that science is not equipped to handle. But why does Scruton attack the "homunculus fallacy", or "the soul, the mind, the self, the inner entity that thinks and sees and feels and is the real me inside"? Apparently it's profoundly misleading to say consciousness "is a feature of the brain, and not of the person", so if he thinks consciousness is not the product of the brain, what's the difference between the "person" as opposed to the "real me inside"? 
 
If one day, as Matt has indicated so often, humans succeed in building an artificial brain with our capacity for sentience, empathy, reason, creativity etc., there will be a strong case for the brain being the source and not the receiver of consciousness. Until then, scientists and philosophers can only cling to their particular faith, or go on speculating.-On this subject, there was an article in the Guardian the other day on the connectome search, which either David or Matt drew our attention to a while back. Jeff Lichtman and his Harvard team have set out to map the wiring of the 85 billion neurons, each of which "forms 10,000 connections, through synapses with other nerve cells. Altogether Lichtman estimates that there are between 100 tn and 1000 tn connections between neurons." The brain is made of "thousands of specific types of brain cell that look and behave differently." The ultimate object is to "lay bare the biological side of our personalities, memories, skills and susceptibilities. Somewhere in our brains is who we are."-We've seen these staggering figures before, but they're worth repeating if only to emphasize the "intelligence" ... I'm gaining confidence in this concept! ... of the cells that have put themselves together, and the difficulty of accepting that even the most rudimentary (cellular) intelligence could have arisen spontaneously in the first place from non-living material. (As difficult to accept as the idea that an infinitely greater intelligence is simply there without ever having arisen from anywhere.)-I find this ongoing connectome project immensely exciting, and a credit to humankind in its quest to find out about itself and, by extension, about the rest of life. Eventually I'm sure there will be a map. Whether it will reveal the source of consciousness and identity, and whether it will lead to a fully functional artificial brain, is of course another matter, and at this stage I don't see how anyone can claim that the biological side of our personalities actually is or is not "what we are". I would hope that Scruton, Tallis and Turell are equally excited and open-minded, even if all of us and Lichtman himself are unlikely to see the outcome!

5587 views


> On this subject, there was an article in the Guardian the other day on the connectome search, which either David or Matt drew our attention to a while back. Jeff Lichtman and his Harvard team have set out to map the wiring of the 85 billion neurons, each of which "forms 10,000 connections, through synapses with other nerve cells. Altogether Lichtman estimates that there are between 100 tn and 1000 tn connections between neurons." The brain is made of "thousands of specific types of brain cell that look and behave differently." The ultimate object is to "lay bare the biological side of our personalities, memories, skills and susceptibilities. Somewhere in our brains is who we are."
> 
> We've seen these staggering figures before, but they're worth repeating if only to emphasize the "intelligence" ... I'm gaining confidence in this concept! ... of the cells that have put themselves together, and the difficulty of accepting that even the most rudimentary (cellular) intelligence could have arisen spontaneously in the first place from non-living material.-Glial cells have functions adding to the complexity of brain function: five types or more and may even convert to neurons!.-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2012/05/18/know-your-neurons-meet-the-glia/?WT_mc_id=SA_DD_20120518

5442 views


> If one day, as Matt has indicated so often, humans succeed in building an artificial brain with our capacity for sentience, empathy, reason, creativity etc., there will be a strong case for the brain being the source and not the receiver of consciousness. Until then, scientists and philosophers can only cling to their particular faith, or go on speculating.
The brain is made of "thousands of specific types of brain cell that look and behave differently." The ultimate object is to "lay bare the biological side of our personalities, memories, skills and susceptibilities. Somewhere in our brains is who we are."-
All dino farts. This brain scan article shows dead fish have NDE's!-http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/may/27/brain-scans-flaws-vaughan-bell-Great article on the limitations which are humongous. Much of what we read is hyper-hype hyped to the enth degree.

5477 views

Raymond Tallis says of Libet: "Libet's experiment illustrates how the (neuro)-determinist case against freedom is based on a very distorted conception of what constitutes an action in everyday life." pg. 249. This new book bases its conclusions in large part on Libet.-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mind-reviews-the-self-illusion&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_MB_20120620-I'll bet on Tallis every time.

5607 views

Looks like a good book there David, and by the looks of it Tallis does not get much of a mention.-What were Hood's arguments against Tallis's position?

5558 views

More fMRI hype: Too many conclusions from blood flow studies:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120801154716.htm

5535 views

BBELLA: I'm wondering if there isn't a confusion about just what's being discussed in this article and what we were discussing before. For me, when I identify with the observe within, I do not become self-conscious and begin to act unnaturally. I feel I actually become more natural. I don't know.-Our original discussion was on free will, but then you and Matt began to swap notes on meditation, and Romansh revived the Susan Blackmore article, which seems to me nothing but a series of reflections on different levels of consciousness, though she doesn't even mention levels. She only talks of being "conscious", or "fully aware", and ends up not knowing whether she is / has been "conscious" or not. Conscious of what? Presumably of being conscious. But I'm not sure myself what she's actually trying to say, and would be interested to know what you think she's getting at. -You wrote earlier: "Thought can't be controlled. Only what you choose to focus on can be controlled." That is not only an insight into the possible nature of free will (if it exists), but also sums up the targeted nature of your own thinking about consciousness. I can't see any such focus in the Blackmore article. I see nothing there except a pointless reiteration of the fact that she doesn't know how conscious she is.
 
My own further reflections were not about her article as such, but about the dangers of too much self-awareness. Self-conscious is a good expression here, because it entails awareness of the self combined with insecurity and even embarrassment. (I'm afraid I also find Susan Blackmore's style embarrassingly self-conscious, but that is a matter of taste.) My use of "deadly" was indeed a reference to the actor's career, but I think that is a very good example both of levels and of the problem of excessive self-awareness. I'd put this on a par with what I've called the philosophical level of thinking, which leads to a similar loss of security ... nothing is certain, nothing is real. If Susan Blackmore's students run around wondering whether they are conscious or not, they will end up not perceiving objects but only perceiving themselves perceiving objects. However, perhaps I really have misunderstood the whole piece.
 
*******-I've just read the free will article David has pointed out to us, and also some of the (mainly sceptical) comments. One (Matthew Bowen) argues that there is no space left for free will without recourse to the supernatural (e.g. dualism). "Supernatural" is a term I'd like to see abolished, since none of us know the full extent of what is natural. In any case, since when has the case for materialism been proven?

5577 views

One (Matthew Bowen) argues that there is no space left for free will without recourse to the supernatural (e.g. dualism). "Supernatural" is a term I'd like to see abolished, since none of us know the full extent of what is natural. In any case, since when has the case for materialism been proven? -It hasn't. I'm just reviewing Tallis, Aping Mankind and he agrees. I love his terms, Darwinitis, Neuromania, and others. He is strong support for Adler. Substitute what for 'supernatural'?

5468 views

DHW: "Supernatural" is a term I'd like to see abolished, since none of us know the full extent of what is natural. -DAVID: Substitute what for 'supernatural'?-How about 'immaterial'? That is the basis of mind-and-matter dualism.

5481 views

..Romansh revived the Susan Blackmore article, which seems to me nothing but a series of reflections on different levels of consciousness...But I'm not sure myself what she's actually trying to say, and would be interested to know what you think she's getting at. -I could be wrong, but what I gathered from her article, or rather identified with her experience of "becoming conscious", was the act of awakening from identifying with mind chatter. The realization I am not the chatter but have been abducted by it, so to speak. For me, I described it myself as an awakening. I had no guidance on this...it just happened. It was as if my ears and eyes were suddenly turned outward instead of stuck inward. Of course, I could see and hear before, but before my "awakening", what was going on inside my "mindfield" took precedence and colored everything subjectively that I witnessed outside myself in a very intrusive and debilitating way. My focus was out of control and what was going on in my mindfield controlled me. -> You wrote earlier: "Thought can't be controlled. Only what you choose to focus on can be controlled." That is not only an insight into the possible nature of free will (if it exists), but also sums up the targeted nature of your own thinking about consciousness. I can't see any such focus in the Blackmore article. I see nothing there except a pointless reiteration of the fact that she doesn't know how conscious she is.-Susan's article appears to me to be just a fragment of her experience. In reading it, this part of her experience sounds to me like she is expressing "how" she became aware of her own ability to control her focus. We express our experience's in different ways. She recognized, that by choosing to direct her focus from inside her mind to outside herself, a change came over her. She suddenly felt as though she had just become aware/conscious of everything around her in a new way (without her incessant subjective mind perception). Which made her feel as if she had become a different/brand new person. This is why I stated, when I am conscious I feel more like myself (my right now self). When I am caught within my mind chatter...I feel more like whatever "old" paradigm of thought process I had been translated to before I was conscious/aware. 
 
> My own further reflections were not about her article as such, but about the dangers of too much self-awareness. Self-conscious is a good expression here, because it entails awareness of the self combined with insecurity and even embarrassment. -To me, self-consciousness is more times than not a negative action (I'm sure it has a positive action too). I see self-consciousness as suddenly identifying at any given moment with our most "vulnerable" thought/picture/etc identification of ourselves. As if, in one moment, we are suddenly abducted from what's going on outside ourselves ourselves into our mindfield watching/hearing a certain circling, usually, negative film of ourselves. These moments usually happen in "public" for most people. This is how I see self-consciousness.->(I'm afraid I also find Susan Blackmore's style embarrassingly self-conscious, but that is a matter of taste.) My use of "deadly" was indeed a reference to the actor's career, but I think that is a very good example both of levels and of the problem of excessive self-awareness.-I can see how self-consciousness would definitely get in the way of an actor's career, and even stop it in it's tracks (until they get some therapy anyway). But, to me, there would be no danger of an actor losing their job by becoming excessively self-aware (the word excessively can't even pertain to awareness, you either are or aren't). I think self awareness would make a person a better actor. Mind chatter (circling vultures I call it) would no longer be in control of their focus. Self-awareness takes you outside mind chatter. Self-consciousness drags you back in. ->I'd put this on a par with what I've called the philosophical level of thinking, which leads to a similar loss of security ... nothing is certain, nothing is real.-Not sure what you meant here. ->If Susan Blackmore's students run around wondering whether they are conscious or not, they will end up not perceiving objects but only perceiving themselves perceiving objects. However, perhaps I really have misunderstood the whole piece.-It sounds to me like you have misunderstood it, or have it backwards. I could be wrong. The way I see it, becoming conscious makes your perception more aware of your surroundings, therefore more objective of it(because your focus is outside the mind). Her act of asking herself, "Am I conscious?" is a reminder to step out of the mind and into this world fully objective, without the subjective perception of mind chatter. It's like setting your clock to remind you to pick up the kids. Whatever you are thinking or doing when the clock goes off, you drop and put all your focus on one thing...picking up the kids. Susan is giving her students a "trigger" question to wake them up from the mind chatter, directing their focus outward. -Hope this is not even more confusing...-bb

5507 views

Romansh drew our attention to an article by Susan Blackmore on:-http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/Tenzen/question1.htm-In this she asks repeatedly whether she is conscious, tries to make her students ask the same question, has difficulty pinning down the reality of time, and concludes:
 
Years pass.
Am I conscious now? No I'm not. 
What?
I realise for the first time that I can answer "No". What if this slippery, difficult, not quite being really here, is not being conscious, and I should have been answering "no" all along? 
Is this the same as looking into the darkness? 
Is there any light?-She doesn't actually tell us what she's supposed to be conscious of, and all I can get from this is the fact that she hadn't realized there are different levels of consciousness. BBella, however, sees the article as the record of a profound awakening, of how "she became aware of her own ability to control her focus." I find no focus at all ... only the question whether she is or isn't conscious.-I'd very much like to know what Romansh himself and others make of it, and especially of the above conclusion. Meanwhile, BBella's post raises some interesting questions. For me the key is a parenthesis in which you wrote: "the word excessively can't even pertain to awareness, you either are or aren't". This "either/or" eliminates the idea that there are different degrees or levels of consciousness. I'd say an animal or small child is aware of its surroundings, its needs, and even the means required to get its needs. I doubt if an animal or a small child is aware of all the alternatives (including renouncing its needs), or of the processes involved in making its decisions, or of the very FACT that it's making decisions. So my first problem with your argument is that I do not see awareness as an either/or but as a matter of degrees and levels.-Our second disagreement is over my contention that excessive self-awareness can lead to a damaging loss of spontaneity. Once the actor begins to watch himself (self-conscious in both senses), he will cease to act convincingly. Another classic example is in sport. The moment you start to watch yourself and worry about whether your feet are in the right position, you're holding the bat/ racket/ball correctly etc., you will lose confidence and your play will suffer. There is a degree of consciousness that simply has to be eliminated if you are to succeed on the stage or on the sportsfield, and I'd go so far as to say that excessive self-awareness destroys confidence, and can even ruin relationships. You didn't understand what I meant when I compared this to the "philosophical" (as opposed to commonsense) level of thought, on which nothing is real or certain, but the point of the comparison is that your own identity becomes unreal and uncertain if you think too much about it (= excessive self-awareness). I'm sure there must be at least one person you know who has problems relating to himself/herself and to others because of too much self-analysis.-The third point is your belief that "becoming conscious makes your perception more aware of your surroundings, therefore more objective of it (because your focus is outside the mind)." I'd say that if you were not conscious, you would have no perception of your surroundings (discounting psychic experiences such as NDEs), and the terms "conscious" and "aware" are synonymous here; to say that becoming MORE conscious makes your perception more aware, would be true but tautological. However, at least your "more aware" acknowledges that there is no either/or, but there are instead degrees! As for "more objective", I don't think perception of our surroundings can ever be anything but subjective, though a greater degree of FOCUSED consciousness will make us more perceptive of what we are focusing on. (I would also point out that one level of consciousness is that which tells me that my perception is subjective ... a level which I suspect you won't find in animals and small children.) This may well be the point at which we are actually in agreement but are simply interpreting "awareness" differently. Focusing, in the examples I have given, entails deliberately shutting out the layer of consciousness that makes us aware of ourselves perceiving, so that we get on with the job of perceiving (or acting, or playing, or dealing with people). That requires control ... yet another layer, which involves the will, free or not. You wrote: "My focus was out of control and what was going on in my mindfield controlled me." Of course I don't know what exactly was in your "mindfield", but if it interfered with your focus, I suspect that it's what I call excessive self-awareness.

5585 views

This may well be the point at which we are actually in agreement but are simply interpreting "awareness" differently. Focusing, in the examples I have given, entails deliberately shutting out the layer of consciousness that makes us aware of ourselves perceiving, so that we get on with the job of perceiving (or acting, or playing, or dealing with people). That requires control ... yet another layer, which involves the will, free or not. You wrote: "My focus was out of control and what was going on in my mindfield controlled me." Of course I don't know what exactly was in your "mindfield", but if it interfered with your focus, I suspect that it's what I call excessive self-awareness.-How much awareness and self-awareness you have is an issue of consciousness, not truly free will the headline of this discussion. Libet aside, because I think he is simply showing pre-potentials, and his subjects really did decide to push the button, the following is a review article of three books, and makes more sense to me than anything I've read. -It may be that each brain neuron has ten thousand proteins doing their things independently of 'me', but at some point I do the 'doing'. Our body is an autonomous beast: if I had to think to breathe, to pump my blood, to orchestrate the salt levels in my urine, I wouldn't have time for fun discussions as on this site. We have an autonomic nerve system along with our wonderful conscoiusness. It is important to the materialist atheists that we don't have free will and consciousness is an illusion. If Dawkins has to admit that I am right, he has to accept theism. He said so himself.-http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/caa4f212-688b-11e1-a6cc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1ooz4nFYi

5583 views

Romansh drew our attention to an article by Susan Blackmore on:
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/Tenzen/question1.htm
In this she asks repeatedly whether she is conscious, tries to make her students ask the same question, has difficulty pinning down the reality of time, and concludes:->Years pass.
Am I conscious now? No I'm not. 
What?
I realise for the first time that I can answer "No". What if this slippery, difficult, not quite being really here, is not being conscious, and I should have been answering "no" all along? 
Is this the same as looking into the darkness? 
Is there any light?->[dhw] She doesn't actually tell us what she's supposed to be conscious of, and all I can get from this is the fact that she hadn't realized there are different levels of consciousness. -She concludes that all this time of asking the question, Am I conscious now?, she now realizes that "now" cannot be 
pinned down to a moment. When she witnesses "being" fully consciousness, there is no now. Only a fleeting blur of 
change. So, she realizes that all along she should have been answering "no" to the question, Am I conscious "now"? 
since there is no now. Her 2 questions at the end are philosophical questions about what it was she witnessed being 
fully conscious. -That probably won't clear anything up, and as for the rest of the post below, I think we are viewing consciousness/awareness from two different angles or maybe different definitions. But we can try and find a way to bring our angles closer together. Maybe it can be solved with definition.->BBella, however, sees the article as the record of a profound awakening, of how "she became aware of her own ability to control her focus." I find no focus at all ... only the question whether she is or isn't conscious.-As I mentioned before, we all express our experience differently. I usually express more analytically detailed where hers seems to be less. By asking the question, she has found her ability to turn her focus (ears/eyes/senses) 
from watching the mind film inside, etc, to watching the life film outside. She is witnessing, so to speak, without judgment (mind chatter). ->BBella's post raises some interesting questions. For me the key is a parenthesis in which you wrote: "the word excessively can't even pertain to awareness, you either are or aren't". This "either/or" eliminates the idea that there are different degrees or levels of consciousness.-This is why I say we are/may be looking at this from two different angles. Yes, there definitely are different levels of consciousness but, to me, different levels of consciousnesses (inside the mind) isn't what this article or I have been talking about. But, from your angle, I do see how you are seeing leaving the "mind chatter/film" behind and observing outside us is a level of consciousness. ->I'd say an animal or small child is aware of its surroundings, its needs, and even the means required to get its needs. I doubt if an animal or a small child is aware of all the alternatives (including renouncing its needs), or of the processes involved in making its decisions, or of the very FACT that it's making decisions. So my first problem with your argument is that I do not see awareness as an either/or but as a matter of degrees and levels.-The awareness the article speaks about is very similar to the "level" of consciousness you are speaking of above about children and animals. These particular beings you mention have very little or "no mind". This is the conscious awareness this person has found, and I found, and for us, it feels like what is called "enlightenment" but could be called "no mind" as well. As is said in the article, it isn't permanent. As adults, we would be without direction if we lived within that state, but as you can see by the examples you've given, beings exist very well without "no mind."->You didn't understand what I meant when I compared this to the "philosophical" (as opposed to commonsense) level of thought, on which nothing is real or certain, but the point of the comparison is that your own identity becomes unreal and uncertain if you think too much about it (= excessive self-awareness). I'm sure there must be at least one person you know who has problems relating to himself/herself and to others because of too much self-analysis.-Yes, most everyone. But again, we are like ships crossing in the night in our discussion, which is ok, as it's the only way to find each other. The very self-conscious/awareness that you are speaking of above is the very self-conscious/awareness she in the article and I have found a way to turn our focus from (in the beginning only momentarily) by what she calls, becoming conscious. I call it becoming aware. Maybe it's just better to call it enlightenment, for lack of a better word?-continued...

5544 views

continued...->The third point is your belief that [etc]........Focusing, in the examples I have given, entails deliberately shutting out the layer of consciousness that makes us aware of ourselves perceiving, so that we get on with the job of perceiving (or acting, or playing, or dealing with people). That requires control ... yet another layer, which involves the will, free or not. -I agree, for the most part, on the whole text I deleted between sentences above.->You wrote: "My focus was out of control and what was going on in my mindfield controlled me." Of course I don't know what exactly was in your "mindfield", but if it interfered with your focus, I suspect that it's what I call excessive self-awareness.-Maybe that is what it's called. I just called it being addicted to thinking. What was going on inside my mind was more real and had more influence on me and the decisions I made than anything else outside me. Objectivity was lost almost completely. Of course, for some, that could be a good thing. For me, it was destructive on many levels.-Hope it's not more confusing! Didn't have time to edit to make it one post.-bb

5583 views

BBella and I have different views on what Susan Blackmore was trying to say in the article Romansh asked us to reconsider. I shan't go back over our different interpretations, except to say that your own comments make infinitely more sense to me than the original text. I do wish Romansh would tell us why he wanted us to read it.-The rest of your post clarifies the earlier misunderstandings between us, which I think can be summed up by the comments below:
 
Dhw: You wrote: "My focus was out of control and what was going on in my mindfield controlled me." Of course I don't know what exactly was in your "mindfield", but if it interfered with your focus, I suspect that it's what I call excessive self-awareness.-BBella: Maybe that is what it's called. I just called it being addicted to thinking. What was going on inside my mind was more real and had more influence on me and the decisions I made than anything else outside me. Objectivity was lost almost completely. Of course, for some, that could be a good thing. For me, it was destructive on many levels.-Excessive self-awareness is only my term for it. The whole discussion boils down to levels of awareness/consciousness, which in this context I use synonymously. (You have suggested "enlightenment", but for me that is too vague.) Your description of your earlier situation as "addicted to thinking", with a loss of objectivity, is really just one step away from mine. You say we should focus on the object or situation instead of on what you call mind chatter, and I say we can only do that by wilfully (carefully chosen adverb!) suppressing the level of consciousness that makes us watch ourselves instead of looking at the object or situation. Your response to my comments on animals and young children suggests the same idea. Theatre and sport were two vivid examples of the need to eliminate that extra layer of self-awareness. We may be using different terms, but I think we're moving along the same track.

5512 views

You say we should focus on the object or situation instead of on what you call mind chatter, -I'm not actually telling anyone what they "should do". I am explaining what it sounds like she did and what I experienced, in awakening from a habitual tuned in focus on an inner world of destructive mind chatter, to focusing away from the mind to observation (without judgment) on the world outside my mind chatter. Seeing/feeling/being myself and seeing life around me as if I had never witnessed it before. With my addicted focus on the mind chatter, I didn't even have a balanced focus on my own body. Everything was blown out of proportion from reality, including myself. ->and I say we can only do that by wilfully (carefully chosen adverb!) suppressing the level of consciousness that makes us watch ourselves instead of looking at the object or situation.-I have to slightly change the way you put that sentence above. Maybe this is saying the same thing - we will see with your response: With my will, I chose to turn all my senses away from the mind chatter. In my sentence, there isn't any suppressing. In my particular instance, my mind chatter only quieted because I directed my focus, including my senses (ears, eyes, feelings, etc,) away from the mind chatter. Metaphorically, I remember saying, I turned my back on my mind. As we agreed before, there is no controlling thought (mind chatter) - only "willfully" changing our focus away from it.->that makes us watch ourselves instead of looking at the object or situation.-And, to address the last bit of this sentence to express how I see it in a slightly different way: What I've been talking about is not about watching ourselves or myself, but having an addictive focus on mind chatter or the film that runs thru the mind 24/7 (and believing the mind chatter as me). But in reality, the mind chatter isn't "real" or even within reality, in the sense of being tangibly true (even if it was a memory..it's no longer true - now). This non-reality was not me, therefore, not ourselves. It is something not of ourselves. -When I think how the term "watching ourselves" is used - I think of becoming self-conscious, as in, catching our reflection or looking in the mirror or watching or wondering how our legs look when they are crossed, or when we sit or stand...or how our fingernails look or our butt looks, etc. To me, that is what I consider self-conscious, or watching ourselves. Again, it's probably just two different ways of how we see terminology. ->We may be using different terms, but I think we're moving along the same track.-I agree...

5523 views

DHW: You say we should focus on the object or situation instead of on what you call mind chatter, and I say we can only do that by wilfully (carefully chosen adverb!) suppressing the level of consciousness that makes us watch ourselves instead of looking at the object or situation.-BBELLA: I'm not actually telling anyone what they "should" do. [...] I have to slightly change the way you put that sentence above. Maybe this is saying the same thing - we will see with your response: With my will, I chose to turn all my senses away from the mind chatter. In my sentence, there isn't any suppressing. In my particular instance, my mind chatter only quieted because I directed my focus, including my senses (ears, eyes, feelings, etc,) away from the mind chatter. Metaphorically, I remember saying, I turned my back on my mind. As we agreed before, there is no controlling thought (mind chatter) - only "willfully" changing our focus away from it.-Perhaps I should have asked you right from the start what you meant by "mind chatter", and I should have explained what I meant by (excessive) self-awareness. This for me is not "catching our reflection or looking in the mirror or watching or wondering how our legs look when they are crossed" but something far deeper. It's an examination of our own thoughts and perceptions, which on one level is both necessary and beneficial, but when carried too far can prove to be harmful. No matter what human activity we're considering, the focus will always become distorted if we're too conscious of the fact that our mind does not make direct contact with reality but is a filter (even filtering itself!), and that we are therefore fallible in all our judgements. Decision-making, contact with other people, and even contact with oneself may become almost impossible. Let me try a different example. Our introvert friend Willie Waver is attracted to a girl. We'll call this attraction the "thought", since it's not controllable. He is, of course, aware of it, which is Level One of his consciousness. Now he must make a decision: to approach or not to approach? This is where we move to higher levels of awareness. Willie wilfully suppresses the desire to kiss her ... which would no doubt be offensive ... and searches for a possible approach, finds fault with each one he thinks of, recognizes the irrationality of his own desires, questions whether he really wants any sort of relationship, fears rejection, is unsure about his own powers of attraction etc. Now either he suppresses this level of self-awareness (an effort of the will) and still makes an approach, or he allows it to take control. In this case, the girl who might have been the love of his life eventually leaves the room, and our Willie lives unhappily ever after. -The battle here is between the uncontrollable thoughts and the need to focus, to be selective, to take a decision ... all of which depend on the will. This is a level of consciousness above awareness of thought, since it's the level that's capable of control. I'm not concerned here with whether it's free or not, but with the fact that we're constantly operating on these different levels of awareness. And that, to return to our own starting point, is why I find Blackmore's repeated question "Am I conscious (now)?" quite meaningless, and possibly dangerous. Conscious of what? She doesn't say. Conscious on what level? She doesn't say. My whole argument is encapsulated in what you wrote in an earlier post: "Thought can't be controlled. Only what you choose to focus on can be controlled." My own posts are simply an attempt to delve a bit deeper into this process and its implications.

5567 views

I'd very much like to know what Romansh himself and others make of it, and especially of the above conclusion. -Like Bella when I ask myself the question am I conscious, I too seem to awake. And if I think back on my days experience I realize I have not been been conscious or at least present - what ever that means. I have memories of my thoughts and perceptions. These are very scattered though. But until I ask that question I had not been consciously self aware. -Regarding Bella's chatter yep it was there but that too is largely irretrievable at not easily retrievable.-Blackmore's conclusion that she is not conscious is I think largely a matter of convention, if you see what I mean. The point of the link was twofold, 1) if we have no free will then our consciousness is not what it seems. There is no independent me in my brain, and 2) if consciousness does not exist (at least in the sense we perceive it) then it pointless to have consciousness in our definition of free will.-The question Blackmore asks (for me) is there any difference between the awakened/present moment and the "less" conscious moments. The way I read Blackmore her answer is No. I can see why she says this.

5500 views

ROMANSH: Like Bella when I ask myself the question am I conscious, I too seem to awake. And if I think back on my days experience I realize I have not been been conscious or at least present - what ever that means. I have memories of my thoughts and perceptions. These are very scattered though. But until I ask that question I had not been consciously self aware.-Thank you for responding. "What ever that means" is what we're trying to find out! I'm tempted to ask if during the day you become a zombie. I don't mean that rudely. My point is that there are degrees or levels of awareness, and I just don't believe that you go through the day without being aware of what you are doing and perceiving. But being "consciously self aware" is a different level. In my correspondence with BBella, I suggested that small children are conscious/aware, but do not have the same levels of self-awareness that an adult has. They clearly know, for instance, that they're hungry, and they do what is necessary to satisfy their hunger. I don't think they consider different options, effects, influences, relationships etc. In our daily lives, we may well operate much of the time on a similar, lower level, but that doesn't mean we are not conscious.
 
ROMANSH: The point of the link was twofold, 1) if we have no free will then our consciousness is not what it seems. There is no independent me in my brain, and 2) if consciousness does not exist (at least in the sense we perceive it) then it pointless to have consciousness in our definition of free will.-If I'm to make sense of these two purely hypothetical statements (the reverse of which would be equally true), I need to know what consciousness "seems", and in what "sense we perceive it", and that requires definition. I perceive consciousness (it "seems" to me) as "awareness of one's surroundings and oneself". If that doesn't exist, I don't know how we are managing to conduct this correspondence. I perceive will as "the faculty of conscious and deliberate choice of action" (Collins). These definitions are valid for me, whether our will is free or not. If you disagree that the will (free or not) operates through consciousness, it would be very helpful to have your own definition of the two terms.
 
ROMANSH: The question Blackmore asks (for me) is there any difference between the awakened/present moment and the "less" conscious moments. The way I read Blackmore her answer is No. I can see why she says this.-"Less" conscious (why the inverted commas?) does not mean non-conscious. It confirms my argument that there are different degrees of consciousness. If you can see why there is no difference between lesser and greater degrees, e.g. between a child's awareness of hunger and what to do about it, and an adult's awareness of the different options, effects, influences etc.- not to mention the capacity for self-analysis - do please explain it to me!

5519 views

"What ever that means" is what we're trying to find out! I'm tempted to ask if during the day you become a zombie. I don't mean that rudely. My point is that there are degrees or levels of awareness, and I just don't believe that you go through the day without being aware of what you are doing and perceiving. But being "consciously self aware" is a different level. In my correspondence with BBella, I suggested that small children are conscious/aware, but do not have the same levels of self-awareness that an adult has. They clearly know, for instance, that they're hungry, and they do what is necessary to satisfy their hunger. I don't think they consider different options, effects, influences, relationships etc. In our daily lives, we may well operate much of the time on a similar, lower level, but that doesn't mean we are not conscious.
Dennett in his Consciousness Explained (which it didn't at least for me) had an interesting idea - if a zombie could behave in exactly the same way as a 'conscious' person then that zombie is in effect conscious. But at least for me this logic also works equally well in reverse.-Different degrees of consciousness? Well perhaps. All I know if after an hour I look back on a supposed highly consciously self aware moment, it's all the same 'zombie' jumble.-> 
> If I'm to make sense of these two purely hypothetical statements (the reverse of which would be equally true), I need to know what consciousness "seems", and in what "sense we perceive it", and that requires definition. I perceive consciousness (it "seems" to me) as "awareness of one's surroundings and oneself". If that doesn't exist, I don't know how we are managing to conduct this correspondence. I perceive will as "the faculty of conscious and deliberate choice of action" (Collins). These definitions are valid for me, whether our will is free or not. If you disagree that the will (free or not) operates through consciousness, it would be very helpful to have your own definition of the two terms.
This whole debate gets locked up in a semantic debate. But if we have an unconscious desire (will) are you saying by definition it cannot be free. If so what are your reasons other than convention?
will - for the purposes of this discussion, synonymous with want, desire, wish.
consciousness - what I perceive as awareness.-Do I believe consciousness as a separate "soul'. Definitely not. But if it did exist it would have the same problems as my material self. How does it interact with my body, does it conform to the first and second laws of thermodynamics?
> "Less" conscious (why the inverted commas?) does not mean non-conscious. It confirms my argument that there are different degrees of consciousness. If you can see why there is no difference between lesser and greater degrees, e.g. between a child's awareness of hunger and what to do about it, and an adult's awareness of the different options, effects, influences etc.- not to mention the capacity for self-analysis - do please explain it to me!-The "" were to imply uncertainty. I can no more describe consciousness to you than I can describe the colour blue. We can exchange wavelengths and we can exchange fMRI pictures of conscious minds.-I'm coming to the conclusion that everything is conscious at least to some degree or nothing is conscious. Consciousness while a useful model in some aspects of science but only because it does not lend itself well to reductionism.-
And that zombie remark. That was highly personal and inappropriate. But then again I am shaped to say this beacause of sense of humour amongst other things.


5505 views

ROMANSH: The point of the link was twofold, 1) if we have no free will then our consciousness is not what it seems. There is no independent me in my brain, and 2) if consciousness does not exist (at least in the sense we perceive it) then it pointless to have consciousness in our definition of free will.-Dhw: I perceive consciousnes [...] as "awareness of one's surroundings and oneself". If that doesn't exist, I don't know how we are managing to conduct this correspondence. I perceive will as "the faculty of conscious and deliberate choice of action" (Collins). These definitions are valid for me, whether our will is free or not. If you disagree that the will (free or not) operates through consciousness, it would be very helpful to have your own definition of the two terms.-ROMANSH: This whole debate gets locked up in a semantic debate. But if we have an unconscious desire (will) are you saying by definition it cannot be free. If so what are your reasons other than convention?
will - for the purposes of this discussion, synonymous with want, desire, wish.
consciousness - what I perceive as awareness.-This discussion concerns free will, and even in your own (disputed) definition, "will" meant "the ability to act or to make choices [independently of the environment or of the universe]" ... not want, desire or wish. That is a totally different use of the word. However, since you ask, I would certainly say that I do not have the freedom to control anything that is unconscious. I can only control it when I become aware of it, and that is when the will (= ability to make choices, as in both our definitions) comes into play. Whether that ability is free or not, I don't know.-ROMANSH: Do I believe consciousness as a separate "soul'. Definitely not. But if it did exist it would have the same problems as my material self. How does it interact with my body, does it conform to the first and second laws of thermodynamics?-If you mean that the problems connected with the concept of "soul" are as insoluble as those connected with material cells producing consciousness in all its manifestations, I agree. For that reason, I neither believe nor disbelieve in dualism or materialism.-ROMANSH: The question Blackmore asks (for me) is there any difference between the awakened/present moment and the "less" conscious moments. The way I read Blackmore her answer is No. I can see why she says this.-Dhw: "Less" conscious (why the inverted commas?) does not mean non-conscious. It confirms my argument that there are different degrees of consciousness. If you can see why there is no difference between lesser and greater degrees, e.g. between a child's awareness of hunger and what to do about it, and an adult's awareness of the different options, effects, influences etc.- not to mention the capacity for self-analysis - do please explain it to me!
 
ROMANSH: The "" were to imply uncertainty. I can no more describe consciousness to you than I can describe the colour blue. We can exchange wavelengths and we can exchange fMRI pictures of conscious minds.-We agree that consciousness is what we perceive as awareness, but I'm afraid I still don't understand why Blackmore sees no difference between degrees of it. You go on to say: "I'm coming to the conclusion that everything is conscious at least to some degree or nothing is conscious." If it's "to some degree", then would you share my subjective belief that a grain of sand seems likely to be less aware of its surroundings and of itself than you and I are? If you do, why is there no difference? And do you honestly believe it's even possible that you are totally unaware (not conscious) of your surroundings and yourself? -ROMANSH: And that zombie remark. That was highly personal and inappropriate. But then again I am shaped to say this beacause of sense of humour amongst other things.-I did say that it was not meant rudely! My aim was purely to express my doubt that you go through the day totally unaware of what you are doing. However, please accept my apologies if this was not clear.

5546 views

Great comment:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/04/09/will-this-post-make-sam-harris-change-his-mind-about-free-will/?WT_mc_id=SA_DD_20120410-Basis of thought has some materialistic fixed items, but the thoughts are free

5493 views

Great comment:
> 
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/04/09/will-this-post-make-sam-harr... 
> Basis of thought has some materialistic fixed items, but the thoughts are free-Two more articles on freewill and consciousness:-http://chronicle.com/article/Hilary-Bok-Want-to-Understand/131168/-http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/social-brain-social-mind/201203/free-will-weighing-truth-and-experience

5439 views

Another interesting comment, but he is too deterministic for me:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=finding-free-will&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_MB_20120418

5427 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum