Page 6 of 6 « First<23456
Topic Options
#48188 - 02/06/11 07:18 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Autodidact]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3153
 Quote:
The brain scanner experiments you cite are the beginnings of our attempts to understand how decision-making works at a physical level.

And the results will only conclude what parts of the brain are being stimulated when thinking or undergoing various stimuli. It will fail to pinpoint a zone within the brain which can be called "the free will". As far as I am concerned is the brain just a mechanism which needs to be fed with blood, oxygen and other nutrients to be able to work properly. The whole brain in itself is but an organic construct with various functions interlinking and thus in its whole makes up "the self".

In my opinion and insights I should say that the free will cannot be proven scientifically. The free will in my view is a "metaphysical" term. But an ideological and globally accepted premise. Trying to prove there is such a thing as free will equals to me as trying to prove the idea of altruism.

 Quote:
My interpretation of what you are expressing, based on my understanding that free will and consciousness are a package deal, is that even if the German brain scanner was perfect, and could predict anyone's actions far into the future, it wouldn't change anything. People would continue to act along their predetermined path, and the additional knowledge would be "interesting", but pointless.

You have the premise of a predetermined path. The brain is just a mechanism who gathers data (learning proces) and uses data and experiences to make "decisions". A predetermined path is non-existent, but one of the basic functions within the brain is to make correlations and make-up links who are not existent. Just a basic instinct which probably was an advantage during the prehistoric ages and is now hard-wired in the brain.


 Quote:
Of course - it's the very definition of "belief". I just don't happen to believe in an xtian "god".

There are quite a few religions next to Christianity. They do not all belief in the same god.


Edited by Dimitri (02/06/11 07:19 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#48204 - 02/06/11 10:36 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: William Wright]
StarlessAeon Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/04/11
Posts: 21
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
Is it really important whether one thinks of the SU as separate from the OU or merely unique within it? Does it matter whether one believes someone/something named Set gave us our consciousness or we acquired it through some other means? I don’t think so. I think it all comes down to this: If I want shit done, I make it happen.


I agree. The application does not matter. Only that it works.

Top
#48212 - 02/06/11 01:14 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: William Wright]
Mahakala Offline
lurker


Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 4
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
First off, I’m grateful for my brief time in the ToS. Since joining, and leaving, I’ve made significant strides for the better. I attribute this to the general ToS theme of self sufficiency that was drummed into my head while I was there.

That said, it seems to me that these OU/SU philosophical arguments are more potato/potahto than anything else. Is it really important whether one thinks of the SU as separate from the OU or merely unique within it? Does it matter whether one believes someone/something named Set gave us our consciousness or we acquired it through some other means? I don’t think so. I think it all comes down to this: If I want shit done, I make it happen.



I don't think it is really important if you choose to view the SU as separate from the OU.
But if you can establish a distinction between the two, you may find that the SU seems to function as if it is separate from the OU, at least to our senses.
You may find that you can distinguish the "core" you as an observing clear, self-illuminating consciousness, from the OU (the experienced) which includes the personality William Wright.
But developing an ability to create such distinctions does not mean that they are real. It just means that you can condition your mind to operate as if the SU were indeed separate from the OU.
I think this is the goal of many religions and initiatory type organizations. Granted, all evidence we have now points to the SU being a creation of the brain with no independent existence. But if you could create such a distinction in your mind, to the degree which it would allow you to override limiting personality features, why wouldn't you?

Top
#48583 - 02/10/11 06:31 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
StarlessAeon Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/04/11
Posts: 21
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
What specifically would such an afterlife entail?

First of all, jettison the concept of "an afterlife"; that's just a profane term for some semblance of your incarnated-image-of-self surviving in some other predetermined environment (such as Heaven, Hell, or Las Vegas).

Rather, once free of your physical body's OU-impression/expression constraints, you will be a god able to create, order, sustain, and destroy your own universe(s). The closest analogy might be "lucid dreaming", except that "LD" is still a somewhat haphazard environment in which "you" are merely an actor, not the creative god. In the universes you create, you will be in complete control [in effect "God"], though you might decide to be an actor in random/artificial circumstances as well.

Amusingly and ironically, one example of this which comes to mind is Christianity, in which the Universe-creator God also chose to participate in a piece of it, and to allow random-outcome recognition and treatment of an incarnated version of himself. You could do that, or whatever else might interest you.

The universe(s) you create can be small & simple, or big & complex, depending on how imaginative or lazy you elect to be. You can just create a couch, a TV set, beer & potato chips, and watch endless reruns of "I Love Lucy" if you want.

The uninitiated/"unawakened" human is so buffeted by the OU stimulus/response that he is only occasionally aware of this innate prerogative, which he experiences in brief spasms of "daydreams", "imagination", "dreams", etc. Lilly took it a significant step further in his isolation tank work, as in Altered States. At first it takes a great deal of concentration and effort - like learning to meditate, except that you aren't shooting for "dissolve-into-the-OU-bliss" of the RHP, but creation of your own imaginative will & visions: LHP. The better you become at this, the stronger and more defined your god-self becomes. You will look back on your OU-fenced, training-wheels time about the same as watching a lab rat in a maze.

Oh, and by the way: You don't have to be a dues-paying member of the Temple of Set to do this. It is inherent in and integral with the Gift of Set. Xeper.


This sounds to me quite a lot like experiences I've had with astral projection being that the Observer (or self-consciousness) creates the environment that is experienced. This is all well and good. However, how does one conclude that this continues beyond death and is something more than a bi-product of our physical brains? To be honest, I cannot see how anyone who is still alive can come to that conclusion without taking an intellectual leap of faith.



Top
#48675 - 02/11/11 01:34 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Autodidact]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
This may the crux of our tension - to me free will and consciousness go hand-in-hand. Under my understanding of free will, you cannot, in fact, explore if you have no free will, because there is no "you". Without free will, there is no actor.


Excuse me for the late reply, your post went lost between the hundreds of others made while I was absent.

I do think there can be a “you” without “free will”.

I'm not sure if you ever watched Star Trek Next Gen, but if, Data is a nice character personifying how I see them being mutually at work. Data is a sentient cyborg and while all about him is mechanical he still seems to act as if he has free will and since he is sentient, he probably experiences an identical illusion as us. But in the end, he's just a robot and his “I” is subject to his on and off button.

We being biological doesn't differ that much. The question is; if we have “free will”, what happens when the power goes out? Is it “free will” when it can be turned off?

D.

Top
#48681 - 02/11/11 02:58 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Diavolo]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
[...] Data is a nice character personifying how I see them being mutually at work. Data is a sentient cyborg and while all about him is mechanical he still seems to act as if he has free will and since he is sentient, he probably experiences an identical illusion as us.


Ah, you agreed on the objective vs perceptive question that if one couldn't tell the difference between two theories, they could be treated as identical.

If Data, or, by extension, humans as "biological robots", "seem to act as if [they have] free will", and "experience[] an identical illusion" of having free will - in other words, they can't tell conclusively if they actually have it, but they think they have it, they act like they have it - can not one say that for all practical purposes they can assume that they do?

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo

But in the end, he's just a robot and his “I” is subject to his on and off button.

We being biological doesn't differ that much. The question is; if we have “free will”, what happens when the power goes out? Is it “free will” when it can be turned off?


Red herring - your implication is that a "robot" is not capable of being the "same thing" as a human. If we cannot distinctly identify "free will", it seems premature to assume a robot cannot possess it.

You or I could be "killed instantly" by any number of means - let's say vaporized by a nuclear accident from that other thread. Is this fundamentally different from being "turned off"?

Not knowing what happens after being turned off is a different question than whether free will exists or not. IIRC, even Data dreamed once when he was "turned off" ...
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#48682 - 02/11/11 03:12 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Autodidact]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Of course for practical purposes we can say we have free will. For the same practical purposes we consider sound or color real. We experience them but therefor one can not logically conclude they are real. Another example of one of those illusions we consider real is love. We experience love, we feel it but beyond this naive but practical purpose of it, is there more than a bio-chemical disturbance in the brain?

I don't imply a robot is not capable of being the “same thing” as a human, to the contrary, in this case, I imply they are very identical.

The problem with free will is that we add a “ghost” into a deterministic unit. If it is a robot or a human doesn't differ. If all is a result of cause and effect, where does this free will magically come from? That's the question I was pointing at: if all follows certain laws, why does this one aspect defy those laws?

One answer might be that it doesn't and we only see it as such.

D.

Top
Page 6 of 6 « First<23456


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.017 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 20 queries. Zlib compression disabled.