What is "Mind?"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 16541 - 16560 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 18, 2017 - 02:18pm PT
I have brought up time on several occasions, but the subject doesn't gain traction.



I only have one big burst for this thread every few days, but time is a fascinating one to ponder. My sense of it is that sequential/linear/atomic (fixed duration) time occurs within a timeless backdrop, and one can experience one, the other, or both, depending on our perspective.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Dec 18, 2017 - 03:12pm PT
Hmmm. I wasn't speaking of the subconscious in a nebulous global sense nor about time in an evolutionary one, but rather the specific functional roles of both in the brain, consciousness and mind relative to subjective experience.

Is it something you have experience of, or is it a concept?

In my case I 'experience' my subconscious all the time albeit from its results. I've mentioned before my hearing was damaged at high frequencies in Vietnam. A long-term result of that has been to give me a window into my subconscious processing of speech. And what I've learned from that window is that a lot of subconscious pre-processing and contextualizing happens before your conscious mind is handed the words of what was spoken. I know because quite often I'm handed a word, sentence or even several sentences which couldn't possibly be what the person speaking said. Faced with incomplete speech recognition, my subconscious obviously makes a best-effort guess at both the words and context of what was said, sometimes with hilarious results. I've even broken out laughing at the result leaving the person I'm talking with fairly confused and then having to explain myself.

Bottom line is the amount of subconscious pre-processing and contextualizing that happens in real time when we speak with another person is phenomenal and this is clearly a discrete and localizable functional component of the brain and subconscious mind. Visual processing is no doubt a similarly discrete and localizable functional subconscious component whereas I suspect higher order subconscious functionality such as eeyonkee's decision-making is far less discrete and far more distributed.

And time has a functional role in brain, consciousness and mind relative to memory formation and recall. People with severe anterograde amnesia can't form memories and so, while they subjectively experience, those experiences evaporate almost as soon as they are experienced. My point around the functional role of time / memory in subjective experience is that it is no less dependent on subconscious pre-processing, recall and contextualizing. For that matter, the moment-to-moment continuity of consciousness awareness, thought and mind is entirely dependent on time-related brain functionality - i.e. with anterograde amnesia you might decide to meditate, but if that required you traveling more that thirty seconds from your current location to do it you might not remember you were there to meditate when you arrived. And even if you did get there intent in tact, after thirty seconds you might not remember you where meditating.

Your ability to [continuously] 'subjectively experience' is heavily dependent on your subconscious being able to contextualize 'reality' against your memories in real-time and, unless you're going to argue memories and experiences are stored in a cloud of aether, then one is forced to admit that contextual library is brain-based. And it's not just a matter of that being 'content' - for you to meditate at all and not just drift off into a semi-unconscious trance you have to maintain some form of 'state' across time - some form of temporal continuity of purpose - and that state is also brain-based.

eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Dec 18, 2017 - 04:07pm PT
Sounds like you have an inside track on this, healyje, with your incomplete speech recognition observations and all. I agree with everything else you wrote. Your observations certainly lend credence to my just previous posts supporting the contention that these decisions that we make are mostly (and I would say fully) subconscious. Btw, I've seen Memento three times.

So, the only thing that I see that you are disagreeing with me more or less is on the whole "decision engine" concept. You feel it is likely a very distributed thing, I think, and I would agree with that. I would say that the idea of a decision engine is still a worthy one, however. Clearly, nearly every organism with a brain can be thought of as having a decision engine as an intermediary to the raw events coming the organism's way. It helps it survive, of course.

The idea of a story-telling/meaning engine -- a separate thing from the decision engine is relatively new to me and and I have been mulling it over for the last few days.

WBraun

climber
Dec 18, 2017 - 04:11pm PT
time occurs within a timeless backdrop

Yes, this is correct .....
yanqui

climber
Balcarce, Argentina
Dec 18, 2017 - 04:12pm PT
I think the narrative (the story) can be fundamental in directing our lives. At some point, someone decides they want to be a loving husband, a good father, an inspiring teacher, a bad-ass climber (not me!) an environmentalist, a patriot, an animal lover, someone who thinks the unexamined life is not worth living, a naturalist. Any number of storylines are possible. Staying true to any given narrative may be more or less important to us. We can even equivocate, self-deceive, lie to others, cheat. There are ways we might not be true to our own narratives. Few have never been a hypocrite. Or maybe we just don't care anymore. At one point in my life maybe I thought I was the guy who worked hard and got a Ph.D. But after three years dealing with the bullsh#t, I just don't care anymore. It's time for a new narrative (this didn't happen to me, but I saw it happen in different ways to most of my fellow graduate students).

Many times in my life I've reminded myself that I'm the guy that does "such and such", making a point to stick to some part of my narrative, because that story for my life is what's important to me. This is not subconscious and invented after the fact. My desire to follow my choice of the storyline tells me where to go. It keeps me from wandering. It seems to me this could be part of the whole "freedom" thing.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Dec 18, 2017 - 04:23pm PT
See how this goes when you believe in science? ... I just realized something that healyje was (I think) alluding to in his previous post that I had not really thought through. It is entirely possible -- probable the more I think of it, that there is not any entity or agent in you that has the whole story. From that perspective, there is not so much an overall decision engine but, rather, a bunch of competing algorithms (biochemical) that play out against each other and something wins. Touche!

Edit: Although you could still call that a decision engine.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Dec 18, 2017 - 04:25pm PT
rather, a bunch of competing algorithms (biochemical) that play out against each other and something wins.

biocircuitous, more like it

....

Just accept it eeyonkee: (1) assuming you're operating within normal parameters, you've got a will that is "free" from disease otherwise incompetence or malfunction; moreover (2) assuming theology's as bunk as astrology and demons don't actually exist, you've got a will that is "free" of demonic possession.

Therefore, you've got two types of "free will" right there.

So what is it, you just do not like the word "compatibilist? if so, just find another that's apt. but whatever, you should ask Which "free will" when talking to people just as you're trained to ask Which God? when talking to people.

...

Moose, I am surprised you wrote that.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Dec 18, 2017 - 04:28pm PT
biocircuitous is fightin' words where I grew up.

But seriously folks, now that you're here, HFCS, I would like to "hear" in your own words why you are a compatibilist (not to put you on the spot). Really. Try to convince me. So far, my only attempts at being a compatibilist always leave me thinking that I am stupid and likely not getting something. There, I've said it!
MikeL

Social climber
Southern Arizona
Dec 18, 2017 - 04:34pm PT
DMT: In between, nothing! 

Mind training may amend that perception.

I’d suggest that your sample set is small. One can suggest that with repeated experiences, one will notice things that initially are not perceivable. It happens in all studies: noticing brings on more noticing. Naive subjects become novices, and with training and experience, novices can become experts. People who make nonsense of sitting (contemplation or meditation) often have little systematic experience to rely upon. I’ve been under lots, and I’d say there is something while one is under—but I cannot say what.


Healyje, thanks.

We’ve all got speculative theories about what being unconscious is. What is not directly perceived cannot be easily grasped and analyzed, wouldn’t you say?

On the one hand, I’d have some respect for Jung’s notions that there is an unconscious due to his in-depth studies—the main basis of which were his remarkable experiences and systematic observations and documentation on himself while he went “psychotic” between the years of 1913 and 1916. (See “The Red Book.”) Furthermore, his many students who have employed his notions in-practice with patients would suggest that his theories might have believable bases.

Those investigations and case studies by practitioners since Jung’s many writings are perhaps comparable to what we hear from any consultant: “Hey, it [my particular practical approach] works!” However, at the bottom, folks are still generating theories about that which they cannot see. Of course, we do the same when we talk about, or research, quarks, dark matter, many complex diseases, and various social behaviors.

When we have direct perceptions of sensations, then I’m less skeptical. When we have invented theories about those “things” we cannot see, then we should be even more cautious about giving-in to our beliefs.

Be well.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Dec 18, 2017 - 04:37pm PT
I would like to "hear" in your own words why you are a compatibilist

I've already said it every which way already. Even in above post.

I am the one who is surprised that you and now Moose too apparently are NOT plugging into what's already been said about there being different varieties of free will, some illusory some real.

In fact, in Moose's post, he hints to his own specific definition. Look back there.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Dec 18, 2017 - 04:42pm PT
HFCS said
Just accept it eeyonkee: (1) assuming you're operating within normal parameters, you've got a will that is "free" from disease otherwise incompetence or malfunction; moreover (2) assuming theology's as bunk as astrology and demons don't actually exist, you've got a will that is "free" of demonic possession.

Really? That's it? I guess now I see why this seemed so easy for you. You just changed the definition of free will (which, I must admit, you were saying all along). I mean, sure, I guess.

But I don't want to argue about whether there is a soul or a ghost in the machine (sorry WB). We both agree that there is not. I want to know how we can seemingly make decisions that seemingly defy determinism. My answer, at this point in my quest to know about this sh#t, is we absolutely don't.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Dec 18, 2017 - 04:43pm PT
This...

The logic of compatibilism escapes me, btw. If the evolution of the universe was determined from the start, than no matter how you twist it, there is no room for chance or free will. No?

What a shocker. I thought Moose had it totally figured out.

The hint is in his opening "if" statement. He's considering "free will" here from the physics perspective. On this point we are all in agreement!
All our molecules, cells, tissues, organs are 100 per cent fully caused, mechanistic.

Check.

But there are other levels of consideration and context. Systems (engineering) for example. As a programmer you should already be 100 per cent plugged into this context.

Despite being completely mechanistic deterministic are not your programs free in some ways while constrained in others.

How many years have we been posting up about this now? :)

So one is obliged to ask Which type or variety of "free will" are we talking about?

But let's cut ourselves some slack here and remember that words and framing can be problematic on these more complex or trickier subjects. Esp in large heterogenous company. Indeed, on another thread here, it seems people cannot even agree on what "rape" is.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Dec 18, 2017 - 04:50pm PT
Even when you move within science, as broad as it is, from physics to systems, say, definitions along with contexts, change. And not rarely either but regularly. I know you know this already. Perhaps you just haven't been emphasizing it?

Many times this has mentioned. Engineering and engineers, for example, speak of "degrees of freedom" in a machine. Right? Well how are they able to do this if there is no "freedom" in a fully mechanistic / deterministic machine.

Today's robots, more sophisticated than ever, easily illustrate these principles.

Please address where I'm off-track here.


Again, it depends on WHAT LEVEL of explanation we are considering things. (in science, what discipline). With each level we have a different way of talking about things. This is a key point that apparently causes much confusion even among science types. Just take physics and chemistry for example. Look how differently they express themselves in their respective ways of talking (communicating). And then at even a higher level of explanation, say systems engineering / control engineering, the way of talking changes even more (inputs, transfer functions, outputs, competence, constraints and freedoms, etc.)

Tell me if there doesn't make sense. We should really work this out. It is not that hard!
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 18, 2017 - 04:50pm PT
The decision engine concept is IMO totally valid so long as you differential between machine registration and the back and forth between brain generated content and awareness,and also factor in emotional and sensate vectors and stuff that seems to arise from nowhere at all - a logical impossibility. As mentioned, this back and forth is especially pronounced when a given task involves new or unknown material.

Healyje wrote: Your ability to [continuously] 'subjectively experience' is heavily dependent on your subconscious being able to contextualize 'reality' against your memories in real-time and, unless you're going to argue memories and experiences are stored in a cloud of aether, then one is forced to admit that contextual library is brain-based. And it's not just a matter of that being 'content' - for you to meditate at all and not just drift off into a semi-unconscious trance you have to maintain some form of 'state' across time - some form of temporal continuity of purpose - and that state is also brain-based.

---


I differentiate between awareness and consciousness. Not as a concept but rather because of experiences derived from doing specific contemplations like the Jhanas without Form, which I found to be 5.15 in difficulty. The first two - boundless space and boundless awareness - are radically altered states. Less so the next one (boundless emptiness), and not at all with the 4th one, neither perception or non-perception.

That much said, you absolutely need time-bound consciousness to get situated on the cushion (or the chair for me with a bum leg), and to buckle don to work. But at stage 4, the stateness becomes background and statelessness becomes figure. That is, you consciously prime the pump, but when the state recedes (a relative term), you do NOT plunge into a semi-unconscious trance in order to maintain form, contingent upon "temporal continuity of purpose." It would seem that way from the outside, but as mentioned, once you dig into reality at a certain depth, at least in my experience, classical/logical thinking finds no purchase.

Another thing to remember is that there is always a gap, from tiny to monumental, between what I just described and being able to embody and evaluate it, and both are essential parts of the adventure. In fact there is no end to trying to interpret what actually goes on or was encountered in the deep waters. This is signified in the Buddhist tradition by an open circle, with a little gap in the parimeter. And the general take is that nobody will ever fully close the circle. No one will ever totally "get it."



WBraun

climber
Dec 18, 2017 - 04:56pm PT
Saying there is NO soul means one is NOT even doing science at all.

Science means ultimately doing the experiment.

The gross materialists never do the experiment and simultaneously claim they know.

That is pure hypocrisy and pure scientism ......
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Dec 18, 2017 - 05:05pm PT
You just changed the definition of free will

To be clear, I didn't change it. Again, there's a lot more to human science or life science or more generally system behavior than just particle physics and the particle physics perspective.

To be clear, I didn't change it. The many and various branches and fields not only to science but to life at large change this definition (along with many others). Viewpoints and so-called "ways of talking" change as one moves from one field or discipline to another and much argument would be avoided if this were more widely recognized and understood.

...

I want to know how we can seemingly make decisions that seemingly defy determinism. My answer, at this point in my quest to know about this sh#t, is we absolutely don't.

You've mentioned Harris and your agreement with him re "free will". If you're fully up on him, then you know also he has said his thoughts do NOT feel free when he introspects, that instead they just well up as output from his underlying machinery. I completely concur with this introspection myself from 20 plus years involved with this topic. Do you concur as well. If so, then we are all in agreement re our fully-caused mechanistic wills as revealed and supported by all the sciences.

"Seemingly" is a keyword, I think. We have evolved intuitions. Some of these are illusory, only representative of an underlying reality, constrained, limited.

Our human brains and their decision making machinery are obviously very powerful. A human brain has millions if not billions or trillions of branching points (choice points) as part of its machinery that many other brains do not have - at least not in the same capacities. This confers a competence (Dennett) or can-do power (many ethologists, evo biologists). The latter is easily construed as degrees of freedom or types of freedom.

Again competence or can-do power is easily mapped to freedom. Whether it's at the brain (will, volition) or the muscle. Agree or disagree on this point. Herein is the solution.

Again, maybe you just don't like the word "compatibilist". Which is fine. I really do not like it either.
WBraun

climber
Dec 18, 2017 - 05:10pm PT
Instead of arguing DO the experiment yourselves.

You never do.

Just argue and post links and copy paste.

Life science means "DO THE EXPERIMENT YOURSELF".

You won't, too lazy and too puffed up with your science is everything talk only.

The intelligent class runs the experiment on themselves ......
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Dec 18, 2017 - 05:32pm PT
Fair enough, HFCS. We just need another word is all because both meanings have relevance depending on the question you are asking, IMO. But whenever I read the tortured explanations of compatibilists -- Dennett included, on how somehow we can escape the "laws of determinism" and actually be responsible for our decisions, they seem, well tortured.

I'm just pointing out the simplicity of an explanation that goes something like this. You technically aren't responsible for your decisions inasmuch as they happen automatically, subconsciously. No controversy here about defying any universal laws about determinism or anything. That's the decision engine.

Now, the story-telling/meaning engine gets the baton from the decision engine and, although you didn't make the decision, you have at your disposal the rich collection of short and long-term memories that put the event that you just experienced in the context of your life experiences. This is maybe how we escape the problem of being a slave to the moment but still having this rich, textured life, some more rich and textured than others.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Dec 18, 2017 - 05:36pm PT
I don't want to argue about whether there is a soul or a ghost in the machine

Okay. But you should along the way at some point in this conversation acknowledge that back in the 16th century, as an eg, this particular concept and type of "free will" was a VERY BIG DEAL.

And in many circles even today it STILL is a very big deal. Millions still believe, in addition to Gods and Devils, in angels and demons, and millions still believe they can not only influence the flesh but inhabit it, take it over.

I keep bringing it up every couple of years (or every couple of days) because it is a useful stepping stone to the idea of there being more than one type of "free will" and thus context and framing matters; and (2) to remind us all that it was this type of "free will" that was everyone's main concern centuries ago in church, state (law) and community. This fact bears, should bear, on this discussion.

Shifting gears (from demonic possession to malfunction, disease, incompetence): Do you not believe that YOU right now have some competence and thus some degree of freedom right now, in this moment, to your thinking and decision making (iow, to your will) that Charles Whitman in the 60s in Texas did NOT have when he shot up all those people?

If yes, then you DO have a will that is "free" in some higher systems sense (relative to a lower competence or malfunctioning system). It is on this point that the entire "compatibilism" talk turns.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Dec 18, 2017 - 05:52pm PT
Remember, I was raised in physics (engineering physics, electronics physics), chemistry, and biology and I, luckily enough, imprinted at an early age on these sciences. So I am with YOU 100% in concluding that we are fully caused living organisms and completely FATED.

We are 100% fully caused living things 100% obedient to our underlying physics and chemistry and fully FATED.

And yet as systems we have decision-making machinery just as computers do. On this specific point the analogy between brains and computer hold. This is not just my viewpoint, my credence or conviction, but science.

The naysayers like to say it is YOUR opinion, etc.. But this is just distraction, deflection or shitposting. It is science that says this, backed up by good data and good argument.

Bottom line, eeyonkee, we ARE in agreement concerning our FATED behavior, our FATED planet, our FATED Cosmos.

Remember one of my earliest threads here at ST: What are we, robots?! In fact, it might have been my introductory thread. (lol) That thread covered pretty much all this too.

...

You technically aren't responsible for your decisions inasmuch as they happen automatically, subconsciously. No controversy here about defying any universal laws about determinism or anything. That's the decision engine.

For a long time, my "way of talking" and "way of making sense of it" was like this: Okay, we are NOT responsible for our bad behavior in the great cosmic sense (of everything being FATED) but yet at the same time (2) we ARE responsible (we have to be responsible and we have to learn to take on this responsibility in our growing up years) as members of a primate society if for no other reason than our primate conspecifics will hold us responsible.

You could do something bad, then shout at the top of your lungs The Devil made me do it! or The DNA made me do it! but your community will still (hold you responsible and) burn you at the stake (for kidnapping and ravaging the young princess)!!!

So yes, NOT responsible in one sense (context) but definitely responsible in another sense (context).
Messages 16541 - 16560 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta