Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
I think from an evolutionary perspective, one way of looking at this discussion is whether one wants to dwell in the heritage of the past, acknowledging our animal emotions and saying that there is no free will and nothing can be done, or one can say that humans are constantly evolving and the next level of cultural evolution, which inevitably will also affect physical evolution, is the attempt to use our conscious mind in a better, more rational way by understanding and getting the unconscious under control.
Reprogramming the unconscious could be seen as another software program being added to our brains, the first such innovation since the last great reprogramming breakthrough which was language.
Of course variability is always the key to evolution and it may well be that the coming century, which all of us will miss most of, will be so challenging that survival will depend once again on caveman emotions backed by superior technology.
At some point in the human future however, those who survive will probably want to change their brains so the human race doesn't get itself into such a self created bind again. Using one's brain to be creative rather than just procreating unsustainable babies could be one such development.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
"Q Field"
Now that's at least an opinion...
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
Bryan said:
For Free Will to make sense, it requires a supernatural explanation: Humans have a "soul"! Or, consciousness operates outside of the material realm! But with every advance in neurobiology, new light is shed on the mystery of consciousness, and the arguments for supernatural explanations drop away. It's not really surprising that Free Will is one of the final dominoes to fall before the clockwork universe; it is, I think, a belief which is difficult to let go of.
Yes, I can see how humans would be loathe to surrender having a sense of self-determination, especially about issues such as creativity or establishing social and familial ties
Thank you.
feralfae
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
Guns, religion, free will, and unfettered procreation; it's the American way.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
Bushman: Guns, religion, free will, and unfettered procreation; it's the American way.
If we add the printing press (well, these days, probably the internet) we'd meet Galsworthy's components for the Reformation, would we not? :) Fascinating.
Yes, I can see how you would lump FW in with these other concepts. But I might consider that the other three components or concepts could be manifestations of the exercise of FW, although I am not making a value judgement about whether these are well-reasoned choices or not.
Thank you
feralfae
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Conceptualizing is fun, and easy . . .
I love it when you say things like this, Mike. There are indeed many theoretical physicists, mathematicians, theoretical chemist, etc. who find the practice "fun" . . . but "easy?"
What's "easy" is giving up, sitting down in a lotus position and clearing the mind of any productive thought. Now, admit it, isn't that "easy?"
;>|
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
To be a poet, . . . it must be a wonderful life to to describe all you experience.
Pull out all of the stops and take a drink from the universe. Pfffftttttttt! F*cking amazing. (Why don’t I stay? What continues to hook me? It’s curious. What a strange place this is. )
Jgill:
It’s as easy as one’s imagination can reach. If you have a vivid imagination, there is little you can’t conceive of.
(It’s fine.)
How is it that wisdom, learning, knowledge can be in one form at one level and in one domain and different in all others? I began to question everyone and everything they said. It seems as though everyone is involved in the same conspiracy. But, that can’t be. So, what is left? The whole thing is a illusion, a projection. Everything. It can’t be the way it seems. It's illogical nonsense.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
my conscious mind is just a receiver. It has no ability to do anything but observe.
It sounds as though you are defining consciousness as just a receiver. That may be a good idea. We don't have exact anatomical boundaries for consciousness, so it may be wisest to treat consciousness as a concept rather than as identifiable brain activity.
Would you agree that electrochemical processes can exert control? At least over other electrochemical processes? If the subconscious controls the conscious, how does it do so if not through electrochemical action, and if the conscious mind can receive control via such means, why could it not send control in the same way. Are you saying that the conscious mind is not a production of neuronal activity?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
DMT: Remember the map is not the terrain, Mike. That is a dual-edged sword, that concept. It slices gods and apples and realities alike.
I get what you’re saying. Granted, . . . but if that is nothing to begin with, then you have a nothing slicing a nothing. But I get you. Good point.
I’m hoping that the same parts of our brains light up. That’s good, isn’t it? That suggests that we are in the same place and time and there is something out there that triggers the same brain patterns.
You have to admit that there is a lot of distance between that and a notion called (honestly), "Naive Reality."
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Let's say consciousness is analogous to feelings
A bit of a stretch I would say. When we are conscious we may have feelings, and when we are unconscious we have no feelings. Consciousness is necessary for feelings but not sufficient.
Have another beer.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Maybe I am wrong after all.
Trying to simplify is good. On a subject as amorphous as consciousness or free will, any simple statement is likely to be wrong. But finding out where we are wrong, or too simple, helps us learn.
Natural selection over a long enough time favors traits which promote survival and eliminates traits which don't. However, the environmental niche a species occupies has a lot to do with which traits are helpful and which are not. Environmental niches can be hugely complex networks of animals, plants, geology, and climate all interacting and changing. Saying that natural selection results in evolution is not saying much, like saying that consciousness is a product of electrochemical reactions is not saying much.
A nice simple system is the pair of Mauthner neurons which control the tail flick response in fishes that help them escape predators. But what controls the Mauthner neuron? It is highly important that the response happens when, and only when, it needs to, and that only one of the neurons fires.
Fish and other animals need to escape predators. Is consciousness something that has a useful job to do in human survival? Is it one of those accidental creations of evolution? Surely it is more than a single random mutation, or we would have the wild type of human who had no consciousness. Or perhaps consciousness is just a natural accompaniment of language, and language has survival value. Or it once did.
Anyway, I can't see how a fish would benefit from exerting conscious control over the Mauthner neuron. When time is not of the essence, though, I see no reason why conscious control of behavior would not have occasional benefit. Quite the contrary.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
"Q Field"
Now that's at least an opinion...
How so, Healjy?
Do you not notice people, places, thnigs and phenomenon entering or arising in your consciousness? "Q Field" is simply a term that denotes the "qualia" or stuff that arises in awareness. If your mind functions differently, how so? Kindly provide examples of how it DOES work - that is, how is content "known?"
Have we also given up on the silly idea that our conscious minds can effect no influence on our unconscious, mechanical processes? Hope so.
Anyone can verify the fiction of this idea in nothing flat. We do it all day, every day, but are largely blind to doing so.
JL
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Unconscious means the negative of consciousness.
People here don't even a have clue yet what consciousness really is nor it's source by all the theorizing and speculating.
Thus consciousness first has to be correctly established ....
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Have we also given up on the silly idea that our conscious minds can effect no influence
on our unconscious, mechanical processes?
Who subscribes to the notion the conscious mind can't influence sub/unconscious processes?
Certainly not me. I would posit causality in that respect is always running both bottom-up and top-down
in a highly distributed and hierarchical manner in both directions in a way not entirely unlike John's fractal imagery.
Again, I have direct experience with both - top-down in the ability to slow my vital signs and
bottom-up with respect to what words get 'handed to' me by my auditory system due to hearing loss.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
Here's a quote from the article on psychedelics that PSP recommended.It sounds a lot like what the meditators here have been saying.
Carhart-Harris doesn’t romanticize psychedelics, and he has little patience for the sort of “magical thinking” and “metaphysics” they promote. In his view, the forms of consciousness that psychedelics unleash are regressions to a more “primitive style of cognition.”
In Carhart-Harris’s view, a steep price is paid for the achievement of order and ego in the adult mind. “We give up our emotional lability,” he told me, “our ability to be open to surprises, our ability to think flexibly, and our ability to value nature.” The sovereign ego can become a despot. This is perhaps most evident in depression, when the self turns on itself and uncontrollable introspection gradually shades out reality. In “The Entropic Brain,” a paper published last year in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, Carhart-Harris cites research indicating that this debilitating state, sometimes called “heavy self-consciousness,” may be the result of a “hyperactive” default-mode network.
Carhart-Harris believes that people suffering from other mental disorders characterized by excessively rigid patterns of thinking, such as addiction and obsessive-compulsive disorder, could benefit from psychedelics, which “disrupt stereotyped patterns of thought and behavior.” In his view, all these disorders are, in a sense, ailments of the ego. He also thinks that this disruption could promote more creative thinking. It may be that some brains could benefit from a little less order.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
No Big Bang?
Say it aint so, Joe.
Or Carl.
(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
This stuff goes right over my head, but I thought you sciency types find it interesting.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
If there is this thing we call a subconscious shouldn't there also be a super-conscious? Or is it like a negative number in mathematics? They don't really exist but are useful in calculations. Just a thought, or a thought-not.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
shouldn't there also be a super-conscious?
Yes there is.
Modern science has no clue ......
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!