4 ms·

The conscious filtering and the actions are an illusion. They certainly happen on some level, since humans are clearly adaptable and reactive systems, but they

The conscious filtering and the actions are an illusion. They certainly happen on some level, since humans are clearly adaptable and reactive systems, but they are not likely to be conscious as we conceive of them. We usually feel like there is a person inside that has control and almost extra-physical ability to override, but surely this must be result of physical inputs and processes? In a weird twist, meditation is one thing that makes this subjectively apparent. There have also been some (contentious) scientific experiments pointing towards this.

NateEag 4y ago
> We usually feel like there is a person inside that has control and almost extra-physical ability to override, but surely this must be result of physical inputs and processes? I know of no rigorous evidence against the idea that we're purely matter and physics, nor do I know of any rigorous evidence showing that's all there is to humans (or living beings generally). It's arguably a "mysticism of the gaps", but the "hard problem" form of consciousness still seems like a pretty weird outcome of evolution to me if that is in fact what it is, and not something that's adequately explained by, say, the anthropic principle. I realize opinions will vary, and I'm okay with that - this one happens to be mine at the moment. It seems to me to require a decent amount of faith in the idea that only matter exists to conclude that consciousness and free will must be illusory. It's certainly a defensible, reasonable stance, but I don't think it's the only plausible one. > There have also been some (contentious) scientific experiments pointing towards this. If you're referring to Libet's analysis of the Bereitschaftspotential experiments, there has been some acceptance in the past few years that this paper shows he misinterpreted the data: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210467109 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210467109 Popular summary of the debate in The Atlantic: https://archive.ph/SHH0p https://archive.ph/SHH0p
- feanaro 4y ago
  > It seems to me to require a decent amount of faith in the idea that only matter exists to conclude that consciousness and free will must be illusory. Why only matter? My default position (of which I'm not entirely convinced of!) is that there are only physical things, not that there is only matter. So if consciousness and free will are physical phenomena of some kind, that makes things logical again. But if they are physical, then surely they follow physical rules, and need to somehow interact with the rest of physics. This again leaves no gap for there to be a divine kind of free will, one that is extra-physical and capable of overriding cause and effect. When I say that free will is illusory, I mean it in this sense: I don't see a logically coherent way in which free will could be non-physical and outside of the usual cause-and-effect chain. ** I did mean Libet, thanks for the references.
  - feanaro 4y ago
    > I did mean Libet, thanks for the references. And quickly skimming through the linked paper, their suggested mechanism changes the "decision" to simply be a result of stochastic fluctuation in neural activity. So it resolves some of the weirdness introduced by Libet, by not having the moment of decision precede the moment of conscious experience. But at best, it still leaves free will with a kind of ancillary role, in which it represents the "feeling" of volitional control, with the actual decision still being stochastic at best. This is certainly possible, but not what people usually mean when discussing free will colloquially (I find).
nawgz 4y ago
> The conscious filtering and the actions are an illusion > They certainly happen on some level What a strangely useless statement. Why, if they certainly happen, is their appearance in the consciousness and subsequent action when so consciously decided "an illusion"? What illusion is exactly at hand here? > We usually feel like there is a person inside that has control and almost extra-physical ability to override I do not see how you can project your qualia on to me, nor how there is a "we" in this statement. I do not feel similarly to this at all. Overall, this is the kind of unenlightened junk I expect to hear from people that claim to understand what our lives are and what they mean. No one understands these things, but it's certainly fun to ponder.
- feanaro 4y ago
  No need to start out antagonistically if you expect a real answer. You might as well assume I had no bad intentions. Perhaps we just misunderstood each other? > Why, if they certainly happen, is their appearance in the consciousness and subsequent action when so consciously decided "an illusion"? What illusion is exactly at hand here? How do you understand the concept of "volition"? > I do not see how you can project your qualia on to me, nor how there is a "we" in this statement. I do not feel similarly to this at all. Okay, I apologize for using the word "we". It is certainly my experience that people perceive this in the way I described, from many discussions I've had. The statement above is not meant to be universal in a hard sense, despite my literary use of "we". I'm not claiming to understand how things ultimately work, but I've certainly had personal experiences pointing towards there not being a homunculus, or an extra-physical volition capable of overriding raw cause-and-effect. In fact, it appears that everything is ultimately cause-and-effect -- and I find people commonly object to this idea when exposed to it. (Just noticed you're the grandparent poster.) In fact, what do you mean when you say "there is not even conscious level filtering or decisions made prior to action"? What purpose does the conscious level qualifier serve in your sentence, if the filtering and the deciding is ultimately just another effect produced by some cause? How does this differ from any other causal system which is traditionally not considered to possess free will, such as a mechanical contraption?
  - nawgz 4y ago

NateEag 4y ago

> We usually feel like there is a person inside that has control and almost extra-physical ability to override, but surely this must be result of physical inputs and processes? I know of no rigorous evidence against the idea that we're purely matter and physics, nor do I know of any rigorous evidence showing that's all there is to humans (or living beings generally). It's arguably a "mysticism of the gaps", but the "hard problem" form of consciousness still seems like a pretty weird outcome of evolution to me if that is in fact what it is, and not something that's adequately explained by, say, the anthropic principle. I realize opinions will vary, and I'm okay with that - this one happens to be mine at the moment. It seems to me to require a decent amount of faith in the idea that only matter exists to conclude that consciousness and free will must be illusory. It's certainly a defensible, reasonable stance, but I don't think it's the only plausible one. > There have also been some (contentious) scientific experiments pointing towards this. If you're referring to Libet's analysis of the Bereitschaftspotential experiments, there has been some acceptance in the past few years that this paper shows he misinterpreted the data: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210467109 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210467109 Popular summary of the debate in The Atlantic: https://archive.ph/SHH0p https://archive.ph/SHH0p

feanaro 4y ago
> It seems to me to require a decent amount of faith in the idea that only matter exists to conclude that consciousness and free will must be illusory. Why only matter? My default position (of which I'm not entirely convinced of!) is that there are only physical things, not that there is only matter. So if consciousness and free will are physical phenomena of some kind, that makes things logical again. But if they are physical, then surely they follow physical rules, and need to somehow interact with the rest of physics. This again leaves no gap for there to be a divine kind of free will, one that is extra-physical and capable of overriding cause and effect. When I say that free will is illusory, I mean it in this sense: I don't see a logically coherent way in which free will could be non-physical and outside of the usual cause-and-effect chain. ** I did mean Libet, thanks for the references.
- feanaro 4y ago
  > I did mean Libet, thanks for the references. And quickly skimming through the linked paper, their suggested mechanism changes the "decision" to simply be a result of stochastic fluctuation in neural activity. So it resolves some of the weirdness introduced by Libet, by not having the moment of decision precede the moment of conscious experience. But at best, it still leaves free will with a kind of ancillary role, in which it represents the "feeling" of volitional control, with the actual decision still being stochastic at best. This is certainly possible, but not what people usually mean when discussing free will colloquially (I find).

nawgz 4y ago

> The conscious filtering and the actions are an illusion > They certainly happen on some level What a strangely useless statement. Why, if they certainly happen, is their appearance in the consciousness and subsequent action when so consciously decided "an illusion"? What illusion is exactly at hand here? > We usually feel like there is a person inside that has control and almost extra-physical ability to override I do not see how you can project your qualia on to me, nor how there is a "we" in this statement. I do not feel similarly to this at all. Overall, this is the kind of unenlightened junk I expect to hear from people that claim to understand what our lives are and what they mean. No one understands these things, but it's certainly fun to ponder.

feanaro 4y ago
No need to start out antagonistically if you expect a real answer. You might as well assume I had no bad intentions. Perhaps we just misunderstood each other? > Why, if they certainly happen, is their appearance in the consciousness and subsequent action when so consciously decided "an illusion"? What illusion is exactly at hand here? How do you understand the concept of "volition"? > I do not see how you can project your qualia on to me, nor how there is a "we" in this statement. I do not feel similarly to this at all. Okay, I apologize for using the word "we". It is certainly my experience that people perceive this in the way I described, from many discussions I've had. The statement above is not meant to be universal in a hard sense, despite my literary use of "we". I'm not claiming to understand how things ultimately work, but I've certainly had personal experiences pointing towards there not being a homunculus, or an extra-physical volition capable of overriding raw cause-and-effect. In fact, it appears that everything is ultimately cause-and-effect -- and I find people commonly object to this idea when exposed to it. (Just noticed you're the grandparent poster.) In fact, what do you mean when you say "there is not even conscious level filtering or decisions made prior to action"? What purpose does the conscious level qualifier serve in your sentence, if the filtering and the deciding is ultimately just another effect produced by some cause? How does this differ from any other causal system which is traditionally not considered to possess free will, such as a mechanical contraption?
- nawgz 4y ago