6 ms·

There are also humans who can’t conjure up an image in their head. Mozilla cofounder wrote a fairly famous piece about his own experience. https://www.theverge

There are also humans who can’t conjure up an image in their head. Mozilla cofounder wrote a fairly famous piece about his own experience. https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/25/11501230/blake-ross-cant-visualize-things https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/25/11501230/blake-ross-cant-... If there are people who can’t picture and people who don’t have an inner dialogue, I think it lends more credence to the idea that we don’t have free will and are just a bunch of chemicals controlling our behavior. It also makes you think about consciousness and whether it’s even real.

pcrh 2y ago
With regards to consciousness per se being real, that question was resolved with Cogito, ergo sum.
thfuran 2y ago
>If there are people who can’t picture and people who don’t have an inner dialogue, I think it lends more credence to the idea that we don’t have free will That seems like a bizarre leap. What's the connection?
- aurareturn 2y ago
  Because it implies that we only behave based on how we feel, not how we think. The thinking part is an illusion. Therefore, our “consciousness” has no effect on how we behave. I’m not willing to die on this hill by the way so if someone else comes along and argues otherwise, I’m open to other ideas.
  - MeImCounting 2y ago
    Thinking isnt even a path to "free will". Thinking is pretty clearly determined by exterior stimulus just like feeling is.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      Where does "clearly" originate, and what does it refer to? Is "just" a synonym for "exactly" in this context?
      - MeImCounting 2y ago
        "Clearly" refers to the obviousness or self-evidence of the statement. In this context, "just" means "similarly" or "in the same way," or ig "exactly" if you like. "Clearly" because exterior stimuli clearly influence both thinking and feeling, a concept supported by common experience and scientific understanding of human cognition and emotions.
        poochkoishi728 2y ago
        Influence != Determine
        MeImCounting 2y ago
        Yes it is indeed possible that in that small and shrinking gap of behavior that isnt explained by some complex set of circumstances and stimuli there lies some magic immaterial soul that grants the ineffable quality of free will. Bbbut since we have yet to find any evidence for such a thing I wouldnt keep my hopes up. Also theres much more interesting questions to be asking.
        mistermann 2y ago
        Might "explanations" have a (perhaps private, or semi-private) epistemic value attribute? That could certainly change the game up.
        MeImCounting 2y ago
        Well most of the explanations I personally am interested in have a public and therefore high epistemic value. Since they are published and repeatable. Certain behavioral tests or self-report surveys on the other hand have lower value because of the private nature of what were intending to test. They still have some value though. Private experiences may be very important for individuals and like I said elsewhere, free-will is certainly a useful idea in religious contexts. I do not believe this has any bearing on practical matters such as our ability to predict or understand the actions taken by any given system such as humans or computers.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    > The thinking part is an illusion. Except for this part of thinking, paradoxically. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/
  - Earw0rm 2y ago
    Just because you're reliant on words to think doesn't mean others are. Language certainly helps shape thoughts, even to the extent that, certainly for older kids and adults, different languages influence and constrain thought in different ways. But consider dreams. These are adjacent to thoughts, and don't require language. Some dreamers are even able to express will not only on their actions, but over the dream itself. And if proof were needed of a conscious agent, it's there even in an apparently unconscious being.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    Turn it around. How would "consciousness" manifest if we behave based on how we think, not how we feel? You meed to prove the opposite too. There is not a prerequisite of it being either or but I guess it is both.
  - thfuran 2y ago
    It only implies that some people think (or perceive thinking) differently.
  - card_zero 2y ago
    There's alien hand syndrome in split-brain people, where the verbal hemisphere will invent its own confidently incorrect explanation of "why I just did that" when the non-verbal hemisphere does something with the hand it controls. And there's Marvin Minsky's society of mind. But none of this undermines free will, it just means the will is a function of lots of components, only some of which are involved in contemplative thought (and not necessarily verbally).
7thaccount 2y ago
I find it hard to believe that they can't at all imagine what a tree looks like or imagine a face of a friend. I can understand some difficulty in a perfect image, but nothing?
- jprete 2y ago
  There's a spectrum, but some people see nothing at all. It's known as aphantasia.
- trescenzi 2y ago
  The fun thing is that for those of us who cannot it’s as hard to believe others can conjure images. Yes the idea of mental imagery is deeply ingrained in our language but I’d always assumed it was allusion till I learned of aphantasia when I was 30. One of the more cliche, and not super useful tests, is “imagine a ball on a table, someone pushes the ball and it begins to roll. What color is the ball?” For me that was a revelatory statement because I’d never consider that others might give the ball a color, or size, or texture as the imagine it. I assume not everyone with the ability to visualize does but it seems like many do according to the literature. To me it’s just a statement, a ball is rolling pushed by a nondescript person.
  - p51-remorse 2y ago
    So for me I definitely visualized a ball on a table, but the color wasn’t resolved, if that makes sense. After hearing the question asked it kind of snaps out of superposition into a red color (but there was definitely a color-choosing step that happened after hearing the question). Same thing happens if you ask “what surface is the table on” or “what country is this image in”. It’s layers I can add to the mental state, but if they’re not important they’re just not there. I’d say the closest thing to what I was “seeing” before the color question is something like a wireframe, or maybe the gray color of a Blender model without colors/textures applied. Grey in the sense that you don’t really notice it’s grey, you just understand the grey color means color is absent.
    - tessellated 2y ago
throwaway920102 2y ago
Mental imagery and mental language could both be a layer above a lower more basic form of abstract thought. You might not need either to think, plan, and reflect effectively.
rightbyte 2y ago
I don't see the connection. When I am doing math or painting I am not spelling out what to do in my head. You can probably do just fine without an inner monologue.
dTal 2y ago
What even is "free will"? It's an idea that falls apart on close inspection. You think "I will wash the dishes". You wash the dishes. Ta-daa, free will! A paralyzed person thinks "I will raise my hand". Nothing happens. No free will! An ADHD person says to themself "I will wash the dishes". They don't get washed. A different part is broken than to the paralyzed person, but the result is the same. A lazy person says to their roommate "I refuse to wash the dishes". Free will? They "could", if they were not lazy. Just as the ADHD person "could" if they did not have executive dysfunction. Just as the paralyzed person "could" if their spinal cord were intact. "Free will", as a philosophical construct, is nothing more than an attempt by the ego to regain a sense of control in the face of the irrefutable realization that the universe is governed by rigid laws, and we are made of universe. (And no, quantum randomness doesn't help you - a random choice is hardly more of an extension of will than a deterministic one).
- vasco 2y ago
  I agree with the only caveat that the universe should have a maximum amount of precision it uses to calculate every next frame, and at the margin of error of these calculations, non-determinism may arise.
  - dTal 2y ago
    Even if those assumptions were true (and why should they be? the universe is not a computer, does not have "frames") what would that have to do with "free will"?
    - vasco 2y ago
      Why should yours? It seemed like you liked musing about this topic so I added a bit. You (and I) have no idea if the universe is or not a computer. If you don't see the connection of free will to error margin of a deterministic system then I'm not sure how else to put it. Just imagine a deterministic program getting a bit flipped by a cosmic ray and turning non deterministic and apply that to the universe's system of laws.
orwin 2y ago
If consciousness, or rather, "philosophy of mind" interest you, and you like thinking about it, your position about "consciousness isn't real" (i simplify here) is a more and more talked about position, and the tenants are called "illusionists". Basically, they think we have an illusion of consciousness/subjective experience. Once again, poorly simplified, i'm not smart/dedicated enough to totally understand the idea and it is hard to explain something you don't totally get.

pcrh 2y ago

With regards to consciousness per se being real, that question was resolved with Cogito, ergo sum.

thfuran 2y ago

>If there are people who can’t picture and people who don’t have an inner dialogue, I think it lends more credence to the idea that we don’t have free will That seems like a bizarre leap. What's the connection?

aurareturn 2y ago
Because it implies that we only behave based on how we feel, not how we think. The thinking part is an illusion. Therefore, our “consciousness” has no effect on how we behave. I’m not willing to die on this hill by the way so if someone else comes along and argues otherwise, I’m open to other ideas.
- MeImCounting 2y ago
  Thinking isnt even a path to "free will". Thinking is pretty clearly determined by exterior stimulus just like feeling is.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Where does "clearly" originate, and what does it refer to? Is "just" a synonym for "exactly" in this context?
    - MeImCounting 2y ago
      "Clearly" refers to the obviousness or self-evidence of the statement. In this context, "just" means "similarly" or "in the same way," or ig "exactly" if you like. "Clearly" because exterior stimuli clearly influence both thinking and feeling, a concept supported by common experience and scientific understanding of human cognition and emotions.
      - poochkoishi728 2y ago
        Influence != Determine
        MeImCounting 2y ago
        Yes it is indeed possible that in that small and shrinking gap of behavior that isnt explained by some complex set of circumstances and stimuli there lies some magic immaterial soul that grants the ineffable quality of free will. Bbbut since we have yet to find any evidence for such a thing I wouldnt keep my hopes up. Also theres much more interesting questions to be asking.
        mistermann 2y ago
        Might "explanations" have a (perhaps private, or semi-private) epistemic value attribute? That could certainly change the game up.
        MeImCounting 2y ago
        Well most of the explanations I personally am interested in have a public and therefore high epistemic value. Since they are published and repeatable. Certain behavioral tests or self-report surveys on the other hand have lower value because of the private nature of what were intending to test. They still have some value though. Private experiences may be very important for individuals and like I said elsewhere, free-will is certainly a useful idea in religious contexts. I do not believe this has any bearing on practical matters such as our ability to predict or understand the actions taken by any given system such as humans or computers.
- mistermann 2y ago
  > The thinking part is an illusion. Except for this part of thinking, paradoxically. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/
- Earw0rm 2y ago
  Just because you're reliant on words to think doesn't mean others are. Language certainly helps shape thoughts, even to the extent that, certainly for older kids and adults, different languages influence and constrain thought in different ways. But consider dreams. These are adjacent to thoughts, and don't require language. Some dreamers are even able to express will not only on their actions, but over the dream itself. And if proof were needed of a conscious agent, it's there even in an apparently unconscious being.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  Turn it around. How would "consciousness" manifest if we behave based on how we think, not how we feel? You meed to prove the opposite too. There is not a prerequisite of it being either or but I guess it is both.
- thfuran 2y ago
  It only implies that some people think (or perceive thinking) differently.
- card_zero 2y ago
  There's alien hand syndrome in split-brain people, where the verbal hemisphere will invent its own confidently incorrect explanation of "why I just did that" when the non-verbal hemisphere does something with the hand it controls. And there's Marvin Minsky's society of mind. But none of this undermines free will, it just means the will is a function of lots of components, only some of which are involved in contemplative thought (and not necessarily verbally).

7thaccount 2y ago

I find it hard to believe that they can't at all imagine what a tree looks like or imagine a face of a friend. I can understand some difficulty in a perfect image, but nothing?

jprete 2y ago
There's a spectrum, but some people see nothing at all. It's known as aphantasia.
trescenzi 2y ago
The fun thing is that for those of us who cannot it’s as hard to believe others can conjure images. Yes the idea of mental imagery is deeply ingrained in our language but I’d always assumed it was allusion till I learned of aphantasia when I was 30. One of the more cliche, and not super useful tests, is “imagine a ball on a table, someone pushes the ball and it begins to roll. What color is the ball?” For me that was a revelatory statement because I’d never consider that others might give the ball a color, or size, or texture as the imagine it. I assume not everyone with the ability to visualize does but it seems like many do according to the literature. To me it’s just a statement, a ball is rolling pushed by a nondescript person.
- p51-remorse 2y ago
  So for me I definitely visualized a ball on a table, but the color wasn’t resolved, if that makes sense. After hearing the question asked it kind of snaps out of superposition into a red color (but there was definitely a color-choosing step that happened after hearing the question). Same thing happens if you ask “what surface is the table on” or “what country is this image in”. It’s layers I can add to the mental state, but if they’re not important they’re just not there. I’d say the closest thing to what I was “seeing” before the color question is something like a wireframe, or maybe the gray color of a Blender model without colors/textures applied. Grey in the sense that you don’t really notice it’s grey, you just understand the grey color means color is absent.
  - tessellated 2y ago

throwaway920102 2y ago

Mental imagery and mental language could both be a layer above a lower more basic form of abstract thought. You might not need either to think, plan, and reflect effectively.

rightbyte 2y ago

I don't see the connection. When I am doing math or painting I am not spelling out what to do in my head. You can probably do just fine without an inner monologue.

dTal 2y ago

What even is "free will"? It's an idea that falls apart on close inspection. You think "I will wash the dishes". You wash the dishes. Ta-daa, free will! A paralyzed person thinks "I will raise my hand". Nothing happens. No free will! An ADHD person says to themself "I will wash the dishes". They don't get washed. A different part is broken than to the paralyzed person, but the result is the same. A lazy person says to their roommate "I refuse to wash the dishes". Free will? They "could", if they were not lazy. Just as the ADHD person "could" if they did not have executive dysfunction. Just as the paralyzed person "could" if their spinal cord were intact. "Free will", as a philosophical construct, is nothing more than an attempt by the ego to regain a sense of control in the face of the irrefutable realization that the universe is governed by rigid laws, and we are made of universe. (And no, quantum randomness doesn't help you - a random choice is hardly more of an extension of will than a deterministic one).

vasco 2y ago
I agree with the only caveat that the universe should have a maximum amount of precision it uses to calculate every next frame, and at the margin of error of these calculations, non-determinism may arise.
- dTal 2y ago
  Even if those assumptions were true (and why should they be? the universe is not a computer, does not have "frames") what would that have to do with "free will"?
  - vasco 2y ago
    Why should yours? It seemed like you liked musing about this topic so I added a bit. You (and I) have no idea if the universe is or not a computer. If you don't see the connection of free will to error margin of a deterministic system then I'm not sure how else to put it. Just imagine a deterministic program getting a bit flipped by a cosmic ray and turning non deterministic and apply that to the universe's system of laws.

orwin 2y ago

If consciousness, or rather, "philosophy of mind" interest you, and you like thinking about it, your position about "consciousness isn't real" (i simplify here) is a more and more talked about position, and the tenants are called "illusionists". Basically, they think we have an illusion of consciousness/subjective experience. Once again, poorly simplified, i'm not smart/dedicated enough to totally understand the idea and it is hard to explain something you don't totally get.