Lionizing Lyin Eyes.

[John D. Brey]

The implication is that some part of your brain—a module or network if you will—determines that your finger should move before you are even aware that you have made that decision. The results of these experiments indicate that even when we think we control the choice to act—a behavior as simple as moving a finger—the brain is deciding for us when to make the move. After making the decision, without our being aware of the internal impetus, the brain then convinces us that we were in control of that decision.”​

​

— Gray Matters: A Biography of Brain Surgery by Theodore H. Schwartz​

​

Neurosurgeon Theodore H. Schwartz, is only the most recent scientifically minded metaphysical-materialists trying his darnedest to convince his readers that they don't have freewill, and that all they are or ever will be is circumscribed by their brain. Unfortunately, he, like past metaphysical-materialists, makes quite a mess, logically and rationally, by the way he speaks about things. Case in point. Read the quotation above and ask yourself who is the "we" the brain is trying to convince is in control?

We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism – something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.​

​

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 200-201.​

These two brilliant scientists appear to think putting their we-we's in our faces will distract from the "we" in their sentences. Dawkins establishes a duality between genes (biological life) and memes (thought-life replicating by means of concepts or ideas in the brain), and then suggest there's a third entity he labels "we." He implies this "we" transcends both the bodily biology, and the thought-life of the body (the tyranny of the brain trying, ala Schwartz, to trick us), such that "we" can, as he implies, transcend the very nature of our natural, biological, cognitive, self. Schwartz, on the other hand, establishes a duality between the brain, and the mind, arguing mostly that the mind is a phenomenon of the brain, but then falling into the Neo-Darwinian "we we" speak, spoke by Dawkins, which posits something far more theological sounding than the mere mind (i.e., a "we," that transcends body, brain, mind).



John

 

[Heyo]

The implication is that some part of your brain—a module or network if you will—determines that your finger should move before you are even aware that you have made that decision. The results of these experiments indicate that even when we think we control the choice to act—a behavior as simple as moving a finger—the brain is deciding for us when to make the move. After making the decision, without our being aware of the internal impetus, the brain then convinces us that we were in control of that decision.”​

​

— Gray Matters: A Biography of Brain Surgery by Theodore H. Schwartz​

Gray Matters: A Biography of Brain Surgery

Quote shared via Kindle: "The implication is that some part of your brain—a module or network if you will—determines that your finger should move before you are even aware that you have made that decision. The results of these experiments indicate that even...

a.co

Neurosurgeon Theodore H. Schwartz, is only the most recent scientifically minded metaphysical-materialists trying his darnedest to convince his readers that they don't have freewill, and that all they are or ever will be is circumscribed by their brain. Unfortunately, he, like past metaphysical-materialists, makes quite a mess, logically and rationally, by the way he speaks about things. Case in point. Read the quotation above and ask yourself who is the "we" the brain is trying to convince is in control?

We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism – something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.​

​

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 200-201.​

These two brilliant scientists appear to think putting their we-we's in our faces will distract from the "we" in their sentences. Dawkins establishes a duality between genes (biological life) and memes (thought-life replicating by means of concepts or ideas in the brain), and then suggest there's a third entity he labels "we." He implies this "we" transcends both the bodily biology, and the thought-life of the body (the tyranny of the brain trying, ala Schwartz, to trick us), such that "we" can, as he implies, transcend the very nature of our natural, biological, cognitive, self. Schwartz, on the other hand, establishes a duality between the brain, and the mind, arguing mostly that the mind is a phenomenon of the brain, but then falling into the Neo-Darwinian "we we" speak, spoke by Dawkins, which posits something far more theological sounding than the mere mind (i.e., a "we," that transcends body, brain, mind).



John

What has this to do with science or religion? Isn't what you are questioning in the realm of philosophy?

 

[1213]

The implication is that some part of your brain—a module or network if you will—determines that your finger should move before you are even aware that you have made that decision. ...​

How does he know?

 

[John D. Brey]

What has this to do with science or religion? Isn't what you are questioning in the realm of philosophy?

Delimiting these three kinds of thought, i.e., religion, philosophy, and science, as though they're not part and parcel of the same domain, is part of the problem. As the great Karl Popper showed, philosophy is a rational attempt to defend or refute mythological/religious tenets, while the scientist lends his tools and experiments to that same endeavor. According to Popper, religious thought (to include mythology) is the genesis of meaningful thought. Philosophy then tries to circumscribe religious and mythological thought, putting them into logical, rational, constructs, while science, lastly, puts it all to the experimental test. First comes religious or mythological propositions dogmatically held. Then comes philosophy attempting to make sense of the religious thought. Lastly, the scientist comes along with the scientific-method to put it all to the test.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

How does he know?

Believe it or not, they've done test by putting probes and stimulators into parts of the brain in order to determine such things. The neuroscientist shows, through actual experiments, what religions and philosophers have known for a long time: our body, with emphasis on our brain, is tricking us big time.

Case in point. As Schwartz says, put your arms out in front of you. Take your right index finger and gently touch your left index finger carefully noting when you feel the sensation of the right finger touching the left?

If you're normal, your brain convinces you that there's no time-delay between when the right finger touches the left, and when you sense the touch.

But we know the signal must pass through nerves, reach the brain, fire off neurons, etc. etc., which takes time. The sensation of instantaneously feeling the right finger touching the left is an illusion foisted on us by the brain. Careful experiments have proven this.

But it gets worse.

The time it takes the nerves to transfer the sensation of touch from the finger to the brain is meaningfully different from the time it takes for the light to leave the fingers that are touching, enter the eye, and register in the brain. There's no realistic way that what you see, and what you feel, should, or even could, be instantaneous as is the case of your perception of them. The brain is designed to lie to you so that you feel like things are more integrated than they are. In effect, your brain creates a false matrix and you live the lie.



John

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How does he know?

Experiments conducted by neuroscientist Benjamin Libet.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have a very different take on this topic than do many philosophers these days. There seems to be a tacit agreement, among many who deny free-will, that the self is equated with consciousness -- that the only true "you" is the conscious you. I disagree. Consciousness, for me, is just another feature of the great complex entity that is me.

Consider, rather than my brain, the rest of my body. It goes on about its business manufacturing enzymes and hormones, regulating temperature, re-arming the immune system while it protects me against illness -- all without any awareness at all on my part. It is my brain that makes decisions, and in exactly the same way it is my brain that manufactures the conscious me. So what does it matter whether my brain notifies my consciousness only 500 milliseconds after a decision is made. It was still my decision -- in that it was a decision of my brain, and nobody else's.

It cannot be forgotten that my brain has access to everything I know, including things I can't even consciously remember that I know. I prove this on a regular basis while solving cryptic crosswords -- when I'm stuck, I will leave the clue and work on something else, until at some later point, my brain will notify my consciousness that it has found the answer. It was continuing to work while my conscious self turned to a diffferent problem, and signalled me when done.

Look at what @John D. Brey says in his opening paragraph: "The results of these experiments indicate that even when we think we control the choice to act—a behavior as simple as moving a finger—the brain is deciding for us when to make the move." That clearly reads as if the brain isn't the self, but something else altogether -- and that it does things and only let's the self know about it later. But that is not what I intuit -- I intuit that brain and consciousness are simply parts of a much more complex system -- a system in which parts work independently, interdendently, cooperatively and informatively as needed. This entity called "I" is all of these things at once -- not just the conscious bit. .

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

@John D. Brey, I don't know if you're interested or not, but after answering you, it seemed to me it might be amusing to have a wee talk with ChatGPT. Anyway, for what it's worth, here it is:

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Many philosophers opine that we lack free will because our consciousness is only notified of an action or choice after the fact -- perhaps 500 milliseconds after, as Benjamin Libet suggested. I disagree: it is my opinion that the "real me" isn't just my conscious self, but all of the rest of my neural functions as well, conscious or not. I believe that my consciousness is just something manufactured by my brain, presumably for some evolutionary advantage. Thoughts?

ChatGPT said:
Your view aligns with a more integrated or holistic understanding of the self, where consciousness is just one aspect of a larger neural network that governs decision-making and behavior. By seeing the brain's unconscious processes as part of the "real you," you offer a counter to the interpretation of experiments like Libet's, which seem to suggest that consciousness is secondary or reactive.

From this perspective, even if conscious awareness of a decision happens after neural processes have already initiated it, those unconscious processes are still part of the self. The evolutionary angle you mentioned could imply that consciousness serves as a way to narratively unify actions, monitor, or adjust them in complex social and environmental contexts.

This interpretation challenges a strict distinction between conscious and unconscious actions, implying that free will exists across the whole spectrum of brain activity, not just in the conscious mind. How do you view the relationship between the unconscious and moral responsibility? Does the fact that much of our behavior happens unconsciously change how we should think about ethics and accountability?

Evangelicalhumanist said:
No, I don't think it should. My brain has access to everything that I know [Note, here I accidently hit return, so ChatGPT went ahead as if I had completed my thought]

ChatGPT said:
That makes sense. If all aspects of your brain, conscious or not, are involved in decision-making, then moral responsibility would still rest with the individual as a whole. Whether actions are initiated unconsciously or consciously doesn't absolve someone from being accountable, since it’s all part of the same system making choices based on the same knowledge.

This viewpoint preserves the traditional sense of ethical responsibility while accommodating the complexities of how the brain functions. It also sidesteps the potential pitfalls of determinism by maintaining that the "self" encompasses all the brain’s activity, regardless of whether it's conscious or not.

Would you say this position also applies to how we judge the actions of others, even when they claim they acted unconsciously or instinctively?

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Yes, I would. I take some objection to defenses against charges of rape that the perpetrator was "unconscious" at the time, or incapable of making a rational decision. This becomes more complicated when there is a real problem with brain functioning, but this, in my view, is best described by illness, which can be treated differently than culpability.

ChatGPT said:
Your stance draws a clear line between cases of genuine mental illness and those where unconscious or irrational behavior is used as a defense for actions like rape. This distinction emphasizes the idea that individuals are still responsible for their actions unless there is a verifiable condition that impairs their capacity for self-control or decision-making.

In cases of genuine brain dysfunction, treating the issue as an illness allows for appropriate interventions while maintaining moral responsibility in cases where the brain is functioning normally. This approach balances compassion for those with legitimate disorders and accountability for those who misuse unconscious behavior as an excuse.

It's a nuanced position—how do you think the legal system should navigate these complexities?

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Given that the legal system is a creation of humans, I think that how the legal system navigates these complexities is "with great difficulty." How it should navigate them, I'm afraid I'm incompetent to say. As it is, I suppose it depends on what lawyers, judges and jurors think consciousness is, and that is still at issue, isn't it?

ChatGPT said:
You're right that the legal system, being a human construct, struggles with the complexities of consciousness and accountability. The question of what consciousness is—and how it relates to free will, responsibility, and moral agency—is still debated in philosophy, neuroscience, and psychology, which complicates how the law interprets cases involving mental states.

Since there's no universal consensus on the nature of consciousness, different courts and legal systems may come to varying conclusions depending on how lawyers frame the arguments and how judges and jurors interpret them. Without a clear scientific or philosophical understanding of consciousness, legal decisions may end up reflecting the dominant cultural or scientific beliefs at the time.

Given the evolving nature of these fields, do you think we should wait for a more complete understanding of consciousness before we make reforms to how the law handles such cases? Or should we proceed cautiously, even if we don’t have all the answers?

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Obviously, we must do both at once -- seek a more complete understanding of consciousness, and proceed cautiously. Life, as they say, goes on.

ChatGPT said:
That makes perfect sense. Striking a balance between deepening our understanding of consciousness and addressing real-world legal and ethical challenges is essential, since waiting for a definitive answer isn’t practical in the ongoing march of life. The legal system must adapt to new discoveries and insights while being careful not to jump to conclusions or oversimplify complex issues like unconscious behavior and responsibility.

As we learn more, we can adjust how we handle these matters, but in the meantime, cautious, well-reasoned approaches seem necessary. Do you think there are any particular aspects of our current understanding of consciousness that the legal system could incorporate more effectively right now?

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Yes, I would really hope the legal system (and philosophers) look much more closely into my notion that the self is a whole, not just a part, of neural function. It includes both the unconscious and conscious. As I didn't finish saying earlier, my brain has access to everything I know -- even the things I can't remember or don't know I know, and as a consequence, what I know, including how I have responded to events in the past, which becomes part of my overall memory, informs my actions.

ChatGPT said:
Your view highlights a more integrated and comprehensive understanding of the self, where even unconscious knowledge and past experiences shape actions. This approach could provide the legal system with a more nuanced way to assess responsibility, considering that a person’s behavior is informed by both conscious and unconscious processes.

If the self includes all neural functions, it implies that people are still acting as a whole, even when they're unaware of certain factors influencing their decisions. This could argue against defenses that separate unconscious behavior from responsibility, as the unconscious mind is still part of the individual's decision-making apparatus. It could also encourage more thorough examinations of how memory and experience shape behavior in legal contexts.

Your perspective could indeed push philosophical and legal discussions forward. How would you envision the legal system evaluating unconscious influences on behavior in a way that aligns with your holistic view of the self?

Evangelicalhumanist said:
I will think more on this, and perhaps return to the conversation. Thank you for your assistance.

ChatGPT said:
You're very welcome! I'm glad I could help you explore these ideas. Feel free to return whenever you'd like to continue the conversation. I'll be here when you're ready!

 

[John D. Brey]

I have a very different take on this topic than do many philosophers these days. There seems to be a tacit agreement, among many who deny free-will, that the self is equated with consciousness -- that the only true "you" is the conscious you. I disagree. Consciousness, for me, is just another feature of the great complex entity that is me.

Consider, rather than my brain, the rest of my body. It goes on about its business manufacturing enzymes and hormones, regulating temperature, re-arming the immune system while it protects me against illness -- all without any awareness at all on my part. It is my brain that makes decisions, and in exactly the same way it is my brain that manufactures the conscious me. So what does it matter whether my brain notifies my consciousness only 500 milliseconds after a decision is made. It was still my decision -- in that it was a decision of my brain, and nobody else's.

It cannot be forgotten that my brain has access to everything I know, including things I can't even consciously remember that I know. I prove this on a regular basis while solving cryptic crosswords -- when I'm stuck, I will leave the clue and work on something else, until at some later point, my brain will notify my consciousness that it has found the answer. It was continuing to work while my conscious self turned to a diffferent problem, and signalled me when done.

Look at what @John D. Brey says in his opening paragraph: "The results of these experiments indicate that even when we think we control the choice to act—a behavior as simple as moving a finger—the brain is deciding for us when to make the move." That clearly reads as if the brain isn't the self, but something else altogether -- and that it does things and only let's the self know about it later. But that is not what I intuit -- I intuit that brain and consciousness are simply parts of a much more complex system -- a system in which parts work independently, interdendently, cooperatively and informatively as needed. This entity called "I" is all of these things at once -- not just the conscious bit. .

. . . Just a quick note. The quotation you attributed to me was actually from Theodore Schwartz. I just edited the first post so it's not so confusing. Fwiw, I agree, for the most part, with what you said, more than with what Schwartz said.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

@John D. Brey, I don't know if you're interested or not, but after answering you, it seemed to me it might be amusing to have a wee talk with ChatGPT. Anyway, for what it's worth, here it is:

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Many philosophers opine that we lack free will because our consciousness is only notified of an action or choice after the fact -- perhaps 500 milliseconds after, as Benjamin Libet suggested. I disagree: it is my opinion that the "real me" isn't just my conscious self, but all of the rest of my neural functions as well, conscious or not. I believe that my consciousness is just something manufactured by my brain, presumably for some evolutionary advantage. Thoughts?

ChatGPT said:
Your view aligns with a more integrated or holistic understanding of the self, where consciousness is just one aspect of a larger neural network that governs decision-making and behavior. By seeing the brain's unconscious processes as part of the "real you," you offer a counter to the interpretation of experiments like Libet's, which seem to suggest that consciousness is secondary or reactive.

From this perspective, even if conscious awareness of a decision happens after neural processes have already initiated it, those unconscious processes are still part of the self. The evolutionary angle you mentioned could imply that consciousness serves as a way to narratively unify actions, monitor, or adjust them in complex social and environmental contexts.

This interpretation challenges a strict distinction between conscious and unconscious actions, implying that free will exists across the whole spectrum of brain activity, not just in the conscious mind. How do you view the relationship between the unconscious and moral responsibility? Does the fact that much of our behavior happens unconsciously change how we should think about ethics and accountability?

Evangelicalhumanist said:
No, I don't think it should. My brain has access to everything that I know [Note, here I accidently hit return, so ChatGPT went ahead as if I had completed my thought]

ChatGPT said:
That makes sense. If all aspects of your brain, conscious or not, are involved in decision-making, then moral responsibility would still rest with the individual as a whole. Whether actions are initiated unconsciously or consciously doesn't absolve someone from being accountable, since it’s all part of the same system making choices based on the same knowledge.

This viewpoint preserves the traditional sense of ethical responsibility while accommodating the complexities of how the brain functions. It also sidesteps the potential pitfalls of determinism by maintaining that the "self" encompasses all the brain’s activity, regardless of whether it's conscious or not.

Would you say this position also applies to how we judge the actions of others, even when they claim they acted unconsciously or instinctively?

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Yes, I would. I take some objection to defenses against charges of rape that the perpetrator was "unconscious" at the time, or incapable of making a rational decision. This becomes more complicated when there is a real problem with brain functioning, but this, in my view, is best described by illness, which can be treated differently than culpability.

ChatGPT said:
Your stance draws a clear line between cases of genuine mental illness and those where unconscious or irrational behavior is used as a defense for actions like rape. This distinction emphasizes the idea that individuals are still responsible for their actions unless there is a verifiable condition that impairs their capacity for self-control or decision-making.

In cases of genuine brain dysfunction, treating the issue as an illness allows for appropriate interventions while maintaining moral responsibility in cases where the brain is functioning normally. This approach balances compassion for those with legitimate disorders and accountability for those who misuse unconscious behavior as an excuse.

It's a nuanced position—how do you think the legal system should navigate these complexities?

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Given that the legal system is a creation of humans, I think that how the legal system navigates these complexities is "with great difficulty." How it should navigate them, I'm afraid I'm incompetent to say. As it is, I suppose it depends on what lawyers, judges and jurors think consciousness is, and that is still at issue, isn't it?

ChatGPT said:
You're right that the legal system, being a human construct, struggles with the complexities of consciousness and accountability. The question of what consciousness is—and how it relates to free will, responsibility, and moral agency—is still debated in philosophy, neuroscience, and psychology, which complicates how the law interprets cases involving mental states.

Since there's no universal consensus on the nature of consciousness, different courts and legal systems may come to varying conclusions depending on how lawyers frame the arguments and how judges and jurors interpret them. Without a clear scientific or philosophical understanding of consciousness, legal decisions may end up reflecting the dominant cultural or scientific beliefs at the time.

Given the evolving nature of these fields, do you think we should wait for a more complete understanding of consciousness before we make reforms to how the law handles such cases? Or should we proceed cautiously, even if we don’t have all the answers?

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Obviously, we must do both at once -- seek a more complete understanding of consciousness, and proceed cautiously. Life, as they say, goes on.

ChatGPT said:
That makes perfect sense. Striking a balance between deepening our understanding of consciousness and addressing real-world legal and ethical challenges is essential, since waiting for a definitive answer isn’t practical in the ongoing march of life. The legal system must adapt to new discoveries and insights while being careful not to jump to conclusions or oversimplify complex issues like unconscious behavior and responsibility.

As we learn more, we can adjust how we handle these matters, but in the meantime, cautious, well-reasoned approaches seem necessary. Do you think there are any particular aspects of our current understanding of consciousness that the legal system could incorporate more effectively right now?

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Yes, I would really hope the legal system (and philosophers) look much more closely into my notion that the self is a whole, not just a part, of neural function. It includes both the unconscious and conscious. As I didn't finish saying earlier, my brain has access to everything I know -- even the things I can't remember or don't know I know, and as a consequence, what I know, including how I have responded to events in the past, which becomes part of my overall memory, informs my actions.

ChatGPT said:
Your view highlights a more integrated and comprehensive understanding of the self, where even unconscious knowledge and past experiences shape actions. This approach could provide the legal system with a more nuanced way to assess responsibility, considering that a person’s behavior is informed by both conscious and unconscious processes.

If the self includes all neural functions, it implies that people are still acting as a whole, even when they're unaware of certain factors influencing their decisions. This could argue against defenses that separate unconscious behavior from responsibility, as the unconscious mind is still part of the individual's decision-making apparatus. It could also encourage more thorough examinations of how memory and experience shape behavior in legal contexts.

Your perspective could indeed push philosophical and legal discussions forward. How would you envision the legal system evaluating unconscious influences on behavior in a way that aligns with your holistic view of the self?

Evangelicalhumanist said:
I will think more on this, and perhaps return to the conversation. Thank you for your assistance.

ChatGPT said:
You're very welcome! I'm glad I could help you explore these ideas. Feel free to return whenever you'd like to continue the conversation. I'll be here when you're ready!

There's a lot covered there. And ChatGPT's responses are pretty amazing. . . Again, I tend to agree with your argumentation for the most part.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

I have a very different take on this topic than do many philosophers these days. There seems to be a tacit agreement, among many who deny free-will, that the self is equated with consciousness -- that the only true "you" is the conscious you. I disagree. Consciousness, for me, is just another feature of the great complex entity that is me.

I think this is correct. As Schwartz notes, the conscious self is based on the two frontal lobes, left and right, one of which, the left, is verbal, and the other of which, the right, is mute. The worldview being argued in this thread is based on a theology and philosophy seeking to overthrow the general dynamics of the currently prevalent theology and philosophy of modern, Western, Judeo-Christian, thought (the kind of thought Schwartz worldview is based on), which, as will be argued, bows at the altar of "metaphysical-materialism."

Part and parcel of this desired overturning of Western thought, so far as the overturning is based on Schwartz book, requires that the mute right hemisphere of the brain, be understood to be more fully integrated with the greater complexity of the more holistic brain (the entirety of the brain) you speak of as the true base of consciousness, while the left, verbal, hemisphere, is connected to the whole of the brain only by means of the corpus callosum that connects the left hemisphere to the right. Which is to say, that, ironically, the left hemisphere's only connection to the more holistic brain, is through the mute, right brain, of which it is the mouthpiece, while the mute, right hemisphere's only connection to fully conscious thought, speech, and the ability to communicate, is through the left hemisphere.

Consider, rather than my brain, the rest of my body. It goes on about its business manufacturing enzymes and hormones, regulating temperature, re-arming the immune system while it protects me against illness -- all without any awareness at all on my part. It is my brain that makes decisions, and in exactly the same way it is my brain that manufactures the conscious me. So what does it matter whether my brain notifies my consciousness only 500 milliseconds after a decision is made. It was still my decision -- in that it was a decision of my brain, and nobody else's.

Again, I think this is correct. As we know, and as Schwartz notes, the entirety of the brain and its mechanisms absorb, categorizes, and manipulate, a giant amount of information only the thinnest sliver of which ever reaches the fully conscious part of our existence. Your statement, vis-à-vis, who cares about the gears and machinery and how they function, since the end product is the real you, is important to the concept in the crosshairs of this thread. The argument in this thread is that we can distinguish a binary distinction between two fundamental, crucially important human ideologies, "metaphysical-materialism," versus "metaphysical-idealism," by properly understanding, and not falsely rendering, the true, scientific, nature and functioning of the human brain.

It cannot be forgotten that my brain has access to everything I know, including things I can't even consciously remember that I know. I prove this on a regular basis while solving cryptic crosswords -- when I'm stuck, I will leave the clue and work on something else, until at some later point, my brain will notify my consciousness that it has found the answer. It was continuing to work while my conscious self turned to a diffferent problem, and signalled me when done.

This statement is a perfect segue into the argument of this thread.

Using much of the theology and philosophy argued here for the last couple decades, the argument is that in an important sense, the ideology, the religion (or lack thereof), and philosophy, associated with "metaphysical-materialism" (which circumscribes Theodore Schwartz belief that all we are and will ever be is the non-free-willed firing of various neurons in the brain), is based on a situation where, for reasons that would best be examined later, some people's "self" or "ego," i.e., the very base and foundation of who they are, is situated in the left hemisphere of the conscious, verbal, brain, whereas another people's "self," "ego," the base of their very being, is situated in the right, mute, hemisphere of the brain (leading them to be associated with a so-called "metaphysical-idealism").

Although the two hemispheres are no doubt married, to a large degree, there's always, as in the lyrics of the great Leonard Cohen, a constant battle between who will serve, and who will eat. It's this marriage, which Gershom Scholem implies got inverted (bollixed up) in a primal flaw associated with the biblical Fall of man, that determines the most fundamental worldviews separating the peoples of the world. Which is to say that there's a primal flaw in the relationship between the left and right hemispheres of the brain that affects the most primal and fundamentally important binary relationship between the so-called "metaphysical-materialist" (who is very often an atheist or a Jew), versus the so-called "metaphysical-idealist" (who more often than not is a theist, a deist, and very often a Christian). The "metaphysical-materialist's" self, or ego, is situated in the left hemisphere, while the "metaphysical-idealists" is in the right. These two ideologies (and their foot-soldiers), quite rightly, exist in two fundamentally, and in many ways opposing, universes.



John

 

[Heyo]

I have a very different take on this topic than do many philosophers these days. There seems to be a tacit agreement, among many who deny free-will, that the self is equated with consciousness -- that the only true "you" is the conscious you. I disagree. Consciousness, for me, is just another feature of the great complex entity that is me.

You are tackling only one part of whether we have free will, the "we". The other part is whether our unconscious self has a "will". The knee-jerk reflex will happen if you're conscious or not. It will happen even when your conscious self doesn't want it to happen. So, if I cause a knee-jerk reflex by tapping your patellar tendon, would you say that it was out of your free will?

And while we have invited ChatGPT into our conversation, I will also relay my chat with it:

I said:

A member of a forum I'm on said he had a chat with you about the self and free will. That led me to the question, do you, ChatGPT, have free will?

ChatGPT said:​

I do not have free will. As an AI, I function based on patterns and algorithms trained on vast amounts of data, following pre-defined rules to generate responses. My behavior is entirely determined by inputs (your questions or prompts) and the structure of the model I operate within. I don't possess consciousness, desires, intentions, or the ability to make independent decisions.

The concept of free will typically involves conscious awareness, the ability to make choices that are not entirely determined by external or internal factors, and the subjective experience of agency—all of which I lack. My responses are generated based on probabilities and patterns, rather than any form of volition or self-awareness.

I said:

Thank you, I will relay your response that is vital in supporting my position that humans don't have free will, at least not when their decisions are made unconsciously.

ChatGPT said:​

You're welcome! That's an interesting position. Many debates around free will, especially in philosophy and neuroscience, revolve around the role of unconscious processes in decision-making. If human decisions are significantly influenced by unconscious factors, as some research suggests, it raises complex questions about the nature of free will.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You are tackling only one part of whether we have free will, the "we". The other part is whether our unconscious self has a "will". The knee-jerk reflex will happen if you're conscious or not. It will happen even when your conscious self doesn't want it to happen. So, if I cause a knee-jerk reflex by tapping your patellar tendon, would you say that it was out of your free will?

And while we have invited ChatGPT into our conversation, I will also relay my chat with it:

I would have liked if you had asked (you can go back to the conversation, ChatGPT will remember if you'd care to try it): "wouldn't some of those unconscious factors still be informed by the contents of my brain, whether I am aware of them in the moment or not?"

I am trying to get to that "integrated" concept of the self, one in which consciousness is not the focal point, only one cog in the process of integration.

 

[Heyo]

I would have liked if you had asked (you can go back to the conversation, ChatGPT will remember if you'd care to try it): "wouldn't some of those unconscious factors still be informed by the contents of my brain, whether I am aware of them in the moment or not?"

No need to ask ChatGPT, of course the contents of your brain inform your actions and thoughts, conscious or unconscious. Especially the amount of alcohol, opiates, hormones, neurotransmitters and oxygen.

I am trying to get to that "integrated" concept of the self, one in which consciousness is not the focal point, only one cog in the process of integration.

And I mostly agree with your holistic idea. I just think that it isn't supporting a free will. In fact, it is undermining it. The more reflexive parts you add, the less "free" is your will.

 

[1213]

Believe it or not, they've done test by putting probes and stimulators into parts of the brain in order to determine such things. The neuroscientist shows, through actual experiments, what religions and philosophers have known for a long time: our body, with emphasis on our brain, is tricking us big time.

I think the problem is that they are not measuring the exact things, only chemical reactions in brains. The test method can trick them to believe foolish things.

 

[Heyo]

I think the problem is that they are not measuring the exact things, only chemical reactions in brains. The test method can trick them to believe foolish things.

What tests have you done that contradict the findings, and where were they published?
Or are you just criticizing the methods? Where did they go wrong? Be specific.

 

[John D. Brey]

I think the problem is that they are not measuring the exact things, only chemical reactions in brains. The test method can trick them to believe foolish things.

Fwiw, the findings merely authenticate what's very simple logic. The speed of light traveling from the finger to the eye, and traversing the optic nerve, is clearly not going to be identical to the rate at which the nerves from the finger transmit the sense of touch to the brain. There's no way what we see and what we feel would be identical. And yet we experience them as identical.

There are literally hundreds of logical proofs that our brain lies to us. For instance, we have a blind spot in our field of vision. There's easy ways of experiencing the blind spot where the optic nerve exits the eye. But most of the time our brain colors over the blind spot for us so that we rarely experience it.

Karl Popper explained that contrary to the typical thinking of the average person, modern science didn't arise because men trusted their empirical observation, and thus built the modern technological world on those observations. In truth the opposite happened.

Our empirical observations tell us the sun and the moon are about the same size. And it seems like the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It was men who knew that their eyes, and nature herself, was lying to them, who took it on themselves to erect logical processes to force truth to come out from behind the wizardry of nature.

As Popper explains, in ancient religious mythology, the sun was fancied the center of the cosmos even though the empiricists and outhouse scientists of the day poo pooed the religious mythology (i.e., heliocentrism), as childish myth. As Popper notes, the Copernican revolution was based partly on men like Copernicus taking ancient mythology seriously enough to test it scientifically.

This is all germane to this thread since modern thought arose not through natural, aboriginal, observational faith in the world and the body, but, on the contrary, it began with men who realized their soul, their immaterial self, had been "thrown" into a fallen world and body they quite factually wanted no part of. It was these kinds of people, who knew this world was fallen ----often times from their first encounter with it ----who initially sought to convince their happy-go-lucky peers that we're all living in a fallen, false, world, ruled by fallen, false, gods/principalities/angels.

It's these brave souls who are rightly critical of their thoughtless peers for lionizing our lyin eyes.



John

 

[Alien826]

@Evangelicalhumanist and @Heyo

I'm reading this but don't have a lot to add so far. I kind of agree that the "self" should be expanded from conscious thought and the brain to all neural activity on the body. Makes sense anyway. On the other hand I tend to disagree when it comes to morality and punishment. Take reflexes, for example. As I understand it, the nerve impulses never reach the brain. If something triggers a reflex and the resulting action damages someone, should that be on a par with a deliberate action?

 

[John D. Brey]

@Evangelicalhumanist and @Heyo

I'm reading this but don't have a lot to add so far. I kind of agree that the "self" should be expanded from conscious thought and the brain to all neural activity on the body. Makes sense anyway. On the other hand I tend to disagree when it comes to morality and punishment. Take reflexes, for example. As I understand it, the nerve impulses never reach the brain. If something triggers a reflex and the resulting action damages someone, should that be on a par with a deliberate action?

Pmfji . . . but in Judaism and Christianity, what you refer to as a neutral reflex, Jews and Christians take one step further implying that even things we do to others that aren't really neutral, like say doing their wife, comes from something fallen nature burdens us with in our very flesh. Jews call it the "evil inclination," while Christians call it the "old-sin-nature." We sin, you see, not because we're bad, but because we're born-sinners. Our very nature, body, and world, are set up to trick us into becoming happy-go-lucky suckers and eternal losers.

As I said to @1213, the righteous soul often experience his body, and his world, as flawed from the get go. And I can speak from experience. When I was five I knew I wouldn't make it through this world intact. Things about my biological experience, and my world, made me sick. When I heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it was the greatest thing I had ever experienced to learn why my body and my world were so bogus, and what the solution was. That was a long time ago and I'm as thankful to my Lord and Savior today, as I was, as an early teen, all those years ago.



John

 

[Alien826]

Pmfji . . .

Hey, it's your thread!

but in Judaism and Christianity, what you refer to as a neutral reflex, Jews and Christians take one step further implying that even things we do to others that aren't really neutral, like say doing their wife, comes from something fallen nature burdens us with in our very flesh. Jews call it the "evil inclination," while Christians call it the "old-sin-nature." We sin, you see, not because we're bad, but because we're born-sinners. Our very nature, body, and world, are set up to trick us into becoming happy-go-lucky suckers and eternal losers.

I think the secular version of that is that how we are is a result of having evolved in an environment where survival (it's more complicated than that) shaped what we became. We jerk our hand away from a flame quickly and automatically because that's the most efficient way to avoid injury. We have a strong sexual urge because (for us) that worked to produce more of us. There's really nothing "evil" about these things, it's just how we are. Of course, there's a layer on top of it that comes from having "discovered" that living in co-operative groups worked better for us than living individually, and that entailed constraints on some of our natural behaviors.

As I said to @1213, the righteous soul often experience his body, and his world, as flawed from the get go. And I can speak from experience. When I was five I knew I wouldn't make it through this world intact. Things about my biological experience, and my world, made me sick. When I heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it was the greatest thing I had ever experienced to learn why my body and my world were so bogus, and what the solution was. That was a long time ago and I'm as thankful to my Lord and Savior today, as I was, as an early teen, all those years ago.

I'm pleased that you found that.