![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 38. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by 64bowtie on December 4, 2004, at 12:22:49
<<<<< The below text is from notes by David Peck, some of our weekly readings, etc. I have inserted them here to create a little perspective for making a point.
The point of this writing is that information taken in by us can be either correct or incorrect. To be always correct, we would have to be God-like, and we're built wrong for that job.
...from the unpublished writings of David F. Peck, LCSW/MFCC (1925-2003)
PENROSE’S THEORY (Optional reading)
1. Roger Penrose has proposed that consciousness is generated by a quantum mechanics process involving oscillations of the tubins which make up the microtubule in the axons of some neurons. In the beginning of the oscillation, the mass of material is small enough that it attains superposition. When the mass of material in motions passes a threshold between the quantum mechanics/classical mechanics, the small bit of information encoded in the oscillations is catapulted into conscious experience. While Penrose’s theory is conjectural and controversial, we assume that his theory, or a similar process, will eventually be proven as correct.
2. The fact that the microtubule are also involved in the chemical changes at the synaptic junctions which are related to the chemistry of learning, supports our theory that the mind brain interaction is bilateral. Not only does the brain generate the conscious mind, but the conscious mind has the power to affect changes in the chemical structure at the synaptic junction. Changes in the chemical structure of the synaptic bring changes in the circuitry of the neurons and effectively changes the way information is processed and experienced.
3. Consciousness is made up of small pieces of information which do not occur over time. Each discrete bit is generated by neural activity at a point in time. The firing of the neuron results in the oscillations in the microtubule which produces a cascade of bits of conscious information. The many discrete bits of consciousness, simultaneously generated in diverse parts of the brain are combined into the unified and seamless whole of conscious experience. Though this ongoing stream of cascading bits of conscious experience occurs over time, each bit is experienced at a dimension less point in time.
THE EXPERIENCE OF TIME AND SPACE1. Because each bit of consciousness is experienced at a point in time, not over time, we can experience time itself.
2. In like manner, consciousness does not occur within a specific space, therefore we can experience space.
3. This may seem confusing because every conscious experience is oriented in time and space therefore it contains information about time and space. Information about time and space must always be from a particular perspective in time and space and each conscious experience contains such information. This information, which orients a conscious experience in time and space, may be correct or incorrect at any moment. This is the evidence of "uncertainty theory".
<<<<<...what I have found in this writing:This is it! This is the location or point in our psyches that allows "free-will". We can take in correct info, or faulty, distorted, and/or incorrect information. Righteousness might presume that this is a "beggars plight". We only need information that is correct, undamaged and accurate to have free will, or we are destined for Hell and damnation. I worry about righteousness...
I depart from this "miracle based" mythe to say that, "Properly prepaired, mankind is capable of great good, that we seldom witness". Mankind is too busy obeying base needs such as the need to never be dissatisfied; to always seeking gratification; mankind's choice by free will (according to the Penrose theory above).
We blindly continue to "spackle" over our bad feelings generated by results of playing out our bad habits, our dysfunction, by pleasure seeking ever elusive feel-goods. Again our choice!
Until researchers prove that we are "hardwired for holiness", thus have no infinitely adaptable free will as indicated by our ability to take in correct or incorrect information, I'm sticking to my story! I continue to see more and more freedom and happiness moments in my (peculiar) life due to "visual updating" as a strategy for being better prepaired, in my feelings, motives, and behaviors.
I sense I must be good at human things and be good at heavenly things. Tough choices are therefore everpresent....
Rod
Posted by ron1953 on December 4, 2004, at 14:51:36
In reply to Free will conundrum explored, posted by 64bowtie on December 4, 2004, at 12:11:18
Rod:
You have absolutely raised mental masturbation to the level of art form.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2004, at 20:08:55
In reply to Free will conundrum explored, posted by 64bowtie on December 4, 2004, at 12:11:18
Hmm. Penrose is indeed a funny (and controversial) one. I have heard people say that that is what you get when neuroscientists turn philosopher in their retirement... however, best not go there :-)
FREE WILL
There are experiments that were done by Benjamin Libet. (I am sorry but I haven't managed to track these in their original, but I read about them firstly in Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" and they are much discussed in philosophical circles)
Libet discovered that at the point in time that we consciously experience making a 'free choice' scientists could, just BEFORE that point measure that the muscles had already started to contract. What this means is that both conscious experience of free choice and initiation of action are BOTH caused (or produced) by prior, non-conscious brain processes. I agree with the psychologists and philosophers who maintain that this is evidence for epiphenomenalism. That is the view that consicousness is a by-product of earlier processes, and it is these earlier processes that determined the 'free choice' that we consciously experience.
Does this mean that there is no free will?
Most people accept (after a bit of thought) that ones environment and ones genes COMPLETELY determine ones beliefs and desires. And the strongest beliefs and desires that one has COMPLETELY determine what one will do.
Genes + environment -> beliefs + desires -> action.
Where in this process is there room for free will?
If we appeal to quantum indeterminacies and hope that we can find free will there then the 'free choice' seems to be constrained by RANDOM indeterminate factors. Whether my choice is determined by a deterministic (Newtonian) world, or whether my choice is determined by an indeterministic (Quantum) world; in each case it seems that the 'free choice' is determined by factors outside my control. So how is it that I am supposed to have free will?
In order for a 'free choice' to be MY choice then it seems that it must somehow be determined by me. But then if I do not choose my beliefs and desires, if I do not (in effect) chose myself then how is it that I can take ultimate responsibility? There still seems to be no room for free will.
CONSCIOUSNESS
Consciousness is a big issue in philosophy of mind. To quote John Searle "The Rediscovery of the Mind" : 'the trouble with cognitive science is that it leaves out the mind'. To see how I shall have a look at Kripke's argument to show that mental states cannot be (as in they are not one and the same thing) as brain processes. (You can find this in lecture 3 of "Naming and Necessity".
PREMISS ONE: Pains are essentially painful.
PREMISS TWO: Brain states are not essentially painful.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, by Leibniz law of identity mental states cannot be one and the same as brain processes.Now the idea is that what is essential to consciousness states (of redness, sweetness, painfulness etc) is the certain special qualitative way that they appear (their qualitative nature, or their quale). What is essential to brain processes, however, is to be determined by physics (and that description will be purely physical, something to do with fields of force and charge). The notion is then that if we have x (conscious states) and we have y (brain processes) then IF x and y have different properties then they cannot be the same thing.
A way of seeing that brain processes are essentially different to conscious states is to consider David Chalmer's zombie thought experiment "A Fundamental Theory of Consciousness". It is (or at least it seems to be) perfectly possible for there to be a possible world which is a complete physical duplicate of this world but where the beings there (our counterparts) have NO CONSCIOUS EXPERIECE WHATSOEVER. As soon as psychologists try to operationalise consciousness as being essentially connected to certain kinds of behaviour which is objective and measurable they have changed the topic, they are missing the point, becasue the only thing that is essential to consicous states is the certain special way that they feel. But it is perfectly possible for brain processes to be accompanied by no conscious experience whatsoever. Trying to show how consciousness fits into our picture of the natural world is a hot topic at the moment. Many eminent philosophers have been given substantial grants to do just this (e.g., Frank Jackson) - and the point of this is that quantum mechanics (as a physical description of the world) does not seem to assist us with bridging the conceptual gap between consciousness and the rest of the physical world. Indeed, perhaps it cannot be done unless we change the meaning of 'consciousness' thereby changing the topic.
Just my own rambling thoughts.
Feel free to ignore completely.
But reading your post brought this stuff to mind for me.I am not so sure that consciousness and free will can be accounted for and I don't think that there are any even remotely satisfactory accounts of these phenomena that do not change the topic in order to explain them...
Posted by 64bowtie on December 5, 2004, at 5:42:01
In reply to Re: Free will conundrum explored, posted by ron1953 on December 4, 2004, at 14:51:36
are you still mad at me?
Rod
Posted by ron1953 on December 5, 2004, at 9:32:54
In reply to Oh, Ron, posted by 64bowtie on December 5, 2004, at 5:42:01
Rod:
I'm not mad; never was. Actually amused. Bottom line, Rod, is "if the shoe fits......."
Posted by 64bowtie on December 5, 2004, at 12:16:30
In reply to Re: Oh, Ron, posted by ron1953 on December 5, 2004, at 9:32:54
> "if the shoe fits......."<<< Shoes? Ron, you know I run barefoot on all fours through the woods looking for someone or something to bother......
Posted by Shortelise on December 5, 2004, at 12:33:16
In reply to Re: Oh, Ron, posted by 64bowtie on December 5, 2004, at 12:16:30
Bowtie, you are very funny.
I admit that I did not read through this post of yours, I don't function on this level when it comes to ... my mental health. I stay very much in the emotional, or I try to, or I think I do!
But I very much like that you are digging around in words looking at ideas, finding ideas that translate for you.
Would you like to distill your long post into a couple of sentences?
ShortE
Posted by Susan47 on December 5, 2004, at 12:35:24
In reply to Re: Oh, Ron, posted by 64bowtie on December 5, 2004, at 12:16:30
Or sniff ...
Posted by 64bowtie on December 5, 2004, at 13:27:15
In reply to Free will conundrum explored, posted by 64bowtie on December 4, 2004, at 12:11:18
I see myself in my history as forming distorted and false beliefs. I remember espousing opinions I am certain now as faulty. How did I do that and remain willing to get up every morning, without babbling and drooling on myself?
Simple. I employed the twin gate guards of denial-and-indecision to protect my ego from any destruction at the hands of new-information-and-knowledge. They filter out all the "bad-stuff"... or do they? They helped me avoid anything new.
For several years I watched myself do this and fail, again and again. When I was in the weekly study groups with David Peck helping form David's new model for chemical/person abuser recovery, things changed for me. I noticed things [what I posted here above] about FREE WILL. I discovered that we have a neurophysiological (normal) process, that forms patterns for us as FREE WILL.
Picture four boxes as quadrants. In each box you can write some details:
...Box 1. We take in good information and don't booger it up. (the best palce to be)
...Box 2. We take in good information and booger it up.
...Box 3. We take in boogered up information and label it as good information. (a messy place to be)
...Box 4. We take in boogered up information and see it for what it is, boogered up and to be avoided.
Addendum: Sometimes we mix information from boxes 2, 3 and 4... Messy!In its entirety, this is free will. I discovered what's simple and elegant here is that I lacked acceptance that I normally operate in all four corners as a matter of course; that sometimes I'm in each of these four corners trying to make sense out of life. Mixing boxes 2, 3, and 4, made my life, not a life but a mess!
What I could never see and accept is that its my choice or perspective of which corner I was viewing new information from at the moment. I'm much more careful today and stay out of boxes 2, 3, and 4.
Acceptance of what is, and willingness to change what ain't, is what I work for daily. I do this while remaining curious about the new stuff I don't know yet, but struggle to see. Today I seek beauty. Its a much better filter than denial-and-indecision.
Rod
Posted by 64bowtie on December 5, 2004, at 13:38:53
In reply to lol, posted by Shortelise on December 5, 2004, at 12:33:16
>
> Would you like to distill your long post into a couple of sentences?
>
> ShortE<<< Today I avoid ugly [nouns]
Rod
PS: ...as to the people type [noun], I avoid people with ugly feelings, behavior, and/or intentions...
Posted by 64bowtie on December 5, 2004, at 13:58:45
In reply to 64, posted by Susan47 on December 5, 2004, at 12:35:24
Posted by sunny10 on December 5, 2004, at 15:23:10
In reply to Re: Oh, Ron, posted by ron1953 on December 5, 2004, at 9:32:54
an aside, sorry folks...
Ron, I think I messed up when answering your babblemail...I didn't understand how it worked and used the reply on my mail instead of using the link... so sorry- didn't mean to ignore you ! Then I didn't realize it for a while...
I'm from PA- outside Philly!
Posted by sunny10 on December 5, 2004, at 15:26:33
In reply to » Shortelise » in one sentence, posted by 64bowtie on December 5, 2004, at 13:38:53
gotta admit- I had to wait for the "short version", too.
But I must say, I agree with the points made and I ENDEAVOR to use Box one, also...
I'm still not past the point when I sometimes can't see what is right before my eyes just because of a past experience, but I AM getting better at recognizing that... Even if it's three days later... oh, well, it's progress, isn't it???
Posted by Susan47 on December 5, 2004, at 21:43:29
In reply to I love you guys, ......us all here ....together (nm) » Susan47, posted by 64bowtie on December 5, 2004, at 13:58:45
Posted by verne on December 6, 2004, at 1:03:26
In reply to Free will conundrum explored, posted by 64bowtie on December 4, 2004, at 12:11:18
I'm not sure how much exploring the free will "conundrum" you are open to when in your later posts you indicate you are on the free-will side of the paradox and never really had any question to begin with.
Martin Luther made the case for no free will in his letters and debate with Thomas More. Mathematicians and scientists have since entered the debate and sided with Luther.
I won't continue the argument here but let me pose the question. If you've been knock-down, struck-by-God self-less, who is calling the shots?
There is nothing about the self and "free will" (which are interchangable) that has eternity in it or will surivive the world. Free Will is a fiction of life on earth.
This is not to be mistaken with the "freedom" the New Testament writer, Paul, talks about. This is a freedom of surrendering the self and will.
The idea that you can "do it your way" and be "cool", from the rat pack to the "say-it-and-claim-it" churches, does not mean you can pack it with you into heaven. You simply can not take it with you. You can't take ANYTHING with you.
Whatever you think you did in your "free will", will perish with you when you die. Perhaps, a monument or two, a few kind words, will survive for a time, but in the end, whatever you dreamed up, and imagined as "free will", is long forgotten. Your "free will" has limited play on earth; imagine how it will do in the afterlife where time is irrelevant?
What you are doing may work in the world but it has no eternity in it.
verne
Posted by GeishaGirl on December 6, 2004, at 2:13:14
In reply to Re: Free will conundrum explored, posted by verne on December 6, 2004, at 1:03:26
I find all of this dialogue very fascinating. However, I prefer the romance of not analyzing consciousness with science. It loses meaning and magic for me the other way. I feel like no one will ever really figure this stuff out for sure. And I don't really want to know for sure. It would take all the fun out of life for me. Too boring. I've always been a romantic at heart, though :)
Posted by 64bowtie on December 6, 2004, at 5:09:32
In reply to Re: Free will conundrum explored, posted by verne on December 6, 2004, at 1:03:26
>
> I won't continue the argument here but let me pose the question. If you've been knock-down, struck-by-God self-less, who is calling the shots?
><<< Verne, I'm not certain how to comment on your question other than to say I've never been nor needed to be "knock-down, struck-by-god self-less". I let God alone to be what God is, and in turn, God let's me alone to be who I always am. This ain't an Oki-stand-off between me'n'God either. The alternative would require magic, since I am the hands'n'feet for God's works in my life.
Shouldn't this be on the Faith board anyway?
Rod
Posted by verne on December 6, 2004, at 9:47:26
In reply to Me'n'God » verne, posted by 64bowtie on December 6, 2004, at 5:09:32
Rod,
I was drinking last night (all week actually) and got a wee bit cranky. (trying to stop) I mean, I would have argued the world is flat just to be cantankerous.
I don't know what I said on the free will question (won't torture myself to read it) but it was probably nonsense. Please ignore it.
Gee, I'm being uncivil to myself this morning.
verne
Posted by partlycloudy on December 6, 2004, at 9:55:16
In reply to Please Ignore My Previous Post » 64bowtie, posted by verne on December 6, 2004, at 9:47:26
Don't you wish there was a Morning-After-Please-Delete!! button?? There's been a few times when I did not recognize what I'd posted as mine...
Sheepish, but sober,
pc
Posted by verne on December 6, 2004, at 10:06:33
In reply to Re: Please Ignore My Previous Post » verne, posted by partlycloudy on December 6, 2004, at 9:55:16
Yeah I do. The next morning I have to do damage control. Got banned for life at one site for my drunken quarreling; at another, I discover my posts were heavily edited by the moderator.
I used to make regrettable phone calls and leave long messages if I got the answering machine. When I ran out of people to call, I started calling foreign countries where it wasn't 3:00am.
Well, back to my hang-over. Brutal this morning. The beer count was too high: 16 or so. My daughter is visiting Wednesday so I must quit today and get back on my feet.
verne
Posted by partlycloudy on December 6, 2004, at 10:28:06
In reply to Morning After » partlycloudy, posted by verne on December 6, 2004, at 10:06:33
Posted by Susan47 on December 6, 2004, at 16:56:44
In reply to Morning After » partlycloudy, posted by verne on December 6, 2004, at 10:06:33
Don't feel badly about your drunken posts, I think that's part of the process here at Babble. DB is kind enough to let us get away with quite a bit, really, when we're off center; maybe he understands? Anyway, I think I need to re-read myself sometimes when I've been off, because it gives me good insight into what substances do to my thinking process. Don't you guys find that too?
Posted by AuntieMel on December 6, 2004, at 17:31:12
In reply to Morning After » partlycloudy, posted by verne on December 6, 2004, at 10:06:33
I have a friend who, when he gets a few too many in him, will start praising "Mick and the boys" (The Stones) and dare anyone to insult the Queen. A couple more and he decides it's time to call his mum (usually around 4am UK time. I don't think he ever gets her, though he's made a whole lot of wrong number calls.
Posted by Mark H. on December 6, 2004, at 20:20:44
In reply to Re: Free will conundrum explored » 64bowtie, posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2004, at 20:08:55
>> But then if I do not choose my beliefs and desires, if I do not (in effect) choose myself then how is it that I can take ultimate responsibility? There still seems to be no room for free will.
Dear Alexandra,
These thoughts about free will remind me of Dylan Klebold, the teenager who decided to kill himself at Columbine High School and to take as many of his teachers and classmates with him as he could. I think he had free will. I think he could have stopped himself right up until the time that he started pulling the trigger. I don't believe that he was predestined by genes, upbringing or fate to kill 13 people and himself.
More to the point, I acknowledge all the would-be Dylan Klebolds out there who actively choose non-violent ways to deal with their anger and frustration every day.
This is free will in action: people choosing not to act on destructive impulses, in contravention of their instincts, beliefs and desires. Self-restraint may be the ultimate expression (if not proof) of free will.
With kind regards,
Mark H.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 3:56:36
In reply to Re: Free will conundrum explored » alexandra_k, posted by Mark H. on December 6, 2004, at 20:20:44
> These thoughts about free will remind me of Dylan Klebold, the teenager who decided to kill himself at Columbine High School and to take as many of his teachers and classmates with him as he could.
Yes, the notion of responsibility (of praising and blaming) does seem to be intimately connected with the notion of free will. B. F. Skinner, on the other hand, thought otherwise, and I shall use him as an example just to show that there is another way we can look at cases like these. He showed (as many others have done) that the libertarian notion of free will is nonsensical, however we should still hold people accountable for their actions. Why are they accountable if they are not free?
Well, Skinner thought that if we deliver a punisher to people who emmit innapropriate behaviour then we decrease the probability that they will emmit that same response in the future in similar situations. This means that Skinner thought that rather than punishing people because they FREELY CHOOSE their actions, we punish them because by making that the consequence of the behaviour we reduce the likelihood that the person will do it again.
Then there is the idea that by locking people up we are actually preventing their future reoffending.
Then there is the idea that other people learn by modelling. We may refrain from doing those same things because of the consequences of that act that we observe vicariously.
In short: just because there may be no free will (in the ordinary sense) it does not follow that we should not praise and blame. Praising and blaming have consequences for future acts, so we should indeed deliver those consequences. (Though, of course strictly speaking we cannot choose either to do this or to refrain from it!)
>I think he had free will. I think he could have stopped himself right up until the time that he started pulling the trigger. I don't believe that he was predestined by genes, upbringing or fate to kill 13 people and himself.
I think that IF something different had happened in his life before the point of the action (for example IF he had had a therapist to talk to, IF he had empathised with his victims) THEN - there could have been a different outcome. But what I do want to say is GIVEN THAT the situation was what it was, he couldn't have done otherwise.
To me, that is what is so tragic about it.
If he had somehow survived that I do think that he should have been prevented from reoffending. He should also have adequate treatment so that he realises that that sort of behaviour is unacceptable (as that might be what tips the balance for next time - either in his case, or in the case of someone modelling him).
> More to the point, I acknowledge all the would-be Dylan Klebolds out there who actively choose non-violent ways to deal with their anger and frustration every day.Yes, that can be a hard struggle for some. It is lucky for them that their genes and environment have resulted in their ability to rise above.
Okay, this is from Skinner "Beyond Freedom and Dignity". He also had a go at writing a novel "Utopia" which is on creating the ideal society through altering reinforcement contingencies. "1984" was a reaction to the notion of such a society. I think there is a commune type place in the US where people have tried to realise Skinners vision, however.
Just for the record, I am not a Skinnerian.
I believe that the ordinary concept of freewill is contradictory and thus we cannot have that. Basically, something in our notion needs to give if we want to accept that
- people have free will
- having free will means that one could have done otherwise
- the physical state of the world at one instant causally determines the state of the world at the next instant.
- if the physical state of the world determines the behavour, then the behaviour could not have been otherwise unless the physical state of the world had been different.(and the introduction of quantum indeterminacies doesn't help us with free choice - see my other post.)
Now it may not help my case that I have picked probably the most extremist anti-freewill person to assist me with my case.
I believe that FIRSTLY we need to do conceptual analysis to figure out what we mean (or really what we should mean by 'free will') e.g., as Dennett does in "Elbow Room: Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting". Then the challenge becomes accounting for how it is that that arose out of the purely physical world (e.g., through the processes of natural selection as talked about in "Freedom Evolves"). But that is just my 2cents worth. I think we can have both - but it does involve changing the concept first. Maybe its cheating, but maybe the only way to solve the problem of how free will is to dissolve the problem.
Do away with free will as 'could have done otherwise' and headway can be made.
Yours respectfully.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.