Guest guest Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 On Mar 12, 2006, at 1:48 PM, Sarlo wrote: > At 08:00 AM 3/12/06, Pete wrote: > > >samanthaT7: but hey, didn't I read that you're a proponent of the > >determinist/no choice angle? How do you convince yourself that you > >have no choice while you're also trying to influence change? > > > >P: Hi Sam, Good question. > >First, let's say choice always exist, as a > >variety of outcomes which are possible. I > >don't belief in pre-determination. What I > >see is that there is 'no doer' as an entity > >who lives in the head, and selects one > >option over another. > > S: Might there not be some other " entity, " such as a control panel > which > selects? The control panel -- or whatever other entity -- might be > installed at birth, influenced by life circumstances, fluid, not an > ongoing > continuous thing or any kind of thing one could identify with > permanently, > yet be part of the local body unit as much as a face or duodenum, and > as > individual. > > Spiritual folk have long used the word " ego, " which is now going out > of > fashion under the withering glances of those who disparage > entertaining > entities, but it was just a simple word and had its uses, originally > being > just the Latin word for " I. " > > I dunno. The feeling is that semantic shell games do not make the > existence > of such an individual function / process / entity any less likely but > such > tricks are what are used, as if pouncing on the exact phraseology of > the > question with logical reBUTTals and ANALysis could finish off the > question. > > The question is always inadequately phrased, because words are so > limited > and slippery, but its inadequacy does not validate the slipperiness > of the > words-forms used to rebut. > > >The brain has different centers which have > >been pre-programmed by nature, nurture, and > >random events, and these centers react to > >the input of the environment. So what I call > >'my actions' is how these centers interact > >with environmental conditions. > > > >To understand how there is choice (the > >possibility of different outcomes without > >need for a doer) let's take the example of > >a drop of water sliding down a window pane. > >It's obvious the drop has no volition, yet > >its descend has several possibilities: > >It can descend in a straight line, it can > >veer to left, or right, or it can meander > >down. > > > >These different paths depend on how many > >particles of dust, or other drops it > >collides with, it depends on the wind, > >the smoothness of the glass, etc. > > > >Suppose, the drop had a brain that would > >interpreted gravity, and its own veering > >under the influence of wind, and dust as > >its own doing. Then the drop could > >conclude, like people do, that it does > >have free will. > > Can such " outside " influences be demonstrated to be always in > operation, ie > beyond the possibility of an internal influence? > > And i guess that the second part of Samantha's question, " How do you > convince yourself that you have no choice while you're also trying to > influence change? " also remains. You, Pete, and i too for that > matter, and > a few others, are seen to try to influence change. How does that work > without an internal factor, whatever you call it? > > Thanks, Sarlo > > P: Thank you. I'm always glad to read your input. I'll try to explain how I see, with the caveat that regardless how it is seen, it happens exactly in the same way that if I saw it differently, or not at all. Let's compare the human mind with how a PC works: Brain centers= hardware. Functions such as motor responses, memory, emotions, intellect etc= software. This software created by nature and nurture is constantly being update by the environment. Consciousness = the monitor screen. When the computer executes most transactions these are not reflected on the screen, but, some, display a window indicating a program has been activated and a task is being executed. The brain operates in the same way. The hunger center sends a neuron transmitter to the cognitive center indicating hunger. The cognitive center then displays two icons called decisions and a curser called will. Then, the thinking pro and con starts moving the curser nearer, or away from those icons. If to eat gets more pro thoughts, then a click happens and the wallpaper called Pete believes it was he who decided to click. A few computers get uploaded with a software called self-editing, or self- knowledge. There are different brands: Advaita, Buddhist, Western Philosophy, Psychology, etc. If the program runs successfully them the wallpaper called Pete is seen for what it is: an inert, but useful background against which to see what's going on the screen. This post is just a metaphor and not to be taken literately. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 On Mar 13, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Sarlo wrote: > S: Well, okay. > > Actually this doesn't really answer my question(s). I understand one > shouldn't push metaphors too hard since they cannot always stretch to > fit > " real life. " Still, it is not inappropriate to ask how did this inert > wallpaper get the belief of a decision to click? How is Pete > animated, to > believe such stuff? P: Well, of course, I can only give you analogies, similes, and rough sketches. It seems to me that when an animal memories get complex enough, the animal develops a sense of time. In chimps and humans memory and the notion of time creates the illusion of a self in the brain, just as still pictures moving at a certain rate create a movie. Memory and time also give the cognitive center a sense of causality and a doer. These illusions are part of the mix of how things get done, and for animals without natural weapons, or iron clad survival instincts it could mean the difference between survival and extinction. This sense of self, could be crucial in sustaining a course of action. If you observe how birds feed, you notice, that if a bird gets startled, they seldom return to the food they were eating. A large vulnerable animal without instinctual survival techniques needs a sense of time and self to develop learned survival skills. > S: The concept of doer, or believer in internal organizing principle, > or self, > is related to the argument about free will. When we take away things > like > hunger and forces and serious consequences, even in a trivial decision > situation, what can one say? > > http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Yfreewill.htm (short) > > P: As of today, no neurologist, can give you a play by play account of how or why consciousness, self, and decisions happen in a brain, but here is a tantalizing experiment I read about last year, and that addresses your free will bit in global serve. A neurologist asked a few subjects to decide to click a mouse at random while their brain activity was being recorded. The experiment showed that the motor center activated a few fractions of a second before the cognitive center did. This seems to indicate the motor center decided on its won, and then only informed the cognitive center that a decision have been made. Of course, this doesn't prove that more complex decisions such as accepting a job offer are not made by the cognitive center. What you make of it all, it's always up to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 In a message dated 3/14/2006 7:56:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 07:49:22 -0800 Pete S <pedsie5 Re: [AdvaitaToZen] Control P: As of today, no neurologist, can give you a play by play account of how or why consciousness, self, and decisions happen in a brain, but here is a tantalizing experiment I read about last year, and that addresses your free will bit in global serve. A neurologist asked a few subjects to decide to click a mouse at random while their brain activity was being recorded. The experiment showed that the motor center activated a few fractions of a second before the cognitive center did. This seems to indicate the motor center decided on its won, and then only informed the cognitive center that a decision have been made. Of course, this doesn't prove that more complex decisions such as accepting a job offer are not made by the cognitive center. What you make of it all, it's always up to you. As soon as the subject attempts to follow the instruction that he is to randomly click the mouse, he understands that this is to occur without conscious cognition, otherwise it would not qualify as random but rather premeditated, or pre-conscious. The cognition involved is less than that required to place one foot in front of the other and isn't exactly brain surgery. (No pun intended.) As soon as the impulse to click arises from the lower cognitive areas where instinctual, patterned behavior is found, the button is clicked. (This is the same process that causes one to blink when something is thrown at them.) However, the cognition involved in perception of finger movement and button clicking (an actual event) may indeed activate the cognitive center as a processing of experience. Our scientist (no doubt unconsciously) designed an experiment in which he was able to prove what we all already know; That a mind, which can only 'cognate' on one thing at a time, can make it possible for us to walk and chew gum AND contemplate Quantum physics all at once. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 In a message dated 3/14/2006 9:14:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 02:32:32 -0000 " anabebe57 " <anabebe57 Re: [AdvaitaToZen] Control --- In Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/14/2006 7:56:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 14 Mar 2006 07:49:22 -0800 > Pete S <pedsie5 > Re: [AdvaitaToZen] Control P: As of today, no neurologist, can give you a play by play account > of how or why consciousness, self, and decisions happen in a brain, > but here is a tantalizing experiment I read about last year, and that > addresses your free will bit in global serve. A neurologist asked > a few subjects to decide to click a mouse at random while their > brain activity was being recorded. The experiment showed that > the motor center activated a few fractions of a second before the > cognitive center did. This seems to indicate the motor center > decided on its won, and then only informed the cognitive center > that a decision have been made. Of course, this doesn't prove > that more complex decisions such as accepting a job offer are > not made by the cognitive center. What you make of it all, it's > always up to you. > > > > As soon as the subject attempts to follow the instruction that he is to > randomly click the mouse, he understands that this is to occur without conscious > cognition, otherwise it would not qualify as random but rather premeditated, > or pre-conscious. The cognition involved is less than that required to place > one foot in front of the other and isn't exactly brain surgery. (No pun > intended.) > > As soon as the impulse to click arises from the lower cognitive areas where > instinctual, patterned behavior is found, the button is clicked. (This is the > same process that causes one to blink when something is thrown at them.) > However, the cognition involved in perception of finger movement and button > clicking (an actual event) may indeed activate the cognitive center as a > processing of experience. > > Our scientist (no doubt unconsciously) designed an experiment in which he > was able to prove what we all already know; That a mind, which can only > 'cognate' on one thing at a time, can make it possible for us to walk and chew gum > AND contemplate Quantum physics all at once. > > Phil there is only ever ONE mind, thinking thoughts of separation You and I this and that the object in the mirror is closer than what you think and/or thought contemplating its navel...;-) Ana Speaking of contemplating the One navel, have you ever contemplated why you would write such mentations as I did above? What was your purpose for doing that? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/14/2006 7:56:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 14 Mar 2006 07:49:22 -0800 > Pete S <pedsie5 > Re: [AdvaitaToZen] Control P: As of today, no neurologist, can give you a play by play account > of how or why consciousness, self, and decisions happen in a brain, > but here is a tantalizing experiment I read about last year, and that > addresses your free will bit in global serve. A neurologist asked > a few subjects to decide to click a mouse at random while their > brain activity was being recorded. The experiment showed that > the motor center activated a few fractions of a second before the > cognitive center did. This seems to indicate the motor center > decided on its won, and then only informed the cognitive center > that a decision have been made. Of course, this doesn't prove > that more complex decisions such as accepting a job offer are > not made by the cognitive center. What you make of it all, it's > always up to you. > > > > As soon as the subject attempts to follow the instruction that he is to > randomly click the mouse, he understands that this is to occur without conscious > cognition, otherwise it would not qualify as random but rather premeditated, > or pre-conscious. The cognition involved is less than that required to place > one foot in front of the other and isn't exactly brain surgery. (No pun > intended.) > > As soon as the impulse to click arises from the lower cognitive areas where > instinctual, patterned behavior is found, the button is clicked. (This is the > same process that causes one to blink when something is thrown at them.) > However, the cognition involved in perception of finger movement and button > clicking (an actual event) may indeed activate the cognitive center as a > processing of experience. > > Our scientist (no doubt unconsciously) designed an experiment in which he > was able to prove what we all already know; That a mind, which can only > 'cognate' on one thing at a time, can make it possible for us to walk and chew gum > AND contemplate Quantum physics all at once. > > Phil there is only ever ONE mind, thinking thoughts of separation You and I this and that the object in the mirror is closer than what you think and/or thought contemplating its navel...;-) Ana > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.