- Joshua Beers
- Dingmans Ferry, PA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
If I had 100% of your genes and 100% of your environmental experience I would be you.
I think that this statement is completely accurate. Do you agree?
Yes? No? Why? Why Not?
The repercussions seem obvious. It's the classic question: Do we really have free will?
In my personal opinion, however alluring "free will" is as a subject of belief, it doesn't exist in any form. Every decision we make, from important to mundane, can be either attributed to genes or environment. What other factor is there? A soul? Did we get to choose that? From my standpoint, I don't see how this CANNOT rule out arguments free will.
As a side note, compatibilists may argue that "choice" IS making decisions based on the given "will" but I would ask them to elaborate. Is that really freedom at all? "Of course we have free will, we have no choice in the matter."
anthony bruni 30+
Tony Kuphaldt 10+
The question of free will is one that has puzzled me for a long while. As far as I can tell, the fundamental problem seems to be defining what free will even is. Surely we can think of examples of determinism (will without freedom) as well as examples of randomness (freedom without will). But what in the world is "free will" anyway, never mind whether or not it exists?
I had a great conversation with my brother about this topic a year ago, and his insight went something like this: "If you had `God-vision' and could see inside the working mind of another human being, what would their free will look like? I have no idea." If we cannot even define what free will is, it's quite pointless to debate its existence.
On a practical note, we know for certain that many of our thoughts we attribute as "original" are actually nothing more than re-mixes of things we've experienced before. For an interesting example of this, watch this YouTube video on a prank pulled on a pair of advertising artists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f29kF1vZ62o
Likewise, I'm an amateur inventor, and one of the most helpful tricks I use to invent a mechanical solution to some problem is to stare at a pile of mechanical parts and components, looking for shapes to trigger ideas in my mind. Even if my final design bears little likeness to the parts that triggered the thought, it's the initial triggering of the idea that is so important to getting the process started. As Thomas Edison once quipped "To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk." Ideas that might *feel* completely original to me are so heavily influenced by my experiences (and perhaps genetics too) that I'm inclined to think of myself as a random re-mixer of ideas.
Mathew Taylor
I say this because many people have to bear many unfortunate burdens. Do you think a person who is in jail for life for something they did not do had that happen to them for a reason? Does a child who cries to sleep at night from hunger pains have that happen to them for a reason? I think believing in fate is the result of living a privileged life. Thoughts??
Christophe Cop 500+
Concerning free will: depends on your definition.
To me, free will is the idea the complex entity has that he/she/it can intentionally influence the environment.
(See Dennet 'freedom evolves')
Or it can be a juridical concept to defend our system of law (and punishment).
You seem to forget that a sufficiently complex system can shut of external influences and work on its own... as genes unfold into a conscious being, so free will arises, and the creature obtains more and more of it as it evolves.
Even in deterministic systems, one can evolve something we call free will.
Free will must be seen as the relationship the agent has towards it's environment.
If you were me, you would be me as an agent, and behaving as me (as you would be me) acting as free as I act now (in the exact same matter, by your definition)
If you say that that is not free will, let us use another term to define what I described...
I think the whole debate on whether or not free will exists should be turned around to
"what concept of 'free will' can we use in our practical life" and then start from there.
Elizabeth Berry
Joshua Beers
Christophe Cop 500+
1) Chaos theory is a deterministic theory and says something about predictability.
2) Joshua Claimed we did know the initial state perfectly (100% the same), in such event, chaos theory is 100% predictable (at least in principle, as it might be NP or NP-Complete)
@ Joshua
the divergence comes from the measurement problem:
measurement is always inaccurate (can be but a tiny fraction), and we predict from our measurements.
In chaos theory, a small difference (the inaccuracy here) can lead (sometimes very fast) to big differences further down in time... making it unpredictable (even though the system in chaos theory is deterministic)
Chaos is, in chaos-theory, more or less defined by the degree of entropy (chaos increases as entropy increases)
Mathew Taylor
I really like this answer. I think purely deterministic models rely to heavily on the rational scientific model which is increasingly being shown as having limitations. IMO, the scientific method is only a perspective, a very useful perspective, but just a perspective nonetheless.
I love this: "measurement is always inaccurate (can be but a tiny fraction), and we predict from our measurements."
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Elizabeth Berry
Austin R 20+
Chris was agreeing that because we knew 100% of the initial conditions that the two worlds won't diverge. I thought you disagreed with this? Why do you like this answer?
Mathew Taylor
George Spilkov
Some examples: defying the will of the country could lead to diffident choices for us; defying the will of the boss could lead to unemployment and poverty; etc.
When 2 wills collide they inevitably emerge changed.
My free will (and other's too) is very Freudian and Maslowian (meaning selfish, sexual, oriented towards maximising pleasure and minimizing pain, seeking attention, recognition, satisfaction,etc). We begin to restrict our Free Will in our heads before it even gets out, so, we often confuse what our free will really is.
If we are given unlimited power our True Free Will will emerge making us corrupt unlimitedly.
But is it really a Free Will if it is more or less the same with every one of us? Almost, as if, it is a built-in program of a sort. The difference in choices emerges from the way we prioritise what is good for us (what makes us feel good). As a result we may choose to suffer in one way to gain satisfaction in a different way.
However if we had "Freedom of will" our ideal choice would be not to suffer and to gain satisfaction.
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Joshua Beers
"When I look at situations that are occurring and take action to sway the outcome that is free will in action."
Where do you think the decision to do that came from?
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Mathew Taylor
I think that simply states (which is usually very hard to do) exactly what I was trying to get across. Thank you.
Joshua Beers
That seems to me, to be the very definition of compatiblism. Whose sole, major criticism is that while correct in fundamental rationale, it is incorrect in labelling its result "free will."
Mathew Taylor
We are the creators of the experiences in the world, think of social institutions and belief systems like culture, religion, education etc . . These large social processes DO have a tremendous effect on our actions and set the parameters under which action is taken. However, these processes are essentially created by us, they have formed out of our collective interaction. It is our actions and collective interactions that essentially create these processes. IMO they can thus never fully control behavior. Think Frankenstein. The scientist created him and Frankenstein eventually became more powerful then scientist himself, even threatening his life. Frankenstein severely impacted the scientists daily life and the choices he had to make but it did not take away his ability to choose.
Free will is the "X Factor," the essential, infinite quality of existence. As social influences increase and effect us more and more they can never be total in scope as they are ultimately created by us. As said below, I think some people are in more of a position to exercise free will then others. In order to truly make a choice you need to be fully aware of the influences acting on you. Some people may be totally ignorant to these influences (I envy them and their convictions) and others may understand these influences and stand in a position to act (for these individuals the burden is heavy as they are the ones who can implement change and who can not plead ignorance).
Getting back to your original question, you are right if a person had 100% the same genes and 100% the same experiences then yes you would be them because that is saying that they made 100% of the same choices. But, they would only be them up until this specific moment. Going forward, I would argue, they would diverge as they make different choices. Some people would diverge more then others.
Austin R 20+
What variable would allow them to diverge? The environment + genetics = the summation of our choices; what would cause anything to change if everything is exactly the same? The only possibility is an uncaused, completely unbiased event that could theoretically alter the environment and/or genetics for one of them and not the other -- which I don't see happening.
Mathew Taylor
Where is the proof for this? Just think about it, you can do anything you want right now, go ahead do something that is unpredictable. Now you may do something unpredicted right now and say it is the result of my input or you can not do something unpredictable and claim that is the result of previous conditioning. You are right in both cases. But you are faced with a choice none the less and you could potentially do either or. My input merely expanded the possibilities, your action will be determined by your choice which will further expand possibilities in the world.
Choices are definitely conditioned my experiences and inputs but are not just determined as a sum of all events.
You are claiming that you could hypothetically create a computer that monitored and calculated all human action and thus accurately predict behavior? I'm not saying I'm right but that believing everything is determined is depressing and defeatist. I would much rather be wrong and choose to act in honest and righteous ways then to simply believe it is all determined and not care about the impact of my decisions on this earth.
Randy Shackelford
I think that is the mistake. You can't (I believe) do just anything You can only do what your brain is ready to do at the moment you do it. And your brain will be ready to do it based on its state at that moment, and that will be based on all sorts of things like the setting, your mood, your degree of tiredness, the current thoughts in mind, etc. But I can't gather together all those factors and then take credit for what my brain did, claiming "I" made a choice, or that "I" was free to do otherwise.
It seems like there is an X Factor/Free Will because we are not consciously aware of the mechanism by which the brain makes its decisions, just like it seems like the sun moves across the sky when in fact it is the Earth turning.
Mathew Taylor
Agreed, this is why I would argue they would be the same up until this point. After this point different choices would = different environment and possibly genetics (depending on substance use).
Austin R 20+
Say hypothetically we both had the 100% of the same genetics and 100% of the same environment. You are saying this will change (we will diverge, as you phrased it)in the future? If we are both in the exact same situation how might they diverge? Any possible change in input for either of us will be the same since our environments are congruent. I'm sorry if I'm mistaking what you're saying.
Austin R 20+
"I am suggesting that their exists an "X Factor" called Free Will. That there is something that is unmeasurable and to a certain degree chaotic and unpredictable."
I agree that free will is unpredictable in a larger sense, but on an atomic level it is predictable. Agreed?
If a computer was created so that it knew literally EVERYTHING then, yes, I guess it could. I mean... it's ridiculously improbable that such a device could be built... A device that knows all of the properties and mechanics and locations of every single quark of matter in existence... lol.
Joshua Beers
Austin R 20+
"One major part of what influences those different choices is simply the presence in the environment of another."
If we were talking about twins, then yes. But we are talking about the same exact person essentially in alternate realities, in which case, nothing would cause them to diverge.
Mathew Taylor
Austin R 20+
Joshua Beers
Austin R 20+
Good point! Hadn't even thought about it that way.
Tony Kuphaldt 10+
It's not that everything must be determined or that everything must be random. As complex systems, our bodies and minds obey certain physical laws, but there is room for variance. Think of a magnetic compass jostled by physical vibration: the compass tends to point north all the time, but the random shaking causes it to drift a bit over time. Here you have determinism (an internal, fixed "will" to point north) mixed with randomness (an outside influence causing it to drift).
However . . . I admit this doesn't answer your original and compelling question of whether or not two genetic twins with absolutely identical experiences would differ. It would be like asking whether two magnetic compasses experiencing all the same vibrations would jostle and drift exactly the same over time. Unless the system in question is influenced by quantum events (where it seems identical structures and circumstances can and do result in different outcomes), I'd wager the results would be identical every time.
Joshua Beers
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Joshua Beers
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
In environment there are random occurrences, this is how the divergence happens.
Austin R 20+
But again, to clarify, I do believe free will exists macroscopically. And I do think there is a possibility that our choices are dependent on more than just this Universe-- that there may be a sort of dualism that exists in our consciousness, but that it is also predictable.
If we are 100% unpredictable nothing would separate us from one another except for the arbitrary actions and behaviors we have randomly committed in the past.
Joshua Beers
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
@Joshua So you think everything is predetermined and orderly?
Joshua Beers
Robertson Klaingar
Let's say you are faced with a problem: "should I eat this apple or this orange?" The problem needs urgent solving. So you go in your brain and you look for past experiences that can help you solve this problem. Given that your knowledge is finite, you will choose the best solution to the problem according to you. A clone of yourself facing the same problem, and knowing exactly what you know, placed in the same environment, will make the same decision you would have made. So,that clone will still end up wherever you would have ended right?
I hope that made sense.
Mathew Taylor
But if we take this to the extreme then where does innovation come from, where does change come from and where does progress come from? If we did not have the ability for free thinking then there would exist no progress. Looking at indigenous cultures that were held together by strong moral ties (Durkheim, Spencer, etc . .) they heavily persecuted any deviation from the norm, but deviation did exist. Deviance is often the driving engine for social change and is predicated on conscious decision making.
Think about your intentions as a person: your morals, values, belief systems, etc . . Now think about your actions. You do not think that you can make a conscious choice to bring your actions more in line with your intentions?? What we want to do and what we actually do are often separate. Consciously making choices to close this gap reflects some element of free will, IMO.
Austin R 20+
Why can't progress and innovation be the results of neurons firing in a new and unique pattern? Free thinking does bring about creativity in a macroscopic sense, but not on the microscopic level. From what I've read/heard, new and innovative thought is just the combination of our experience and thinking about different aspects of the world (in our experience) in a unique way. I can't think of a single invention or theory that was not caused by the inventor/theorist's past experience and/or environment. Tell me if you can think of one.
You stated, "If we did not have the ability for free thinking then there would exist no progress." Every living organism on earth genetically adapts to the environment (progress!). This biological progress is not the direct result of free thinking is it?
Mathew Taylor
I agree that there does exist causality and that innovation is a result of combined past experiences. I am saying that some people probably do operate as you say and are on "autopilot." However, some people can and do operate with conscious decisions that quite possibly act against everything that they have been environmentally exposed too.
For me, and I think this is where we disagree, consciousness is not purely a physical process. Yes we are bound by a physical existence that adapts to both the physical and social environment, but for me anyways, there does exist a conscious (if not spiritual) part of all conscious creatures (animals included).
Without this "x factor" then life is pointless and meaningless. We are all just in the matrix running on autopilot. If that is the case then why have life in the first place? There would not be life if there was not purpose.
As I said I am not a religious person, but I think my argument is faith based and I probably would not be able to give a purely physical scientific answer. One quick question though? Have you ever meditated and tried to pause your mind and exist in the space in-between thoughts??
Austin R 20+
"Have you ever meditated and tried to pause your mind and exist in the space in-between thoughts??"
I have not. I will try it out.
Austin R 20+
Why not?
(I'm not rejecting the possibility that we have purpose; I want to explore all options.)
Randy Shackelford
Mathew Taylor
Lets take the assumption that all choices are determined by genes and environment and then ask the question does free will exist? IMO the two are not mutually exclusive. Under this assumption free will can still exist as we see an exponential increase in possible choices as experiences increase. Meaning, you have more possible "determined outcomes" the more educated you are and the more experiences you are subjected to.
I would argue that we could only be 100% determined if we knew 100% of all possible outcomes. If possible outcomes are infinite then our possibilities for action are also infinite. If both are infinite then nothing is determined as there is no 100% of anything the exists. Free will is thus the "X factor." It is the creator of new experiences with infinite ripple effects.
I guess what I am saying is that if all things were determined then there would be nothing as there would be the possibility of knowing everything. This duality fades away with the singular concept of "infinity." Infinity presupposes free will and the "X factor" as the foundation of existence (not necessarily consciousness though).
I hope this makes sense, sometimes its hard to put thoughts into words. Words are a very limited set of symbolic tools that we use to try and convey our thoughts.
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Joshua Beers
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Austin R 20+
Joshua Beers
@Austin, I mean for all intensive purposes I would agree
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
What of the decisions that have to be made where that equal inputs and researches have been made for all opposing solutions? We are in a nearly constant state of decision making. With the shear numbers of different decisions made in a lifetime there are bound to be some equally balanced decisions. Then to mention the cumulative decisions made by all the people, even if everyone doesn't get an balanced decision a few will.
Joshua Beers
So thinking/thought is the "unbiased source"? To me it can't be. It has to be influenced by something, that seems like common sense...So if its not environment/genes, what's the influence? You say "energy"...what do you mean by that, it seems vague.
I agree, that there is a perception that we are in constant decision making "mode" But what is "equally balanced decisions'??? do you mean choices in which we are 50-50 split in our preferences???? I would argue that there can never be a decision that comes of a choice in which there was a pure 50-50 preference (even if its the most slight preference imaginable, you can't have a decision from a pure 50-50).
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Austin R 20+
But just because something has a 50/50 chance of happening does not mean there is any less predictability or causation responsible for the result. For example, both sides of a coin have a 50% chance of landing on either side, but this probability is just in theory-- it does not take into consideration environmental factors such as the specific location of the coin in the person's hand who is going to flip it. Probability gives theoretical percentages, they do not change the fact that the outcomes are predictable when they are applied to each specific situation.
Joshua Beers
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
When this situation comes about you think that the decision is to move on to another decision without making a choice? "If you chose not to decide you still have made a choice"
This outlook may seem bizarre but free will does exist.
Joshua Beers
But even if you were correct, I think you still have quiet a ways to go before you label such a "random variable", typical "free will." What you describe seems to be miles away from the cognitive, intellectual freedom often implied in the definition. At the very least, it seems you would have to concede that you are at a loss of true control in your life.
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
My view on life may be somewhat different to the main stream. I consider the multiverse as a way in which free will has reign. I can choose to enter different parallels that better suite my wants. Random occurrences are oft the gateway to a parallel.
Joshua Beers
I'll be honest and say, I haven't the slightest clue what you talked about at the end there...
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Tim Colgan 50+
Comment deleted
Joshua Beers
Constantine Render
Otherwise, we should provide 100% identical environmental experience for both " copies" and influence upon them (identical evnironment and influence both: internal and external), but it's impossible for obvious reasons.
Wang Kallen
Joshua Beers
I believe if I "started" again, I would have no memory of my previous actions...so even though I would like to change some things, I would not have the mental/memory capacity to do so. We have our own minds, but how did they get to be the way they are?
Surya Narayan Sahoo
Joshua Beers
AbdelRahman Siddig
Yes? No? Why? Why Not?
No
Because man=gene+ environmental experience+ soul
you missed the secret of life the soul which is beyond the scope of science beacuse its intangible and you can not test it in the lab
I know you do not believe in it but this what the messenger of GOD told us
death = body - soul
life= body + soul
and we die every day during sleeping when you sleep the soul leave the body
and it come back when you wake up
that why some thing you see future event in your dreams
when you soul see some information of the mater book of life (where every thing is written there ),I know this will sound weird for you but remember the reality is stranger than imagination
Joshua Beers
Please tell me about the Soul. Because to me the "Soul" is just your mind: the cognitive center with which your identity is formed. Because if it is not from your mind, how is it even a part of "you"...it would have to be separate from your identity, would it not? And if you don't think so, please tell me how it differs from this, and why I should care about it, if it's not "me"?
AbdelRahman Siddig
when you die we will have Joshua body only the soul is gone for ever
soul we do not have much knowledge about
but its the part that give life
so every body has his own soul
Joshua Beers
AbdelRahman Siddig
mind =! soul
Joshua Beers
AbdelRahman Siddig
body=computer
mind=cpu +software +ram
soul=electricity
if no power , computer exist but useless
when you die body exists but useless
Joshua Beers
Could you please just explain the difference between the mind and the soul, what characteristics make the two different from each other...?
Alicia Gradson
The living of my life has made it clear to me that we don’t have ’freewill’. I think the choices we generate are the result of unconscious prior social conditioning and genetic predispositions. Recent neurological studies provide strong evidence that the neurological processes are already underway shortly before we consciously are aware of making our decision. As a result, we do not consciously choose, rather our choices are initiated by our unconscious psychological structures. The idea that human actions are ever initiated by our own conscious choices is a deeply-entrenched illusion. Some people have generated ideas about why this ‘illusion of control’ exists within our cognitive system (I think it supports follow through).
I believe we may impact this process a little. This is one reason people go into analysis, to make that which is unconscious conscious; ‘to know thyself’. An ever so slight realignment of one’s worldview can make significant changes to unconscious motivation that can increase our array of choices; but this is real work and requires a strong motivating force like the threat of punishment or excessive personal psychological suffering.
Debra Smith 200+
Joshua Beers
Randy Shackelford
This would really be the best empirical test for free will: make the copy, allow time to pass, and see if the two "twins" take the same actions. If they do, the traditional concept of free will is incorrect; if they don't, it may be correct.
Joshua Beers
Josh Varty 20+
I think you're seeing where I'm going with this. If I replaced 80% of the neurons in your mind, perhaps it wouldn't be so easy to argue you were the same person. At the very least, I find it an interesting thought. What makes me, me?
And I have absolutely no answer, haha.
Joshua Beers
Robertson Klaingar
Austin R 20+
A weird thought though--
Pretend it is 5000 years in the future, and that we have all been dead for a while. If a clone of us is created and all of the neurons fire exactly how ours originally did, then is it really us?
(why does it post this above your comment Im responding to? lol)
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Josh Varty 20+
I suppose the obvious follow up question is whether or not these elements of randomness can have any effect on a more macroscopic level. I imagine if you subscribe to chaos theory and the butterfly effect, you'd argue that even the tiniest changes in a system could lead to large changes at a macroscopic level.
Perhaps I'm trying to answer a different question, though. I just think that the elements of randomness in the universe are something to be taken seriously. Something that might be peculiar to think about is that if we were to "rewind" time back to my birth and press "play", would it not be possible for some of these random events to have happened differently than they did? And if so, would that not mean my life might have turned out differently despite identical initial conditions?
I really do hope I'm coming across as coherent. If not, I'd love to clarify.
Austin R 20+
So, to answer your question, "would that not mean my life might have turned out differently despite identical initial conditions?" -- Your life would be exactly the same.
Randy Shackelford
Why not?
(I say it flippantly, but I think if you attempt to answer it seriously you may find that that the matter becomes an interesting open question)
Austin R 20+
Randy Shackelford
Austin R 20+
Randy Shackelford
In the same way, there may be objective randomness at the fundamental levels of nature, but it is averaged out at the macro level. Note that averaging doesn't preclude the possibility of bizarre events occurring, it just makes the probability of them happening so small that we in our short existence would never happen to observe them and the laws we have are sufficient to account for our observations. In this sense, there is no theoretical limit on what can and cannot happen in a fundamentally acausal universe, but there are practical limits that for all intents and purposes guarantee that we will not observe any bizarre deviations.
Some (Penrose, Hameroff) have suggested that something like free will could live in a special niche in which the brain--and therefore the mind--is the only thing in the universe tightly coupled to this very lowest objectively random level of nature via quantum effects in microtubules in neurons.
Joshua Beers
Randy Shackelford
I myself don't think there is any real scientific evidence in support of these ideas, but they are at least an interesting idea wedge in the door to something like Austin's point about, "How can anything be truly random. They cannot.", particularly as it connects back to consciousness and free will. By the way, Austin, I don't know if nature has any indeterminacy at any level, of course, I'm just saying I don't think I can say with certainty it cannot. It sure seems weird that it wouldn't, but my failure of imagination is not good support for it!
The other problem I have with Hameroff/Penrose, though, is even if this quantum indeterminacy provides a means by which the behavior of the brain is truly non-deterministic, I'm not sure that affords us the sort of free will that most people conceive free will as. It could only buy us "random will", so to speak, and that is not something the "I" of consciousness gets to take credit for, if you see what I mean.
Tim Colgan 50+
http://www.ted.com/conversations/2657/is_universe_design_pre_program.html?c=241872
Specifically, it seems that the concept has two interpretations. One being that the indeterminacy merely refers to our ability to observe and not to any underlying random foundation.
Anyone care to comment?
Joshua Beers
@Tim, Thank you for the convo link, unfortunately I can't comment on it cause I think it's fair to say that, that is a good bit "above my head"!
Robertson Klaingar
Josh Varty 20+
Robertson Klaingar
Joshua Beers
chad manderscheid 10+
If it makes you feel better proving the existence of free will to another person is also not possible. We all accept or reject "evidence" about most things based on our prejudices. A quarter of Americans for example may never chose to accept that the President was born in the States regardless of any evidence. You are apparently more comfortable believing that there is no free will. Some might think that indicates a "Liberal" predilection so that no one need take full responsibility for their actions. Since you question the existence of a soul what the hell is your concern?(humor) You ask if your example were some how proven true, would it rule out some arguments for free will? Of course not, it would only count as evidence to those who accept it as valid. So if your wish is to convince others I would say you may succeed with those who already lean towards your belief. For myself I take 100% responsibility for all my experiences in that I acknowledge my "ABILITY to choose my RESPONSe" If you want my perception, I think there is a possibility of free will but only to the degree you are conscious. That then brings up the next question, can we choose to be conscious or not? Shakespeare and I seem to agree that at least at some level we do. Just as when we choose to drink alcohol we are choosing to pickle some brain cells and lower our ability to respond to subsequent events
Joshua Beers
I don't know if I would say that I am "comfortable" not believing in free will at all. In fact, I find the idea rather unpalatable (so perhaps this is a deep, subconscious attempt to convince myself otherwise via community forum). But I currently don't find "free will" rationally sound.
I'm glad to know that you take 100% responsibility for your experience based on "ability to choose my response," I would just like to know how you came up with that idea? How did you figure that out? And as for choosing consciousness, who made the initial choice of your existence?
Brandur Karlss
Try to imagine all that is floating through your mind right now, are you aware of all of it or is your awareness limited? Are you the limited awareness or are you the whole body, or something more or something less? You might stretch 'you' even further to include multitudes.
So defining 'you' & 'me' becomes a question of choosing a point of view or frame of reference. Seen through the widest frame possible you and me are parts of the same 'thing' in a similar way a finger and a toe can be parts of the same body...
I think that our limited awareness creates the illusion of the self as a survival mechanism which has evolved as a way to prioritize needs and methods of fulfillment. Once you let go of your attachments you begin to realize that we are all one groovy happening. Then the question of you vs. me becomes simply a question for linguistics..
Joshua Beers
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
I think the subconscious is where we lose the limits of awareness.
Joshua Beers
Please expand on that second sentence if you would, I didn't quite follow you...
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Joshua Beers
Ren Hall
If you can jump over the first obstacle and conclude (as any average rational person would) that free will is simply an illusion, then you might be ready to take it to the next level.
Let’s look at the example of “Beam me up Scotty” machine. We will assume that at one point in the future we will be able to teleport ourselves. How would that work?
1) Advance scanner would scan every atom of your body (brain – most importantly)
2) You would evaporate at your original location
3) The information would be “faxed” to the different location (planet)
4) An advance assembler would put you (exactly) back together at the new location
5) You go on with your business
The million dollar question: Is that still the same person?
Now I do realize we will have to leave some of them behind, because I don’t want to get lost in minor details about free will, faith, God and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle just to preserve a concept of a soul.
At the bottom of the rabbit hole lays realization that you and I are not as much different as you might assume we are. But yeah... Let’s make one step at the time with reason and logic being our guide.
Joshua Beers
I remember hearing about this before, isn't there some philosopher who proposed this? (I absolutely could be mistaken). To me, this is like the subject that Josh Varty has now brought up: what constitutes the "you", in regards to your neurological makeup. I would make the very tentative contention, that "you" would still be "you" because at the end of the day all "you" really are is the collective illusion made by the millions upon millions of autonomous neurons in your head.
On your other note, I'm not so sure that the "average rationale person" can get over the hurdle that free will is simply an illusion. In my opinion, it seems to be a deeply ingrained idea, that fights incredibly hard to maintain its own viability.
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Joshua Beers
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
If you mean to ask if 100% of absolutely everything was 100% the same, then why ask? Who would say that is something was 100% similar to another object then it was anything except that object?
Joshua Beers
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Wayne Wong
Joshua Beers
Collin Sine
Collin Sine