# Is Neuroscience the Death of Free-Will?



## sprinkles

AJ2011 said:


> That's an excellent question. Without observables, it's just a useless conjecture. In my research, I have used "non-locality" of solutions to my advantage to infer something about a region (where it is difficult to measure) by measuring somewhere else (where it is easy to measure). Perhaps there is an analog for causality?
> 
> Wheeler's delayed choice experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Perhaps. I see a couple problems with determining causality through observation, though.

First one is that predictable results would seem to indicate causality, even if you measure elsewhere.
Secondly, an unpredicted result may be still caused by a factor which we haven't seen, or aren't looking for.


----------



## AJ2011

sprinkles said:


> Perhaps. I see a couple problems with determining causality through observation, though.
> 
> First one is that predictable results would seem to indicate causality, even if you measure elsewhere.
> Secondly, an unpredicted result may be still caused by a factor which we haven't seen, or aren't looking for.


I need more time to assess this, but basically you've touched on the hidden variable theory, which was the argument against quantum mechanics. There is the following:

Bell's theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that addresses hidden variables as it pertains to quantum mechanics. Basically, I think what you are suggesting is that everytime I try to enable a theory of non-causality, you will map that theory to a causal theory with hidden variables. That way every non-causal problem could be mapped. To prove that this is not possible or erroneous, I would try to show that the mapping does not work. Or something like that. I need more time to look into it.


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

Kilgore Trout said:


> _Is free will an illusion? Some leading scientists think so. For instance, in 2002 the psychologist Daniel Wegner wrote, “It seems we are agents. It seems we cause what we do… It is sobering and ultimately accurate to call all this an illusion.” More recently, the neuroscientist Patrick Haggard declared, “We certainly don’t have free will. Not in the sense we think.” And in June, the neuroscientist Sam Harris claimed, “You seem to be an agent acting of your own free will. The problem, however, is that this point of view cannot be reconciled with what we know about the human brain.”
> _
> Read more here.


_“You seem to be an agent acting of your own free will. The problem, however, is that this point of view cannot be reconciled with what we know about the human brain.”_

But they know nothing of consciousness. This is the limitation of current science ... and yet they insist they have proof - no they don`t! They have belief systems, paradigms based on current accepted scientific knowledge. They present it as though it is fact when it isn`t. It is merely a theory.

Science neatly side steps consciousness. Ir is like ignoring an elephant in the room. They agree consciousness `1s` but then how come they do .. based on their proof model to them it doesn`t exist. They fall flat on their faces. (However when I say all I merely mean those who buy into the scientific akin to religion dogma of presenting current theory in sciences as fact. Those who believe it as fact get themselves stuck. However there are the great scientific innovators of every age who have been blasted, laughed at and ignored, argued against, ridiculed - and then finally lauded as speaking the obvious!


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

AJ2011 said:


> I need more time to assess this, but basically you've touched on the hidden variable theory, which was the argument against quantum mechanics. There is the following:
> 
> Bell's theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> that addresses hidden variables as it pertains to quantum mechanics. Basically, I think what you are suggesting is that everytime I try to enable a theory of non-causality, you will map that theory to a causal theory with hidden variables. That way every non-causal problem could be mapped. To prove that this is not possible or erroneous, I would try to show that the mapping does not work. Or something like that. I need more time to look into it.



Well what about chaos - the universe is becoming more chaotic - but at the same time open systems become more organised. So what I`m saying is that it isn`t a case of hidden variables but a case of an open system surviving by re-organising at a higher level and therefore advancing and becoming something that never before existed.

Please bear in mind that I am not scientifically trained, I merely look at logic in an argument, and patterns and test it out philosophically.


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

> Of course, the healthier you are, the more you control your thoughts and behavior (up to a certain point), but do you control what allows you to control them?
> 
> Do you control your instinctive motivations? your interests? your wants? your needs? your past experiences? your biology? your knowledge? your memories?



Yes - I can do all that.
NB Biology upto a point ... but then my biology is a relatively insignificant part of me. However, my thoughts and emotions affect my endocrine system dramatically, so yes to a large extent (on a day to day basis) I can.


----------



## dalsgaard

AJ2011 said:


> I think wave mechanics specifically allow for non-causal solutions. Of course, we may suggest that it is just a mathematical abstraction, however I'm not sure.
> 
> Wheeler
> 
> In order to address the issue of causality, the equations were recast into a finite box (outside observer viewing an N-body problem). The whole idea of isolating the problem into a box seems like a fix to ensure causality, instead of it being a natural outcome.


It seems to me that this is mostly a question of T-symmetry:
T-symmetry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The effect of time reversal on some variables of classical physics is negligible, but other variables are highly dependent on the arrow of time. I suppose time-reversal invariance could suggests a form of non-causal relationships, but most variables are asymmetric as they relate to time in classical physics. I assume it's the same on the quantum level.



> I think the "action at a distance" and quantum entanglement may be challenging the idea of locality and may be eventually challenging causality.


I understand how it challenges locality and causality if we see entangled particles as truly separate. But how about the De Broglie-Bohm quantum potential?
De Broglie


----------



## Lackjester

RobynC said:


> @harlEqu1n
> How do you define utilitarian? Do you mean "ends justify the means" because that sounds awfully a lot like extrajudiciality


Yes, I do think the ends justify the means.




RobynC said:


> Mind reading effectively. And that would be the end of privacy...


Mind reading, no. A good idea of someone's level of empathy, sure. 

Explain to me why you think that's not a good thing. :|


----------



## RobynC

@harlEqu1n



> Yes, I do think the ends justify the means.


You do realize that the logical conclusion of "ends justify the means" is a lack of morality? Anything that achieves a result no matter how horrible is allowed so long as it achieves a result.



> Explain to me why you think that's not a good thing.


Why brain-scanning technology to read a persons mind is bad? Because it would forever abolish privacy and it would likely be used not just to catch criminals but to persecute people who hold views that those in charge do not like. 

Freedom of speech is not just the right to say what you wish; it's the freedom to say what you wish without being punished for saying it. Freedom of thought is the same, not just the ability to think what you wish but the ability to think it and not be scrutinized or punished for thinking it.


----------



## AJ2011

dalsgaard said:


> It seems to me that this is mostly a question of T-symmetry:
> T-symmetry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The effect of time reversal on some variables of classical physics is negligible, but other variables are highly dependent on the arrow of time. I suppose time-reversal invariance could suggests a form of non-causal relationships, but most variables are asymmetric as they relate to time in classical physics. I assume it's the same on the quantum level.


Yes, I suppose the laws of thermodynamics could doom non-causality in the case of symmetry. I think showing non-causality would essentially boil down to mathematically finding a symmetry. The thermodynamic argument leads to an irreversible increase in entropy. This implies the universe started with low entropy. What is the probability of that happening (universe initial conditions)? And how (especially since we're considering causality)?

I think I need a better understanding of entropy. The connection between the physics of entropy and information theory is intriguing.



> I understand how it challenges locality and causality if we see entangled particles as truly separate. But how about the De Broglie-Bohm quantum potential?
> De Broglie


De Broglie-Bohm quantum potential does require knowledge of the universe, which in terms of information theory, I think, could imply that all information in space is embedded everywhere.

Bohm's work is definitely thought-inspiring in so many areas.


----------



## Lackjester

RobynC said:


> @harlEqu1n
> 
> You do realize that the logical conclusion of "ends justify the means" is a lack of morality? Anything that achieves a result no matter how horrible is allowed so long as it achieves a result.


Not really, it's just an objective morality mostly dissociated from emotion. The only logical conclusion of "ends don't justify the means" is irrationality caused by emotional instinct and/or religious or spiritual beliefs




RobynC said:


> Why brain-scanning technology to read a persons mind is bad? Because it would forever abolish privacy and it would likely be used not just to catch criminals but to persecute people who hold views that those in charge do not like.
> 
> Freedom of speech is not just the right to say what you wish; it's the freedom to say what you wish without being punished for saying it. Freedom of thought is the same, not just the ability to think what you wish but the ability to think it and not be scrutinized or punished for thinking it.


Brain-scans don't allow us to read people's mind and shouldn't. They should only let you see which parts of the brain are functioning and to what extent at any given time. I only wish we had a good way to screen people for lack of empathy.

The way I see it, there would be no way to use this technology against someone who's empathic but I could see its uses as a screening device against people who aspire to reach positions of power for the wrong reasons.


----------



## RobynC

@harlEqu1n



> Not really, it's just objective morality dissociated from emotion.


Without emotion, there is no morality...


----------



## Lackjester

RobynC said:


> @harlEqu1n
> 
> Without emotion, there is no morality...


Edited my post to add the word "mostly".

Isn't it sometimes necessary to endure short-term pain for long-term benefits? What makes you think a morality based on the well-being of the collective mind works any differently?

I'd definitely love to be wrong as it would make things much, much more simple. At this moment in time, we can't do anything based on utilitarianism (and perhaps never will) because of uncertainty and a lack of consensus on what to strive for.. I'm only saying it would be great if it were possible.

"Execute clear-cut sociopaths -> distribute their organs and belongings to those in need."

How is this a bad theoretical idea? I'd love to know.



I sincerely wish people would kill me for the greater good. What's wrong with that? Do you honestly still believe that your life matters in the grand scheme of things?


----------



## AJ2011

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> Well what about chaos - the universe is becoming more chaotic - but at the same time open systems become more organised. So what I`m saying is that it isn`t a case of hidden variables but a case of an open system surviving by re-organising at a higher level and therefore advancing and becoming something that never before existed.
> 
> Please bear in mind that I am not scientifically trained, I merely look at logic in an argument, and patterns and test it out philosophically.


Ilya Prigogine, Order Out of Chaos is a nice book in this regard. He tries to show that indeterminism is fundamental to classical and quantum level systems. Consequently, the idea is to show the arrow of time is in one direction only.


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

harlEqu1n said:


> Edited my post to add the word "mostly".
> 
> Isn't it sometimes necessary to endure short-term pain for long-term benefits? What makes you think a morality based on the well-being of the collective mind works any differently?
> 
> I'd definitely love to be wrong as it would make things much, much more simple. At this moment in time, we can't do anything based on utilitarianism (and perhaps never will) because of uncertainty and a lack of consensus on what to strive for.. I'm only saying it would be great if it were possible.
> 
> "Execute clear-cut sociopaths -> distribute their organs and belongings to those in need."
> 
> How is this a bad theoretical idea? I'd love to know.
> 
> I sincerely wish people would kill me for the greater good. What's wrong with that? Do you honestly still believe that your life matters in the grand scheme of things?


it is only the individual taking responsibility for themselves - most importantly in the fields of though, emotion and action - that can ensure that the edging towards evolvement continues. The majority act as sheep do and that reminds me of the succinct quote `evil flourishes when good men do nothing` (it is only individuals who think for themselves, unpressured by the staus quo , so free to react and speak independently 
regardless of put downs, ridicule etc from the group mentality that can keep the human race fresh 

_"Execute clear-cut sociopaths -> distribute their organs and belongings to those in need."

How is this a bad theoretical idea? I'd love to know._

*Because it is Murder*
If you wish to choose to sacrifice your life for another that is your choice - you can`t demand that others are murdered to serve the greater good. Personally I wouldn`t take a cancer drug tested on animals to save my life. And neither would I condone murdering a sociopath to have his her organs. It is an appalling moral notion. This serves to point out how decisions made by collectives, committees, government are so lacking in any complete wisdom and breadth and depth of humanity.
Sidenote: 
_Originally Posted by RobynC 
@harlEqu1n Without emotion, there is no morality... _
I say that without emotions neither is there any immorality


----------



## Lackjester

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> it is only the individual taking responsibility for themselves - most importantly in the fields of though, emotion and action - that can ensure that the edging towards evolvement continues. The majority act as sheep do and that reminds me of the succinct quote `wvil flourishes when good men do nothing` (it is only individuals who think for themselves, unpressured by the staus quo , so free to react and speak independently
> regardless of put downs, ridicule etc from the group mentality that can keep the human race fresh
> 
> Sidenote:
> _Originally Posted by RobynC
> @harlEqu1n Without emotion, there is no morality... _
> I say that without emotions neither is there any immorality


Thanks for the opinion, I agree fully. 

When I said that it was dissociated from emotion, I didn't intend to imply that I don't feel emotion - only that I can willfully choose to ignore it.

I can't control the will itself or get rid of emotion though; if that makes any sense to you.


--
(in response to your edit)
Why is murder immoral? I don't believe it is. That's stage 4 moral reasoning.. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

You're doing much more harm than good by keeping a sociopath alive.


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

harlEqu1n said:


> Thanks for the opinion, I agree fully.
> 
> When I said that it was dissociated from emotion, I didn't intend to imply that I don't feel emotion - only that I can willfully choose to ignore it.
> 
> I can't control the will itself or get rid of emotion though; if that makes any sense to you.
> 
> --
> (in response to your edit)
> Why is murder immoral? I don't believe it is. That's stage 4 moral reasoning..
> Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Not controlling will or getting rid of emotions does make sense to me - however I personally don`t agree here: emotions are not sentient, they do not have a life of their own unless attached to a thought, so the understanding of self makes a massive difference in this regard.

I know about Kohlberg and in fact I did a test of his at Uni and scored the highest moral level to a dilemma he set. The one about someone dying and there being a drug available but too expensive...
I will check out your link, but clearly murder is morally repugnant and I will be very surprised if Kohlberg rates it love on the scale of moral development to believe it is morally unacceptable.


----------



## Lackjester

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> Not controlling will or getting rid of emotions does make sense to me - however I personally don`t agree here: emotions are not sentient, they do not have a life of their own unless attached to a thought, so the understanding of self makes a massive difference in this regard.
> 
> I know about Kohlberg and in fact I did a test of his at Uni and scored the highest moral level to a dilemma he set. The one about someone dying and there being a drug available but too expensive...
> I will check out your link, but clearly murder is morally repugnant and I will be very surprised if Kohlberg rates it love on the scale of moral development to believe it is morally unacceptable.


According to me, understanding of self makes a massive difference in the ability control, but not in the ability to control the ability to control in itself.

I have a hard time believing that you've reached the universal level, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have a good reason to believe a sociopath's life should be sparred.

What is it?

Perhaps we simply don't have the same perception of what a sociopath is. In my eyes, it's someone without empathy and the inability to control himself; with or without sadistic urges. In other words, a simple malfunction of the prefrontal cortex or its connection to the amygdala.


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

No, it is not stage 4 it is stage 6 it would come under Universal 
Ethical Principles - not stage 4 law and order. Murder is not about law and order - I know this to be the case because many govt. use the law to murder people regularly through execution. I am 100% against capital punishment and do not accept that anyone has the right to take a life, and fore the public to allow the govt to do it is to me reprehensible. Apart from any universal moral ethics it is quite simply committing the same act as the person they are executing doah


----------



## Lackjester

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> No, it is not stage 4 it is stage 6 it would come under Universal
> Ethical Principles - not stage 4 law and order. Murder is not about law and order - I know this to be the case because many govt. use the law to murder people regularly through execution. I am 100% against capital punishment and do not accept that anyone has the right to take a life, and fore the public to allow the govt to do it is to me reprehensible. Apart from any universal moral ethics it is quite simply committing the same act as the person they are executing doah


What's wrong with murder, if it leads to something positive?

I feel like you're simply using conventional "all life is meaningful" dogma without any individual reasoning.


Like I said earlier, you'd be able to improve many lives AND by the same token rid society of someone who could only harm others physically and psychologically.


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

harlEqu1n said:


> According to me, understanding of self makes a massive difference in the ability control, but not in the ability to control the ability to control in itself.
> 
> I have a hard time believing that you've reached the universal level, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have a good reason to believe a sociopath's life should be sparred.
> 
> What is it?
> 
> Perhaps we simply don't have the same perception of what a sociopath is. In my eyes, it's someone without empathy and the inability to control himself; with or without sadistic urges. In other words, a simple malfunction of the prefrontal cortex or its connection to the amygdala.


I am sorry that you have chosen not to believe I am a stage 6 in kohlberg moral stages. But I can assure you I most definitely am. And that means I am in a position where most people think i am simply not understanding something 

Here is the Stage 6 as per Kohlberg and it describes every inch of me.


----------



## AJ2011

harlEqu1n said:


> “To find fault is easy; to do better may be difficult.” - _Plutarch_


I agree. But, then, don't ask for "evidence for [your] arrogance"! 

I'll provide answers to your questions (my perspective):



> 1) Isn't it sometimes necessary to endure short-term pain for long-term benefits? What makes you think a morality based on the well-being of the collective mind works any differently?


We are first assuming a common standard of morality. Suppose my standard of morality is such that individual freedom is first priority. First off, as I value individualism, I cannot and will not impose my beliefs on another person. Then, given the circumstance, I personally assess (and expect others to personally assess) whether I wish to endure short-term pain for long-term benefits (benefits as defined by me). Benefits, again, cannot be defined by others for me, but agreed upon democratically.

This is how you see in Stage 5 morality

Kohlberg's Moral Stages

democratic principles are discussed. The concept of the Republic to prevent the tyranny of the majority is an example. In this view, the well-being of the collective is not bundled up into a mind, but agreed upon freely and democratically. There is no collective mind.



> 2) I sincerely wish people would kill me for the greater good. What's wrong with that? Do you honestly still believe that your life matters in the grand scheme of things?


There is nothing wrong in that belief; there would be something wrong if you imposed that on others. The belief of whether it matters or not is not decided by other people, but by oneself. You are imposing a value on life and then diminishing it. In reality, there may be no intrinsic value, whether to diminish or aggrandize.



> 3) Why is murder immoral? You're doing much more harm than good by keeping a sociopath alive.


Murder is the imposition of oneself on another. It violates individual freedom.

It is another question altogether whether freedom even matters considering the question of free will (I am intuiting that line will have the same result because there is no enslavement in nature in the conceptual sense).



> 4) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have a good reason to believe a sociopath's life should be sparred. -> What is it?


I see arguments for both sides here. If someone interferes with my individual freedom, then I consider death a valid option, however it will personally be a last resort. In any case, we all die, so isolation and death do not make a difference to me. On the other hand, considering society's penchant (power) for injustice, I consider the death penalty potentially harmful to individuals who are truly innocent. I will err on the side of precaution and prefer individual isolation over the death penalty.



> 5) Perhaps we simply don't have the same perception of what a sociopath is -> In my eyes, it's someone without empathy and the inability to control himself; with or without sadistic urges. In other words, a simple malfunction of the prefrontal cortex or its connection to the amygdala.


You accused me of being a robot. So, I find individual judgment of people very subjective and unreliable. Even neurological correlations with sociopathy may not be definitive. Moreover, it may be preventable/curable. In any case, it should be decided democratically to minimize individual bias.



> 6) What's wrong with murder, if it leads to something positive? Like I said earlier, you'd be able to improve many lives AND by the same token rid society of someone who could only harm others physically and psychologically.


Murder violates individual freedom. There is nothing positive in that for people who consider individual freedom critical.



> 7) What's your definition of morality?


If at all I have a definition, it will be whatever ensures individual freedom.



> 8) My whole interaction with SenhorFrio.. but I won't copy-paste everything!
> 
> 9) What is or are the best way(s) to decrease stress and/or promote self-actualization in the general population?


Ensure individual freedom (for decreasing stress). I have no idea about self-actualization.



> 14) I fail to see how what I proposed earlier would inevitably lead to the limitation of human thinking to the brain? [Implied: Why would this lead to a limitation of human thinking to the brain?]


Imposing one's belief system, "collective thinking," assumes one knows what's good for others. Its premise is inherently false (asymmetric information), and falsehoods will limit rational thinking.



> 17) You have to keep in mind that power does not lead everyone to corruption; and that sometimes it goes backwards, in that "corruption" itself often leads to power. [Subjective: Does power always lead to "corruption" or can "corruption" lead to power?


Power of one individual over another is against individual freedom and could be considered a corruption from this perspective. Minimizing power would be a goal for any society that ensures individual freedom.



> I do feel like the quality of my interrogations significantly decreased with time... Oh well. That's what happens when people (including me) try discussing subjective stuff that is has hardly definable or defensible meaning.


You could make it meaningful by ensuring that everything is defined systematically eliminating the assumptions.


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

Kilgore Trout said:


> _Is free will an illusion? Some leading scientists think so. For instance, in 2002 the psychologist Daniel Wegner wrote, “It seems we are agents. It seems we cause what we do… It is sobering and ultimately accurate to call all this an illusion.” More recently, the neuroscientist Patrick Haggard declared, “We certainly don’t have free will. Not in the sense we think.” And in June, the neuroscientist Sam Harris claimed, “You seem to be an agent acting of your own free will. The problem, however, is that this point of view cannot be reconciled with what we know about the human brain.”QUOTE]
> 
> There is an intrinsic problem with this question - and that is What is meant by free will.
> 
> It is indisputable that different people have different levels of awareness about what makes them do/say/act in a certain way. I also consider it true that any single person has differing levels of awareness about their views/behaviours at any one time - and that this will largely depend on what brainwave frequency they are operating from coupled with the amount of dysfunction that makes up their internal map of reality.
> 
> We all have a map of reality and it is made up of past experiences which in turn are built on previous experiences which in turn eventually go back to our pre-cognitive days (and are determined by our childhood experiences which for all of us included being at the mercy of parents to feed clothe us etc - the degree to how the parents nurtured personal expression and a freedom to evolve -as opposed to imprinting their own distorted map would have a significant bearing on this).
> 
> That having been said each of us as an inate awareness that something doesn`t quite gell (a contradiction inside) - whether or not the individual then devises a story to rationalise this out of awareness, or registers it as a sign that there are contradictory elements at war inside, will also have a massive bearing on the behaviour of an individual. So we all have an inate sense of a contradiction, the more we are motivated for knowing ultimate truth over and above the preservation of self esteem/social acceptance/physical survival - the more we will reflect on the contradiction. And by so doing we will gradually bring into consciousness any movers and shakers that dwell in our sub-conscious and unconscious.
> 
> Neuro science tells us a lot about how the brain works mechanically. But it knows nothing about consciousness. It cannot label it, it cannot describe it, it cannot test it, it cannot perform repeatable tests in controlled settings. It cannot even PROVE it`s existence. And yet we all know it does exists. The ultimate of free will is embedded in consciousness and science knows nothing about what consciousness is - so No, neuro-science cannot do away with the notion of free will.
> 
> Psychology can explain how people can have less control over their actions, it can also help people understand themselves more so that they can look at their internal contradictions.
> 
> The rules of science cannot examine something that doesn`t conveniently play by it`s rules. Ask any quantum physicists about getting energy to behave itself._


----------



## AJ2011

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> There is an intrinsic problem with this question - and that is What is meant by free will.


Basic "origin of thought" makes free will questionable. How does one know that one's thoughts are completely independent of the world? In any case, I am doubting that our thoughts are somehow independent of one another based on physics.



> It is indisputable that different people have different levels of awareness about what makes them do/say/act in a certain way. I also consider it true that any single person has differing levels of awareness about their views/behaviours at any one time - and that this will largely depend on what brainwave frequency they are operating from coupled with the amount of dysfunction that makes up their internal map of reality.
> 
> We all have a map of reality and it is made up of past experiences which in turn are built on previous experiences which in turn eventually go back to our pre-cognitive days (and are determined by our childhood experiences which for all of us included being at the mercy of parents to feed clothe us etc - the degree to how the parents nurtured personal expression and a freedom to evolve -as opposed to imprinting their own distorted map would have a significant bearing on this).


These are interesting statements that may all be testable/observable through the scientific process. Do you have a readily available list of citations?



> That having been said each of us as an inate awareness that something doesn`t quite gell (a contradiction inside) - whether or not the individual then devises a story to rationalise this out of awareness, or registers it as a sign that there are contradictory elements at war inside, will also have a massive bearing on the behaviour of an individual. So we all have an inate sense of a contradiction, the more we are motivated for knowing ultimate truth over and above the preservation of self esteem/social acceptance/physical survival - the more we will reflect on the contradiction. And by so doing we will gradually bring into consciousness any movers and shakers that dwell in our sub-conscious and unconscious.


I agree that rationality is inherently limited in its power to analyze, e.g., see Godel. Certainly, the "preservation of self esteem/social acceptance/physical survival" are rooted in value systems that need not exist but in our minds, so they may be rooted in falsehoods. I would consider the search for the "ultimate" truth the search for truth which is absolute, not based on any relative thinking. Usually, this search entails negating falsehoods and assumes very little in the process (otherwise we'll be adding assumptions and falsehoods along the way).



> Neuro science tells us a lot about how the brain works mechanically. But it knows nothing about consciousness. It cannot label it, it cannot describe it, it cannot test it, it cannot perform repeatable tests in controlled settings. It cannot even PROVE it`s existence. And yet we all know it does exists. The ultimate of free will is embedded in consciousness and science knows nothing about what consciousness is - so No, neuro-science cannot do away with the notion of free will.


How could we have a discussion or try to understand something that cannot be described? Could you provide examples of situations in which consciousness is exhibited and neuroscience is unable to describe the reality?



> Psychology can explain how people can have less control over their actions, it can also help people understand themselves more so that they can look at their internal contradictions.


Absolutely. I think internal contradictions are falsehoods that are rooted in some arbitrary value system. Psychology could reveal how people have obtained and reinforced these arbitrary value systems that have no bearing on reality.



> The rules of science cannot examine something that doesn`t conveniently play by it`s rules. Ask any quantum physicists about getting energy to behave itself.


Science does not prescribe any rules other than ensuring that the organized knowledge is testable. Testable hypotheses may not be too much to ask unless the testing itself clouds the experiment. Perhaps "consciousness" is one such area, however I have no experience with that concept (at least, not that I know of). If this is the case, what experiment would you suggest to show that testing will not provide answers?


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

> How does one know that one's thoughts are completely independent of the world? In any case, I am doubting that our thoughts are somehow independent of one another based on physics.


I agree - however there is a level of consciousness that is past rationalisation and past conceptual thought - it is the human looking at being human and just Being without any judgement and not relating to any map.


> These are interesting statements that may all be testable/observable through the scientific process. Do you have a readily available list of citations?


Nope, I don`t have any readily available citations but I can tell you that they have been tested and observed by thorough record keeping and observation and results of success when applied through NLP - which I use a lot in my personal development work with clients. Also it is widely acknowledged and related to brain scan that a wider consciousness occurs (and thereby gives access to many thousand more info. bits in the unconscious as opposed to the relative few available consciously) when the brain waves are lowered in frequency to the alpha and theta level.


> I would consider the search for the "ultimate" truth the search for truth which is absolute, not based on any relative thinking. Usually, this search entails negating falsehoods and assumes very little in the process (otherwise we'll be adding assumptions and falsehoods along the way).


Yes the search for the absolute is non dualistic so therefore by definition not relative. I don`t see how doing this necessarily negates falsehoods or assumes very little - I do not think non dualistic consideration equals adding assumptions (but then I`m not sure if that is what you are saying)


> Could you provide examples of situations in which consciousness is exhibited and neuroscience is unable to describe the reality?


 Neuroscientists accept that they do not know what consciousness is or what produces is or where it lies. 


> If this is the case, what experiment would you suggest to show that testing will not provide answers?


... let a scientist provide a possible test and I will opine why it will not work. The point here for me is that nobody disputes that consciousness exists but science cannot `prove` its existence. To prove it it would need to capture it, bottle it, put it on a petra dish - all this has been done and as a result parts of the EFFECT of consciousness is shown. But consciousness where it comes from what it is etc has not been captured.


----------



## Lackjester

Oh goodness, arguments to work with! Let's get rollin'



AJ2011 said:


> I agree. But, then, don't ask for "evidence for [your] arrogance"!


Sure! I was hoping to hear Roar's point of view regarding that... It's true that I do put on a show here and there for fun but I certainly don't want to hurt other people's feelings in the process! Regardless, she decided to let it slip and I'll do the same. Now's a good time to turn the page and get back on topic. 



> We are first assuming a common standard of morality. Suppose my standard of morality is such that individual freedom is first priority. First off, as I value individualism, I cannot and will not impose my beliefs on another person. Then, given the circumstance, I personally assess (and expect others to personally assess) whether I wish to endure short-term pain for long-term benefits (benefits as defined by me). Benefits, again, cannot be defined by others for me, but agreed upon democratically.


I understand the problem associated with enforcing individual morality on others. Matter of fact, I used to share the point of view that "all life is equally meaningful" for a very long time until I learned more about the world! You see, it is very unclear to me what the point of "individual freedom" is as I happen not to value individual life or happiness anymore. At this point, I realize I'm into very dangerous territory and I chose to keep reading about people's different opinions so-as to avoid inadvertently turning evil or something along those lines. 

My most recent reasoning goes as follows: 
I define the purpose of life as the synthesis of certain types of energy (which depends on the type of organism) into kinetic energy unrelated to gravity AND thermal energy. This being the main purpose of reproduction and multiplication.

Knowing this, I perceive the goal of morality to be a facilitation and speeding up of this process; be it through evolution, valuing scientific advancement or even dictating moral guidelines to keep us from annihilating ourselves. In fact, I believe the reason why science is so fascinating to us, why we are bothered by death and why we feel emotion to be because those are the most efficient ways to reach our purely instinctive goal of energetic synthesis. 

I view life as a category of matter that serves some kind of currently unknown cosmic law of energetic "equilibrium" or lack thereof; which probably has something to do with the quantum cross-over from our universe(s) into the multiverse(s). 

The way I see it, your instinct to preserve life is probably related to this concept, in that by killing someone, we're reducing the amount of energy being synthesized. This is obviously very good morality and looked up to but I strongly believe that there's a better, more human (in the sense that we're the only specie with the ability to fore-see the impacts of our actions and control the expression of our instincts) morality dealing with a control of this animal instinct of life preservation. 

I'm not sure why or how I came to this conclusion; it's recent and definitely not embedded in my mind, but from observation and comparison, it seems to make a lot of sense. I also believe this could easily be applied as a form of universal morality. Obviously, there's a limit to the predictive power of the mind and it wouldn't be perfect, but it would still be much better than the basic morality we currently live by. For example, the idea that all life is valuable will likely (but not necessarily) promote "pro-life" laws that are counter-productive to the energetic equilibrium I personally aim for.

At the very least, I believe that if it turns out to be impossible to leave our planet to colonize the universe, then we should focus on maximizing the overall happiness on Earth until the death of life on the planet. Note: I value all life forms, not just humans!

How could this be used to understand the sociopath situation more accurately... I'd have to say that a sociopath is unlikely to contribute to the collective knowledge, likely to decrease overall happiness and likely to reduce the efficiency of our civilization as far as my perceived morality goes.

All this coming from someone with very high cognitive and emotional empathy (self-perceived and through online tests / still haven't been able to get a brain-scan done on myself). 

Again, I'd gleefully sacrifice my life for this cause if I were given the opportunity. In fact, that's what I'm slowly doing right now. (definitely don't want to get into this, though!)



> Democratic principles are discussed. The concept of the Republic to prevent the tyranny of the majority is an example. In this view, the well-being of the collective is not bundled up into a mind, but agreed upon freely and democratically. There is no collective mind.


According to the moral expressed above, democracy is flawed as, given the current state of our civilization, it could easily lead to the self-destruction of our species. Lack of empathy, irrationality and the (still remaining) lack of a universal language can only lead to constant oppression between the different cultures. I believe we need to increase all these things, by force if necessary, in order to prevent an impending self-destruction. 



> There is nothing wrong in that belief; there would be something wrong if you imposed that on others. The belief of whether it matters or not is not decided by other people, but by oneself. You are imposing a value on life and then diminishing it. In reality, there may be no intrinsic value, whether to diminish or aggrandize.


Refer to the point above. Although I can easily understand your point of view, I still don't think there is actual value to life besides said synthesis. As such, I perceive synthesis motivated death-penalty or suicide to be perfectly moral.



> Murder is the imposition of oneself on another. It violates individual freedom.


Define individual freedom? Is providing everyone with individual freedom truly moral? Can you write with a straight face that all humans are truly equal?



> It is another question altogether whether freedom even matters considering the question of free will (I am intuiting that line will have the same result because there is no enslavement in nature in the conceptual sense).


Indeed.




> I see arguments for both sides here. If someone interferes with my individual freedom, then I consider death a valid option, however it will personally be a last resort. In any case, we all die, so isolation and death do not make a difference to me. On the other hand, considering society's penchant (power) for injustice, I consider the death penalty potentially harmful to individuals who are truly innocent. I will err on the side of precaution and prefer individual isolation over the death penalty.


I agree. It is very immoral to kill innocents and is why I mentioned the concept is inapplicable to current society until neuro-imaging allows us to quantify empathic ability. By the same token, I think eugenics is incredibly immoral when killing innocents but it may become moral once we reach the population limit on Earth (if we ever do).




> You accused me of being a robot. So, I find individual judgment of people very subjective and unreliable. Even neurological correlations with sociopathy may not be definitive. Moreover, it may be preventable/curable. In any case, it should be decided democratically to minimize individual bias.


No, I didn't! It was just a joke! Cheer up. 




> Murder violates individual freedom. There is nothing positive in that for people who consider individual freedom critical.


Refer to the above if you've forgotten my arguments.



> If at all I have a definition, it will be whatever ensures individual freedom.


Okay.



> Ensure individual freedom (for decreasing stress). I have no idea about self-actualization.


Okay.



> Imposing one's belief system, "collective thinking," assumes one knows what's good for others. Its premise is inherently false (asymmetric information), and falsehoods will limit rational thinking.


I guess you could be entirely right. We'll see what your counter-arguments might be to my claims.




> Power of one individual over another is against individual freedom and could be considered a corruption from this perspective. Minimizing power would be a goal for any society that ensures individual freedom.


Not sure I understand this. Sorry! If what you're saying is that forcing beliefs on individuals is corruption, I have to disagree for the reasons above. (though I agree that, in general and without a clear moral goal, it definitely is) 



> You could make it meaningful by ensuring that everything is defined systematically eliminating the assumptions.


I agree this isn't possible right now but, in theory, you could do that by increasing empathy and neural development in the population, by promoting the development of these abilities in children (through the reduction of stress, free education, educative TV shows, etc...)




Positive things that could potentially be done - gradually or when a decent threshold of overall empathy in society allows it and in no particular order of importance - to improve society:

1) High school to University-level education streamed by the government through free television channels, on the radio and online.
2) Redesigned educational curriculum based on the development of logical and ethical development (and continuous training to develop every myelin sheath involved) .
3) Creation of public councils of experts for reference, debate and discussion.
4) Creation of a online database of books that is free to anyone with internet access.
5) Enforced neural-imagery and analysis of all holders of societal power. (CEOs, politicians, presidents, generals, administrators, experts or anything of the such but certainly not "civilians")
6) Support for families in need, paid maternity leaves. (already being done in successful socialist countries)
7) Some form of organism that judges the morality and priority of X cases.
8) Execution of verified sociopaths with an harvesting of their organs and distribution of their wealth.
9) Highly progressive income taxes. (Marx)
10) Abolition of heritage. (Marx)
11) Creation of laws forbidding luxury.
12) Workforce/education specifically based on temperament and abilities. (Plato, More, Marx - possibly one of the hardest to apply but also the most beneficial)
13) Enforcement of the teaching of a universal language (Esperanto?) through the public educational system.
14) Once all this is done, instauration of a real democratic political system with direct civilian involvement.

I believe one benefit-cost analysis study has shown that, for every dollar (1$) invested directly in the Abecedatian Project (direct home intervention in poverty-stricken families), the benefit (savings) to society was 11.34$; the benefit (savings) to the government was 1.55$; and the benefit to the individual was (3.55$). That's, roughly, a sixteen-fold increase in benefit. Personally, I believe it is likely to be even more when taking into account the indirect social impacts of that 1$ on the individual's relationships and thus, community.

Hopefully this post clears some things up about my intentions and personal ideas. I can sadly not appeal to authority as most of these ideas are of my own creation. If any of you want to discuss this, the underlying mechanic will have to be "take it, leave it or change it".


----------



## AJ2011

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> I agree - however there is a level of consciousness that is past rationalisation and past conceptual thought - it is the human looking at being human and just Being without any judgement and not relating to any map.


I think I could intuit what you are saying with this. However, I have not experienced it since I am still wedded to concepts and rationalization. My attachment to concepts is because I value it. I have not meditated further on the possibility without concepts.

However, even with that "level of consciousness" where does free will play a role? It would seem at that "level of consciousness," concepts such as "free will" and "determinism" will cease to be.



> Nope, I don`t have any readily available citations but I can tell you that they have been tested and observed by thorough record keeping and observation and results of success when applied through NLP - which I use a lot in my personal development work with clients. Also it is widely acknowledged and related to brain scan that a wider consciousness occurs (and thereby gives access to many thousand more info. bits in the unconscious as opposed to the relative few available consciously) when the brain waves are lowered in frequency to the alpha and theta level.


Does NLP stand for neuro-linguistic programming? Neuro-linguistic programming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Yes the search for the absolute is non dualistic so therefore by definition not relative. I don`t see how doing this necessarily negates falsehoods or assumes very little - I do not think non dualistic consideration equals adding assumptions (but then I`m not sure if that is what you are saying)


Negation or recognition of falsehoods is how my mind works and that is how I interpreted it. I was not saying non-dualistic thinking adds assumptions, however it could be yet another concept in and of itself.



> Neuroscientists accept that they do not know what consciousness is or what produces is or where it lies.


Do you have a review paper that you could point me to discussing the concept of consciousness and its relation to neuroscience? Perhaps there was a study of Tibetan monks meditating and the collection of neural activity (I vaguely remember a documentary on this)? Is this topic in the domain of philosophy and not science?



> ... let a scientist provide a possible test and I will opine why it will not work. The point here for me is that nobody disputes that consciousness exists but science cannot `prove` its existence. To prove it it would need to capture it, bottle it, put it on a petra dish - all this has been done and as a result parts of the EFFECT of consciousness is shown. But consciousness where it comes from what it is etc has not been captured.


What would you suggest as steps to experience this "level of consciousness"?


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

> However, even with that "level of consciousness" where does free will play a role? It would seem at that "level of consciousness," concepts such as "free will" and "determinism" will cease to be.


Spot on - this is absolutely the case ... however from this non dual point you also see that you are consciousness currently playing in the confines of humanity (for whatever reason - auto. evolvement of consciousness - a choice of universal consciousness to experience consciousness in lower levels of Matter) and therefore operate in that realm but knowing that it is all passing and so feeling/caring but with choice, and the knowledge that attachment equals pain.



> Does NLP stand for neuro-linguistic programming?


Yes, although have not checked out what Wiki say



> however it could be yet another concept in and of itself.


By definition if it is a concept then it is not non dualistic (however I woud need an exact working definition of `concept` in this context).


> What would you suggest as steps to experience this "level of consciousness"?


Meditation and the Will (whoops lol - couldn`t resist) to be just who you are at source - past all the societal expectations, past all personas, past all sense of ego factoring into anything (and to the extent of being consciously aware of when it does) Recognising that we all have stuff we suppress and distort - as per Carl Jung and the Shadow side ... get to know the shadow side and it stops being able to operate through you unconsciously.


----------



## Lackjester

Jesus Christ.

Too many walls of text... I refuse to address all of them individually. 

Although I disagree with some points, what you guys are saying is interesting though, keep it up.


----------



## AJ2011

harlEqu1n said:


> I understand the problem associated with enforcing individual morality on others. Matter of fact, I used to share the point of view that "all life is equally meaningful" for a very long time until I learned more about the world! You see, it is very unclear to me what the point of "individual freedom" is as I happen not to value individual life or happiness anymore. At this point, I realize I'm into very dangerous territory and I chose to keep reading about people's different opinions so-as to avoid inadvertently turning evil or something along those lines.


The only reason I have for individual freedom is because its the closest to what you see in nature. From my observations, nature does not ascribe meaning, purpose or value to anything. Things are created and destroyed indiscriminately, and it is not necessarily efficient in any sense (would be interesting to debate in terms of the pervasiveness of the least action principle). Aligning yourself to nature's way of operating seems intelligent, since you will tend to not make too many false assumptions leading to unfulfilled desires and the consequent misery.

So, why individual freedom? It has the least assumptions with respect to knowledge of the other in a dualistic framework. If everyone follows it in spirit, it will lead to collective solutions. Focusing on collective solutions seems like putting the cart before the horse, and will likely result in a poor compromise.



> My most recent reasoning goes as follows:
> I define the purpose of life as the synthesis of certain types of energy (which depends on the type of organism) into kinetic energy unrelated to gravity AND thermal energy. This being the main purpose of reproduction and multiplication.


Is it possible life has no pre-defined purpose and things just are? Why would reproduction and multiplication be of any intrinsic value? Wouldn't this imply bacteria or viruses are the best model and therefore humanity should as a result commit suicide in favor of numbers.



> Knowing this, I perceive the goal of morality to be a facilitation and speeding up of this process; be it through evolution, valuing scientific advancement or even dictating moral guidelines to keep us from annihilating ourselves. In fact, I believe the reason why science is so fascinating to us, why we are bothered by death and why we feel emotion to be because those are the most efficient ways to reach our purely instinctive goal of energetic synthesis.


Of what intrinsic value is efficiency?



> I view life as a category of matter that serves some kind of currently unknown cosmic law of energetic "equilibrium" or lack thereof; which probably has something to do with the quantum cross-over from our universe(s) into the multiverse(s).


Not sure what this means. Why must life serve some law? Is that a figure of speech suggesting that the world is according to some cosmic law or is there some value ascribed to the process of serving a cosmic law?

I don't understand the concept of multiverse and therefore its implications. For me there has to be something observable and predictive in order for the concept to be "useful" or worth discussing. Are there observables related to this concept of the multiverse? Do you have any citations or papers you could refer to to define the multiverse?



> The way I see it, your instinct to preserve life is probably related to this concept, in that by killing someone, we're reducing the amount of energy being synthesized. This is obviously very good morality and looked up to but I strongly believe that there's a better, more human (in the sense that we're the only specie with the ability to fore-see the impacts of our actions and control the expression of our instincts) morality dealing with a control of this animal instinct of life preservation.


Energy is conserved and the only thing that seems to change is the form. Are you suggesting that by killing, this energy is not somehow available for "synthesis"? How do you define synthesis? I am all about letting things be. I am destined to die. In life threatening situations, I will act, not necessarily out of reason but instinctively. Those instincts for self-preservation may have arisen due to some unknown cosmic law of persistence which opposes entropy (consistent within a dualistic framework).



> I'm not sure why or how I came to this conclusion; it's recent and definitely not embedded in my mind, but from observation and comparison, it seems to make a lot of sense. I also believe this could easily be applied as a form of universal morality. Obviously, there's a limit to the predictive power of the mind and it wouldn't be perfect, but it would still be much better than the basic morality we currently live by. For example, the idea that all life is valuable will likely (but not necessarily) promote "pro-life" laws that are counter-productive to the energetic equilibrium I personally aim for.


I still don't see any need for a universal morality. If what you are describing is an inherent characteristic in everything, then it stands to reason that promoting individual freedom will express it universally. Individual freedom would probably enable expression that you expressed desire for as an emergent property.



> At the very least, I believe that if it turns out to be impossible to leave our planet to colonize the universe, then we should focus on maximizing the overall happiness on Earth until the death of life on the planet. Note: I value all life forms, not just humans!


Individual freedom will provide the potential for overall happiness. We could view humanity as a potential (see Gurdjieff, the Enneagram guy among other things).



> How could this be used to understand the sociopath situation more accurately... I'd have to say that a sociopath is unlikely to contribute to the collective knowledge, likely to decrease overall happiness and likely to reduce the efficiency of our civilization as far as my perceived morality goes.


As a counter to that thought, sociopaths could be providing us messages regarding the health of our society and therefore serve a useful function. Moreover, their continued existence could provide a way to understand anomalies. Anomalies are not bad, and, in fact, they are usually very insightful if posed correctly.



> Again, I'd gleefully sacrifice my life for this cause if I were given the opportunity. In fact, that's what I'm slowly doing right now. (don't want to get into this!)


This sacrifice seems to contradict your other desire to "prevent an impending self-destruction." How do you reconcile the two?



> According to the moral expressed above, democracy is flawed as, given the current state of our civilization, it could easily lead to the self-destruction of our species. Lack of empathy, irrationality and the (still remaining) lack of a universal language can only lead to constant oppression between the different cultures. I believe we need to increase all these things, by force if necessary, in order to prevent an impending self-destruction.


I think that the lack of empathy and irrationality result from the gross application of universal morality. I think universe morality is dehumanizing, where humanity is defined by individual characteristics that is inherently suppressed through the application of external pressures. I believe we need to eliminate the concept of universal morality. Universal morality will accelerate our self-destruction by creating a lemming society. Enabling individual freedom will provide collective intelligence naturally as an emergent property. It is unfettered by falsehoods due to asymmetric information.



> Refer to the point above. Although I can easily understand your point of view, I still don't think there is actual value to life besides said synthesis. As such, I perceive synthesis motivated death-penalty or suicide to be perfectly moral.


See above.



> Define individual freedom? Is providing everyone with individual freedom truly moral? Can you write with a straight face that all humans are truly equal?


I never implied anything about equality. Individual freedom is the valuing of independence opposing external interference (involuntary). I'm not sure about absolute morality. In a dualistic framework, it's the "better of two evils." I prefer non-dualism, which will probably result in the same solution, however with no inherent value ascribed to the individual nor the collective.



> Not sure I understand this. Sorry! If what you're saying is that forcing beliefs on individuals is corruption, I have to disagree for the reasons above. (though I agree that, in general and without a clear moral goal, it definitely is)


Within the dualistic framework emphasizing individual freedom, it follows that enabling power of one individual/group over another is not desirable.


----------



## Lackjester

Herpa derp.


----------



## AJ2011

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> Meditation and the Will (whoops lol - couldn`t resist) to be just who you are at source - past all the societal expectations, past all personas, past all sense of ego factoring into anything (and to the extent of being consciously aware of when it does) Recognising that we all have stuff we suppress and distort - as per Carl Jung and the Shadow side ... get to know the shadow side and it stops being able to operate through you unconsciously.


I have not looked into Jung's description of the shadow side. I have just tried to understand the cognitive functions individually to see where I might be subconsciously biasing myself in one way of thinking or another. It will be interesting to look into.

Thanks.


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

Yes, this is something I want to do more off - using the other mbti types to develop those sides of me. I have considered that taken as a whole - and looked at from the spot of universal consciousness manifesting in the human form (and so having a working assumption out of interest) as to the feedback it would receive - would we say that the individual preferences further narrow the narrow senses for an individual, but from a universal consciousness spot it provides the best way to engender evolutionary conscious awareness ...
btw interesting - I checked out wiki on NLP and it is quite damning - what is particularly interesting is that there is no counselling model that empowers individuals like nlp. The general rthos of the counselling word has counselling held in such a straightjacket that so many counsellors and psychiatrist and psychologists are unable to move people - and many are themselves noticeably dysfunctional. I currently have 3 Counsellors on my books whose relationship with their clients has taken off since they have worked with me. I have a GP as a client who shared a house together with a senior psychiatrist who was so tied by academia she was unable to apply her `knowledge1 and was neurotic and hostile mmmm


----------



## Lackjester

> The only reason I have for individual freedom is because its the closest to what you see in nature. From my observations, nature does not ascribe meaning, purpose or value to anything. Things are created and destroyed indiscriminately, and it is not necessarily efficient in any sense (would be interesting to debate in terms of the pervasiveness of the least action principle). Aligning yourself to nature's way of operating seems intelligent, since you will tend to not make too many false assumptions leading to unfulfilled desires and the consequent misery.


The only thing you'll truly see in nature is the replication of DNA (through reproduction or otherwise) and different metabolisms converting X energy into movement and heat. You're right, there may be no real purpose or value in anything; but from a fresh human (thus emotional) perspective, there is! The least-action principle can't be applied to everything. Briefly looking at the different forms of life, I'd be more inclined to propose that it is - at least in part - dictated by some sort of "most-action principle". I could very well be wrong, but - as a tentative example - don't organisms generally grow in size as time goes on? 

Not exactly sure where plants fit in all this. I don't know much about plants but perhaps they gave up the function of movement in order to convert more energy, billions of years ago. 

Regardless, to help you understand my viewpoint, one of the questions I've personally asked myself before is: why do I value living beings over rocks? Perhaps this will help you understand some of the reasoning that has led to my conclusion. 



> So, why individual freedom? It has the least assumptions with respect to knowledge of the other in a dualistic framework. If everyone follows it in spirit, it will lead to collective solutions. Focusing on collective solutions seems like putting the cart before the horse, and will likely result in a poor compromise.


Sorry, you lost me there. I'm not familiar with dualistic or non-dualistic frameworks.

From my understanding, you're saying that everyone would follow a good idea (spirit) towards collective welfare without the government having to enforce anything. I don't disagree with the idea but I believe that this process would take much longer and we'd probably have destroyed ourselves before then. On the other hand, enforcing decent rules would likely lower the time of the process to a few generations as opposed to too many.



> Is it possible life has no pre-defined purpose and things just are? Why would reproduction and multiplication be of any intrinsic value? Wouldn't this imply bacteria or viruses are the best model and therefore humanity should as a result commit suicide in favor of numbers.


As mentioned above, purpose is a human concept in the first place, so nothing is "purposeful" from a non-human point of view; but a human perspective of the "purpose" of life would likely be rooted in the physical laws of the universe. That's probably not very clear, but yea. I'm not sure how I could explain this.

Bacteria and viruses do not convert nearly as much energy in as little time. They're basic forms of life contributing to the ecosystem, though, and that's why we still love them despite the problems they cause us.



> Of what intrinsic value is efficiency?


None, but it simply seems to be what nature seeks and this goes hand-in-hand with your proposition of respecting the various laws of nature.



> Not sure what this means. Why must life serve some law? Is that a figure of speech suggesting that the world is according to some cosmic law or is there some value ascribed to the process of serving a cosmic law?


Not sure how I can put it. Life, to me, is just like any kind of matter and obeys the same underlying laws of the universe.



> I don't understand the concept of multiverse and therefore its implications. For me there has to be something observable and predictive in order for the concept to be "useful" or worth discussing. Are there observables related to this concept of the multiverse? Do you have any citations or papers you could refer to to define the multiverse?


Nope. To be honest with you, I do not have the knowledge to seriously think about this as of yet. I was simply throwing that out there according to my very basic understanding (or misunderstanding?) of quantum mechanics.

On the other hand, I don't see how this matters as the answer to that probably goes beyond our current understanding of the "verse" and doesn't really change the basis of what I'm saying; that life is conversion of energy and ethics are the optimization of life.



> Energy is conserved and the only thing that seems to change is the form. Are you suggesting that by killing, this energy is not somehow available for "synthesis"? How do you define synthesis? I am all about letting things be. I am destined to die. In life threatening situations, I will act, not necessarily out of reason but instinctively. Those instincts for self-preservation may have arisen due to some unknown cosmic law of persistence which opposes entropy (consistent within a dualistic framework).


Yes. As far as I know, dead organisms don't live. (which is to say that it doesn't convert energy into movement and heat) 

1) You can replace the word "synthesis" with "conversion" or "consumption" and it should help you understand where I'm trying to get at.
2) Letting things be is fine, but I don't think that way.

Didn't understand your point about entropy. I'm pretty sure you should understand my point of view by now, so I'm not sure what I could add to it.



> I still don't see any need for a universal morality. If what you are describing is an inherent characteristic in everything, then it stands to reason that promoting individual freedom will express it universally. Individual freedom would probably enable expression that you expressed desire for as an emergent property.


The individual freedom of a sociopath would slow the promotion of a universal morality and consequently, the development of the perfect society.



> Individual freedom will provide the potential for overall happiness. We could view humanity as a potential (see Gurdjieff, the Enneagram guy among other things).


Not as far as sociopaths go. They don't grow psychologically to the point of developing empathy or the such. If they do, then what I've been saying about their execution is immediately and irrevocably void.



> As a counter to that thought, sociopaths could be providing us messages regarding the health of our society and therefore serve a useful function. Moreover, their continued existence could provide a way to understand anomalies. Anomalies are not bad, and, in fact, they are usually very insightful if posed correctly.


Very solid point which I've already considered. We don't need as many as we do now though, do we?



> This sacrifice seems to contradict your other desire to "prevent an impending self-destruction." How do you reconcile the two?


As far as self-destruction goes, I was trying to hint towards the end of human life on Earth through nuclear warfare.

I don't think killing a few sociopaths would compare to that!




> I think that the lack of empathy and irrationality result from the gross application of universal morality. I think universe morality is dehumanizing, where humanity is defined by individual characteristics that is inherently suppressed through the application of external pressures. I believe we need to eliminate the concept of universal morality. Universal morality will accelerate our self-destruction by creating a lemming society. Enabling individual freedom will provide collective intelligence naturally as an emergent property. It is unfettered by falsehoods due to asymmetric information.


There is no universal morality, so I'm not sure what your point is. We live in a world of personal morality and that's the problem here. 

All sociopolitical systems would work, in my opinion, if everyone were empathic. Although the most efficient would remain a centralized state as opposed to anarchism (which would also work, of course).



> I never implied anything about equality. Individual freedom is the valuing of independence opposing external interference (involuntary). I'm not sure about absolute morality. In a dualistic framework, it's the "better of two evils." I prefer non-dualism, which will probably result in the same solution, however with no inherent value ascribed to the individual nor the collective.


I don't know about that. Didn't you bring up the social contract earlier? How is what I'm saying different? 

You give up some of your freedom as a means to contribute to society. Very simple.



> Within the dualistic framework emphasizing individual freedom, it follows that enabling power of one individual/group over another is not desirable.


Okay. I have no idea what that is though! What is it? Does it account for a better understanding of the living world than my theories? If so, how?


----------



## AJ2011

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> Yes, this is something I want to do more off - using the other mbti types to develop those sides of me. I have considered that taken as a whole - and looked at from the spot of universal consciousness manifesting in the human form (and so having a working assumption out of interest) as to the feedback it would receive - would we say that the individual preferences further narrow the narrow senses for an individual, but from a universal consciousness spot it provides the best way to engender evolutionary conscious awareness ...


If indeed everything is connected then a change in our own thoughts presumably has an effect on everything else. So, it may be possible to have a global effect, however I am not sure what kind of effect. It would be worth experimenting to see if an observable could be generated. Although proving it would be impossible unless the observable is clear and "independent," which is precisely what we wanted to disprove.



> btw interesting - I checked out wiki on NLP and it is quite damning - what is particularly interesting is that there is no counselling model that empowers individuals like nlp. The general rthos of the counselling word has counselling held in such a straightjacket that so many counsellors and psychiatrist and psychologists are unable to move people - and many are themselves noticeably dysfunctional. I currently have 3 Counsellors on my books whose relationship with their clients has taken off since they have worked with me. I have a GP as a client who shared a house together with a senior psychiatrist who was so tied by academia she was unable to apply her `knowledge1 and was neurotic and hostile mmmm


Things in academia take forever to change; it's good on the one hand because it reduces the chance for bad ideas to propagate (assuming no fraud, which nowadays may not be a totally safe assumption), and on the other hand, good revolutionary ideas take a long time to be incorporated while evolutionary ideas seem to be accepted quite easily. Good ideas may die in the short term, and may be revived much later after it has been rediscovered.

I don't much about NLP. I am results-oriented, however I do require a bit of the underlying physics to understand the problem. I've seen a tendency in the past for people to research localized solutions. For example, finding drugs that operate over a local region or certain process rather than looking for a solution for the entire dynamical system, e.g., body/brain. Of course, it is daunting to understand the whole system, but when we neglect to do so, we inevitably face adverse side-effects.

It's the proverbial "looking under the lamp post" problem. In recent years, I'm glad to see the changes in biology research incorporating physics and control theory, due to the development of new instrumentation and other technology. It's a very exciting, rapidly changing field now!

In the field of neuroscience, understanding the underlying dynamical process in a control theoretic way will (has?) probably pay dividends. I'm not sure what is going on in neuroscience, although I am interested. I think the simple symptomatic approach of the past is flawed. If you observe academic literature, most approaches are observational and information theoretic, fundamentally tied to the symptomatic approaches. People gather data, make observations and inferences from those observations. I prefer analysis and development of underlying physics, not glorified curve fitting.


----------



## Lackjester

I'm going to bed. Peace out, friends.

I thought I posted this earlier... Hmmm... Well, apparently not, so if you haven't seen it yet:







As I'm steering away from the thread's topic, here's my justification: neuroscience has indeed caused the conceptual death of fundamental free will but, in the process, created its very own interpretation of free will. The problem is that people in society generally have faulty brains whose "free will" function fails during moderate spikes of stress. I believe this to be entirely avoidable through a huge reform of our sociopolitical system.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion

Kilgore Trout said:


> _Is free will an illusion? Some leading scientists think so. For instance, in 2002 the psychologist Daniel Wegner wrote, “It seems we are agents. It seems we cause what we do… It is sobering and ultimately accurate to call all this an illusion.” More recently, the neuroscientist Patrick Haggard declared, “We certainly don’t have free will. Not in the sense we think.” And in June, the neuroscientist Sam Harris claimed, “You seem to be an agent acting of your own free will. The problem, however, is that this point of view cannot be reconciled with what we know about the human brain.”
> _
> Read more here.


I always imagined this to be true as a kid, as if we are "slaves" to our chemical nature. This revelation came when thinking about how some people just don't change who they are... are they really consciously selecting to be who they appear to be?


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

How human thought and emotion affects water:






“Water is the driving force of all nature.” – Leonardo da Vinci

Water makes most of earths surface and most of our human bodies … but do we really know the secrets of this amazing element.

From agriculture, to factories and hydropower, we put water to work in a million different ways every day. And yet water acts outside all known physical laws of nature.

At a time of global climate change, understanding the mysteries of water is critical. Every living thing needs it to survive … Our ignorance of its function and capacities has lead us to abuse its quality and forget its potential. Witness WATER’s capacity and challenge historical assumptions. Unveil enlightened information and new scientific discoveries that create new possibilities for water’s use in every field of endeavor.

These new discoveries go beyond human reckoning – beyond the solar systems and galaxies to the Source of life itself..

Featuring breathtaking discoveries by researchers worldwide including Masaru Emoto from “What the Bleep Do We Know” …

“Just as with the film “What The Bleep Do We Know” , “Water” shows us through science that our thoughts have an effect on our external reality. Imagine the possibilities when people realize their own potential for creativity. Films like this give me hope that there is an emergence of collective intelligence that can solve the problems of the world.”


----------



## Kilgore Trout

I found a brief video on the neuro-anatomy of decision making. 

Insightful overview of how the parts work.






Full video.


----------



## RobynC

@harlEqu1n



> As I'm steering away from the thread's topic, here's my justification: neuroscience has indeed caused the conceptual death of fundamental free will but, in the process, created its very own interpretation of free will. The problem is that people in society generally have faulty brains whose "free will" function fails during moderate spikes of stress. I believe this to be entirely avoidable through a huge reform of our sociopolitical system.


We already have diminished capacity defenses (that means that you have less accountability or none if your capacity is diminished).


----------



## Lackjester

RobynC said:


> @_harlEqu1n_
> We already have diminished capacity defenses (that means that you have less accountability or none if your capacity is diminished).


Right. And what I'm saying is that practically everyone has dimished capacities. Some more than others, of course! So where do you draw the line? Can you or should you even draw a line?

If what I say is true, those are some questions you should ask yourself. 
If what I say is false, then I would be particularly interested in reading your personal reasoning.


----------

