"Do you believe that you have freedom? Do you believe in creativity? If so, you have to reject the obtuse belief in an omniscient, omnipotent God. And you have to reject the dogma of scientific materialism. Then you have to find your way to another vision that leads to human flourishing, or beyond that to a superhuman race that has as its destiny conquest of the entire cosmos."
This is a wonderful explanation of free will as something obvious and therefore unquestionable. Unfortunately, the incorrect interpretation of Libet's experiment has led people to conclude that there is no free will and that decisions are made in brain circuits before the subject is aware of them. Consciousness is supposed to be "informed" a posteriori about the decisions made in the brain. Such was the interpretation of the observed jump in the "readiness potential" a fraction of a second before the subject became aware of her choice. In the book "The Grand Biocentric Design: How Life Creates Reality" (BenBella, 2020) (by Robert Lanza and Matrj Pavsic, with Bob Berman), we discuss---among many other things---the Libet's experiment and demonstrate that does not contradict the concept of free will.
I think manifestations of free will are rare but that only makes them that much more important. That is the voice that is writing the narrative in your head likes to pretend its making decisions but more often is explaining things after the fact. However, people can and do find ways to give that narrative writer of our conciousness control over life. They do it with big decisions...they do it with hacks like putting on your excercise clothes and sleeping in them...they do it by deliberating and praying to god and then doing that thing that feel unnatural but they know is right. It happens. It can be cultivated to happen more. But must of us aren't great at it.
Blaming "My Brain" is a variant of "The Devil Made me do it". This has been a steady push in culture for thousands of years to put all control outside the consciousness or Seat of the Soul.
1/2 the problem is External. Kids these days have the basics of life so easy that they complain about trifles. Whoever gets the most attention for their trifling has a higher status in the social order of youth today. Look at all the social media distress that kids have when they fall down the ladder of the social hierarchy. A clever system has been set up to move people's sense of self from the real world to the virtual, and control behavior through the reward of a higher social status (more upvotes).
The solution is Internal, that is to get kids today to develop their identity and value within themselves . However, the current western culture established through religion over the past 2000+ years has moved people's consciousness to the external, the devil made me do it, god will forgive me, etc. Few have developed the ability to reward right vs wrong within their own souls.
With our conscious observation, photons in the double slit experiment change their physical behavior from wave-like properties to particle-like properties. If "mind over matter" is true at the quantum level how can we possibly prove anything is impossible?
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, ‘Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?’ Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
— Marianne Williamson, from her book “A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of ‘A Course in Miracles’” (1992)
Anyone able to access at least a modicum of intuition can only resort to the conclusion that we have free will. The fact that there is a discussion in the scientific community altogether on this subject, is bizarre at least. I can only assume it stems from certain entities who want to usher in some sort of communist state, in which free will is a roadblock for consent to statements like 'you will own nothing and be happy.' Fortunately, the past has shown us that free will cannot be tamed.
Hi Josh ... here's where I think the debate is not silly, which leads to the question, "can you have free will at all, if it's not absolute?"
On the surface, we choose how much to spend on a car, but which car we buy is based on intrinsic characteristics that we have no control over. Our interests and desires are not things that we choose. You don't decide to enjoy the taste of chocolate for example -- you do or you don't. We'd never have to taste anything first if we could simply choose to enjoy it.
We don't choose whether or not we like a movie, a novel. We don't choose our interests or our personality traits.
We don't choose who we love or there'd be no such thing as heartbreak, and I certainly could not simply choose to stop loving my daughter.
I certainly chose to click add comment, but where I am in life would be completely different, and this is not hyperbole, if I didn't love Neopolitan pizza.
Given that so many of the choices we make are at the very least influenced by factors we don't have conscious control over, is free will an illusion?
These are two different discussions. People who argue from physics that we have no free will are being silly. But you're absolutely right that we are conditioned by society and (since Edward Bernays) there is a science of manipulating our choices with advertising, PR, social media, etc, which is successfully occluding our free will.
I realize now that I'm a bit off topic, but I have to continue anyway based on your reply.
Not that I disagree with any of that, but society and Madison Avenue don't play (much of) a role in who we fall in love with, or whether or not whether not we can successfully convince oursrlves to believe something we are not swayed by, or whether mayonnaise is gross or not.
My entire life for the last 10 years has been spent with a woman I did not choose to be attracted to (certainly) fall in love with (mostly, but the latter wouldn't have been on the table were the former not true.
Our mutual interests, though certainly influenced by society nevertheless formed independently and without choosing, during the preceding 30+ years, led to our enjoying each other's company, getting married and starting a family.
That's a lot of stuff that happened completely outside the bounds of free-will.
You have a good point. I'm re-thinking what I wrote earlier -- not that it's wrong, but that there are social and spiritual and biological reasons why our choices are not as free as we think they are. More soon...
I'm not postulating this it's just the question which interests me.
Like freedom of expression only exists in it's absolute form where all expression is permitted, is free will similar.
If any choices are preordained or rather out of our control, or any options are eliminated before we can decide to choose them, does free will exist at all?
I'm not sure I should buy the "but our intuition tells us" argument because our brains lie to us all the time.
I've now read some of BB. As I suspected, I agree heartily with the thesis, and there is no new knowledge in this book for me. There are also some scientific mistakes. Here's one thing Lanza got wrong.
I agree with the thesis that consciousness is fundamental, and physics was created by consciousness. But the book doesn't have great reviews because, they say, it doesn't make a good scientific case for this thesis.
I hope to do that in this space over the next week or two.
I'm not trying to debunk. I read Lanza's original book when it came out 15 years ago. I think the message of the book is one I've already received. Tell me what you think of the multi-part blog post when it comes out. Tentative title is "Inverting the hard problem -- consciousness creates the brain"
You might also read "The Grand Biocentric Design: How Life Creates Reality" (BenBella, 2020) (by Robert Lanza and Matrj Pavsic, with Bob Berman). In the book we discuss---among many other things---the Libet's experiment and demonstrate that it does not contradict the concept of free will. According to Lanza, that book is the best in the trilogy on biocentrism. In my opinions, it provides a lot of new ideas, not discussed in the previous two books.
It isn't in any libraries that I can borrow it from and a $1220 monthly budget doesn't allow for buying books. Judging from the title, one would have to assume it should be the best of the trilogy. I'll have to read up on Benjamin Libet's work, most of what I can find online, so far, appears to defame it.
I take that back. It is in my county's library's catalog, although which of its three branches it is in is indeterminate online. I'll check on it in the local branch tomorrow. Thank you for making me look for it.
"Do you believe that you have freedom? Do you believe in creativity? If so, you have to reject the obtuse belief in an omniscient, omnipotent God. And you have to reject the dogma of scientific materialism. Then you have to find your way to another vision that leads to human flourishing, or beyond that to a superhuman race that has as its destiny conquest of the entire cosmos."
— Jason Jorjani
This is a wonderful explanation of free will as something obvious and therefore unquestionable. Unfortunately, the incorrect interpretation of Libet's experiment has led people to conclude that there is no free will and that decisions are made in brain circuits before the subject is aware of them. Consciousness is supposed to be "informed" a posteriori about the decisions made in the brain. Such was the interpretation of the observed jump in the "readiness potential" a fraction of a second before the subject became aware of her choice. In the book "The Grand Biocentric Design: How Life Creates Reality" (BenBella, 2020) (by Robert Lanza and Matrj Pavsic, with Bob Berman), we discuss---among many other things---the Libet's experiment and demonstrate that does not contradict the concept of free will.
I think manifestations of free will are rare but that only makes them that much more important. That is the voice that is writing the narrative in your head likes to pretend its making decisions but more often is explaining things after the fact. However, people can and do find ways to give that narrative writer of our conciousness control over life. They do it with big decisions...they do it with hacks like putting on your excercise clothes and sleeping in them...they do it by deliberating and praying to god and then doing that thing that feel unnatural but they know is right. It happens. It can be cultivated to happen more. But must of us aren't great at it.
Blaming "My Brain" is a variant of "The Devil Made me do it". This has been a steady push in culture for thousands of years to put all control outside the consciousness or Seat of the Soul.
1/2 the problem is External. Kids these days have the basics of life so easy that they complain about trifles. Whoever gets the most attention for their trifling has a higher status in the social order of youth today. Look at all the social media distress that kids have when they fall down the ladder of the social hierarchy. A clever system has been set up to move people's sense of self from the real world to the virtual, and control behavior through the reward of a higher social status (more upvotes).
The solution is Internal, that is to get kids today to develop their identity and value within themselves . However, the current western culture established through religion over the past 2000+ years has moved people's consciousness to the external, the devil made me do it, god will forgive me, etc. Few have developed the ability to reward right vs wrong within their own souls.
This is very thoughtful, and different from the way I'm accustomed to thinking. Thanks for helping me expand my thinking.
I keep praying for peace and practicing compassion-meditation.
Some day I'm going to start practicing influencing the spread of random-number generators.
one-step-at-a-time. ;-}
"Visualize world peace" isn't a joke. Let's do it together.
I used to sport that bumper sticker.
It's a detailed and fractal visualization, as well as that heartfelt intention, at least for me.
Thanks Bro'.
With our conscious observation, photons in the double slit experiment change their physical behavior from wave-like properties to particle-like properties. If "mind over matter" is true at the quantum level how can we possibly prove anything is impossible?
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, ‘Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?’ Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
— Marianne Williamson, from her book “A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of ‘A Course in Miracles’” (1992)
Anyone able to access at least a modicum of intuition can only resort to the conclusion that we have free will. The fact that there is a discussion in the scientific community altogether on this subject, is bizarre at least. I can only assume it stems from certain entities who want to usher in some sort of communist state, in which free will is a roadblock for consent to statements like 'you will own nothing and be happy.' Fortunately, the past has shown us that free will cannot be tamed.
Hi Josh ... here's where I think the debate is not silly, which leads to the question, "can you have free will at all, if it's not absolute?"
On the surface, we choose how much to spend on a car, but which car we buy is based on intrinsic characteristics that we have no control over. Our interests and desires are not things that we choose. You don't decide to enjoy the taste of chocolate for example -- you do or you don't. We'd never have to taste anything first if we could simply choose to enjoy it.
We don't choose whether or not we like a movie, a novel. We don't choose our interests or our personality traits.
We don't choose who we love or there'd be no such thing as heartbreak, and I certainly could not simply choose to stop loving my daughter.
I certainly chose to click add comment, but where I am in life would be completely different, and this is not hyperbole, if I didn't love Neopolitan pizza.
Given that so many of the choices we make are at the very least influenced by factors we don't have conscious control over, is free will an illusion?
These are two different discussions. People who argue from physics that we have no free will are being silly. But you're absolutely right that we are conditioned by society and (since Edward Bernays) there is a science of manipulating our choices with advertising, PR, social media, etc, which is successfully occluding our free will.
I realize now that I'm a bit off topic, but I have to continue anyway based on your reply.
Not that I disagree with any of that, but society and Madison Avenue don't play (much of) a role in who we fall in love with, or whether or not whether not we can successfully convince oursrlves to believe something we are not swayed by, or whether mayonnaise is gross or not.
My entire life for the last 10 years has been spent with a woman I did not choose to be attracted to (certainly) fall in love with (mostly, but the latter wouldn't have been on the table were the former not true.
Our mutual interests, though certainly influenced by society nevertheless formed independently and without choosing, during the preceding 30+ years, led to our enjoying each other's company, getting married and starting a family.
That's a lot of stuff that happened completely outside the bounds of free-will.
You have a good point. I'm re-thinking what I wrote earlier -- not that it's wrong, but that there are social and spiritual and biological reasons why our choices are not as free as we think they are. More soon...
Ok I'm not crazy lol
I'm not postulating this it's just the question which interests me.
Like freedom of expression only exists in it's absolute form where all expression is permitted, is free will similar.
If any choices are preordained or rather out of our control, or any options are eliminated before we can decide to choose them, does free will exist at all?
I'm not sure I should buy the "but our intuition tells us" argument because our brains lie to us all the time.
Your next read might be Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death by Robert Lanza and Bob Berman.
Maybe you could summarize what you learned from Beyond Biocentrism.
It wouldn't change your mind if I could.
I've now read some of BB. As I suspected, I agree heartily with the thesis, and there is no new knowledge in this book for me. There are also some scientific mistakes. Here's one thing Lanza got wrong.
https://experimentalfrontiers.scienceblog.com/2022/07/04/exactly-the-same/
I can only presume that you are not a practitioner of the scientific method.
Maybe you can help me understand what that means to you.
Science is not carried out on blogs.
I agree with the thesis that consciousness is fundamental, and physics was created by consciousness. But the book doesn't have great reviews because, they say, it doesn't make a good scientific case for this thesis.
I hope to do that in this space over the next week or two.
You have already "debunked" by imaginary reviews.
You are extrapolating from a book title?
I'm not trying to debunk. I read Lanza's original book when it came out 15 years ago. I think the message of the book is one I've already received. Tell me what you think of the multi-part blog post when it comes out. Tentative title is "Inverting the hard problem -- consciousness creates the brain"
You might also read "The Grand Biocentric Design: How Life Creates Reality" (BenBella, 2020) (by Robert Lanza and Matrj Pavsic, with Bob Berman). In the book we discuss---among many other things---the Libet's experiment and demonstrate that it does not contradict the concept of free will. According to Lanza, that book is the best in the trilogy on biocentrism. In my opinions, it provides a lot of new ideas, not discussed in the previous two books.
It isn't in any libraries that I can borrow it from and a $1220 monthly budget doesn't allow for buying books. Judging from the title, one would have to assume it should be the best of the trilogy. I'll have to read up on Benjamin Libet's work, most of what I can find online, so far, appears to defame it.
I take that back. It is in my county's library's catalog, although which of its three branches it is in is indeterminate online. I'll check on it in the local branch tomorrow. Thank you for making me look for it.