|
|
Post by laughter on May 7, 2014 1:35:20 GMT -5
In terms of the science, how can the measurement of when the choice was made vs. the perception of the choice being made ever include an accurate disentanglement of the two? How can the investigator ever be sure that his definition of the event of perception doesn't involve some delay between the pattern of neural activity that is the root cause of the perception and that event? I don't doubt that Mr. Libet's experiments are accurate. His mistake is to consider that the conscious mind as self. Self is the conscious mind plus the unconscious, subconscious(psychological) and unconscious neurological processing. So the fact that the conscious mind is behind the neurological processing by a second or so means very little. sdp You've raised a top-level criticism from the outside-in that I also agree with and I think can be stated more generally as: how can Libet measure the instant of conscious choice without any rigorous consensus model of "consciousness" to begin with? My criticism was from the inside-out and is directed at the nature and the details of the experiment. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 7, 2014 1:39:02 GMT -5
In terms of the science, how can the measurement of when the choice was made vs. the perception of the choice being made ever include an accurate disentanglement of the two? How can the investigator ever be sure that his definition of the event of perception doesn't involve some delay between the pattern of neural activity that is the root cause of the perception and that event? Oddly, the same thought occurred to me today, before this thread was ever started.  Where's mittenhead and his rant about Kermit in his brain when you need him! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 5:09:28 GMT -5
btw - I think you're doing a bang up job on the volition debate .. making all the right choices .. and you deserve all the credit....  Admit it, you just got a problem with guys named Poindexter! if poindexter is code for conceit, arrogance, ignorance, then sure, I'll admit having some kind of a problem, annoyance, with it seems like 'higher intuition' (whatever) gets more credit than it deserves |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 7, 2014 5:35:03 GMT -5
The rihjt-hand/left-hand experiment sets limitations such that the subject is likely to reveal a bias ahead of the activity.. the 'decision point' is not likely made by neuro-transmitters that activate the meat-puppet.. there is another system, significantly quicker than the CNS (central nervous system), it is the connective tissue system (CTS), the 'body-mind'.. there are processes happening that most people aren't aware of, but which are easily integrated into the more complete holistic human experience.. these are activities and sensory input comprehensions that function in harmony with who/what the experiencer has evolved into.. the CTS and its integration into the experiencer's conscious participation expands awareness exponentially, revealing potentials most people have not even noticed..
It is interesting to observe people willing to abandon their opportunity to choose liberation due to an experiment based on if/then suppositions and conclusions limited to the examiner's bias.. remain open to more comprehensive evidence of what is happening, attaching to the evidence you want to believe is not the same as observing all the evidence while allowing for the actuality that you do not have 'all' of the evidence..
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 7, 2014 7:43:13 GMT -5
The right-hand/left-hand experiment sets limitations such that the subject is likely to reveal a bias ahead of the activity.. the 'decision point' is not likely made by neuro-transmitters that activate the meat-puppet.. there is another system, significantly quicker than the CNS (central nervous system), it is the connective tissue system (CTS), the 'body-mind'.. there are processes happening that most people aren't aware of, but which are easily integrated into the more complete holistic human experience.. these are activities and sensory input comprehensions that function in harmony with who/what the experiencer has evolved into.. the CTS and its integration into the experiencer's conscious participation expands awareness exponentially, revealing potentials most people have not even noticed.. It is interesting to observe people willing to abandon their opportunity to choose liberation due to an experiment based on if/then suppositions and conclusions limited to the examiner's bias.. remain open to more comprehensive evidence of what is happening, attaching to the evidence you want to believe is not the same as observing all the evidence while allowing for the actuality that you do not have 'all' of the evidence.. You have precisely hit the nail on the head. 90% of the problem I have with (conceptual)non-dualism is this repeated idea that we can't do anything. Although it's difficult to come to see that all our thoughts, feeling and actions result from the conditioning of self, this is indeed the case and it's an important stage to see this. But non-dual teachers, most who have spent thousands of hours in some sort of interior spiritual practice, turn around and say that the spiritual practice wasn't necessary, and in any case, the practice just happened in the same manner that thoughts, feelings and actions, just happen. The point is that with which we do interior spiritual practice, attention and/or awareness, is our point of freedom and cannot be conditioned. Now, they can be captured by our thoughts, feelings and actions, and this is how most people live, but attention and awareness are separate from thoughts, feelings and actions, so we can separate-out our attention and awareness and live through attention and awareness instead of living through thoughts, feelings and actions. This is what breaks the conditioning and eventually brings awakening and liberation. So this is what we can do, it doesn't just happen. If you think you have no control over what you attend to or what you are aware of, then you have " abandoned your opportunity to choose liberation". Now, ego/self isn't practicing, can't. Interior practice is not thinking, feeling or bodily movement, as these constitute ego/self. You have to find this distinction, make this distinction........and that via practice. You can't conceptualize the distinction. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on May 7, 2014 9:40:56 GMT -5
The right-hand/left-hand experiment sets limitations such that the subject is likely to reveal a bias ahead of the activity.. the 'decision point' is not likely made by neuro-transmitters that activate the meat-puppet.. there is another system, significantly quicker than the CNS (central nervous system), it is the connective tissue system (CTS), the 'body-mind'.. there are processes happening that most people aren't aware of, but which are easily integrated into the more complete holistic human experience.. these are activities and sensory input comprehensions that function in harmony with who/what the experiencer has evolved into.. the CTS and its integration into the experiencer's conscious participation expands awareness exponentially, revealing potentials most people have not even noticed.. It is interesting to observe people willing to abandon their opportunity to choose liberation due to an experiment based on if/then suppositions and conclusions limited to the examiner's bias.. remain open to more comprehensive evidence of what is happening, attaching to the evidence you want to believe is not the same as observing all the evidence while allowing for the actuality that you do not have 'all' of the evidence.. You have precisely hit the nail on the head. 90% of the problem I have with (conceptual)non-dualism is this repeated idea that we can't do anything. Although it's difficult to come to see that all our thoughts, feeling and actions result from the conditioning of self, this is indeed the case and it's an important stage to see this. But non-dual teachers, most who have spent thousands of hours in some sort of interior spiritual practice, turn around and say that the spiritual practice wasn't necessary, and in any case, the practice just happened in the same manner that thoughts, feelings and actions, just happen. The point is that with which we do interior spiritual practice, attention and/or awareness, is our point of freedom and cannot be conditioned. Now, they can be captured by our thoughts, feelings and actions, and this is how most people live, but attention and awareness are separate from thoughts, feelings and actions, so we can separate-out our attention and awareness and live through attention and awareness instead of living through thoughts, feelings and actions. This is what breaks the conditioning and eventually brings awakening and liberation. So this is what we can do, it doesn't just happen. If you think you have no control over what you attend to or what you are aware of, then you have " abandoned your opportunity to choose liberation". Now, ego/self isn't practicing, can't. Interior practice is not thinking, feeling or bodily movement, as these constitute ego/self. You have to find this distinction, make this distinction........and that via practice. You can't conceptualize the distinction. sdp I understand what you're saying, sdp, but I question the underlined. On some level, we know who we are. How could we not? That's why we resonate with some of the things said here, or with something we've read - because we recall that knowing. But there's a dissonance between that underlying knowledge (or sense or whatever you want to call it) and what you'd call ego-knowledge, what we've learned. That dissonance creates a need for resolution - the desire for enlightenment or the 'itch' or the 'longing'. How strongly we feel that dissonance is the impetus for interior practice, imo. You're right, ego is not calling for interior practice, but neither is there someone else, or some aspect of self, calling for it. Dissonance is calling for resolution. Brokenness is calling for unity, pain is calling for healing. Why that's true, I don't know, and I don't know where it comes from, but so far, this is what I see. What I don't see is someone making a decision to heal, to search, to see clearly. I see circumstances creating a situation where we're compelled to do those things. That can sound nihilistic, but it's not. If we get out of the way, there's a natural movement towards whatever's needed to resolve that dissonance. Sometimes it's a movement towards ramping it up! Or finding some quiet, somehow. Or creating a conflict to externalize the internal conflict so we can see it. All sorts of movements. I don't see anyone orchestrating that. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 7, 2014 10:42:26 GMT -5
You have precisely hit the nail on the head. 90% of the problem I have with (conceptual)non-dualism is this repeated idea that we can't do anything. Although it's difficult to come to see that all our thoughts, feeling and actions result from the conditioning of self, this is indeed the case and it's an important stage to see this. But non-dual teachers, most who have spent thousands of hours in some sort of interior spiritual practice, turn around and say that the spiritual practice wasn't necessary, and in any case, the practice just happened in the same manner that thoughts, feelings and actions, just happen. The point is that with which we do interior spiritual practice, attention and/or awareness, is our point of freedom and cannot be conditioned. Now, they can be captured by our thoughts, feelings and actions, and this is how most people live, but attention and awareness are separate from thoughts, feelings and actions, so we can separate-out our attention and awareness and live through attention and awareness instead of living through thoughts, feelings and actions. This is what breaks the conditioning and eventually brings awakening and liberation. So this is what we can do, it doesn't just happen. If you think you have no control over what you attend to or what you are aware of, then you have " abandoned your opportunity to choose liberation". Now, ego/self isn't practicing, can't. Interior practice is not thinking, feeling or bodily movement, as these constitute ego/self. You have to find this distinction, make this distinction........and that via practice. You can't conceptualize the distinction. sdp I understand what you're saying, sdp, but I question the underlined. On some level, we know who we are. How could we not? That's why we resonate with some of the things said here, or with something we've read - because we recall that knowing. But there's a dissonance between that underlying knowledge (or sense or whatever you want to call it) and what you'd call ego-knowledge, what we've learned. That dissonance creates a need for resolution - the desire for enlightenment or the 'itch' or the 'longing'. How strongly we feel that dissonance is the impetus for interior practice, imo. You're right, ego is not calling for interior practice, but neither is there someone else, or some aspect of self, calling for it. Dissonance is calling for resolution. Brokenness is calling for unity, pain is calling for healing. Why that's true, I don't know, and I don't know where it comes from, but so far, this is what I see. What I don't see is someone making a decision to heal, to search, to see clearly. I see circumstances creating a situation where we're compelled to do those things. That can sound nihilistic, but it's not. If we get out of the way, there's a natural movement towards whatever's needed to resolve that dissonance. Sometimes it's a movement towards ramping it up! Or finding some quiet, somehow. Or creating a conflict to externalize the internal conflict so we can see it. All sorts of movements. I don't see anyone orchestrating that. Not only is it not nihilistic .. but in any instant when we simply do in the absence of any question of who, what, how or why about the doing, there is a sublime sense of unity, of a love for anything, anyone and everything, that is to be found. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 12:40:03 GMT -5
I couldn't find a thread explicitly about this. Seems like it should have its own place. Here's a link to ST founder Shawn Nevins ruminating on it in TAT's Forum (props to sharon for linking to this first) -- he has you step through a simple experiment to test it: There are some interesting wikipedia entries on the subject as well: Neuroscience of Free will -- this points to the Libet experiments also mentioned by Shawn. Basically, it is experimentally observable that the 'awareness' or 'felt intention' to move a finger significantly lagged the brain activity required to move a finger. Perpetually behind the game, folks. But this is not conclusive. compatibilism -- This is the idea that free will and determinism can both be the case. The idea is as Schopenhauer said: "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." The wikipedia entry continues "in other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined." Dennet argues that free will is essential for the development of morality. That last sentence makes sense to me -- will or motivation is a result of conditioning. It is possible to influence the conditioning that creates the swamp where apparent decisions arise from. But I find a lot of this confusing. In terms of the science, how can the measurement of when the choice was made vs. the perception of the choice being made ever include an accurate disentanglement of the two? How can the investigator ever be sure that his definition of the event of perception doesn't involve some delay between the pattern of neural activity that is the root cause of the perception and that event? Well certainty in these matters is a long long way off. An asymptote at best. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 7, 2014 12:46:32 GMT -5
In terms of the science, how can the measurement of when the choice was made vs. the perception of the choice being made ever include an accurate disentanglement of the two? How can the investigator ever be sure that his definition of the event of perception doesn't involve some delay between the pattern of neural activity that is the root cause of the perception and that event? Well certainty in these matters is a long long way off. An asymptote at best. The difficulty can be cast as an error with regard to the orientation toward the notion of time. Where does one thought begin and the next end? Where does the signal of the pain of the fire on the hand transition into the impulse to pull it away? We divide experience up into little bits but there is a fundamental error at the root of this, and that of course can segue us into the minding available from Physics. (** left hand volitionlessly pulls right away from keyboard **) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 13:03:51 GMT -5
Well certainty in these matters is a long long way off. An asymptote at best. The difficulty can be cast as an error with regard to the orientation toward the notion of time. Where does one thought begin and the next end? Where does the signal of the pain of the fire on the hand transition into the impulse to pull it away? We divide experience up into little bits but there is a fundamental error at the root of this, and that of course can segue us into the minding available from Physics. (** left hand volitionlessly pulls right away from keyboard **) Happily we've got those little reflex loops that get the hand away from the fire quicker than our plodding brains are capable. Consciousness or awareness is after the fact. I see Professor Campbell arriving again sometime soon. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 15:55:16 GMT -5
We DO control our movements, but not explicitly only implicitly, in terms of desire and intent. We absolutely control what we DON'T do, a constant process by elimination and of deconstruction.. in the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few.. You obviously COULD control your every twitch for a set period of time if you set your mind to it but for all intents and purposes such would have absolutely no benefit other than admittedly providing confirmation to yourself that you are indeed the captain of your own ship. I doubt I'd be able to control all my twitches. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 15:58:23 GMT -5
There is a balance of movements, processes, thoughts, and choices some of which are self-controlled and some of which are beyond our control.. when i choose to swim underwater i also choose to hold my breath.. i may not choose to grow my hair, but i do choose if and when to cut it.. i choose to understand the existence i experience, from a holistic and practical perspective, a collaborative effort with the independently functioning version of 'me' collaborating with the collective whole 'me', resulting in an evolving discovery of existence experiencing itself.. When babies go underwater do they choose to hold their breath? Hair styles go in and out of fashion -- seems like whether or not to cut hair has a lot to do with the cultural/societal conditioning of the time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 15:59:37 GMT -5
In terms of the science, how can the measurement of when the choice was made vs. the perception of the choice being made ever include an accurate disentanglement of the two? How can the investigator ever be sure that his definition of the event of perception doesn't involve some delay between the pattern of neural activity that is the root cause of the perception and that event? I don't doubt that Mr. Libet's experiments are accurate. His mistake is to consider that the conscious mind as self. Self is the conscious mind plus the unconscious, subconscious(psychological) and unconscious neurological processing. So the fact that the conscious mind is behind the neurological processing by a second or so means very little. sdp As far as I know Libet didn't talk about self. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 16:05:10 GMT -5
I don't doubt that Mr. Libet's experiments are accurate. His mistake is to consider that the conscious mind as self. Self is the conscious mind plus the unconscious, subconscious(psychological) and unconscious neurological processing. So the fact that the conscious mind is behind the neurological processing by a second or so means very little. sdp You've raised a top-level criticism from the outside-in that I also agree with and I think can be stated more generally as: how can Libet measure the instant of conscious choice without any rigorous consensus model of "consciousness" to begin with? My criticism was from the inside-out and is directed at the nature and the details of the experiment. Libet, as far as I know, sidesteps that by focusing on 'felt intention' which is reported by the subjects. Definitely squishy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 16:10:24 GMT -5
The rihjt-hand/left-hand experiment sets limitations such that the subject is likely to reveal a bias ahead of the activity.. the 'decision point' is not likely made by neuro-transmitters that activate the meat-puppet.. there is another system, significantly quicker than the CNS (central nervous system), it is the connective tissue system (CTS), the 'body-mind'.. there are processes happening that most people aren't aware of, but which are easily integrated into the more complete holistic human experience.. these are activities and sensory input comprehensions that function in harmony with who/what the experiencer has evolved into.. the CTS and its integration into the experiencer's conscious participation expands awareness exponentially, revealing potentials most people have not even noticed.. It is interesting to observe people willing to abandon their opportunity to choose liberation due to an experiment based on if/then suppositions and conclusions limited to the examiner's bias.. remain open to more comprehensive evidence of what is happening, attaching to the evidence you want to believe is not the same as observing all the evidence while allowing for the actuality that you do not have 'all' of the evidence.. Where are you getting this concept of connective tissue system from? I'm not familiar with it. |
|
