Do you believe in free will?

[Geishawhelk]

So was your explanation and elaboration and teaching requested? Or perhaps it was almost proselytism?

 

Just kidding!

Nothing gets past you, does it.......?

[Geishawhelk]

Geishawhelk: That's pretty much the point I wanted to make, although I am a bit clumsy about it.

Buddhism, to me, seems to be all about individual free thought *and* free will, especially since they seem to value that in others, no matter what else they may believe.

In that respect, I don't think we've strayed off topic at all!

I guess not...

I just didn't want to look as if I'd hyjacked the thread.

We're pacifists at heart....!

[disgracian]

Hmmm.... elaborate.....??

It was just idle speculation. What I'm hinting at is that our minds may be deterministic, like a computer only vastly more complex. And it's that complexity that obscures the possibility that at a fundamental level it just reacts to stimuli in the same way, for example, our iris reacts to bright light by contracting.

 

Computer AI, while still in its infancy, shows that they can mimic sentience to a very limited degree. They can even simulate randomness even though they do not have a single random component in them.

I just want you to understand I'm not being deliberately argumentative here. I really am utterly convinced we do have Free Will from the instant we are able to have cognisant thoughts.....

You can always speak your mind with me. You are probably my favourite person here and I know your intentions are never anything but noble.

 

Cheers,

D.

[disgracian]

It's even worse when they are BOTH Buddhists!

Only Geisha is the real deal. I'm just a part time Buddhist.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Geishawhelk]

It was just idle speculation. What I'm hinting at is that our minds may be deterministic, like a computer only vastly more complex. And it's that complexity that obscures the possibility that at a fundamental level it just reacts to stimuli in the same way, for example, our iris reacts to bright light by contracting.

 

Absolutely, but the phrase here, is 'vastly more complex'. Computers can't use emotive evaluations to determine a result. they function entirely on binary logic. They don't sulk, mope, laugh, care or hope.

What you're talking about is a muscular reflex action responding to stimulus. Remember that this reflex can be modified by emotion...our irises dilate when we are pleasantly 'aroused' (and no, I'm not just talking sex here..... although..... !!)

 

Computer AI, while still in its infancy, shows that they can mimic sentience to a very limited degree. They can even simulate randomness even though they do not have a single random component in them.

It's programmed to simulate randomness. Just like your CD player will select random tracks, but occasionally, play the same two sequentially. Which is a real bummer. The system functions well, but only to a point.

The difference between us and the CD player, is that this pisses us off. The CD player could give a damn.....!

 

You can always speak your mind with me. You are probably my favourite person here and I know your intentions are never anything but noble.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

[disgracian]

What you're talking about is a muscular reflex action responding to stimulus.

Our brains may consist entirely of mental and emotional reflex actions, responding to stimulus. The nature of the reaction aside, the implications for free will are the same.

It's programmed to simulate randomness. Just like your CD player will select random tracks, but occasionally, play the same two sequentially. Which is a real bummer. The system functions well, but only to a point.

My point is that appearances can be deceptive. If a completely deterministic machine can simulate randomness so well that we can't tell the difference, who is to say we are any different when it comes to free will?

 

Beneath our emotions, our intellectualism, our complex and sometimes bizarre behaviour, may simply lie a sea of nature's own 1s and 0s, reacting to natural laws in a perpetual feedback loop.

 

Not very inspiring, but no less likely to be true for it.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Geishawhelk]

Yeh but D., this is precisely where your reasoning may be flawed...it's a series of 'ifs', 'maybes' and 'could bes'. At least with machines we've had the definitive chronological history of their invention, fabrication, modification adaptation and ultimate comprehensive function. We know precisely what makes a machine tick, because it's a man-made object.

 

After literally hundreds and thousands of years of hypotheis on 'what is this thing called a being?' The jury is still out on the human condition....

 

For example, an awful lot of people (scientists included) are still very confused as to whether, when we talk about the mind, we're discussing the brain, or it's conscious (and otherwise!) role and function....o9r could it be both?

Much research has been carried out, for example, to try to establish exactly what happens to a brain during different states... dreaming, meditation and in a comatose state, to name but three....

They pretty much have the physical processes for these states, well off pat.

But what's actually happening to the Mind, during these states..?

The more we find out, the less, it seems, we actually know.

[disgracian]

That's just it though, isn't it? We're dealing with an unknown here. The tricky thing with free will is that even if there is no such thing it will still seem like there is. The fact that we can't trace our own origins as we can with the computer is exactly the reason we can't rule out anything.

 

Cheers,

D.

[ed-205]

Waaay outta my league here, but let me toss a little fat on the fire...

 

There's the triune brain theory, which I analogize using the computer as a rough model.

We have the Neocortical consciousness, the highest level of thought. I compare this to a computer application like Photoshop or Office, which exist as pure software - lines of code. This to me represents pure conscious thought. You cannot touch it, physically.

 

Next, there is the Limbic level of consciousness, which deals with feelings and physical input. I compare this to the OS kernel, which controls and relies on the computer's physical circuitry to provide the environment necessary for for the "higher" functions of the Neocortical software. You cannot touch the software parts, but you *can* touch the circuits and peripheral devices that it uses.

 

Last, there is the Reptilian consciousness, which is hard-wired into the brain and controls our Autonomic functions in very much the same way the BIOS chips of a computer's motherboard gives it just enough "smarts" to boot-up into the upper levels of "computer consciousness". This is sometimes called "firmware" because it is physically burned into the computer's hardware, and you can hold it in your hand.

 

Dr. Karl Jung proposed that there was a FOURTH level he called the Universal subconscious, which I compare to a LAN connection between computers. Data constantly flows within this connection, and it is on such a low level (0s and 1s) that the higher functioning software ignores it unless it is properly interpreted through the lower levels, and then uses only the data it needs. The rest is ignored, much as (I believe) our neocortical minds filter out most of the Universal Subconscious input. In fact, we may never even be aware of it at all.

 

Do you think, perhaps, that the "Sublimination" that prevents us from acting on our reptilian instincts might be the limiting factor on our Free Will, and could actually be a function in our minds that is directly affected by the collective consciousness of everything and everyone around us?

That might explain in part the direction this thread is taking.

 

Then again, it could just be so much blather...