Can we be intellectually honest and believe in the freedom of man?

[itsjustme]

Because we can’t make sense of the light that we perceived through our eyes until we develop the knowledge of its meaning and spacial relationship. So our subconscious gradually builds up from the previous conscious experiences we had and then so we only react efficiently on something that is previously interpreted rather naturally built within us.

In keeping with this line of reasoning, consider the way in which our senses work. Our eyes receive (name removed by moderator)ut from the environment, which is then passed along the optic nerve to various parts of the brain, which then collates and interprets it before we finally become consciously aware of it. In this chain of events, our conscious awareness comes last. We don’t perceive the delay, or the process that that (name removed by moderator)ut is going through, but it’s there none-the-less.

Is it the same with our reasoning and choices, in that our conscious awareness of them comes last? If so, then our consciousness cannot be the initiator of the process, because it’s actually the result of the process. Just as what we see and hear is the result of a subconscious process, what we think and choose may also be a subconscious process. Which as with all of our other senses, we’re only aware of after the fact.

 

[blueonion]

As I see it, Receiving data isn’t yet the process of the brain. It only become a process of the brain until the Data is received. And that data is past to another part of the brain before we could even start to reason or think about it. Since an image is nothing more than just a level of sensation when our retina reacts to the light photons hitting it. Then that data of sensation is pass through the Optic nerve towards the occipital lobe then pass to another part of our brain for recording and processing. But during that unconscious transfer of data, we don’t think nor make an action until it is processed and made sense out of it. So a blind person from birth wont ever be able to tell what color is nor how far objects from each other unless they use a different way to sense distance, number of feet through walking. So they won’t be able to decide which way to walk efficiently better than a person who can visually see the environment and spatially the determine the route. In the same way, a deaf person need vibrations to determine the notes they are supposed to hear to play music or even talk. The reason why some deaf people are not able to speak properly without training because they never had any learning of it.

So the way we think and choose things will depend on interpreted data since as you say conscious process goes last so as our reaction to stimuli. Unless we are talking about muscle flexion during the experience of pain which is a motor process rather than intellectual one, this is definitely unconscious.

But in terms of thinking and decision making based on the unconscious are usually a preconceived information that was already recorded in our memory. And is not just unconscious experiences alone but also conscious acquisition of data aswell (cognitive).

 

[blueonion]

2nd part:
The reasoning i’m giving is just so we can determine which part of our thinking constitute to the idea of having freewill and which makes us not act on our own. Because we can’t just suggest that we don’t have Free-Will and we don’t act on our own at all. I find it very limiting and too conclusive. So I’d rather find an answer where both idea interact with each other and when it works independently from one another. I also don’t ever want to think that God is being a “Puppet Master”, for preprogramming everything to us like a robot, i might commit a sin by thinking that.

So then my idea or more like hypothesis is:
Our Intellectual Growth is limited by our Biological Constructs and our Biological Growth can actually be the one preprogrammed in our DNA. But our Intellectual Growth depends on our interactions.

We can think that our intellectual growth depends on how we feel about something or how we accept things that is biologically satisfying to us but there are cases that we go against that biological satisfaction. Such example can happen after we acquire moral education. Some people chose to suffer rather than enjoy because of a perception of a particular goal that makes a particular stimuli hinder to it. A simple example is: I am really sleepy! but if find this more important than my urge to sleep not that I 100% enjoy it but just having a perceived goal of having a settled discussion. ; Another one are Drug Users who are being rehabilitated because of the uncontrolled usage of it. In cases of hallucinogens which definitely overrides our brain’s natural process which affects our normal behavior.

There are so many factors to consider to really come up with a conclusion. But i’m sure we are all aware of our Brain’s complexity. But we don’t just interract with natural things anymore, we also now interact with unnatural things as well in which we can’t conclude that all our actions are predetermined naturally. Since unnatural things can alter our thinking and preconception of things, we have to consider how we really interact with things in both natural and unnatural ways.

I will really retire now… So sleepy. So goodnight for now buddy. God Bless everyone

 

[tafan2]

It’s entirely possible that every factor that you consider, and every choice that you make occurs subconsciously?

No, it’s not possible. Granted, I based that strong statement on my religious beliefs and philosophical opinions. If I look at scientific evidence only, my answer would still be no. There is zero scientific evidence to the contrary of my position, and much personal experience supporting my position.

 

[blueonion]

Last post promise!

We can test this out in a traffic situation. Try to close your eyes while on stop in a traffic light (without countdown). Im sure you’ll only step on the gas pedal after you hear a Horn

 

[Kullervo]

Im an asian buddy

We really couldn’t understand each other without English. I’m from the Czech Republic :czech_republic:

 

[itsjustme]

As I see it, Receiving data isn’t yet the process of the brain. It only become a process of the brain until the Data is received. And that data is past to another part of the brain before we could even start to reason or think about it. Since an image is nothing more than just a level of sensation when our retina reacts to the light photons hitting it. Then that data of sensation is pass through the Optic nerve towards the occipital lobe then pass to another part of our brain for recording and processing. But during that unconscious transfer of data, we don’t think nor make an action until it is processed and made sense out of it.

The steps that the brain goes through to process the information that it receives from the eye is nothing short of astonishing. For one thing it has to delay the visual information so that it coincides with the audible information. And that varies depending upon the distance that one is from the source.

The brain also has to fill in the missing visual information. Because the only part of the eye that sees clearly is the fovea centralis, and if you hold your hand out at arms length, and point your thumb up, the fovea centralis is only as big as your thumbnail. Everything else that your eye sees, is blurry. So your brain has to fill in the missing information, and it does that using various visual cues, memory, and assumptions. So all of the hard work and number crunching is done long before you’re consciously aware of anything.

Part of this process is no doubt genetic in origin, and part of it comes from memory and experience. But none of it requires your conscious (name removed by moderator)ut. The brain does it all on its own. From experience the brain learns what red looks like, and what the number 1 stands for. It learns these things in much the same way that today’s AI’s do, by taking in information, and then collating and processing that information. And all of that is done without your being consciously aware that it’s happening.

Your consciousness it would seem, only becomes involved at the end of the process, because it doesn’t seem to serve any purpose during the process, at least as far as your visual awareness is concerned. Now it would seem probable that the same holds true for reasoning and decision making, in that our consciousness is the result of the process, not an active participant in the process.

But hey, that’s just my opinion, and I’m willing to consider other possibilities.

 

[itsjustme]

Im sure you’ll only step on the gas pedal after you hear a Horn

But is there a subconscious process going on that preceded, and caused my choice to push the gas pedal? Such that it wasn’t my consciousness that made the choice, but rather I simply became consciously aware of a choice that my subconscious had already made.

 

[itsjustme]

So how does the brain learn what red is? By making new neural connections between things that it experiences, and which seem to be related. Using processes encoded in our DNA the brain learns.

 

[blueonion]

It still have enough cones to see sharp objects Far better than the first generation camera sensors. Considering the number of cones it has. So the brain doesnt really magically fill in the blurry things the eyes can see. Only part of our eye see things blurry but it is actually just to determine the tonality of the image we see in front of us but the tiny details is received by the dense cone of the fovea centralis. That is what it’s for anyway.

 

[Freddy]

As I said, you must conclude that your opinion isn’t considered; it isn’t reasoned out. It is merely justified because you didn’t have the freedom to reason it out or consider it. All you have is the awareness to justify it, or assert it. It was determined despite yourself.

But are we not reasoning out problems in the same way as a jury does. They receive information about a case. They discuss that evidence and come to a conclusion that some must be accepted and some rejected. They then offer their opinion on guilt or innocence.

On one hand you could say they had the freedom to make a decision. But on the other hand you could say that they were constrined by the evidence to reach only one decision.

It’s the same with beliefs. You could say that you are free to believe X but what you really mean is that you have accepted evidence that X is true, therefore you believe it.

 

[blueonion]

The brain learn that it is RED because we named that sensation RED. Same thing with notes and those who trained their Perfect Pitch. But how Red the Red is and how blue the blue is are not the same with every person. That’s why the perception of color has always been subjective.

 

[Babaganoush]

No, reason is an illusion. You do what you do and I do what I do. We will come to the conclusions we come to and there is no helping it. The young earth creationist is simply following what he is determined to follow, and the scientist is following what he is determined to follow. No reason is involved. The opposition was predetermined.

 

[blueonion]

blueonion:

Im sure you’ll only step on the gas pedal after you hear a Horn

But is there a subconscious process going on that preceded, and caused my choice to push the gas pedal? Such that it wasn’t my consciousness that made the choice, but rather I simply became consciously aware of a choice that my subconscious had already made.

That is if we know what the Horn means or where it is from. Im only pointing out that if our eyes are open we would react to the traffic light first because it communicates an explicit “Green” to go. But our reaction to the Horn of the car will depend on how we interpret it. We have to consider also from what direction the horn came from. Will we step on the Gas pedal because we heard a horn while our eyes are close? or we also have to consider the direction from where the sound came from?. Because if we fail to consider the direction of the horn we can end up traversing an intersection while other cars are still crossing which leads to a major accident.

 

[EndTimes]

Many Actualiities are self-evident…

Such as our freedom to choose and Existence and headaches

We don’t have to so-called prove them upon someone’s demand if we don’t want to.

They Exist whether one “proves” them or not

_

 

[Freddy]

No, reason is an illusion. You do what you do and I do what I do. We will come to the conclusions we come to and there is no helping it. The young earth creationist is simply following what he is determined to follow, and the scientist is following what he is determined to follow. No reason is involved. The opposition was predetermined.

I think we’re on the same page but presenting it differently.

Someone may opine that Trump is an idiot and he will present evidence to back that up and reject evidence that contradicts his opinion. That’s all we generally do. We are presented with evidence and we accept it or reject it and our beliefs automatically follow.

 

[itsjustme]

No, reason is an illusion. You do what you do and I do what I do. We will come to the conclusions we come to and there is no helping it. The young earth creationist is simply following what he is determined to follow, and the scientist is following what he is determined to follow. No reason is involved. The opposition was predetermined.

Someone may opine that Trump is an idiot and he will present evidence to back that up and reject evidence that contradicts his opinion. That’s all we generally do. We are presented with evidence and we accept it or reject it and our beliefs automatically follow.

But is this determinacy/predictability an emergent property? In other words, below a certain threshold…say at the level of individual neurons, is their behavior unpredictable? And likewise, beyond a certain level is the behavior of the brain also unpredictable. Like predicting how you will respond to this post.

So is it possible that we’re looking at a very narrow range and concluding that because the system is predictable within that range, the system as a whole (whatever that means) is predictable. Or is it possible that the system as a whole isn’t predictable, and that that uncertainty leaves room for free will?

How that free will could possibly manifest itself is beyond my pay grade, but I wouldn’t automatically conclude that it isn’t possible. One could argue that a dualistic interpretation of reality, in which there’s more to the system than meets the eye, could potentially resolve the conflict. But as I say, I don’t see how.

I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, and trying to consider alternative possibilities.

 

[STT]

But is this determinacy/predictability an emergent property? In other words, below a certain threshold…say at the level of individual neurons, is their behavior unpredictable? And likewise, beyond a certain level is the behavior of the brain also unpredictable. Like predicting how you will respond to this post.

So is it possible that we’re looking at a very narrow range and concluding that because the system is predictable within that range, the system as a whole (whatever that means) is predictable. Or is it possible that the system as a whole isn’t predictable, and that that uncertainty leaves room for free will?

How that free will could possibly manifest itself is beyond my pay grade, but I wouldn’t automatically conclude that it isn’t possible. One could argue that a dualistic interpretation of reality, in which there’s more to the system than meets the eye, could potentially resolve the conflict. But as I say, I don’t see how.

I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, and trying to consider alternative possibilities.

There is no mechanism for free will. It is not reducible to something else including what happened in the past.

 

[itsjustme]

There is no mechanism for free will. It is not reducible to something else including what happened in the past.

That would seem to be a reasonable viewpoint, but how does one definitively prove that it’s true?

 

[STT]

That would seem to be a reasonable viewpoint, but how does one definitively prove that it’s true?

Have you ever been in a situation that you cannot decide? A situation like when you like two options equally or when you are uncertain about what will happen in the future as the result of your decision. A mechanical system cannot overcome such a situation. We can. Therefore, we are free.