Registered User
Dictate what to f, what to eat, and what one reads while one does the latter?Originally Posted by wenshu
I don't think he was saying behavioral conditioning=memory. I think his assertion is that memory can shape decision making, but maybe I misread.The behavioral conditioning = memory is a conflation of declarative memory / procedural memory / hardwired behaviors. Neuro-biologically we know almost as little about memory as we do about consciousness.
羅王宗
In my very first post on memory (the drunk one) I mentioned the sensation of a pain.
The 'duration' of the sensation is going to dictate how it affects your action.
Similarly if a memory is represented to my consciousness, the longer I focus on it, the longer I hold it in mind the more different aspects it will have. This means that any power it has over my action is going to be variable with the duration it is represented. This adds another level of complication to this problem.
What I was alluding to is that 'free will', if it exists, may have something to do with the way time is represented to the consciousness
Last edited by RenDaHai; 07-10-2014 at 09:59 AM.
問「武」。曰：「克。」未達。曰：「勝己之私之謂克。」
凸 囧 凸
As I was trying to point out, those are all choices that can very easily be determined by behavioral conditioning.
I was referring to the conflation of the two in my arguments.
Banned
I don't think we know enough about memory or consciousness to determine where each intersects into a concept such as "free will." Other than to say, this issue can probably be dealt with without invoking either. In the very post above, RDH eliminates the point he previously brought up, because in this way of defining the context of free will, it is not a thing at all, but an illusion of a thing.
On the matter of subconscious processing and memory. This is where we have to become more specific in our wording. Its unfortunate that TGY isn't around, because he would be the one most able to weigh in here. Particularly on autonomic vs somatic neural functioning. However, on the point of behavioral conditioning. Behavioral conditioning is not equivalent to memory. Learned memory (which is a bit redundant in wording) is merely one point of behavioral conditioning. A great deal of our behavior is predetermined before we ever begin gathering knowledge. This is by way of our genetics and epigenetics. For example, sociopathy depending on the physiological cause, can dictate both our memory (by limiting our experienced stimuli; such as in the case of empathy and oxytocin receptor polymorphism) and our behavior both based and not based on said memory [in other words, not only will they not empathize and behave accordingly due to learned feelings of hurt/joy/whatever but they will also not empathize instinctually (whatever the hell "instinct" actually is neurologically, or rather what things it is comprised of, since its a combination of multiple primitive neurochemical processes)]. This is of course dependent on there being an evolutionary basis for empathy in our genes. I believe there is enough evidence to suggest there is and it is not limited to humans. Epigenetically, we see enough with rodent parental care studies to illustrate how this can impact lifelong behavior such as social activity, mating, parental care, cooperation, etc. Of course, again, this is dependent upon one accepting that these chemical pathways are evolutionarily conserved up through to us humans. And again, at this point it is becoming borderline ludicrous to argue otherwise, I feel.
凸 囧 凸
I purposely didn't mention behavioral genetics because any philosophical conversation about consciousness, memory & freedom of the will can never reach any reasonable level of precision and clarity whereas genetics has a relatively precise degree of objective empirical observation at its disposal. In other words I think this is a conversation that needs to stay muddled; keep your demands for scientific rigor and technical precision out of this. If I was going to add behavioral genetics I would just call it Instinct? Or is a tangent on the technical relationship between a genetic behavior and a biological drive necessary now to come to a consensus on an acceptable generalization?
In any case if I found myself to have improperly conflated behavioral conditioning with memory earlier then I do not think we can reasonably assume the exact nature and degree of the interface between the subconscious and nervous system function. Autonomic function is easily observed but we don't have those same tools at our disposal to measure consciousness/subconsciousness itself. We can only speculate about the interface between one entity which we can observe with a startling degree of technical precision and another that we know exists but can only kinda sorta vaguely speculate about.
The problem is architectural. We know how most of the pieces work we just don't understand how they work together to produce a result that we don't even have a clear definition for in the first place. So we are reduced to the coarse generalizations of cursory Philosophy of the Mind which is inherently antagonistic to the method that produces any objective empirical data we can generate about physiology. It feels similar to the distinctive cognitive dissonance produced when you see someone try to awkwardly apply modern western cultural heuristics to traditional eastern cultures.
Its already such a muddled topic, scientific rigor will just add more confusion.
Registered User
These are exactly the answers I was thinking of. I really like this idea of aperiodic crystals being able to carry information. It's like you need a combination of two things: a regular backbone to hang things up on, and varying (within set limits) content at sites along the backbone. This is similar to information-bearing electronic signals and, I believe is fundamental to our awareness of reality. Most of our nervous system’s activity has to run on autopilot to keep us alive (hence no awareness) but changes and innovations reach the light of awareness (shifting sensory data, learning, volition).
Do we have free will? Of course we do. Free will exists, at least it is as real as anything else in our world. Saying so may incur the "mockery [of the] bankrupts of rationalism" as Erwin Schrödinger describes them, but I think it's blatantly obvious. Free will is how we experience reality, and as such it is just as real as my coffee-maker. At an ultimate level they're both "just atoms", but that level doesn't help us live our lives. We live according to meaning. To me, that assembly of atoms is a coffee maker, and to all of us, people have free will.
Those who claim free will is an illusion don't live according to that idea. They still believe people are responsible for their actions, at least they act as if they believe it.
Registered User
I have the greatest respect for both science and for introspective practices. As far as I'm concerned they are equally valid ways of approaching an ultimately unfathomable reality, but they have different purposes. Science does not erode, damage or take away anything from introspective practice. What science can do is take away social capital from religious or philosophical figures who base their power or status on dogmas about how the world is constructed.
Determining structures by X-ray crystallography involves processes where electromagnatic radation is viewed as quantized particles (the generation of x-rays) and as waves (diffraction). Both are useful approximations, but the underlying reality is unfathomable to use. We can't picture the wave function (unsquared), as it is inamenable to our intuition. By analogy, I suggest that experience as we perceive it, and the models of experimental science are also equally valid ways of viewing reality that do not contradict one another. However that goes both ways. Meditators can't tell scientists what physical reality is composed of and how it works, and scientists cannot tell meditators what life means. (Not just meditators, but any thinking person in the arts and humanities or anyone just engaged with the quandries of life.)
Even if science measures the brain waves of meditators, or learns to model a human being down to tiniest level, it will never touch meaning and experience. As Schrödinger observed, physical models exclude experience at the outset.
Registered User
How does neurobiology explain such intangible things as arrogance and a need to build up one's self esteem by insulting others, and by pedantically quibbling over words?
Registered User
I'm not sure how much bearing this has, but there's definitely an ideational side to how we react to sensations, such as of pain. It's not that our reactions are necessarily affected in a certain way. (That may not be what you were implying either)
People with chronic pain can apparently be helped immensely by mindfulness training, for example. They can change their reactions (I don't mean chemical reactions, in case anyone's waiting to pounce) and not build up painful thoughts about life being meaningless, there's nothing worthwhile life to live for and stuff like that. I believe even the pain itself can be reduced.
For example a classic and very powerful TV documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEJGPuPFIvc
Last edited by rett2; 07-11-2014 at 01:43 AM.
羅王宗
Absolutely.
What I am implying though is to think about the nature of time itself and how we experience it as opposed to how we model it;
When you watch a movie, you are not seeing movement. It is an illusion. You are seeing 24 static moments placed next to each other and your mind does the rest. There is an infinite difference between this and actual movement. People think of time as pixelated, but what if its not? What if its moments are overlapping and interpenetrating? We model processes based on instantaneous moments but this is an approximation to make things comprehensible. Its the gap between moments that is interesting. An interaction while its happening, not before and after. What if time itself is heterogeneous, non uniform? I think there is still plenty of room for mysteries....
Last edited by RenDaHai; 07-11-2014 at 05:49 AM.
問「武」。曰：「克。」未達。曰：「勝己之私之謂克。」
羅王宗
There is a wonderful myth the ancients had about the golden age of man. Its a kind of surviving idea they had of man before civilisation, they knew they were primitive in ways but yet they envied them:
And they dwelt naked, and mostly in the open air, for the temperature of their seasons was mild; and they had no beds, but lay on soft couches of grass, which grew plentifully out of the earth. Such was the life of man in the days of Cronos, Socrates; the character of our present life, which is said to be under Zeus, you know from your own experience. Can you, and will you, determine which of them you deem the happier? Suppose that the children of Cronos, having this boundless leisure, and the power of holding intercourse, not only with men, but with the animals of creation, had used all these advantages with a view to philosophy, conversing with the animals as well as with one another, and learning of every nature which was gifted with any special power, and was able to contribute some special experience to the store of wisdom, there would be no difficulty in deciding that they would be a thousand times happier than the men of our own day.
('The Statesman' c.350 Bc)
I love this idea he thinks that by conversing with animals of their different experiences he could gain wisdom and so be happier. It think this legend preserves what they felt at the time, that the way of civilised society somewhat deprived them of intuition, something they mourned the loss of. In the first post of this thread, I think that is what Socrates is doing when he stands still, reconnecting with his nature.
Last edited by RenDaHai; 07-11-2014 at 06:01 AM.
問「武」。曰：「克。」未達。曰：「勝己之私之謂克。」
Registered User
I like that you brought this point up. There was a time when I spent a lot of time outside in nature, more so than now. It wasn't too uncommon for me to hike to different places and then sit or stand on boulders, rocks, ledges, etc. for hours at a time in stillness. (This is actually how I used to shake off stress from work instead of doing drugs or going to a bar like I've seen so many other people do.) I saw a lot of hawks and eagles fly overhead this way. This is a good way to observe nature "in action". I even had a deer walk right up to me one time, it was right in my space, looking me up and down for like 5 minutes. When you slow down, and your heartbeat is less erratic and you are removed from the noise of car horns and people swearing at each other, and the television, there really is a difference.
Tom Brown Wilderness Survival interview: parts 1 and 3. In part 3 (2nd link) he goes more into getting in tune with the rythms of nature:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcde...yer_detailpage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYK...yer_detailpage
Registered User
In relation to this, I find it interesting how differently one can perceive a piece of music if one just listens, compared to if one watches the digital timer ticking away as it plays. Music unfolds in time according to its own pacings, while laying a raster over it surprisingly deflates it, as well as setting up anticipations that clash with the music's anticipations. For example, it's ending in 15 seconds... like a countdown to a rocket launch. The slow ebbing out of the music is thrashed by the quantized countdown.
Last edited by rett2; 07-14-2014 at 05:34 AM.
Itinerant practitioner
Frigging intellectual arguments...
Lovely.
Hey, quit making fun of Zinc.
Zinc + Copper = Brass.
Stay Brassy.
Kung Fu is good for you.
凸 囧 凸
Hey that's pretty good jimmersahn, signature worthy if you're into that sort of thing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote