OT: Memes Vs. Free Will

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Robert Monsen
<rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote (in <YCG5d.57123$wV.49380@attbi_s54&gt
about 'OT: Memes Vs. Free Will', on Sun, 26 Sep 2004:

the meek inherit the earth.

.... in individual plots, 2 m x 1 m.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Guy Macon <http@?.guymacon.com>
wrote (in <10lerdm8leepq88@news.supernews.com&gt about '[OT]: Memes Vs.
Free Will', on Sun, 26 Sep 2004:

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> says...

Actually, there is very good experimental evidence to suggest that
consiousness is an illusion we generate after the fact. It has nothing
to do with choice, because it happens moments after the fact. We make a
choice, then our brain creates the sensation of our conscious mind
having made the choice.

So what made the choice? The liver?


Life depends on the liver.

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Guy Macon]

Clifford Heath <cjh-nospam@nospaManagesoft.com> says...

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> says...

Actually, there is very good experimental evidence to suggest that
consiousness is an illusion we generate after the fact. It has nothing
to do with choice, because it happens moments after the fact. We make a
choice, then our brain creates the sensation of our conscious mind
having made the choice.

So what made the choice? The liver?

The habits, the activation states of which are refered to as emotion.

Habit and emotion reside in the brain. So when you say

"We make a choice, then our brain creates the sensation
of our conscious mind having made the choice."

Aren't you are really saying

"Our brain makes a choice, then our brain tells our brain
that our brain made the choice."

?

Man is not a rational being, but a rationalising one.

Emotion occurs in all mammals BTW, but most don't have the need or
ability to explain it. I've graphically observed grief in rabbits,
for example. Emotions are related to a section of the brain which
developed with mammals over the reptilian core, and which provides
nurturing behaviour and many other adaptive traits necessary to
mammalian survival.

The more rapid and automatic a response is, the more likely it has
sprung from a lower level in the brain - though the higher levels
can train the lower ones to create rational but pre-conscious
behaviour - like playing the piano, riding a bike, etc. Afterwards,
we provide a reason for the behaviour "I steered left to dodge that
rock" - but try to ride with your arms crossed to the opposite
handlebar! You just can't do it under conscious control.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Guy Macon <http@?.guymacon.com>
wrote (in <10lfl31d0jcm148@news.supernews.com&gt about '[OT]: Memes Vs.
Free Will', on Mon, 27 Sep 2004:

Habit and emotion reside in the brain. So when you say

"We make a choice, then our brain creates the sensation
of our conscious mind having made the choice."

Aren't you are really saying

"Our brain makes a choice, then our brain tells our brain
that our brain made the choice."

Yes, but it's two different bits of brain. This is an experimental fact.
Under PMR imaging conditions, victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H volunteers are
told, 'Move your hand at any time now.' The PMR shows that the motor
region reacts FIRST, before the cortex activity indicates the
'intention'.

The explanation MAY be that the 'intention' really does come from the
cortex, but from such a tiny region that it can't be seen, or that the
activity is so brief that it can't be seen. The post facto cortical
activity may be simply concerned with proprioception and any afferent
stimuli.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Clifford Heath]

Guy Macon wrote:

Aren't you are really saying
"Our brain makes a choice, then our brain tells our brain
that our brain made the choice."

Or "the team kicked a goal, and they all cheered" - same problem.
Obviously it was only one player that kicked the goal, though
everyone cheered.

Different parts of the brain do different things. Testing
shows that parts of the brain have fired up to perform an
action up to a second before the individual was aware of
having decided. There's an "activation potential" which can
be measured which builds up until it trips the action, and
the trip point is well *before* conscious awareness that a
"decision" has been made to act "now". Nevertheless, the
perception of the individual is that the awareness came first,
because the brain re-arranges the temporal sequence to make
it seem that way.

In the same way with percepts, they seem to get "tagged" with
their place in time, and the tag stays attached through all the
processing layers, so that when all the processing is complete
for all the various senses (different senses requiring
different amounts of time), the percepts are pre-consciously
re-integrated back into a rational temporal sequence. This has
been the subject of considerable testing. The whole temporal
re-assembly is essential to creating a sense of continuity,
and I find it fascinating to consider ways it needs to be
applied in AI.

My hypothesis is that consciousness is a sixth sense, the sense
of thought, which feeds into the sensory fusion process creating
a loop. The percepts are normally tagged as being internal, so
that we can hypothesise while remaining aware that's what we're
doing. It serves as a means to limit wild oscillations due to +ve
feedback. But otherwise, the sense of thought can simulate any
other sensation. When we dream, the tagging is limited or missing,
so that the fluctuations and oscillations produce a perceived
but ungrounded reality, a dream. The tagging process can also
get damaged, leading to various delusions.

I have no idea whether this hypothesis has been proposed or
debunked in the Cog Sci community. I should ask David Chalmers
perhaps - thanks for the link Kev.

Clifford Heath.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Guy Macon <http@?.guymacon.com>
wrote (in <10lg1frkdg4ms64@news.supernews.com&gt about '[OT]: Memes Vs.
Free Will', on Mon, 27 Sep 2004:

I don't however, believe that the experiments prove that the higher
brain is not making the decisions. It could be that the slow higher
brain makes plans for what to do in various situations, then downloads
the decision to the fast lower brain. Sort of like branch prediction in
microprocessors.

See the second paragraph of my article for other possible explanations.

I though branch prediction was something to do with water-divining.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Scott Stephens]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Scott Stephens wrote:

Robert Monsen wrote:


So religion ain't the issue when it comes to doing
evil for "good" causes. Mankind is religion, race and gender neutral
when it comes to cheap excuses, delusion and evil.

All religions I know teach what you do here determines the fate of
your soul, evil is to be opposed, and virtue practiced. But of course,
excuses abound why it doesn't happen that way. Evil people find
excuses in whatever cultural aspects they have to exploit.


There is no such thing as evil. Please define "evil" if you think that
there is such a notion.

Evil - sin (failing to realize the objective), a source of sorrow or
distress, calamity.

Most people recognize it when they see it, unless they've been
brainwashed or are deluded. A nihilistic atheist like Steven Weinberg
can say it takes religion to "make good people do bad things", but
communist brainwashing and other political and philosophical creeds can
accomplish the same thing. It aint about religion.

Many religious movements have changed our world for the better.

And many have changed it for the "worst".

Religion is not the problem, you will free up useful idiots to abuse by
professors and politicians rather than priests. Which is what most
atheists really are after, the money that would otherwise go into
collection plates.

Catholism against communism.

I sense some bias here. There is nothing intrinsicaly "bad" in
communism.

If you would rather live in the Soviet Union or China, or the Soviet
dominated Poland, than some state like Italy, America or Israel, where
you have somewhat of a choice to avoid more or less religious mystic
folly, than you've got real problems. Enjoy your communist "freedom".

Christianity against slavery and
segregation.

Myth.

Not

Of course you can find those that opposed such freedom
movements on religious grounds. Nonetheless, you find clergy
martyring themselves for the cause of freedom.


As indeed do athiests.

Can't say I've heard of any atheist martyrs. But I know plenty of
religious ones.

Even if their notion
of being free is to obligate themselves to serve others on an
irrational basis.

However, in my opinion, the fear of going to hell doesn't really
motivate people to be good. It's social interaction and peer pressure
that does that.

Its much deeper in our own souls.


And what soul would that be?

"The immaterial essence of an individual life".

If we think the universe is a place
that reward lying, cheating and stealing, and we behave so, we can
only come to hold ourselves and our universe in contempt for being
unjust. Such evil does not exist long.


Oh dear...there is no such thing as evil. Lying and cheating can be
deemed "good" in many circumstances, in the others, its all relative.

Evil - sin (failing to realize the objective), a source of sorrow or
distress, calamity.

If you are a source of sorrow, distress, calamity and cause people to
miss their objectives, you are evil and I don't want to have anything to
do with you. If you do it reluctantly and justly against an evil enemy,
that is an exception, not the rule.

Why am I bothering to explain the self evident and obvious? I think
damn near everyone here knows evil and evil people when the see it. Of
course, having a philosophy that has defined out of existence evil might
give you some business advantage over competitors and customers when
defrauding them in the short run.

You seem to miss the point of evolution. Things exist because they solve
the local maximisation problem. Thats it. Period. Maximisation is
neither "good" or "bad", it just is.

Nature imposes her requirements on man, and man understands these
constraints through a value system, and reality evaluated through the
filter of the value system yields the moral judgments of "good" and
"evil". Duh!

If we continue doing what memes do best, i.e. encourage people to help
others, save lives, cure diseases, feed the poor, sooner or later, we
will all "suffer" as there will be too many people for too few
resources. In time, the meme of "help others" will have to evolve into
something else, otherwise *all* that hold that meme will, e.g. starve.

The same leftist greeny tree-huggers that are pro-death run around
whining and whaling about right-wingers being fascists and Nazis.

The left is far more elitists and fascist than most of the right. Far
more willing to censor and murder for their "good intentions"!

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

Those who sow excuses shall reap excuses

**********************************

 

[Guy Macon]

Scott Stephens <scottxs@comcast.net> says...

Kevin Aylward wrote:

I advice ignoring Kevin. You can have a reasonable and rational
discussion with most folks here, but Kev insists on bringing out
the flamethrower whenever anyone disagrees with him in any way.
I no longer see his posts.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Scott Stephens
<scottxs@comcast.net> wrote (in <cn86d.271833$mD.77688@attbi_s02&gt about
'OT: Memes Vs. Free Will', on Tue, 28 Sep 2004:

If you would rather live in the Soviet Union or China, or the Soviet
dominated Poland, than some state like Italy, America or Israel, where
you have somewhat of a choice to avoid more or less religious mystic
folly, than you've got real problems. Enjoy your communist "freedom".

The early Christian church practised a form of communism (no personal
property, for example). It didn't last.

[snip]
Of course you can find those that opposed such freedom
movements on religious grounds. Nonetheless, you find clergy
martyring themselves for the cause of freedom.


As indeed do athiests.

Can't say I've heard of any atheist martyrs. But I know plenty of
religious ones.

May atheists were murdered by the Inquisition.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Guy Macon]

Clifford Heath <no@spam.please.net> says...

do seem to be capable of civility.

A search on Google will show you that in the vast majority
of interactions Kevin has with other humans, he is anything
but civil. Don't take my word for it; search the record
for yourself.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sunday 26 September 2004 10:29 am, Kevin Aylward did deign to grace us
with the following:

Rich Grise wrote:
On Sunday 26 September 2004 12:59 am, Kevin Aylward did deign to
All of Kevin Aylward's thinking is based on memes and genes, that has
been quite clear for some time.

What else is there, like that you can actually demonstrate exists?

I think it's been fairly well established that there is nothing that
can be demonstrated to you that is not already accounted for by your
complete knowledge of everything there is to know.

Note my definitions are rather general. A meme is any virtual trait that
is copied.

Yeah. Got it.

Life's a bitch, and then you die.

Yep. That seems to size it up very well. Sucks dont it.

Not for me, because that ain't true, if you don't insist on it.

But, Free Will means you have the absolute right, granted by the
act of being born alive, to run your life in whatever manner suits
you, whether you believe you're making decisions or whether you
believe you're executing a program, doesn't really matter. You
are the only one who has to live your life, and it's not any of
my business.

Have fun, if you can. ;-)
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sunday 26 September 2004 09:08 am, Clifford Heath did deign to grace us
with the following:

I used to hang onto the quantum loophole as a place where miracles
could occur, and though that's still possible, I see no need for
them now. If we hope for eternity, we need to seek a non-material
factor in the psyche - spirit - which can outlast material decay.
But observing that the issue of free will isn't solved by that
supposition (as I argued before), there is still no eternal basis
for valuing choices and outcomes.

My point has been, there is now. It's called "Desire," which is
the fundamental motive force behind all of Creation.

But, I've figured out that the new knowledge I've been "given" has
the answer everybody's been looking for since time immemorial, but
since it's outside known science, I need to either find a different
way of presenting it, or just say to heck with everybody find it
your damn self, since where it is is inside you anyway. So I've
invented a new church.

I've claimed the name "Neodruid", and registered the domains
neodruid.com, neodruid.net, and neodruid.org. Haven't got any
content on the site yet, I have to figure out how to spoof all
the nameservers so I can get it pointed somewhere for free. ;-)

<tract>
Basically, we add the missing part to God - in addition to the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we are the first to acknowledge
Mother, the Mother of All Creation, the Magnetic Essence Who
holds Space open so that God's light can Manifest Form. She
is as equally Divine as the other three parts of God, and our
mission on Earth is to recover her Lost Will Essence and Complete
Grandfather's Plan of Divine Reunion.
</tract>

In the NG, I'll be trying to stick to electronics and politics. ;-)

Actually, the politics are done - the nazis are Satan incarnate,
and must be removed from Earth. It's that simple.

But you guys have had it up to here with my preaching - let me know
if you want more, and I'll be happy to share, but there's no point
in standing on a soapbox spouting nonsense.

And, bottom line, it's really irrelevant whether what you do is
by free will or by chance - you still have the right to do whatever
you want to do. If there's free will, you won't hurt anybody doing
what you want, because they have free will too, which will protect
them, just as yours has protected you and seen you through 3,000,000
or so years of evolution.

And, of course, if you believe you're supposed to follow the rules of
some Santa Claus model of God, then you won't do anything worth doing
anyway. Better watch out! Better not cry! He sees you when you're
sleeping, he knows when you're awake - He knows if you've been bad
or good, so be good for goodness' sake! ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sunday 26 September 2004 10:45 am, Clifford Heath did deign to grace us
with the following:

Ken Smith wrote:
...Shannon...

Love it!

Actually QM is based on limits of knowledge not measurement. Even the
electon doesn't "know" its exact position. The value is not hidden it
does not exist.

A popular supposition, but still a supposition. We can't test it.

You can, but mostly people just pooh-pooh the technique. And the proof
is internal and subjective anyway, and seems to turn one into a nut
case.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sunday 26 September 2004 11:06 pm, Clifford Heath did deign to grace us
with the following:

I see where you're going with this, perhaps I should have written
"absolute basis", meaning non-contingent. A basis that's true for
all people, all time, in all universes. We have no way of knowing
such a thing.

Yeah, you do. It's just been in denial for billions and billions of
years.

But that doesn't stop people from trying. They should spend their
effort instead trying to find a contingent purpose they can agree
on.

How's "Infinite Love" sound?

Contention is certain of course, but only because our existence
enables us to create it - so existence itself must be the basis.
The fundamental mystery is that anything exists, and so the
fundamental purpose is to call new things into existence.

http://www.godchannel.com

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sunday 26 September 2004 10:31 am, Clifford Heath did deign to grace us
with the following:

What a lot of nonsense.

I guess that settles that, then.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Monday 27 September 2004 02:54 am, John Woodgate did deign to grace us
with the following:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Guy Macon <http@?.guymacon.com
wrote (in <10lfl31d0jcm148@news.supernews.com&gt about '[OT]: Memes Vs.
Free Will', on Mon, 27 Sep 2004:

Habit and emotion reside in the brain. So when you say

"We make a choice, then our brain creates the sensation
of our conscious mind having made the choice."

Aren't you are really saying

"Our brain makes a choice, then our brain tells our brain
that our brain made the choice."

Yes, but it's two different bits of brain. This is an experimental fact.
Under PMR imaging conditions, victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H volunteers are
told, 'Move your hand at any time now.' The PMR shows that the motor
region reacts FIRST, before the cortex activity indicates the
'intention'.

The explanation MAY be that the 'intention' really does come from the
cortex, but from such a tiny region that it can't be seen, or that the
activity is so brief that it can't be seen. The post facto cortical
activity may be simply concerned with proprioception and any afferent
stimuli.
--
As everybody knows by now, my explanation of "intention" requires the

"supernatural", which is really an ironic name, because it's about as
natural as anything can be.

Emotions simply do not happen in the brain. Take, for example, an
ameba. How does it know what to eat and what to run away from?
Emotions are simply a more sophisticated, totally misunderstood
part of your sensory equipment. Fear tells you you're in danger,
and so on. They are how you know what is right for you.

They're that fundamental. They start at a _cellular_ level, if
you insist on a macroscopic view.

Everything that has electric currents has magnetic fields.

Your thoughts are contained in the interplay of electric fields.
Your feelings are contained in the interplay of magnetic fields.

Existence requires equal parts of both. There is as much "consciousness"
in the physical, magnetic part of your being as there is in the mental,
electrical part - it's just that the mental part isn't acknowledging it.
It wants to divorce itself from the "lower animal nature" of its host.

_THAT_ is the original error. Bringing your magnetic consciousness into
your awareness is where the answer is, because the movement of those
subtle magnetic fields induce subtle currents, and the reality of the
present moment exists in that interaction.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Monday 27 September 2004 12:52 am, John Woodgate did deign to grace us
with the following:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Guy Macon <http@?.guymacon.com
wrote (in <10lerdm8leepq88@news.supernews.com&gt about '[OT]: Memes Vs.
Free Will', on Sun, 26 Sep 2004:

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> says...

Actually, there is very good experimental evidence to suggest that
consiousness is an illusion we generate after the fact. It has nothing
to do with choice, because it happens moments after the fact. We make a
choice, then our brain creates the sensation of our conscious mind
having made the choice.

So what made the choice? The liver?


Life depends on the liver.
--
That's kinda where it got its name, isn't it? The live-er?

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Monday 27 September 2004 09:22 am, Scott Stephens did deign to grace us
with the following:

Rich Grise wrote:

Although, you gotta admit, most wild animals are generally more peaceful
than humans are, except when they need to eat.

Or when they haven't learned the territory they are about to fail
defending is really your territory

Or when mama cat needs a critter to eviscerate, teaching her babies the
thrill of killing.

Well, everybody knows cats are intrinsically evil.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <null@example.net>
wrote (in <QVg6d.4276$8H1.1066@trnddc08&gt about '[OT]: Memes Vs. Free
Will', on Tue, 28 Sep 2004:

Well, everybody knows cats are intrinsically evil.

Nonsense. Pussy cats are lovely. Especially white ones.

E. Blofeld.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <null@example.net>
wrote (in <Tgg6d.4264$8H1.4228@trnddc08&gt about 'OT: Memes Vs. Free
Will', on Tue, 28 Sep 2004:

in addition to the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, we are the first to acknowledge Mother, the Mother
of All Creation,

No you aren't. There are a lot of matriarchal religions.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk