If neither confer any survival value (eg: we don't have to compute the laws of gravity in order to dodge falling objects) are there any plausible explanations out there as to why we have these abilities? — 3017amen

‘Survival value’ highlights the problem with the structure of ‘cause’ and effect: that we assume an intended outcome. But when the answers are not as tidy as we thought they would be, it makes one wonder: perhaps we’re asking the question wrong? It seems obvious that we’ve evolved not just to survive. Traits with a negative survival value are selected against, sure - but there is more than ‘randomness’ driving human evolution beyond survival.

In my opinion, it has to do with the evolution of integrated information systems.

A theory I’ve been working on is that there is an underlying motivation that drives the universe to increase awareness, connection and collaboration as an open-ended outcome. Survival value is then merely a limiting factor in the process, and derives from what is lacking in awareness, connection and collaboration. We’ve had the capacity to ignore survival value for some time now. We just don’t really want to, partly because it requires conscious effort, and partly because it undermines this sense of our own value or significance in the universe.

The ability to translate between 5D structures, 4D events, 3D objects and 2D diagrams or formulas (even one dimensional digital information) - with minimal information loss - increases opportunities for awareness, connection and collaboration at various levels of interaction. The versatility in music and mathematical language in particular provides the ability to transcend the difficulties of physical, temporal or cultural/ideological barriers in information sharing, increasing interaction with information about a universe far more complex than our own limited experience of events in spacetime.

The way I see it, there are three main components to musical and mathematical ability:

- the capacity to recognise and relate patterns in experiencing 4D events (intuition, playing by ear)
- the capacity to arrange or reformulate the patterns that determine and initiate 4D events (creativity)
- the capacity to translate the patterns into 2D structures, and 2D structures into 4D events (reading and writing of music/formulae/language)

Music or mathematical genius appears to stem from a strong relationship between all three. Language ability relates to these capacities, too.

But the ‘metaphysical’ component to language, as I see it, is in one’s interaction with the patterns and structures that determine and initiate how a 4D event is experienced by someone else. This goes a step further than generating a particular sound. The genius in music and language comes from an ability to predict and structure 5D patterns in qualia that elicit a particular subjective experience in an observer - and translate those patterns into a 2D structure that enables others to replicate it.

Indeed I am having difficulties squaring the idea that abstract human attributes were needed to survive.

Accordingly, what has much intrigue in history are those born with mathematical and musical genius. — 3017amen

Mathematics and music are both about recognising patterns and predicting what comes next.

What was going on in the story is more portentous than Snake merely inviting Eve to doubt what she doesn't understand. What interest did Snake have in Eve partaking of the forbidden fruit? What was his agenda (or her agenda -- the snake could have been female; in fact, I have the distinct feeling just now that the Snake in Eden was definitely female). — Bitter Crank

The serpent in Eden is referred to as ‘he’ in every translation I’ve read - so NOT female. And who knows what drugs the author of Revelations was on when it was written. But the reference to Satan as a ‘serpent’ occurs only in Revelations (from memory only once), and nowhere else in the Bible. Isn’t it interesting how doctrine drums up significance for such trivial associations? What was the church’s agenda in this connection?

Back to the story, though - why does a serpent need an agenda in order to interact with Eve? Must we assume agency because it speaks? Or is it because without an agenda it is A&E who are responsible for their own removal from Eden? (and by ‘responsible’, I’m not suggesting a ‘fall’ of any kind, so don’t read too much into it - Eden only represents the situation we wish we could be in, not necessarily where we once were)

Perhaps the words of the serpent simply represent the dynamic of humanity’s relationship with the rest of biological nature. We understand now that our connection to nature is more extensive than this, but for much of our history we saw humanity as something ‘other’ than nature, so it stands to reason that the relationship here is portrayed as a dialogue between two characters.

Portentous? Perhaps. It cannot be deduced from the text whether Eve received instruction regarding the tree directly from God or indirectly from Adam, as she was not yet created when Adam was told. Still, it was clear that she did have the instruction. Then Eve put together the information received from the serpent (which, by the way, was not a deception, but an interpretation of God’s instruction from the POV of a serpent) with what she saw and how she felt, and then acted freely - but without taking into account any relationship with ‘God’ (whatever ‘God’ happens to be).

To call Eve’s action ‘disobedience’ is a stretch, because there is still no indication that Eve had any direct relationship with God, whose command was specifically to Adam. Interestingly, throughout the rest of Genesis it is often the wife who represents man’s relationship with the biological nature of humanity, and acts/speaks on its behalf.

This story illustrates a naive understanding of the initial dynamics of man’s key relationships: to God, to woman (Eve) and to the rest of biological nature (the serpent). It also explores how those relationships interact with each other in a way that then impacts on man. Man is the centre of his own universe in this story. Whatever the portent, there is no objectivity to be found in its telling.

Their artistic solution to the problem of the difficulty of life was to place in the story of Eden, where Adam and Eve sacrificed their innocence to the seductions of the snake/evil tempter. the cause of our daily suffering. — Bitter Crank

The snake/serpent in Genesis is not an ‘evil tempter’. You’re dipping into doctrine here. The association between serpents and ‘Satan’/evil comes from Revelations - a much later piece of writing.

Human animosity towards the snake is given ‘justification’ through this story. But the serpent simply invited Eve to doubt what she doesn't understand or cannot see, and to trust only what she sees and feels instead. This is not evil - it’s what we do ‘naturally’, the basis of human reason.

So I say quit waving the Fundy flag judging mankind and make an educated renewed paradigm. Isn't it simpler to say something along the lines of " the interpretation of the allegory is that we are not perfect beings". — 3017amen

Sorry, I’m confused - who’s waving the Fundy flag? If you’re saying it’s me, then that’d be a first...

You have interesting things to say but please note the following: — TheMadFool

I’m well aware of the traditional doctrine - I was raised Catholic, thank you.

I disagree with the standard interpretation. I think that if you read it without assuming the authors, church or doctrine actually know anything for certain about what ‘God’ is or how the concept relates to humanity, the Book lends itself to surprisingly astute observations about the human experience.

Allow me to try to express how I think our views differ within a narrative,

Two boats are traveling down a river side by side. On the first boat the captain thinks to himself, my first mate is an experienced sailor and knows how I run my ship, I'll let him direct it while I enjoy the breeze. The other boat's captain knows his first mate is well experienced, he could talk with him about his future plans and rest assured they would be carried out, but as a matter of preference the captain takes the wheel and as an action in that moment steers the ship while enjoying the breeze on his face.

Of course, both captains enjoy the breeze :wink: — Pathogen

In my view, just to clarify, I think most of us can be either captain depending on the situation. I personally tend towards the latter, while I recognise there are many who prefer the former. That’s part of the freedom...

But it's likely that the tale of AI would have an expected resemblance to the Bibilcal story of man. AI would "disobey" and then get punished with death/mortality. — TheMadFool

Your use of ‘disobey’ and ‘punish’ in reference to the Biblical story shows your limited viewpoint, though. It wasn’t that A&E disobeyed God - it was that they ate the fruit. And it wasn’t that they were punished - it was that they acquired a capacity they would never learn to use in the current situation, so that situation had to be changed.

From the authors’ point of view, though, it feels like punishment. Just like Cain’s reaction to God’s apparent favour towards Abel, they’re reading more into it than is there - as a threat against them, evidence that they did something wrong. And another naive judgement that death/mortality is a ‘bad’ thing...

I get that you are approaching this rather rationally, but all this paragraph says to me is "they used to be able to do it, and we can't". I still don't even know what "it" is. — ZhouBoTong

Wow, I didn’t expect that interpretation. Sorry, I meant ‘we’ generally, as in including the Bible authors, not ‘we’ specifically in the modern era.

We access fifth-dimensional awareness all the time: it’s generally anything we can do that animals can’t, from self-awareness and words to mathematics and other higher order thinking. We just don’t realise that’s what we’re doing. We even apply different value structures in relation to different events or experiences. There are certain words, for instance, that one would never use in certain settings. Some people behave markedly differently in various social situations, often without even realising it. Others can be open-minded in some areas of their life, but staunchly traditional or stubborn in others.

There is more freedom now than previously to devise our own value structures, instead of overlaying entire ideologies acquired by being born within a certain nationality, ethnic group, religion, political viewpoint, etc. Logical and scientific value structures also interact more freely with ‘inherited’ beliefs and value systems than we’ve allowed before, enabling us to question, challenge and discard beliefs, or ‘cherry-pick’ from a wide range of value structures as our experiences allow.

It is the experiences we have that provide us with information about alternative value systems, and lead us to wonder if there is such a thing as an objective value system relative even to human experience, let alone to all experiences in the universe across spacetime - or if, like time, even value/significance is entirely relative to the observer. For many, this is an invitation to impose our value structures onto others (whether moral, religious, political, nationalistic or logic/science based), to construct a value system to suit our own personal needs and let everyone else do as they like, or to enclose a ‘world’ (or collection of worlds) for themselves where all their interactions reinforce whatever value structures ‘work’ for them.

But these are fear-based reactions that close the mind to further information. Because if value/significance is truly relative to the observer, then the value structures through which I currently experience the world are all limited and inaccurate. And there is a much broader and more accurate understanding of the universe still to be discovered by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with observers and experiences vastly different from my own.

I am not even sure that is what you are saying, but my other interpretation would be along the lines of "in our imaginations exist unlimited possibilities. We can analyze those possibilities to determine the best course of action. Once a course of action is selected, it is subject to the laws of the universe."
But that doesn't seem to be saying anything much at all? — ZhouBoTong

This is maybe closer to what I’m saying. And you’re right, it doesn’t say much like this. But it’s where we ‘determine the best course of action’ that I think we’re falling well short of our potential. Best for whom or for what purpose? What are the value structures by which we determine ‘the best’? And how limited is our viewpoint in relation to alternative value structures, whether or not we agree with them? Who then would disagree that this is indeed the ‘best course of action’, and why? And does their viewpoint matter?

There would undoubtedly be many who’d argue that this line of questioning serves to limit what can be done more than it removes constraints. Yes - it limits the harm that can be done, and encourages us to tread more carefully in the world. Our aim is not to simply do, but to develop, achieve and succeed together. If that means we do less or do it slower, it’s not necessarily less valuable overall. It only appears so from our limited viewpoint.

Any chance you have seen the South Park episodes about Imagination Land? These lines remind me of that.

When you say "develop the cognitive capacity" are you referring to current individuals or future evolution? Are there intellectual exercises I can do to achieve this? Or when you say "develop" do you mean after a few thousand generations of positive evolution? — ZhouBoTong

To be honest, I’m not sure how much of what holds us back is due to cognitive capacity and how much is understanding how to access it. As I mentioned before, my two children, raised in the same household, have developed very different cognitive capacity to each other. And yet, the Bible has evidence of five-dimensional awareness from Genesis onwards, so we’ve actually been developing it for thousands of years already. We just suck at it. It’s fear mainly that keeps us from choosing awareness, connection and collaboration at every opportunity...

Also, when you say 'unconstrained' do you mean "unconstrained except for the laws of physics?" or "truly, entirely, unconstrained"? The second option is why I thought of imagination land.

Perhaps you mean it is unconstrained BECAUSE it is JUST in our imagination? — ZhouBoTong

I haven’t seen the South Park episode you mention, sorry. But I find it interesting the way we look at the laws of physics, as if they are what limit our capacity to achieve. The process of actualising our imagination starts with what is possible, and is then constrained by what potential we see in how we experience and collaborate with the universe that would enable us to achieve it. Only then would it be constrained by the time we have available, and finally by the laws of physics.

One strange question relates to nakedness though. The author/interpretation could be extended to mean or represent nakedness as being equal to unawareness, yet if one were to take it literally, then why use the term naked?

Accordingly, we so find ourselves embarrassed or shameful by actually being naked [me, not so much] in public, but do we really understand why? While it is true, young children can be on a beach or by a pool naked, yet at some point we decide to make them either aware or they naturally become self aware that it is bad. — 3017amen

First of all, ‘naked’ is an English translation, so we shouldn’t read too far into the choice of word. But I don’t think this suggests that nakedness is equal to unawareness at all. There is nothing ‘evil’ about nakedness except that in experiencing it ourselves we cannot avoid our intrinsic vulnerability. How we respond to that reality is to cover it, to hide it. We do it to try and ‘protect’ our children from the world, to pretend that we’re not as fragile as we appear to ourselves.

I was thinking thereabouts. It makes me think of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. Self-awareness, true AI, would naturally have goals which may possibly involve the annihilation of humans. Do you think we were actually created as robots and then became self-aware making/forcing God to banish us from Eden. I think we would do the same to AI if it ever became self-aware after all we couldn't kill it could we? We do kill each other you know. — TheMadFool

I don’t think we were created as robots - I think we evolved according to integrated information processing systems rather than survival or reproductive value, but that’s for another discussion, perhaps. Self-awareness is a natural development of five-dimensional integrated information processing. ‘God’ was a way of objectifying this capacity for higher awareness in order to obtain more information about it. The OT tracks the progression of five-dimensional awareness; the NT tracks our foray into six-dimensional awareness.

I think the key here is the emergence of fear, as well as pain, loss and humility - as a result of self-awareness. And yes, we do kill each other - in fact it’s the very next story in the Book.

According to the Book, Adam and Eve were punished with mortality and other ugly stuff after they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

This is an unjustified punishment because, if we look at all the squabbling going on in the ethics section of philosophy, we haven't figured out anything in ethics. Of course one may prefer one moral theory over another but there isn't a sound basis for it and that's why there's always the other theory one has to worry about.

Why was Adam and Eve punished for actually failing to understand good and evil?

Poor judgment. — TheMadFool

I’ll offer another interpretation of the story, if I may.

First of all, I don’t see the ‘knowledge of good and evil’ as actual knowledge. What humanity acquired here was the propensity to judge or claim to know what is good and what is evil - without having any of the knowledge that comes from experience.

We have a naive Adam and Eve, with zero life experience, who choose to ignore instructions from God and instead listen to a serpent, seeking pleasure. The result of eating from the tree was that “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.”

This was not a knowledge of experience or understanding, but one of awareness; self-awareness. And the first thing a human would notice with a sudden onset of self-awareness would be their vulnerability, that they were naked. From this initial awareness of vulnerability comes their response: to cover themselves with fig leaves, and then to hide from God. “I was afraid because I was naked”.

God’s response is interesting: “Who told you that you were naked?” Again this refers to an awareness, rather than experiential knowledge. They were always naked; only now they were aware of it - and not only aware, but they had judged nakedness to be a bad thing for them.

So now Adam and Eve are making moral judgements based on nothing but their immediate and direct physiological response to the world as a vulnerable organism. Talk about poor judgement. The fact that we have yet to figure out anything in ethics just goes to show that Adam and Eve stuffed up - they jumped the gun. Judging ‘good and evil’ is something that first requires a comprehensive understanding of how everything in the universe is interconnected. As a single organism, that would take some time.

So Adam and Eve weren’t punished for failing to understand good and evil. They brought suffering upon themselves by acquiring a capacity which they lacked the life experience to use properly. They could have eaten from the tree of life, lived forever in a paradise with everything they’d ever need, and eventually built up enough life experience to genuinely understand the value of everything in the universe. It would have been a cushy apprenticeship...

But you can’t give that kind of capacity to a couple of two-year olds and expect them to learn any kind of humility, let alone teach them to make right judgements when any judgement is just as effective in the short term.

And the Libet results, IMO, are usually horribly misinterpreted. The experiment involves instructing the person to allow the rising random impulses in the nervous system to complete as actions, basically uninterfered-with, after first priming it with it a request for a certain kind of impulse. Given the instructions, the results don't surprise me at all, and they certainly don't show that all behavior at all times is entirely the outcome of impulses that are already in motion before awareness of the intention to act occurs. — petrichor

I’m with you on all of what you’ve said - this in particular.

I guess I’m just not content to leave it there, though. This is what philosophy is all about, isn’t it? Or are we just critics, waiting around for someone else to do the work? I was reading your post with great interest, but I hoped you would then offer something constructive to this particular discussion...

In pro-active thinking processes future actions are not necessarily determined by previous experiences, conditioning, genes, etc. but rather may instead arise purely from intellectual processing towards some outcome. People do this all the time when they plan for possible future situations. — Pathogen

Thank you for expressing your position relative to mine. I recognise that you’re not entering into discussions about how free will relates directly to deterministic perspectives here, which is where my thread differs and you’ve noticed a focus on unconscious choices in some of the discussion. But I don’t think we differ that much in our viewpoints.

I agree with you that intellectual processing can imagine possible future situations that are not directly determined by previous experiences. However, in order to actualise any plan, there needs to be awareness, connection and collaboration with the potential for such a situation: how previous experiences, conditioning, genes, etc of ourselves and others can contribute to a plan for actualising this possible future situation. If we’re unaware of how these causal conditions can be structured and restructured, all the intellectual processing is effectively imagination.

The fuss is about the consistency of the will, which, although appreciated as nature's useful means toward one's survival and keeping one to basically remain as true to one's self, leaves the person to necessarily be an automated process, which is not well received emotionally, since, well, then it seems one is not in control, whatever 'control' means, really, and who knows what benefit it could confer over the quick and deep process of two hundred trillion neuron connections figuring things out quite well.
— PoeticUniverse
The "automated process" consists of mental processes; they are performed by a mind. The output of this process would not come to be were this specific mind (which includes its beliefs, dispositions, desires, habits of thought...) not doing the processing.

My point is that determinism does not negate the fact that our minds are causal agents, agents whose beliefs (among other things) are factors that lead to the choice that is made. Yes, the beliefs were determined by prior experiences (as well as the DNA it started with), but they are still beliefs, and they are part of the processing. — Relativist

This discussion operates at the level of self-reflection - referring to a ‘self’ which purposefully maintains its relative consistency despite the variability of the related physical events/objects to which this ‘self’ conceptually refers or relates. It is the value of a consistent ‘self’ in relation to ‘survival’ that leaves the person to be an ‘automated process’.

When we recognise that these beliefs, dispositions, desires, habits of thought, etc are value structures determined by certain combinations of prior experiences, and therefore not only predictable but also subject to changes through experience (learning, etc), then we can prioritise/value a consistency of self as a ‘survival’ tactic, OR we can continually reflect on, evaluate and alter the factors that lead to our actions.

It is our subjective value structures (including those ‘outsourced’ to certain ideological or authoritative systems) that determine our actions, but it is our awareness of, connection to and collaboration with the options in these value structures that determine the freedom of this basic faculty for purposefully initiating actions. If one accepts the undeniable value of a consistent self as the only reality, as fundamental to their survival, for instance, then there is no capacity for evaluating all the factors that lead to any ‘choice’ that is made - no selection, no act of choosing, only a single realised item.

But I am still struggling to accept this. To be fair, I think there is still an aspect of what you are saying that I am not understanding. — ZhouBoTong

I think it’s a paradigm shift - and that’s not an easy process. That you’re prepared to try is appreciated.

Are you saying that "will" emerges from a deterministic system, but once it emerges it is not subject to determinism? — ZhouBoTong

I guess what I’m saying is that what we refer to as ‘the will’ is what the deterministic system looks like from the fifth dimension: from an observer position beyond time. Once we fully develop the cognitive capacity to interact with and understand the universe from this position, then the will is potentially unconstrained.

The entire process of evolution seems to make things better at surviving. That is basically how it is required to function. It has two things, an environment, and an organism. The only medium of interaction between those is survivability. So I just cannot accept your argument that "human information processing is somehow geared for some higher thing than survival." In my opinion, your view is highly romantic, and sort-of theological. You are attempting to imbue an importance on human cognitive capacity, which I thing is not justified. — rlclauer

I recognise that what I’m proposing here is difficult to accept if you swallow survival and reproductive values as a complete explanation for evolution. But if you take a closer look at evolutionary theory, it fails to adequately explain even all animal behaviour, let alone the intricacies of human social dynamics. And we need to stop making apologist-style arguments about the ‘survival value’ of things like altruism simply because traditional theology is no longer a viable alternative.

The sun seems to revolve around the Earth - but on closer inspection it was discovered that this theory wasn’t perfect. Try to keep an open mind.

It’s a very simple dichotomous view to believe that the universe consists only of an organism and the environment against which it must battle for supremacy. Yours may not be a romantic view, but it’s more tradition-based than you’re making it out to be. It is this viewpoint that has driven humanity to all but destroy the balance in the environment that sustains our existence. Perhaps it’s time to rethink it.

Human cognitive capacity IS important, if only because we’re the only species that has it. That doesn’t make humans more important, it makes us more responsible. When we prioritise survivability, we’re selling this capacity short, really.

If you are not arguing against cause and effect or determinism, why are you suggesting there is some higher order significance in human cognition? Is cognition a function of the brain and nervous system? If it is, is it not bound to the rules of cause and effect? And if that is the case, isn't imagining all of this higher order stuff just a lack of information. As Sam Harris argues, if we have perfect information about the brain and the physical state of every particle in the body, could we not predict outcomes of human behavior? — rlclauer

I’m not sure the two are mutually exclusive. Sure, pure determinism says that there is only cause and effect, but it’s better to start there than simply imagine higher order stuff with no attempt to get back to ‘reality’, in my opinion. Following on from Sam Harris, if we could predict outcomes of our own human behaviour, could we not then reassess and restructure the causal conditions leading to our behaviour and effect change to the will - the same way we do with the external conditions? And isn’t that freedom, rendering the will unconstrained?

While we’re arguing from the authority of Sam Harris, I’ll point out that he also said this:

Look closely enough at your own mind in the present moment, and you will discover that the self is an illusion. The problem with a claim of this kind, however, is that one can’t borrow another persons contemplative tools to test it. To see how the feeling of ‘I’ is a product of thought - indeed, to even appreciate how distracted by thought you tend to be in the first place - you have to build your own contemplative tools. Unfortunately, this leads many people to dismiss the project out of hand: They look inside, notice nothing of interest, and conclude that introspection is a dead end. But just imagine where astronomy would be if, centuries after Galileo, a person were still obliged to build his own telescope before he could even judge whether astronomy was a legitimate field of inquiry. It wouldn’t make the sky any less worthy of investigation, but astronomy’s development as a science would become immensely more difficult. — Sam Harris, “Waking Up - Searching for Spirituality with Religion”

Harris is prepared to explore beyond what science tells us through the realm of subjective experience. That’s all I’m doing here, and Harris was one of those who led me here. He also says: “The way we think about experience can completely determine how we feel about it.”

I am wondering if it is possible for something to be an alternative to something else, whilst also not lacking that other thing. — Troodon Roar

For instance, there are those who see determinism as an alternative to the existence of free will, and those who see free will as an alternative to determinism. But there are others still who see determinism as not lacking in the existence of free will - in this case the existence of free will is not perceived as an alternative to determinism, as such. QM supports the notion of both/and in relation to subjective experience, and so the middle no longer need be excluded. It only appears as a logical contradiction when considered from a single perspective.

1. Determinism is lacking the existence of free will.
2. Determinism is not lacking the existence of free will.

3. Determinism is an alternative to the existence of free will.
4. The existence of free will is an alternative to determinism.

5. Determinism is true.
6. Free will exists.

If 1 is true, then BOTH 3 AND 4 can be true, but ONLY 5 OR 6 can obtain.
If 2 is true, then 3 and 4 are a matter of limited perspective, and BOTH 5 AND 6 can obtain.

I’m not good with logic, but this makes sense to me.

I'll defer to others for specific answers, but for many of those, if they were not in balance, then there would be instability. If the laws of physics allow for an imbalance, then the only universes that would have humans on some planet pondering these things would be those that are stable enough to support that. For example, consider #3. If it were not balanced, and in consideration of #16 going on everywhere, it would seem the universe would quickly become inhospitable to humans (unless the imbalance was super tiny). — jajsfaye

Perhaps many of these are only perceived as opposites, on account of our relation to it as observer. The balance exists because it is relevant to our existence in relation to it.

Just as entropy is increasing relative to the existence of this section of the universe that is relevant to the human observer. Like a deck of cards being shuffled...

I think the spellchecker changed 'weathering' or 'withstanding' to 'withering' here. — PoeticUniverse

Thanks - I did wonder about the withering...

Memory obeys nothing outside of itself; — PoeticUniverse

I’m not sure that I agree with this entirely, nor with the ‘virtual indestructibility’ of these proteins. These claims appear to be premature. Experience tells me that even long-term memory is open to new information and adjustment when the right conditions are present - including the interaction of feelings, reasoning and creative thought. The plasticity of CPEB proteins, their potential to switch between monomeric and aggregating forms and their susceptibility to serotonin and dopamine levels seems to support this. I’m also intrigued by their capacity as a repressor OR activator of translation to aggregating forms. I’d like to read more on the serotonin/dopamine release, though - if you can point me towards the research you’re particularly referring to.

Any object (as a relationship of points in 3D space) in actuality is continually variable over time in relation to all other points in 3D space. All is motion or flux in what we consider to be actual, physical reality.

That doesn’t mean a ‘constant’ triangle or ‘absolute’ rest doesn’t exist as a possibility. But I personally think it’s a waste of energy to attempt to actualise either. In relation to the universe as we interact with it, I think these concepts have little to no relevance and no potential. We can wonder about them, sure - but to what end? Wishful thinking?

What is it about our value/logic structures that renders the concept of ‘absolute rest’ as relevant information - information that allows us to predict what will be the result for us of future interactions with this system? How accurate are these predictions? And, given that the total relevant information cannot grow indefinitely, why is this information more relevant to us than obtaining new information about the system? Just a thought...

How do such apparitions reappear, sink and swell,
Float and change, withering the acids of time’s reflux?

We know why—prions. — PoeticUniverse

We know how... or why? Prion-like proteins suggest a start, to be sure - but ‘know’ is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?

Thanks for the prompt, though. I’m intrigued - although biochemistry is a difficult area for me to navigate. All those acronyms...and I’m not one to blindly accept the Scientific American interpretation. Any suggestions of writers in this area along the lines of Rovelli in physics?

I think this is still consistent with fifth dimensional interaction: the way we access memory demonstrates significance irrespective of time; it isn’t structured chronologically, but rather in relation to hierarchies of value. Interestingly, thoughts, reasoning and feelings are also structured irrespective of time. Along with memory, these constitute our 5D experiences. The more aware we are of their value structures and of how they enable us to predict, prevent or predetermine potential events and actions, the more consciously we can interact with them in a way that ‘frees the will’.

I’m thinking it’s not just how educational experiences become memory - but how 5D integrated information as memory, belief and logic interact with somatic and sensory information to form qualia as 5D experiential content: thoughts, feelings, reasoning and memories; how these can then integrate with and improve/alter our structures of memory, belief and logic; but also how conscious awareness of these processes can allow us more creative freedom in this area, opening the mind and challenging the accuracy of these structures (in a 6D context).

I agree that CPEB-3 and other self-assembling proteins that function in a prion-like state demonstrate an important link between biochemistry, information processing and memory. This helps us to further develop our 4D mapping to include internal events. But, like those experiments you keep bringing up - the ones demonstrating a delay in conscious recognition of subconscious decisions - it’s the way the findings are interpreted that I’m wary of: reducing the five dimensional human experience to only what can be measured, to physical change over time, and declaring this to BE ‘what is real’ (and our qualia to be ‘illusion’), rather than recognise that these so-called ‘illusions’ point to further dimensional aspects of our reality that we have yet to map.

However, ever notice animal behavior? Very recently I saw a tiny praying mantis and as I approached it it sensed my presence and immediately froze. It stopped moving completely. This is, if I'm correct, death mimicry. Dead or lifeless things don't move. This is clearly a tactic to escape becoming a meal but the message that it conveys is stillness spells death or lifelessnes. — TheMadFool

The mantis’ alternative would have been to move contra to its environment, which attracts attention for obvious reasons. Most predators’ eyesight is not as keen as yours. A fish moves in a school and other animals in a herd for the same reason - attracting undue attention has its risks. What message you receive from their stillness/movement is likely unintended. You make your own correlations.

The way I see it, calming the mind or mindfulness is a similar process of becoming attuned to one’s environment, rather than out of step with it. When we are distracted by ‘mental garbage’, we’re out of step with the moment itself, and can bring unrelated thoughts, emotions and experiences to bear on our interactions with the world. This can be unintentionally damaging.

According to this, what we perceive as "the self," could just be the product of this symbolic communication within the brain. Perhaps what appears to be our "self" is also just another program in the brain, a kind of, compiler, or organizer of sorts. Either way, I think it is clear that these processes have evolved to continue the biological mechanics of the body, which is really several different systems working symbiotically (consider the influence of the gut microbiota).

I think it is painfully clear to see, there is no driver, there is no "influencing spirit" and so what humans usually refer to as "free will" or that aspect of the collective organism that is our body, is really just the output of these several inputs, which themselves are causally determined, and thus, there is no such thing as a "free will" or an "agent which causes." — rlclauer

Welcome to the discussion. I get what you’re saying. But I don’t think it’s a clear as you believe it is.

I agree that the biological mechanics of the body consist of several different systems working symbiotically. Each system is to some extent aware of, connected to and collaborating with the others. But I think you’re making an assumption that they have evolved simply to ‘continue’ their various processes for as long as possible.

There is more to our collaborating systems than mere biological mechanics. There is an elaborate information processing system, which relies not just on the symbiotic relationships within the organism, but relationships with the rest of the universe. This also consists of several different systems working symbiotically. But this system and these processes have not evolved to continue the biological mechanics of the body, but to acquire information about the entire system.

Humans have not evolved to maximise continuation of the biological mechanics of the body. As individuals, we are some of the most fragile and vulnerable creatures on the planet, and it is only our advanced and collaborative information processing systems that give us any advantage at all. We can process and share more information about the universe in our first ten years of life than many of our ancestors could manage as a tribe in a century. That’s not an accident, and it isn’t geared towards survival.

I’m not arguing against cause and effect, or determinism, for that matter. But the process by which we can predict future events from the information we have about past events is so far below our capacity as human beings that it’s almost laughable to reduce human experience to this.

@PoeticUniverse talks about the progression and improvement of a momentarily ‘fixed will’ through education and self-reflection. It’s a creative way of relating our experience of agency to determinism without a will that is free, and I can see how it makes sense from that perspective. I wonder how one would explain the process of education’s influence on a ‘fixed will’ in anything other than metaphorical language, though.

Personally, I’m trying to get away from metaphor, and look at how our experience of a will that is free fits into the context of cause and effect. Because we can’t pretend that it doesn’t feel free in the act of choosing, despite what science interprets from measurements and observation. And we simply don’t understand the brain, consciousness or the ‘self’ enough to discard experiences just because they don’t fit with what science can tell us. That’s how doctrine operates.

The concept of potentiality I'm familiar with isn't about any success. Success is a judgment. The acorn's potential is something we recognize by looking at it in context. The potential we're really seeing is that of the whole universe. There are thousands of ways the acorn could become a tree. We could think of this as thousands of possible worlds. In each one, the universe was just the way it needed to be to produce the tree in that possible world.

Likewise there are possible worlds in which the acorn was eaten or buried (so as to plant a hickory tree in my boxwoods, which actually happened. :razz: )

Among all of these worlds is a very special one: the actual world. — frank

I don’t disagree with this. Success is relative to value. As I mentioned to @PoeticUniverse, the ‘possible worlds’ theory implies an alternate physical reality that only confuses the way dimensions work. It’s not incorrect - it just makes it difficult to extrapolate without losing touch with our own experience.

We could think of it as thousands of possible worlds, and que sera sera, we’re stuck in this one. But all that does is absolve us of responsibility for what happens in the future, even though we can easily predict it - we can see it coming from a long way off - and we can also see all those possible worlds where it could be occurring differently, if only something could change.... It’s no wonder anxiety and depression is at epidemic proportions.

Can you move between these possible worlds?

Can you hold an acorn and see yourself at the crossroads of thousands of possible worlds in relation to that acorn? This is what I mean by potential: we can’t ignore our position as an interactive observer.

As I mentioned to @ZhouBoTong, the past, what is actual, is determined - but our will is free in relation to the future. Not what could be - but what can be, when we include ourselves.

Is there anything I could be reading, particularly on that last sentence
It doesn’t really matter to the past (that’s already been determined) - only to our experience of what lies ahead.
— Possibility
, that could help thoroughly explain the idea? Or are you sort of inventing it as you go along? (I hope that doesn't come across negatively, in my mind, all of the now-famous philosophers were "inventing it as they went along") — ZhouBoTong

In a lot of respects, I am piecing together an explanation as I go along, but the groundwork is all there in so many expressions of human experience - from the Jesus to The Lion King, letting go of (without completely discarding) past information in order to develop the future is nothing new, really. We have to be prepared to let go of what’s no longer relevant - without throwing the baby out with the bath water - and then find ways to piece together what’s left with the new information we’ve acquired along the way. As Carlo Rovelli says in ‘Reality is Not What You Think’:

“When we acquire new information about a system, the total relevant information cannot grow indefinitely, and part of the previous information becomes irrelevant, that is to say, it no longer has any effect upon predictions of the future.

In quantum mechanics when we interact with a system, we don’t only learn something, we also ‘cancel’ a part of the relevant information about the system.”

I think you will see traces of this idea in the currently unanswered questions and developing theories across theoretical physics, abiogenesis and consciousness studies. Relating what we can measure/observe to what we subjectively experience requires a better understanding of this fifth dimensional aspect.

What are you calling "potential"? — frank

Potential is defined as an ability to develop, achieve or succeed that has not been realised. Many interpret this as that an acorn becomes an oak tree or else it fails in its singular potential. But the way I see it, an acorn that becomes food for a squirrel is not a failure; it simply realises an alternative potential: one the squirrel was aware of, connected with and collaborated with. Absolute determinism suggests that the squirrel’s acorn was always determined to never be an oak tree, but I disagree.

I don't think I'm following what you're trying to do with dimensions. It appears that you're positing "4D" as a base reality that you engage through experience? And that this adds another dimension? — frank

I don’t see 4D as a ‘base reality’ - I start there because I figure most people would agree that the universe has four dimensions, even if we can’t ‘picture’ how to map it. We can map changes to 3D objects over time, just as we only know a 2D shape is really 3D by how different it appears in relation to a variable viewing direction, increasing awareness of a third dimensional aspect to our viewpoint. So a 3D object that appears different in relation to a variable time of observation is better understood as a 4D event, and increases awareness of a fourth dimensional aspect to our observation. And a 4D event that appears different in relation to a variable observer is better understood as a 5D experience, increasing awareness of a fifth dimensional aspect to the observer.

So it doesn’t really add another dimension - you are developing awareness of another dimensional aspect to how we experience the universe, but it was always ‘there’.

how about the case "I choose not to eat this food"? which of the 3 categories would you place it? — Dzung

They’re not categories, they’re more like gates to enable or disable interaction.

This discussion has been a work in progress - you might need to read further through the thread to follow.

For me to explain the case “I choose not to eat this food”, I’d need to know more about the particular experience of choosing to eat or not eat the food.

For instance, my son always used to turn his nose up at any food he couldn’t identify. He wasn’t a fussy eater: if you could somehow get him to try something, nine times out of ten he would then happily eat it. But his first response was always “I don’t like this” despite never having tried it. Forcing a toddler to eat when they’ve chosen not to is never a good idea, and reasoning with them about health implications has no effect. In his case, a decision to not eat certain food was usually based on a lack of awareness. He needed more information about the option to be chosen.

When he was about three, I got him to taste cucumber by telling him that it was ‘a bit like apple, only not sweet or tangy’. It was his choice to be more aware by listening to someone else describe the experience of eating cucumber. It was his choice to also connect to this information: trusting my word and knowing that he liked apples. And it was his choice to then collaborate with the information: to conclude that he might actually like the experience of eating something ‘a bit like apple only not sweet or tangy’ himself, and act on it. It worked, and he’s eaten it ever since.

Of course, I could choose not to eat this food because I’m aware of how long it’s been sitting in the fridge...

The sizing up of all possible world-lines unto all their ends to see what works the best, and then in 6D jump into the best one? — PoeticUniverse

In 5D it’s more about potential than ‘possible world-lines’ - as I explained to frank. When we see potential, we not only see what’s possible, but also how it can become actual.

I think I follow what you’re saying, but I find the description of ‘jumping’ into ‘possible world-lines’ to be misleading (however poetic). Many-worlds and multiverse theories imply an alternate physical reality, but that’s not how dimensions appear to work. It isn’t a matter of travelling, but of developing the capacity to correlate between multiple levels of integrated information at once.

However, once I am in philosophy mode (haha, whatever the heck that means), I can't help but see questions:

to prevent predicted events from occurring
— Possibility

doesn't knowing the prediction give a "cause" for your changed behavior?

All of my other questions would probably be tied to the idea that if we completely understood thought (along with everything in the first 4 dimensions), MAYBE we could establish a causal chain? — ZhouBoTong

Yes, this is why I’ve said that all actions are still determined, even if our will is free. When you look back on actual events where you’ve experienced ‘choosing’, it presents as an unbroken causal chain, with no evidence of your interaction at all. The extent of your interaction is with the causal conditions of the potential event, thereby establishing the causal chain itself.

As I’ve said before, I don’t think this is a case of EITHER determinism OR free will. We need to get away from this dichotomy and the ‘apologists’ of compatabilism in order to understand and develop a practical model of the will.

To be fair, overall, I don't find the free will argument to matter as long as everyone admits that MOSTLY we did not have a lot of control in who we are today. We were born with 'x' genes and raised in 'y' environment. Sure free will MAY have played a small role in the development of a few humans (mostly those who are naturally inclined to 'buck the trends' so to speak), but I don't see it as a particularly significant force. — ZhouBoTong

I would say that we don’t have ANY control (right now) in who we are up until today, but we have so much more freedom than most of us realise in who we can be in each moment, and therefore in who we can be in the future. Free will isn’t a force, it’s a capacity within us to be aware of, connect and collaborate with the potential in our experience of interacting with the unfolding universe. It doesn’t really matter to the past (that’s already been determined) - only to our experience of what lies ahead.

Not directly in relation to free will - focusing on possibility only confuses the issue. I’m responding to determinism - ie. a lack of potential.

If you want to equate capacity with ‘power’, that’s your choice, not mine. I’m thinking now the word ‘manipulate’ probably brings that connotation. That was not my intention.

Our capacity is always tied to awareness, connection and collaboration: what I have called ‘manipulation’ is achieved only in this way, never as an individual force acting in isolation.

Sorry for the confusion.

Deep Blue chooses between two possible moves in a chess game. Everything about it is determined. Yet it still makes a choice, among the possible options, to castle or to check, to move the queen, or sacrifice the bishop. This is what Deep Blue is designed to do. Make choices. — StreetlightX

Deep Blue is designed to make choices based on logic applied to all possible moves and countermoves. I can make choices based only on logic, too. But I also make other choices based on ideology, cultural or historical significance, emotions, habit, etc. I can broaden my choices beyond logic based on alternative value systems.

I can also apply logic to adjust my habits, for instance, or apply cultural significance to improve the application of logic-based management systems. I can choose what evaluative system to base my choices on, or I can construct my own, evaluate its effect in relation to experiences/observations/measurements, and make adjustments for future applications. Of course, I can also choose NOT to be aware of the evaluative systems I apply to a choice, and allow it to be determined by my experience of past events with little to no conscious interaction. Such is my freedom.

Application of free will may not be a necessary condition for all science, but in my view it frees scientific endeavour from the ignorance of certain ideologies, and keeps logic-based evaluation systems from losing touch with the human experience.

The terms ‘existing’ and ‘actual’ are not interchangeable in my view. Actual is a (4D) form of existing, but what exists and interacts with our (5D) experience of the world is not necessarily actual. This is different to ‘possibilism’, though. We cannot experience all possibilities, yet we can experience and interact with what exists ‘potentially’.

This is not a logic based argument for me, but one based on experience. Every potential event I experience can only have one actual outcome or occurrence, but my capacity to manipulate that occurrence operates in the realm of 5D experience: what is significant, not just logically or physically, but emotionally, culturally, ideologically, historically, etc. This is where I can be ontologically creative, inasmuch as I am aware of, connected to and collaborating with the process of evaluation.

The more aware, connected and collaborating I am with what is significant to the potential of an event in relation to what is significant to me and to other events in my experience (past, present and future), the more freedom I have to interact with the experience both in and beyond its actuality.

Those 3 attributes will produce a happier life in the long run but i wish i could say that means that there is free will. I go back and forth on the issue of scientific determinism or predestination. At its core i have the concept but my logic circuits at this present time dictate that it is true. — christian2017

Logic is one way of relating to the significance of an experience - one of many different systems or structures that we can use to ‘determine’ what is true. Through logic you would see @“Terrapin Station”’s 99-1 odds and discard the 1% as negligible. Yet if those numbers described the odds of your child dying from cancer, for instance, you might be looking for any other way to evaluate the experience than logically. Because a 1% chance of survival has more value to you in this experience than the 99.

Why do you wish there is free will?

Sorry if I am rambling. I feel you have a more academic (advanced) understanding of ideas that have been bouncing around in my head for years...So I just keep going to see what else you can add :smile:

Feel free to ignore me, as I doubt I am adding much that will help you — ZhouBoTong

Ramble away - I do. It’s probably only that I’ve bounced these ideas around in a different environment. I’ve really only been playing with philosophy for a few short years - and not very academically, either. Don’t assume that because I drop a philosopher’s name or two I have any more than a cursory understanding of their work.

But I also "know" my thoughts exist in the same way I "know" that "I" exist. More specifically, I don't know either. But my thoughts provide me with evidence of my existence more than any external factor possibly could. — ZhouBoTong

What you’re explaining here is, in my view, a five dimensional subjective experience. The ‘conscious self’ (‘I’) exists as an experience of interacting four dimensional events, both internal and externally observable. The ‘evidence’ I have that my self exists consists of the experience of internal events; your ‘evidence’ that I have a ‘conscious self’ comes from your experience of externally observable events. Yet neither of us are certain that what we experience (‘know’) is ACTUAL, except that we agree on the experience (‘knowledge’) that these events interact with what we can agree is actual by its relationship to mutually observable/measurable data: the body, heart rate, etc.

Thoughts exist in much the same way. They’re ‘real’ because of the relationships that exist between 5D subjective experiences of 4D events interacting with 3D observable objects consisting of measurable data.

It is in this 5D structure of the mind that the experience (knowledge or understanding) of any event in spacetime has the capacity to interact with the experience of any other event. It is here that I think this ‘ontological freedom’ is ours: insomuch as we are aware of, connecting and collaborating with the potential in each experience. We have the capacity to intervene, to prevent predicted events from occurring, to change the causal conditions of future events, even to alter the ongoing effect of past causes, etc. by changing how we relate to the significance of an experience.

If we have a universe with just two particles, and particle A strikes particle B, then either particle B is causally determined to react with a certain velocity (speed & direction), or if particle B might react with one velocity rather than another, even if there are 99-1 odds for the two velocities, and there are no unknown forces at play, then by definition, there's some randomness in the resultant velocity. That's ontological freedom. — Terrapin Station

I like this explanation. I think it’s consistent with how I’ve been looking at it, just described in a MUCH simpler way. I feel like I’ve taken a long and complicated journey to somewhere, only to come across you standing there, saying ‘You do realise there’s a more direct route, don’t you?’

Experience counts for a lot. Thank you for this.

Force-recruiting more people into an inescapable game to strive-after, deal with that "informs existence" is all that matters here. The burdens of the "thrownness" of our situation (what is already-established and cannot be changed at all or readily changed by one person certainly), is all that matters. Potential is a propaganda tool to recruit yet more people to this existential scheme. — schopenhauer1

It clearly matters to you, but it doesn’t matter to everyone - not necessarily because they’re ignorant of the ‘prison’ they’re in, but because they’ve found a way to escape the value structure you believe is a permanent fixture. There is no ‘already-established’ that cannot be changed, except that your subjective value structure renders it so. You’re actually railing against a system that it is within your capacity to deconstruct for yourself, and for others, simply by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with anything that challenges its reality.

But all your ranting about ‘propaganda’ and ‘force-recruiting’ only reinforces what you find so abhorrent. It’s like a prisoner constantly claiming their innocence, declaring that they shouldn’t even be in jail and complaining about the walls and the guards and the restrictions - it does nothing to change the reality, it only becomes tiresome to those around you. It’s not like we don’t see this already.

Whether we agree with your interpretation or not makes no difference - we’re all in the same physical situation. If you believe there is nothing that can be done about that, then why even bring it up? If others choose to interact with the world in a way that brings a more satisfying structure to their experience of the same situation, who are you to say that it’s false, when the structure within which you continue to interact with the world renders you a prisoner? Is it because the sense of purpose and joy they may express as a result only reinforces your feeling of hopelessness?

You seem to be a prisoner of society’s apparently ‘already-established’ value systems. I’m not. I cannot change what others do, but I can demonstrate a way to experience reality that strips the so-called ‘recruiting’ of its apparent force, rather than just complaining about it.

Taking this more existentially, and less mythical-dramatically, life is striving-after, always in a deprived state. The sooner people realize this,the more empathy we have for our state as fellow-strivers, how we treat each other, and how we respond to each other. — schopenhauer1

This here, I agree with. Absolutely. It’s where you take it from here that I find difficult to understand from my perspective. But up to this point, I’m with you.

There is nothing to get after, nothing to be, nowhere to go. Those are culturally-created and perpetuated values that are promoted by many who want to keep it that way. Rather, we are sufferers in and by existence. — schopenhauer1

Where you see nothing here, I see potential. Where you see culturally created values, I see attempts to map a value structure that reflects our current level of awareness, connection and collaboration with reality. And where you see the promotion of insufficient value structures by many who want to keep it that way, I see fear, denial and avoidance of the striving-after - the pain, loss and humility - that informs our existence.