Free will or lack of.......

[WesD]

1 hour ago, the village idiot said:

Hi Wes,

 

That's not really accurate. The thing that triggered my change in relationship with my depression was the sentence "You are not your thoughts". It was in a book I was just happening to read because I had liked other books on different topics by the same author. The book wasn't about depression.

Reading that sentence was an input which started to change your output. 

You chose to read that book you chose the input you found the defining sentence. 

 

I agree you you are not your thoughts, they are automated by the brain however you can stop them and ask for different thoughts and deliberate you can think of a topic and talk to yourself in your head and ask your brain to produce the goods. Think of any random item I won’t name one as to influence but think of any random item pick something and think about what you have chosen. Output automatic, input controlled. 

 

Quote

 

The effect of those words set me off on a fact finding mission encompassing neuroscience, buddhism, psychology etc. I educated myself out of the negative effects of my condition. Mindfulness meditation came in afterwards to see if the science could be backed up through my own direct experience of watching my thoughts.

It interested you so you wanted more inputs, you controlled what inputs you immersed yourself with. 

Quote

Reading the aforementioned words was a chance event which set in motion other events that ultimately led to my change in relationship to thinking.  I didn't choose my 'treatment' it just happened, and I'm bloomin grateful it did.

You have proven inputs can change outputs. It didn’t just happen you made it happen and you should credit yourself with that. 

Quote

It is cool that you have settled at a point you are happy with. That's all any of us can do. I have a different interpretation to you, and that is cool too!

Maybe free will is like faith wherein you have to believe you have it. 

Quote

My one note of caution would be to restate that you really can't trust your own subjective interpretation of what your mind is doing. It's a little bit like expecting a thief to catch himself in the act and turn himself in.

Then why would you trust anybody else’s as they also can’t trust their own subjective interpretation of what their mind is doing so on that note where back to square one and no one knows what’s what. More questions that can’t be quantified. 

Quote

Purely watching the mind in action can, in time, reveal an awful lot (I'm told). Up until then you have to throw logic and objective evidence at the issue. When you do this(for me anyway) it leaves free will with absolutely no place at the table.

Not sure how this is possible without trusting the subjective interpretation of the mind as purely watching the mind in action still requires thought to explain and to quantify your achievement. 

Edited January 6, 2018 by WesD

[Billhook]

 

 

[the village idiot]

9 hours ago, WesD said:

Reading that sentence was an input which started to change your output. 

You chose to read that book you chose the input you found the defining sentence. 

 

I agree you you are not your thoughts, they are automated by the brain however you can stop them and ask for different thoughts and deliberate you can think of a topic and talk to yourself in your head and ask your brain to produce the goods. Think of any random item I won’t name one as to influence but think of any random item pick something and think about what you have chosen. Output automatic, input controlled. 

 

It interested you so you wanted more inputs, you controlled what inputs you immersed yourself with. 

You have proven inputs can change outputs. It didn’t just happen you made it happen and you should credit yourself with that. 

Maybe free will is like faith wherein you have to believe you have it. 

Then why would you trust anybody else’s as they also can’t trust their own subjective interpretation of what their mind is doing so on that note where back to square one and no one knows what’s what. More questions that can’t be quantified. 

Not sure how this is possible without trusting the subjective interpretation of the mind as purely watching the mind in action still requires thought to explain and to quantify your achievement. 

Maybe think about it this way Wes.

 

You agree, and are happy with the fact that all brain outputs (thoughts, emotions, intentions, actions) are automatic. This really is end of story as far as free will goes.

 

Any thought, choice, desire etc is a brain output.

 

My view is that you are falling into the trap of identifying a select few of the outputs and mistakenly excusing them from your correct assertion that all brain outputs are automatic. This is a very common error (I do it all the time).

 

Your brain inputs are determined by your brain outputs in an ever advancing cycle. If brain outputs are automatic, so must be the inputs. There is no free will in that.

Edited January 6, 2018 by the village idiot

[WesD]

10 minutes ago, the village idiot said:

Maybe think about it this way Wes.

 

You agree, and are happy with the fact that all brain outputs (thoughts, emotions, intentions, actions) are automatic. This really is end of story as far as free will goes.

 

Any thought, choice, desire etc is a brain output.

Outputs need inputs you can control inputs. Ie I need to eat output auto. What to eat McDonald’s or homemade dinner input controlled. Output achieved. 

10 minutes ago, the village idiot said:

 

My view is that you are falling into the trap of identifying a select few of the outputs and mistakenly excusing them from your correct assertion that all brain outputs are automatic. This is a very common error (I do it all the time).

No I agree outputs are automatic but you can change the output via inputs which can be controlled. You may not have a choice of output but you can change/manipulate it with new inputs. 

You have proven this to yourself with your own outlook on life created by chosen inputs. 

10 minutes ago, the village idiot said:

 

Your brain inputs are determined by your brain outputs in an ever advancing cycle. If brain outputs are automatic, so must be the inputs. There is no free will in that.

I’m looking at it different to you I’m looking and identifying with inputs rather than holding onto outputs. If your output says I want to watch tv and by input you turn the tv on you can choose what to watch output achieved all the same. 

 

We can also prioritise outputs and choose inputs to fulfil them how we please. 

 

There is is more than one route to get to the same destination. 

 

I struggle to to comprehend how you have closed yourself from the idea that free will doesn’t exist if you can’t trust your subjective interpretation of your mind? 

 

Unless of course you do trust it it in which case it would be rather unfair to tell someone they can’t trust theirs. If you don’t trust your own mind how can you trust Sam Harris’ and find clarity where there can be none due to lack of trust. 

 

If you can’t trust your mind you can’t trust your findings, if you can’t trust your findings then all this is circumstantial guesswork not to be believed, free will or not. 

[the village idiot]

3 minutes ago, WesD said:

I struggle to to comprehend how you have closed yourself from the idea that free will doesn’t exist if you can’t trust your subjective interpretation of your mind?

You can bypass the subjective interpretation of your mind pretty effectively by turning to logic and good scientific evidence. This takes you out of your own head somewhat and things can be analysed objectively. You are quite right to point out that insight gained through introspective analysis (meditation) is somewhat unreliable, but the fact that insights gained through quality meditation support the logical and scientific proposition of no free will adds significant weight to the conclusion.

 

The decision of whether to have Mcdonalds or homemade dinner is an output (automatic). The output was determined by your brain as a result of many many different inputs. All of these inputs were themselves determined by previous outputs (automatic). It is a chain of automatic cause and effect, at some points given a false sense of agency by the brain. (Yet another automatic output).

[onetruth]

16 hours ago, WesD said:

(1) What you are describing could be a bug in the system as you earlier alluded too, the fact that those things do not effect everyone in the same way kind of suggests that but with any of them (I’m going to generalise them as a group to be a cop out as I haven’t experienced any of them so cant comment from experience but only offer my thoughts and I’d rather not upset anyone whose going through or gone through any of them) with some training or help with your thoughts can be broken. 

 

The fact that they dont effect everyone and could be seen as a bug would kind of say it would be strange for every single mind on the planet to have a bug to stop ourselves in thought or to change thought. Which would point towards not bug, will. 

 

(2) We dont have limitations of mind we came from a cave we wouldn’t be this advanced if we did. 

 

(3) Point is he chose an input which works to alter output. 

 

All you mentioned will probably have a root cause to kick out that output they feel stuck in but people who have all come out the other side will have changed inputs to get different outputs, if you read why do you choose a topic you could read any book in the world to feed the itch/output of needing to read?

 

I personally feel we have a choice based on outputs that are automatic but we can change outputs with inputs to a degree. We have free will in a limited capacity but it is their. 

(1) I regret using the term "bug" and bringing up the computing analogy - I was making a point about brains having evolved by chance mutation, rather than in pursuit of a particular purpose for which they have been optimised.  For clarity, I do not see myself as just a malfunctioning computer.  That said, I think it is a wholly reasonable position to hold, just not one I happen to agree with.

 

Nor did I mean to suggest that everyone suffers from addiction - I was using them as examples of how (some) people are unable to break trains of thought they know to be detrimental.  More universal examples are things like anger, disappointment and regret, where the mind dwells in an unpleasant state and is unable (for some time at least) to snap out of it.  Surely you've experienced the pointlessness of indulging these emotions when, for instance, you've been wronged or done something you're ashamed of?  If you really had mastery of your will, you'd divert your thoughts the moment you realised that they weren't getting you anywhere.

 

(2) The mind is powerful enough to have got us out of the caves, but it is still limited: it hasn't got us beyond the stars yet.

 

(3) An input is chosen, but it is not clear how (or what) has "chosen" the input.  It is entirely possible that it is the inevitable consequence of whatever state the input-choosing-thing is in.  This isn't to deny free will, but it certainly makes it unnecessary.

 

By input, I assume you mean things like sensory inputs.  What else would you include?  I think that we hear/read (some of?) our thoughts as we think them, and that monitoring should be considered another input.  What about our desires - aren't they also inputs?  

[onetruth]

11 hours ago, WesD said:

(1) It interested you so you wanted more inputs, you controlled what inputs you immersed yourself with. 

 

(2) Maybe free will is like faith wherein you have to believe you have it. 

(1) Not necessarily: It was interesting -> Need to satisfy part of mind that seeks interesting things -> More inputs sought.

Consider hunger: you were hungry so you sought to satisfy the hunger, you have no control over the desire to satisfy the hunger.  Being interested in something could follow a similar pattern of desire followed by compulsion to try and satisfy the desire.

 

(2) Good way of looking at it.

[onetruth]

2 hours ago, the village idiot said:

My view is that you are falling into the trap of identifying a select few of the outputs and mistakenly excusing them from your correct assertion that all brain outputs are automatic. This is a very common error (I do it all the time).

 

Your brain inputs are determined by your brain outputs in an ever advancing cycle. If brain outputs are automatic, so must be the inputs. There is no free will in that.

This may be true, however there is another possibility: that you, having observed the automation within your mind, and become aware that so much of what you may have previously considered to be "you" is in fact just mechanical, you have fallen into the trap of assuming that all of it is automatic.  That is not necessarily the case.  It is correct to disassociate with body, sense, desire, thought, reason, will, etc. only if you are able to isolate that element from your identity.  If you say "I was wrong about this, therefore I must be wrong about this", you make a very similar mistake to that which originally led you to identify with those aspects you now reject.  

Edited January 6, 2018 by onetruth

[the village idiot]

7 minutes ago, onetruth said:

(2) Maybe free will is like faith wherein you have to believe you have it

Yes, this is a useful framing.

 

People fear losing their faith, but those that do find it's all perfectly fine, they just attribute the 'God given' elements to other more logical causes.

It is very much the same with losing belief in the ego (and by extention free will). All is still fine, you again just attribute the 'I' given elements to other more logical causes.

[the village idiot]

6 minutes ago, onetruth said:

This may be true, however there is another possibility: that you, having observed the automation within your mind, and become aware that so much of what you may have previously considered to be "you" is in fact just mechanical, you have fallen into the trap of assuming that all of it is automatic.  That is not necessarily the case.  It is correct to disassociate with body, sense, desire, thought, reason, will, etc. only if you are able to isolate that element from your identity.  If you say "I was wrong about this, therefore I must be wrong about this", you make a very similar mistake to that which originally led you to identify with those aspects you now reject.  

Interesting. So do you think that there are (or can be) any occurances in the mind/brain that are not initiated solely by the previous state of the mind/brain?

 

In other words. Does the brain have the ability to conjure up a completely novel occurence, independant of past history? Even if it could, I would still argue that this doesn't give you free will, as this (out of the ether) input would still be just as automatic as anything else.