Free Will

[BeRational]

No...the unconscious ability to predict patterns in the working of our lives, is not the same thing.

Think in terms of the unconscious mind that works behind and beyond our awareness....

I think you missed my point about me being convinced that the colours red and green exists and that people can distinguish between them.

How can I do that, when I cannot see them?

[Stranger]

No...the unconscious ability to predict patterns in the working of our lives, is not the same thing.

Unsupported assertion. We are all over-sensitive to patterns (for good evolutionary reasons) which is why we see faces in clouds and so on. If the ability to detect patterns is above average, the incidence of false positives will also be above average. For the same good evolutionary reasons, we also have a tendency to ascribe agency to things when it doesn't exist.

[Sriram]

I think you missed my point about me being convinced that the colours red and green exists and that people can distinguish between them.

How can I do that, when I cannot see them?

You are just trusting people.  And once you can distinguish between colors, understanding color blindness is not difficult.

A born blind person understanding light is a different thing altogether.

My reply to torridon is about the unconscious mind that works behind our conscious awareness.

[Sriram]

Unsupported assertion. We are all over-sensitive to patterns (for good evolutionary reasons) which is why we see faces in clouds and so on. If the ability to detect patterns is above average, the incidence of false positives will also be above average. For the same good evolutionary reasons, we also have a tendency to ascribe agency to things when it doesn't exist.

How do you even KNOW that these patterns are false?!   You just believe that to be so because you can't detect them.

[BeRational]

You are just trusting people.  And once you can distinguish between colors, understanding color blindness is not difficult.

A born blind person understanding light is a different thing altogether.

My reply to torridon is about the unconscious mind that works behind our conscious awareness.

I think you are just avoiding the argument that undoes you. I can test for red and green to see if people can detect them. I can easily come up with a way to test if people can detect them.
In fact I do not even need to,as it is apparent when out with others that are not colour blind.

I am blind to X-Rays, but I am currently convinced they exist. Do you think they exist because you cannot see them either?

[Stranger]

How do you even KNOW that these patterns are false?!   You just believe that to be so because you can't detect them.

I didn't claim that I know they are false, just that without objective evidence we have no basis on which to conclude they are true.

The problem is that if you can't know that something is definitely a 'detection' rather than a false positive, it's more rational not to jump to the conclusion that it's a detection (burden of proof). I 'notice' patterns all the time, most of which can be simply explained by humans not being very good at intuitive probability and not coping with randomness very well.

[torridon]

No...the unconscious ability to predict patterns in the working of our lives, is not the same thing.

Think in terms of the unconscious mind that works behind and beyond our awareness....

Yes cognitive bias is largely unconscious, I'm not arguing it to be a conscious bias.  Merely arguing that pattern recognition goes on unconsciously does not mean it is not biased.  These biases derive from the fact that our minds did not evolve to show us 'reality', whatever that is, they evolved to keep us alive at minimum calorific cost. Big difference.  Hence I can see faces in carpets that aren't actually there, it is merely a bias.  This is why we do science to investigate the world, because we have come to realise the extent to which personal experience alone is skewed by unconscious biases.

[Sriram]

I know all these are dead end arguments....but you must remember the ideas of panpsychism and cosmopsychism.

You think of the unconscious mind as just a back office of the conscious mind. It isn't. The unconscious mind is the actual workplace and the conscious mind is just the front office.

[Stranger]

I know all these are dead end arguments....but you must remember the ideas of panpsychism and cosmopsychism.

So far neither conjecture has any supporting evidence.

You think of the unconscious mind as just a back office of the conscious mind. It isn't. The unconscious mind is the actual workplace and the conscious mind is just the front office.

Asserting a rather vague and unsupported analogy doesn't really help. Especially as the exact relationship between the concious and unconscious mind is not directly relevant.

[torridon]

You think of the unconscious mind as just a back office of the conscious mind. It isn't. The unconscious mind is the actual workplace and the conscious mind is just the front office.

I don't dispute that characterisation, particularly.  I'd agree conscious mind derives from unconscious mind.  But that doesn't mean unconscious mind is free of bias.  Rather, the biases that manifest in conscious mind, like all things mental, they derive/emerge from non consious origins.

[Sriram]

I don't dispute that characterisation, particularly.  I'd agree conscious mind derives from unconscious mind.  But that doesn't mean unconscious mind is free of bias.  Rather, the biases that manifest in conscious mind, like all things mental, they derive/emerge from non consious origins.

The whole point I am making is that the unconscious mind is an unknown quantity. It is far bigger and far more complex than the conscious mind. What drives it and what its nature is ...is unknown. That is where Panpsychism and cosmopsychism come in.

The moment we realize that the unconscious mind is more powerful and controls our lives more than the conscious mind is aware of.....the entire issue of implicit patterns and hidden forces opens up.   

Hidden forces and unseen patterns are not just some strange supernatural or mystical issues or imagined things. They are real!

[Stranger]

The whole point I am making is that the unconscious mind is an unknown quantity. It is far bigger and far more complex than the conscious mind. What drives it and what its nature is ...is unknown.

It's not like we know nothing about it and there is plentiful evidence that its 'nature' is that it is something the brain does.

That is where Panpsychism and cosmopsychism come in.

Baseless assertion.

The moment we realize that the unconscious mind is more powerful and controls our lives more than the conscious mind is aware of.....the entire issue of implicit patterns and hidden forces opens up.   

Such a 'realisation' doesn't change the fact that being more sensitive to patterns means more false positive and it doesn't tell us anything whatsoever about the veracity of claims of 'hidden forces'.

Hidden forces and unseen patterns are not just some strange supernatural or mystical issues or imagined things. They are real!

Another baseless assertion. 

[torridon]

The whole point I am making is that the unconscious mind is an unknown quantity. It is far bigger and far more complex than the conscious mind. What drives it and what its nature is ...is unknown. That is where Panpsychism and cosmopsychism come in.

The moment we realize that the unconscious mind is more powerful and controls our lives more than the conscious mind is aware of.....the entire issue of implicit patterns and hidden forces opens up.   

Hidden forces and unseen patterns are not just some strange supernatural or mystical issues or imagined things. They are real!

Faces in carpets are not real.  Your're not getting this - that seemingly esoteric or 'hidden' patterns that minds apparently discern but insentient machines do not discern are likely not real.  This is why in science we build instruments to see if things are real or just an artefact of a mind fixated on seeing patterns and coming up with false positives. Insentient machines do not share our predispostions, biases, hopes, fears, prejudices etc.

[Sriram]

Ok....thanks guys.... 

[BeRational]

Ok....thanks guys....

This blind thing you mention. This is just daft.
Are you convinced things which you cannot see exist?
X Rays, atoms,electrons etc?

[Alan Burns]

The impression I get from recent exchanges on this thread is of an independent observer trying to understand the workings of a biological machine - with no apparent recognition that said independent observer is actually that machine!

Can the observer and the machine it analyses really be the same thing?

And how does such capability to spend time and effort on examining their own existence arise from the presumption that we "evolved to keep us alive at minimum calorific cost" (to quote Torri.)

[jeremyp]

The impression I get from recent exchanges on this thread is of an independent observer trying to understand the workings of a biological machine - with no apparent recognition that said independent observer is actually that machine!

Can the observer and the machine it observes really be the same thing?

Clearly they can, because we do. In fact, you can observe yourself quite easily with the aid of a mirror.

What is more intriguing is the question "can we understand ourselves?" Perhaps the answer to that is that we can't in a complete sense.

And how does such capability to spend time and effort on examining their own existence arise from the presumption that we "evolved to keep us alive at minimum calorific cost" (to quote Torri.)

Well that's not true. We evolved to maximise our chance of reproduction. Calorific cost is only one factor out of many that might make us more or less successful at reproducing.

[Sriram]

This blind thing you mention. This is just daft.
Are you convinced things which you cannot see exist?
X Rays, atoms,electrons etc?

You are not getting it.   It is not that things that we can't see cannot  exist. They can...and if we find out indirectly that they exist, we can acknowledge their existence. That is not what I am talking about.

My point is that born blind people cannot know of the existence of light even though it is all around them. They can (if they are stubborn enough)  deny the existence of light and there is no way you can convince them of it.

It is similar with the existence of subtle forces and patterns that some people are unable to sense. If you don't have the faculty you just cannot sense it. Either you take it on faith (in the motives and abilities of other people) or just keep denying it.

Thanks...

[torridon]

Calorific cost is only one factor out of many that might make us more or less successful at reproducing.

Brains come at a huge cost, they are very expensive to run. Competition guarantees efficiencies, and variants that can do the same jobs at lower cost will win out over time.  So brains have evolved to cut corners, and perception proceeds by a Bayesian prediction mechanism, this is both faster and cheaper than building perception from the ground up from raw sensory input.  Which works fine in most respects, except for the occasional illusion eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_optical_illusions#/media/File:Poiuyt.svg

[torridon]

The impression I get from recent exchanges on this thread is of an independent observer trying to understand the workings of a biological machine - with no apparent recognition that said independent observer is actually that machine!

Can the observer and the machine it analyses really be the same thing?

And how does such capability to spend time and effort on examining their own existence arise from the presumption that we "evolved to keep us alive at minimum calorific cost" (to quote Torri.)

All vertebrates have some or other degree of self awareness.  This is what the CNS is for, to keep you aware of how all parts of you are doing.  Individuals with a richer sense of self, such as humans, will have enhanced ability to look after their selves, I don't see why this should be surprising.

[Stranger]

You are not getting it.

That appears to be you.

It is not that things that we can't see cannot  exist. They can...and if we find out indirectly that they exist, we can acknowledge their existence. That is not what I am talking about.

Yes and it's the "find out independently" that's the important point here.

My point is that born blind people cannot know of the existence of light even though it is all around them. They can (if they are stubborn enough)  deny the existence of light and there is no way you can convince them of it.

It wouldn't be being stubborn, it would be being stupid and not open to objective evidence.

It is similar with the existence of subtle forces and patterns that some people are unable to sense. If you don't have the faculty you just cannot sense it. Either you take it on faith (in the motives and abilities of other people) or just keep denying it.

Blind people don't accept light on faith, I don't accept x-rays, infrared, or the existence of atoms on faith, even though I can't directly sense any of them. We accept these things because there is independent and objective evidence, not just people making unsupported assertions.

As soon as you can come up with even the first hint of objective evidence, your claims will become more than baseless assertions about what you think you might be detecting, with no check on it being a false positive.

If it's actually anything like a sense, it should be trivially easy to objectively test it by putting such people in the same situation, but unable to communicate with each other, and seeing if they 'detect' the same thing (which is a way a blind person could check claims of sight).

[jeremyp]

You are not getting it.   It is not that things that we can't see cannot  exist. They can...and if we find out indirectly that they exist, we can acknowledge their existence. That is not what I am talking about.

My point is that born blind people cannot know of the existence of light even though it is all around them. They can (if they are stubborn enough)  deny the existence of light and there is no way you can convince them of it.

It is similar with the existence of subtle forces and patterns that some people are unable to sense. If you don't have the faculty you just cannot sense it. Either you take it on faith (in the motives and abilities of other people) or just keep denying it.

Thanks...

You cn always find people who are stubborn enough not to accept the evidence. In fact, there seem to be rather a lot of you around.

However, it certainly is possible to convince rational blind people of the existence of light. We just use other means of detecting it. For example, nobody has ever directly experienced radioactivity, but we can hear it by means of a geiger counter.

[ekim]

If it's actually anything like a sense, it should be trivially easy to objectively test it by putting such people in the same situation, but unable to communicate with each other, and seeing if they 'detect' the same thing (which is a way a blind person could check claims of sight).

Reminds me of an H. G. Wells short story 'Country of the Blind', I think it was titled.  A sighted man stumbled into a country where everybody was blind.  He kept telling them that he had vision.  Eventually they found him so disturbing that they  decided that he was mentally ill,  that it was caused by the strange protuberances that he called 'eyes' and that the cure was to surgically remove them.

[BeRational]

You are not getting it.   It is not that things that we can't see cannot  exist. They can...and if we find out indirectly that they exist, we can acknowledge their existence. That is not what I am talking about.

My point is that born blind people cannot know of the existence of light even though it is all around them. They can (if they are stubborn enough)  deny the existence of light and there is no way you can convince them of it.

It is similar with the existence of subtle forces and patterns that some people are unable to sense. If you don't have the faculty you just cannot sense it. Either you take it on faith (in the motives and abilities of other people) or just keep denying it.

Thanks...

But I take nothing on faith. I think think faith should never be used.

If people are stubborn they can keep rejecting things,  but they are not being reasonable and nor are they being skeptical.