I agree with you about the testability of science. Anecdotal evidence is problematic. With neuroscience it is about mapping and is different from experiments. As far as I see, Dispenza's ideas are consistent with mainstream science.

With neuroscience it is about mapping and is different from experiments — Jack Cummins

NO. Neuroscience is HARD science.

It is true that a lot of intellectual discussions about free will vs determinism go round in circles. It may be about the nature of opposites in human thinking and living with paradoxical aspects of life. Each person is part of so many chains of cause and effect in the web of life.

In fairness I just glanced at the pdf of the book ... it is pop-science rather than pseudoscience.

Not knowing much about the author that book appears to be an attempt at a self-help book like thousands of others. I think it might be a bit rich to call yourself a 'researcher' though :D Perhaps he is an amateur scholar of neuroscience (like me) and nothing more.

I had never heard of him before tbh. When it comes to pop-neuroscience I go for Damasio or Gazzaniga.

Neuroscience is HARD science insofar as it can be backed up by medical evidence. However, there is a lot to be learned at this stage, especially as each person is unique. For example, when people are given psychiatric medication some of the effects vary so much from one person to another, often making it a case of hit and miss. Also, the role of chemicals in will are complex. In particular, neurotransmitters affect motivation but so do experiences.

This means that there is a complex interaction between brain chemicals and human interpretation of experiences. So, understanding human will and choice involves both science of the brain and a person's meanings. The latter is harder to formulate into science. The most positive way forward would involve quantitative and qualitative research, possibly involving the psychological therapies as well as forms of psychoactive medication.

Neuroscience is HARD science insofar as it can be backed up by medical evidence. However, there is a lot to be learned at this stage, especially as each person is unique. — Jack Cummins

This is a common misconception. A great deal can be elicited from a comparatively small sample. I know this because an actual practicing researcher in neuroscience from Italy told me this. Granted, when it comes to medication and such all pharma is doing is basically carpet-bombing the brain it is far, far away from laser-guided missiles AND even then there is the issue of negative feedback (eg. drugs for depression).

This means that there is a complex interaction between brain chemicals and human interpretation of experiences. So, understanding human will and choice involves both science of the brain and a person's meanings. The latter is harder to formulate into science. The most positive way forward would involve quantitative and qualitative research, possibly involving the psychological therapies as well as forms of psychoactive medication. — Jack Cummins

It is not simply HARDER it is not science. I do not think taking psychoactive drugs will reveal much about will or choice and I am unsure why you even suggest that they would? Psychology is a SOFT science and is too poorly grounded in empiricism - yet still clings to it. I prefer the phenomenological approach (which I discovered reading cognitive neuroscience textbooks).

Speculation is fun, but if you want to get serious you have to get your hands dirty and commit to the grind ;)

Speculation is fun, but if you want to get serious you have to get your hands dirty and commit to the grind ;) — I like sushi

:up: :up:

I prefer the phenomenological approach (which I discovered reading cognitive neuroscience textbooks). — I like sushi

I don't expect to be able to make head nor tail of such books. But I would like to try. can you name some?

This looks cool!: https://epdf.pub/the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-mind-a-tribute-to-michael-s-gazzaniga.html

The ones I have on my shelf are called Principles of Neuroscience and The Cognitive Neurosciences III (the later by Gazzaniga and is a selection of studies split into specific areas of research) There will be newer editions now I am sure!

The area of philosophy and neuroscience is complicated. That is because neuroscience is a growing field of empirical understanding of the brain. This opens up so much dialogue between philosophy and psychology, in thinking about cognition and what free will entails and means.

This is also in line with compatabilism, which sees determined and determining aspects of human consciousness. — Jack Cummins

The issue with determinism is that what has happened in the past determines what will happen in the future. A determinist and a free willist may both agree that the past has been determined, but where they would disagree is on how the past relates to the future, the free willist denying that the past determines the future in the way of necessity. The two cannot be made compatible. Distinguishing a determined part from a determining part denies determinism because under determinism the determined part (past) is the determining part. And for the free willist the distinction only recognizes the difference between the past-looking and future-looking aspects of consciousness.

The issue of the past is different from a deterministic perspective from that of the free will outlook. The necessity of the deterministic view carries so much inevitability which may bring about self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course, it is not easy to do things differently because learned patterns are hard to break.

There is also the question as to whether the direction of time is two way. The future may affect the past, probably on an unconscious level, because it is about becoming and development. I am not sure that this is different according to whether one believes in free will or not. However, the deterministic perspective is far more about linear causation and can even imply a person is a victim of the past, especially if one has experienced traumas. It can involves seeing one's childhood as the source of difficulties, with some sense of victimhood. The idea of free will allows more focus on the present and being the author of one's future self.

Well those are expensive! :rofl: I wouldn't mind the price if I had a chance of understanding them. Gazzaniga's The Conscious Instinct is a good deal more affordable.


Indeed, the most fascinating topic of all, imo.

You used to be able to find free pdf for the edition I have a few years back. I would download the one I pointed out and just skim through. Don't worry about understanding it too much, once you read through more and more you get accustomed to the jargon.

The Gazzaniga one's are particularly good. I think I still have studies printed out somewhere on the section of Language comparing human capacities with various other animals. It was pretty cool!

Anyway, his pop science is probably a good way in too. I would recommend Damasio too as they are likely quite different perspectives - I personally find Gazzaniga's work more rigid.

Also, check out these too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGtZek7RPts&t=1695s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilrelFkDYls

How useful is this area of brain research to the debate between free will and determinism? — Jack Cummins

It might be interesting or useful if choices were made by brains. But choices are made by people.

We have learned a bit about the strings and the pulling of them but are completely in the dark about the puppet master.

Do you think that self-mastery is possible? — Jack Cummins

Sure. At least, I don't see what is problematic about self mastery.

We have learned a bit about the strings and the pulling of them but are completely in the dark about the puppet master. — Manuel

Perhaps because "the puppet master" is merely a grammatical illusion (i.e. "doer" attributed to doing – "subject" of a predicate) that amounts to folk psychology's homunculus fallacy. Consider (e.g.) Buddha's anattā¹ ... Hume's bundle² ... Metzinger's PSM³ ... :chin:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81 [1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_theory [2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_model [3]


@Jack Cummins

You could be possessed. You don't know.

You could be possessed. You don't know — frank

:yikes:

Yes, that did come out much more literal than it should have. It's a metaphor, not literal, meaning, we can see how certain activities are reflected in the brain, we can see a certain patterns between a person doing one thing vs. a person doing another and what that reliably may trigger.

But what we don't know is how we do X rather than Y. For that we don't have a way to do research.

It's been a while since I read Metzinger - very interesting from what I recall.

As for Hume, yes, but he was analyzing the self in so far as it could be subject to empirical investigation, meaning his system.

But he was very clear that his system concerning the self was "very defective". and concluded, lamentably that:

"In short there are two principles, which I cannot render consistent; nor is it in my power to renounce either of them, viz., that all our distinct perceptions are distinct existences, and that the mind never perceives any real connexion among distinct existences. Did our perceptions either inhere in something simple and individual, or did the mind perceive some real connexion among them, there wou’d be no difficulty in the case. For my part, I must plead the privilege of a sceptic, and confess, that this difficulty is too hard for my understanding."

Self-mastery may be POSSIBLE but not that easy to achieve in the full sense. That is because few people have the degree of discipline that they need to live up to highest ideals of what they would like to be able to in all areas of their lives. That is because in spite of choice most people have flaws and blindspots, especially in being affected by the subconscious, or the internal saboueur.

Full sense meaning being experts or elite at something? I mean, very few, there is an important genetic component to consider when talking about elite level anything.

But I think the of a highest ideals "in all areas of life" is probably not possible. Or if it is, it is very very rare. Unless you have in mind something else.

I realise that what I am speaking of may seem elitist, almost like Plato's idea of the 'philosopher kings', or Nietzsche's 'superman'. However, the perspective which I am coming from is that of not viewing evolution as having been reached ultimately.

It is possible that evolution of consciousness is still ongoing. The choices human beings make can be seen as that ongoing development of going beyond the aspects of 'robotic' functioning. I am thinking of the developments of certain individuals, such as great artists and thinkers, such as spoken of by Robert Bucke in 'Cosmic Consciousness'. It may be seen as intent and freedom of thought.

Ah. Maybe. It's hard to say.

It is hard to say, and I do wonder if suffering and crisis itself is what may lead to shifts in thinking. I hope that I am not being too optimistic. It just seems rather strange if evolution is reached, with no further possibilities in terms of consciousness.

Perhaps the prospect artificial general intelligence (AGI) is "the next step in evolution" – post-biological metacognition. As a species h. sapiens today is removed from nature enough to be completely free of adaptive selection pressures making us an evolutionary dead end: from evolution (re: barely good enough adaptations) to development (re: strategic-technical optimizations (e.g. AGI)). Human "consciousness" – phenomenal self-awareness (i.e. subjectivity) – might be a spandrel¹ that is suboptimal (e.g. a metacognitive bottleneck) and therefore not needed to take that "next step". What do you think?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology) [1]

However, the perspective which I am coming from is that of not viewing evolution as having been reached ultimately. — Jack Cummins

I would say that the idea that evolution has reached some kind of end, would be very foolish.

Other forms of consciousness are not even hypothetical, we have all kinds of animals which, according to all available evidence do experience the world in a very different way.

But as for shifts in human consciousness - well, so little is understood from a scientific perspective, that speaking of "evolution" of consciousness may be premature.

But possible. For us right now? We likely won't see a massive change. But, who knows?

:up:

I have wondered if artificial intelligence, or the combination of sentience with it, will be the next stage of evolution of consciousness. This is especially in the light of the ecological crisis and James Lovelock suggested this in his final writings.

However, there is the question of whether artificial consciousness has will independently of human programming. Also, it is a move in the direction of some disembodiment. That would make it like some form of spirit beings beyond the confines of human mortality.

It is true that animals have consciousness which is beyond human experience. It is anthromorphism when humans claim superiority.

As far as the current situation, life is so unstable and changing constantly, that some kind of shifts are going to occur in consciousness, for better or worse. The ecological crisis, wars and poverty are turning life upside down rapidly for so many. It is like the REM song,' It'sThe End of the World (As We Know It'). Humanity may have entered into the stage of post-apocalyptic consciousness.