“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[peacegirl]

The brain is what it is.

By convention chair refers to a class of objects.

Subjective and objective are words with meaning overrefined by convention, and context.

Point to a situation and say objective, point to another and say subjective.

A rock is what it is regardless of what we call it.

The brain itself is neither objective nor subjective.

I am contesting the idea that the brain has already made a decision before we become conscious of it, which frees us from all responsibility. I'm asking DBT to help me here even though I'm a determinist. I just don't understand Libet’s proof that gives us a free pass because we, on a conscious level, aren't making the decision. Of course we are which does not mean we have the free will to do otherwise. That's not the point.

Again you miss the point. The braijnis what it is regardless of words we use. Free will and determinism are just words that only have meaning we give them..

You're completely wrong. We are compelled by our nature to move in one direction, which makes your will unfree.

So, point to a situation and say that is determinism.....I don;'t think it can be done. It becomes self referential.

It's not about pointing to a situation and say that is determinism. There is nothing to point at because all of life is determined. We move away from a position of dissatisfaction to a position of greater satisfaction constantly or we would never move because we would be satisfied with the position we are in. Did you get out of bed this morning? Of course you did. Why? Because you were dissatisfied with lying in bed after feeling rested, and you had things to do, so you got up, which was a movement away from what has now become a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position. Did you brush your teeth? You did this because you were uncomfortable with how your mouth felt so which was a movement away from dissatisfaction toward greater satisfaction. Were you hungry which prompted you to look for something to eat? This was a movement away from a feeling of uncomfortableness or dissatisfaction toward a feeling of greater comfort or satisfaction. This small excerpt proves that will is not free. You can argue until the cows come home but you cannot move from dissatisfaction to greater dissatisfaction, which would be against the movement of all life. Every move we make, even if our options are limited, is away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction.

To prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life, we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied to remain in one position for always, which shall be termed death. I shall now call the present moment of time or life — here, for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up — there. You are now standing on this present moment called here and are given two alternatives; either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth, which is death or here. Which do you prefer?”

“I prefer . . .”

“Excuse the interruption, Jim, but the very fact that you started to answer me, or didn’t commit suicide at that moment, makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here, you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of satisfaction.”

 

[pood]

You have a thread for your writer’s book. Please keep it there.

 

[peacegirl]

You have a thread for your writer’s book. Please keep it there.

Don't tell me what to do.

 

[pood]

You have a thread for your writer’s book. Please keep it there.

Don't tell me what to do.

This thread is not about your father’s book, This is a derailment, and if you do it again I will report your posts.

 

[peacegirl]

You have a thread for your writer’s book. Please keep it there.

Don't tell me what to do.

This thread is not about your father’s book, This is a derailment, and if you do it again I will report your posts.

This thread discusses compatibilism. I am entitled to dispute it. Go report my posts. If they tell me I have to leave, then I'll leave. So do it.

 

[pood]

This thread is not about compatibilism. And you are entitled to post anything you want, but posting walls of copy pasťá from your book, for which you have your own thread, is a derailment.

 

[pood]

This thread is meant to address three links I offered in the OP.

 

[peacegirl]

This thread is not about compatibilism. And you are entitled to post anything you want, but posting walls of copy pasťá from your book, for which you have your own thread, is a derailment.

No it isn't. I didn't derail anything. I gave an appropriate response to Steve regarding the topic.

 

[pood]

This thread is not about compatibilism. And you are entitled to post anything you want, but posting walls of copy pasťá from your book, for which you have your own thread, is a derailment.

No it isn't. I didn't derail anything. I gave an appropriate response to Steve regarding the topic.

You have a thread for your father’s book. Use it.

 

[peacegirl]

This thread is not about compatibilism. And you are entitled to post anything you want, but posting walls of copy pasťá from your book, for which you have your own thread, is a derailment.

No it isn't. I didn't derail anything. I gave an appropriate response to Steve regarding the topic.

You have a thread for your father’s book. Use it.

I’m not interested in that thread anymore. There’s no point.

 

[peacegirl]

This thread is not about compatibilism. And you are entitled to post anything you want, but posting walls of copy pasťá from your book, for which you have your own thread, is a derailment.

No it isn't. I didn't derail anything. I gave an appropriate response to Steve regarding the topic.

You have a thread for your father’s book. Use it.

I’m not interested in that thread anymore. There’s no point. But I can respond to a discussion on free will, determinism, or compatibilism. I have valuable things to contribute.

 

[steve_bank]

You have a thread for your writer’s book. Please keep it there.

Don't tell me what to do.

There is forum etiquette. There are threads that cover compatabilism. You are free to start your own thread or restart one.

I moved a derail to an older thread on subjective vs objective.

We are not really free to post anything on any thread, we are required to stick to the OP.

If you keep finding ways to quote your book than you are pushing an agenda..

You seemed to get upset when you kept posting on your thread and people stopped responding. Take the hint, nobody is interested in your book and quotes thereof.

Take a look at Demystifying Determinism, brought it up to thee top. Take a look at post 6.

 

[peacegirl]

You have a thread for your writer’s book. Please keep it there.

Don't tell me what to do.

There is forum etiquette. There are threads that cover compatabilism. You are free to start your own thread or restart one.

I moved a derail to an older thread on subjective vs objective.

We are not really free to post anything on any thread, we are required to stick to the OP.

If you keep finding ways to quote your book than you are pushing an agenda..

You seemed to get upset when you kept posting on your thread and people stopped responding. Take the hint, nobody is interested in your book and quotes thereof.

I'm not pushing an agenda. I am participating in a subject that is important to me and I am allowed to respond when it comes up. How do you know what people are interested in Steve? If you're not interested in what I have to say, put me on ignore, or don't address me. You did not read any of the book, not even a smidgeon (you know I'm right), yet you have the audacity to try and tarnish it on my very own thread.

 

[steve_bank]

You have a thread for your writer’s book. Please keep it there.

Don't tell me what to do.

There is forum etiquette. There are threads that cover compatabilism. You are free to start your own thread or restart one.

I moved a derail to an older thread on subjective vs objective.

We are not really free to post anything on any thread, we are required to stick to the OP.

If you keep finding ways to quote your book than you are pushing an agenda..

You seemed to get upset when you kept posting on your thread and people stopped responding. Take the hint, nobody is interested in your book and quotes thereof.

I'm not pushing an agenda. I am participating in a subject that is important to me and I am allowed to respond when it comes up. How do you know what people are interested in Steve? If you're not interested in what I have to say, put me on ignore, or don't address me. You did not read any of the book, not even a smidgeon (you know I'm right), yet you have the audacity to try and tarnish it on my very own thread.

As usual you are either very shallow or you are willfully not understanding. When you start a thread you have right to not have it derailed or high jacked. Pood is within his rights to ask you to take your posts elsewhere.

So again, start a thread on where you want to take it.

Ever wonder why you never get any support anywhere you go? That's a lot of baggage you are carrying around.

If different people in different places give you the same feedback an intelligent person might
contemplate one's own behavior.

 

[peacegirl]

You have a thread for your writer’s book. Please keep it there.

Don't tell me what to do.

There is forum etiquette. There are threads that cover compatabilism. You are free to start your own thread or restart one.

I moved a derail to an older thread on subjective vs objective.

We are not really free to post anything on any thread, we are required to stick to the OP.

If you keep finding ways to quote your book than you are pushing an agenda..

You seemed to get upset when you kept posting on your thread and people stopped responding. Take the hint, nobody is interested in your book and quotes thereof.

I'm not pushing an agenda. I am participating in a subject that is important to me and I am allowed to respond when it comes up. How do you know what people are interested in Steve? If you're not interested in what I have to say, put me on ignore, or don't address me. You did not read any of the book, not even a smidgeon (you know I'm right), yet you have the audacity to try and tarnish it on my very own thread.

As usual you are either very shallow or you are willfully not understanding. When you start a thread you have right to not have it derailed or high jacked. Pood is within his rights to ask you to take your posts elsewhere.

I’m not hijacking his thread. I’ve been singled out and targeted!

So again, start a thread on where you want to take it.

Ever wonder why you never get any support anywhere you go? That's a lot of baggage you are carrying around.

Psychobabble! Why do you keep responding to me which keeps me having to respond to this nonsense?

If different people in different places give you the same feedback an intelligent person might
contemplate one's own behavior.

You talk a big talk but you read nothing. You’re comments are full of hot air!

 

[steve_bank]

Bank's Rule: If you keep banging your head against a wall don't blame others if you have a headache.

All this personal commentary is a derail. The last word is yours. After that adios. I have plenty of room on my ignore list..

 

[Jarhyn]

Hey Pood, I'm really trying here to discuss the title topic, whether or not it has much to do with the actual links, specifically reality as it is beyond physics.

I would love to talk about physics and the way that if it is systemically "complete" by some measure, how it can emulate any other system within the family of systems that are "complete" in that way, such as digital systems and Turing completeness.

This in some ways means physics, if it has some "completeness" in this manner, generates some family of "meta-physics", the physics of physics as a family, as it were, in the same way that there is a set of math surrounding Turing complete systems and abstract algebras and transforms on modular rings and all that junk.

So within reality, we may see reality locally bound to some really weird properties defined by local "arbitrary" events.

To the ancient mind and sensibilities this would seem as something beyond nature rather than something of it, because as an analog to Turing machines, Turing machines can emulate a vast variety of other systems, and a system that uses "events" rather than digital calculation to evaluate things can do that much more efficiently and make a much more exotic range of machines much more easily, perhaps even some machines Turing machines cannot construct at all (the sort that require machines that can calculate infinitely complex numbers of a range, or that can easily handle complex numbers with rotational components and math).

Anything you could imagine writing a program to do, you might imagine reality itself having some similarly physically bound behavior to some complex part of it, or at least the potential to support that, especially in proximity to anything that orients towards "goals" as part of its behavioral process. Such a program could imply the creation of a virtual environment of some kind. I mean anything from a simple "hello world" to "exactly what an LLM does/is", to "SillyTavern" kinds of shit.

Arguably even things like command lines are virtual environments of a very linear sort. In an abstract way, this could well apply to all interfaces, the most trivial of which being lookup tables, followed by interpolations on tables, and so on through Moore-Penrose processes of multidimensional regression, and on and on and on, to include neural interfaces and the sorts of logics those engage in.

To be fair, I can only dimly imagine neural logics, these days, with only the most simple of examples. Among these include a structure that 'neuralizes' a hormone value into a neural impulse value across some number of neurons, and a other one that can detect discretely any of a reference failure, an inverse of that value, or the presence of the value as separate outputs, and an AND structure.

To be fair, these are probably well known neural structures, but that's AND and NOT, and I could probably assemble an OR without needing NAND, and that's boolean-complete and boolean-completeness allows construction of turing-completeness.

Arguably, the smoothness of neuronal function allows much more complex algorithms to arise from far fewer units, and to create much more continuous logical units, which I am under the impression are "tensors" and have interesting transform rules.

The more complex algorithms allowed by neurons could very well be complete on the same family of operations as the universe itself seems to be, allowing this to create whole new physical systems inside, between, and among physical matter in the same way computers emulate.

In this way reality IS beyond a simple physics, the "completeness" of it already being 'turing' complete and many other kinds of 'complete' as well, as it allows such instantaneous events as which accomplish approximations that take many iterations of time otherwise.

Spoiler: please, just stop

Let's talk about... Anything. Anything other than "daddy's book".

Maybe if you want, write a book with me that does all the things "daddy's book" claims to want to do, but actually succeeds?

 

[DBT]

The brain is what it is.

By convention chair refers to a class of objects.

Subjective and objective are words with meaning overrefined by convention, and context.

Point to a situation and say objective, point to another and say subjective.

A rock is what it is regardless of what we call it.

The brain itself is neither objective nor subjective.

I am contesting the idea that the brain has already made a decision before we become conscious of it, which frees us from all responsibility. I'm asking DBT to help me here even though I'm a determinist. I just don't understand Libet’s proof that gives us a free pass because we, on a conscious level, aren't making the decision. Of course we are which does not mean we have the free will to do otherwise. That's not the point.

Information acquisition and processing must precede conscious experience (physics). First the event happens, then the senses acquire the information which is transmitted to the brain, which processes and represents some of that information in conscious form, sight, sound, smell, associated feelings and thoughts.

 

[DBT]

Libet’s experiments did not disprove free will, as he acknowledged. It’s a whole lotta nothing.

Libet's experiments did not prove that the conscious agent isn't responsible for his decision because it's the conscious agent ONLY who makes it. You can't separate the brain from the agent who gives permission for the action to be executed. The courts don't say, "your brain made the decision, not your conscious self, so you're off the hook of culpability. This in no way means the agent was morally responsible or free to have chosen otherwise.

You can't be conscious of something before the event. Consciousness is generated not only after the event, but after the senses have acquired the information and the brain has processed it. That's where the milliseconds of delay between the event and a response comes from. Reflex response being the fastest, nerve loops, etc, with prefrontal deliberation the slowest.

 

[peacegirl]

Libet’s experiments did not disprove free will, as he acknowledged. It’s a whole lotta nothing.

Libet's experiments did not prove that the conscious agent isn't responsible for his decision because it's the conscious agent ONLY who makes it. You can't separate the brain from the agent who gives permission for the action to be executed. The courts don't say, "your brain made the decision, not your conscious self, so you're off the hook of culpability. This in no way means the agent was morally responsible or free to have chosen otherwise.

You can't be conscious of something before the event.

Of course not. But consciousness (e.g., or agency) is a prerequisite of decision-making.

agency: the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power: operation

Consciousness is generated not only after the event, but after the senses have acquired the information and the brain has processed it. That's where the milliseconds of delay between the event and a response comes from. Reflex response being the fastest, nerve loops, etc, with prefrontal deliberation the slowest.

Even if it takes a millisecond of delay to reach conscious awareness, it takes a conscious will to make a decision.

Abstract​

The real question that Libet's experiments raise is whether our conscious wills cause the willed actions. What is at issue is the effects rather than the causes of conscious will. The question is whether conscious will is impotent, not whether it is free. If conscious will is impotent, then we cannot control our actions by means of conscious will, and this disability might reduce our freedom of action. Libet's experiments raises or sharpens this new question. By raising a new issue in a new way, Libet's work made (and continues to make) many people rethink their assumptions. The assumptions at stake are both normative and descriptive. The relevant normative assumption is, roughly, that causation by conscious will is necessary for responsibility. The descriptive assumption that Libet questions is, again roughly, that conscious will causes the willed action. This chapter addresses these assumptions in turn. It concludes that Libet's experiments do not undermine responsibility in general, but they do illuminate some particular cases as well as common standards of responsibility.

https://academic.oup.com/book/2344/chapter-abstract/142511162?redirectedFrom=fulltext