About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, March 12, 2007 - 11:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Frank,

I'm having trouble conceptualizing this ...

However what this theory predicts is that if Free will changes are of type Concept A then a Free Will choice at time 00.25 will change not only the future but also the past ...
Can you help me understand how a choice "affects" the past?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/12, 12:44pm)


Post 1

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 7:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     Ummm...I understood SR as finding the very concept of 'simultaneity' as...relatively...meaningless. 'Locally', it can have (to a point) useful meaning, but 'globally' (large distances, like, light-years), no. Regardless of this, considerations of one side of the brain and the other don't strike me as giving much prob to employing the concept. Light-speed considerations or no, what's the 'simultaneity' prob within a brain?

LLAP
J:D


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 8:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Frank,

I want to avoid being too harsh for a first article attempt, but I suspect I'm going to fail.  I have strong disagreements with this article.  More importantly, you bit off quite a lot for a first attempt.  There are many controversial points in your article, and you don't focus on any of them long enough to let us even know you realize that they're controversial.  Let me give some examples:

Claim 1:  You suggest that a conscious thought requires simultaneous events in the brain.
  Implication 1: A thought is a mental state, instead of a mental process.
  Implication 2: The parts of the event all happen simultaneously instead of just very quickly.  We look at a computer screen, and it appears as a single state.  But in fact, it's printing those pixels one after another in a serialized fashioned, just so fast that we can't experience any difference.  Why are you convinced this same kind of thing isn't going on in the brain?
Claim 2:  There is some kind of localized phenomena which is our consciousness.  Why can't it be distributed?
Claim 3: The ability to project music into the future (through extrapolation or memorization) implies we are actually conscious of the future.
Claim 4: The ability to remember the past music implies we are actually conscious of the past (that is, we're directly experiencing the past, and not just a memory of it). 
Claim 5: A great composer who says he can hear their whole composition should be interpreted to mean he is somehow experiencing a 4 dimensional direct awareness.
Claim 6: Any of the axioms you mentioned are axiomatic concepts. Like playfulness?
Claim 7: You say that the sensory object in U "gives rise" to the feelings in I.  This appears to contradict the Objectivist view of emotions and substitutes some form of intrinsicism.
Claim 8: "It exercises its free will in trying to find more attractive feelings."  Free will allows people to find less attractive feelings.  This view of Free Will is also not compatible with Objectivism.  It actually comes off as determinism, as you seem to describe the observer as automatically driven to pursue feelings.  I could also add that it comes off as hedonistic in terms of ethics, against contradicting Objectivism.
Claim 9:  You seem to be rejecting special relativity as well.

If you had made any one of these points as the basis of your article, it would have been controversial.  By having all of them, it's really hard to know where to start.  You seem to reject Identity, Causality, Free Will, the nature of Axioms, and Consciousness as a process.

My advice is to be a little less ambitious.  Walk before you run.  If you're going to make controversial claims, stick to one at a time and give a rigorous defense of it.  Remember that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.  And in terms of Objectivism, it's better to stick to the basics until you've fully digested them.  While it's interesting to try to make revolutionary changes, your audience won't be convinced until you've shown that you understand the basics.  Someone who rejects Objectivist ideas needs to understand what he's rejecting if he wants to persuade Objectivists that he's right.

I've also changed the category of this article.  While it may be thought provoking, it's too much of a stretch to put it under the Objectivism category.


Post 3

Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 11:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hello Ed Thompson
Thanks for your interest. Take what we know from the principle of causation. Given the state of the universe at one moment it will fully define the state of the universe in the next moment. (Determinism, and ignoring QM effects) What this will lead to is a 4 Dimentional structure.(3D of space and 1 of time) Consider a influance from outside this structure that acts to change it's 4D shape. Such a change of shape will on acting at a given point result not only a change to the future but also the past. It will not violate any causation laws as the "NEW" past is consitant with the "New" future.   

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20000701-000034&page=2

http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/articles/tri2.pdf

http://www.boundary.org/articles/timereversed.pdf

http://www.psy.gu.se/EJP/EJP1983Klintman.pdf










(Edited by Frank Nimal De Silva on 3/19, 12:01am)

(Edited by Frank Nimal De Silva on 3/19, 12:03am)


Post 4

Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 11:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Hi John

In our subjective experience of consciousness it seems that there is a single entity "I" that is aware of a multitude of simultaneous events. If it is exactly as it seems then this "I" cannot be an entity within the space time continuum. As if such it cannot make a connection between simultaneous events. However if it is outside it can. So the contradiction is real only if we take what we experience in consciousness to be exactly what it appears to be.

(Edited by Frank Nimal De Silva on 3/19, 3:47pm)


Post 5

Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 11:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Hi Joseph

Thanks for the comments. Now all my claims are based on taking the experience of consciousness to be exactly as described. In other words when I look at a sunset it consist of a multitude of simultaneous events. Supposing in truth I am able to see simultaneous events where "I" is a single entity (as subjectively my experience of "I" is a single entity) then this would mean that "I" is something outside the 4D Space-time continuam. As nothing within it can make connection between simultaneous events. Further if  "I" is such then it can make changes to the 4 Dimensional brain (concept A ) which will not violate the causation principle. As a change at a given point will change not only the future but also the past such that it is compatible with the "new" future.(Free will) The following links give evidence of concept A

http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/articles/tri2.pdf

http://www.boundary.org/articles/timereversed.pdf

http://www.psy.gu.se/EJP/EJP1983Klintman.pdf

(Edited by Frank Nimal De Silva on 3/19, 3:46pm)


Post 6

Monday, March 19, 2007 - 11:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Frank, I'm still not clear on this.

I think that when you talk about "changing" the past; that all you are really talking about is the 0.25 seconds preceding a deliberating agent's "choice-point" (ie. that you wouldn't dare speak of changing the past in anything other than a milliseconds time frame).

Am I right?

Anyway, from this standpoint, there is perhaps a quarter-second of required neural activity needed in order to make a choice -- and some stimulus might be able to "make-up your mind" for you -- without you originating the required neural activity for choice making. In this respect, you'll have the choice without the usually-required neural deliberation -- or something like that.

Is that close to what it is that you mean?

I fear that English is your second-language and that that might make it hard for us to communicate well. In that respect, I think that Joe's advice was well-meant and appropriate.

Ed


Post 7

Monday, March 19, 2007 - 3:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Hello Ed Thompson

Yes I do agree I need to communicate my thoughts far better than I have. Also my English is not the best. Thanks for your patients in this regard.

What is unbelievable about what I am proposing is that the action potential in the brain event B is prior to event A the light flash. Now since the Light flashes are totally at random times unknown to the person, How does the brain "know" before the flash that there is going to be a flash. Take a look at the time reversal experiments (Links in previous reply) You will find experiments confirming this.  Thanks once again for your interest.

 


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.