I had to really let this one marinate and noodle on it for quite a while. I'm not very well read on the subject but I'll try my best to put together some coherent thoughts.
I don't think we can dismiss the self/soul/spirit/ghost/whatever as being nonexistent just because we can't measure it. The best analogy I can come up with is computer software. Software isn't really a tangible thing; it is technically observable as magnetically stored instructions and data, and you could measure the electrical impulses between and within chips while it's running, but none of that really depicts the experience of the running software.
There might be a few geniuses out there who could look at millions of instructions or watch electrons bounce around a scope and go, "Ah! That's a word processor!" It's a heck of a lot easier to just start the program and observe the experience created from all that low-level stuff. But you can't really touch or measure it.
I think that's what the "self" is: it's webs of signals that exist on top of our neurobiology, like an app that's always running, and when we power down (i.e., die) all its data is lost forever. There is no permanent storage. At least, not yet... but that's a moral quandary for another day! LOL
All that said, I think there is value in the philosophy you've presented here. Because in the vastness of existence, our selves are so infinitesimally small that there's no possibility we aren't influenced by billions of other factors. We can't even fully comprehend or control what's happening in our own bodies, let alone the world.
So yeah, physics and neuroscience and all that low-level stuff is probably what makes 99% of everything happen, with little to no input from our selves. But I believe that at some level, that self inside us does have a little agency. After all, we have to be able to interpret our experiences somehow (and endlessly philosophize about them, as humans do).
Maybe at the self level, we can influence our neurobiology a little. Reroute a signal here and there. Choose to shift a small behavior or two. Flip a couple bits, so to speak. And when our physical brains kick in to take care of the rest, maybe those little changes make a difference.
So maybe we don't really have "free will," but just "loose will" or "limited will." We shouldn't beat ourselves up for our inability to make things happen exactly how we want or hope to. But we also shouldn't stop trying.
Thanks for sharing this and really getting my brain going! 😁
Wow, Josh, thank you so much for taking the time to think through all this and write it out so thoughtfully!
I like what you've said very much, and I think your model is very worth considering. It might even be that you and I essentially have the same viewpoint on this, but we are just coming at it from different angles.
For me, what you're describing as possibly influencing our neurobiology by making small choices--that too, every miniscule choice and shift, happens because of all the moments and factors that have led up to it. Even our choosing to TRY to make the changes we want is influenced by all the vast factors.
But again, it might be six of one, half dozen of the other here. :)
I particularly liked these sentences you wrote: "Because in the vastness of existence, our selves are so infinitesimally small that there's no possibility we aren't influenced by billions of other factors. We can't even fully comprehend or control what's happening in our own bodies, let alone the world."
Thank you again for joining me in this discussion! You're such a faithful reader and friend! <3
I have to admit I need to read your thought-provoking "Freedom from 'Free Will'" more deeply, but I am immediately compelled to share my thoughts about related content.
I consider myself a spiritual soul. And I am definitely a scientist. Free will is one of my favorite philosophical rabbit holes to wander in. Science, is another rabbit hole as well - I live there often.
When someone suggests something doesn't exist because science cannot prove it, I always catch myself to think how we often forget what science can and cannot do. For instance, the scientific method tells us what science can and cannot 'find.' It cannot prove that something is --- it can only prove something that is not.
Science has not yet proved that spirit or consciousness exists, but that is not to say that it doesn't. The only way spirit or consciousness can be removed from the realms of probability is by proving they do not exist. And that also is not the case.
Science can suggest all they want that something does not exist, but until they prove so, then perhaps it does.
Anyway, I ramble, but I do love a good look at free will, science and all sorts of ponders. Thank you for letting me share this space with you.
Thank you for taking the time to comment! Yes, these are interesting waters to explore.
I am intrigued by your notions about science...and I think that my views are exactly the reverse: science uses all sorts of measurements and tests to find out what IS (for example: brains, blood, beetles, bogs, and black holes), but logically there's no way for it to find out what is NOT.
I adore this fit Hermione has in the seventh Harry Potter book:
"But that's--I'm sorry, but that's completely ridiculous! How can I _possibly_ prove it doesn't exist? Do you expect me to get hold of--of all the pebbles in the world and test them? I mean, you could claim _anything's_ real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's _proved_ it doesn't exist!"
So to my mind, seeking truth is about looking for positive, hard reasons for believing something is true--not considering anything that could possibly be true because it hasn't been proven false. Does that make sense?
Again, thank you for sharing this space with me!! <3
We're probably taking about apples and oranges a little. For example, making a medical diagnosis is based a a set of current knowledge which may or may not change over time. Whether spirit or consciousness exists must instead be subjected to hypothesis testing. And scientific method is rigorous in its strength by allowing the hypothesis test to prove something is NOT correct because no experimental designs can cover infinite contributing factors. Nonetheless I am always tickled to share thoughts and be invited to view all the possibilities. 💫
I had to really let this one marinate and noodle on it for quite a while. I'm not very well read on the subject but I'll try my best to put together some coherent thoughts.
I don't think we can dismiss the self/soul/spirit/ghost/whatever as being nonexistent just because we can't measure it. The best analogy I can come up with is computer software. Software isn't really a tangible thing; it is technically observable as magnetically stored instructions and data, and you could measure the electrical impulses between and within chips while it's running, but none of that really depicts the experience of the running software.
There might be a few geniuses out there who could look at millions of instructions or watch electrons bounce around a scope and go, "Ah! That's a word processor!" It's a heck of a lot easier to just start the program and observe the experience created from all that low-level stuff. But you can't really touch or measure it.
I think that's what the "self" is: it's webs of signals that exist on top of our neurobiology, like an app that's always running, and when we power down (i.e., die) all its data is lost forever. There is no permanent storage. At least, not yet... but that's a moral quandary for another day! LOL
All that said, I think there is value in the philosophy you've presented here. Because in the vastness of existence, our selves are so infinitesimally small that there's no possibility we aren't influenced by billions of other factors. We can't even fully comprehend or control what's happening in our own bodies, let alone the world.
So yeah, physics and neuroscience and all that low-level stuff is probably what makes 99% of everything happen, with little to no input from our selves. But I believe that at some level, that self inside us does have a little agency. After all, we have to be able to interpret our experiences somehow (and endlessly philosophize about them, as humans do).
Maybe at the self level, we can influence our neurobiology a little. Reroute a signal here and there. Choose to shift a small behavior or two. Flip a couple bits, so to speak. And when our physical brains kick in to take care of the rest, maybe those little changes make a difference.
So maybe we don't really have "free will," but just "loose will" or "limited will." We shouldn't beat ourselves up for our inability to make things happen exactly how we want or hope to. But we also shouldn't stop trying.
Thanks for sharing this and really getting my brain going! 😁
Wow, Josh, thank you so much for taking the time to think through all this and write it out so thoughtfully!
I like what you've said very much, and I think your model is very worth considering. It might even be that you and I essentially have the same viewpoint on this, but we are just coming at it from different angles.
For me, what you're describing as possibly influencing our neurobiology by making small choices--that too, every miniscule choice and shift, happens because of all the moments and factors that have led up to it. Even our choosing to TRY to make the changes we want is influenced by all the vast factors.
But again, it might be six of one, half dozen of the other here. :)
I particularly liked these sentences you wrote: "Because in the vastness of existence, our selves are so infinitesimally small that there's no possibility we aren't influenced by billions of other factors. We can't even fully comprehend or control what's happening in our own bodies, let alone the world."
Thank you again for joining me in this discussion! You're such a faithful reader and friend! <3
I have to admit I need to read your thought-provoking "Freedom from 'Free Will'" more deeply, but I am immediately compelled to share my thoughts about related content.
I consider myself a spiritual soul. And I am definitely a scientist. Free will is one of my favorite philosophical rabbit holes to wander in. Science, is another rabbit hole as well - I live there often.
When someone suggests something doesn't exist because science cannot prove it, I always catch myself to think how we often forget what science can and cannot do. For instance, the scientific method tells us what science can and cannot 'find.' It cannot prove that something is --- it can only prove something that is not.
Science has not yet proved that spirit or consciousness exists, but that is not to say that it doesn't. The only way spirit or consciousness can be removed from the realms of probability is by proving they do not exist. And that also is not the case.
Science can suggest all they want that something does not exist, but until they prove so, then perhaps it does.
Anyway, I ramble, but I do love a good look at free will, science and all sorts of ponders. Thank you for letting me share this space with you.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Thank you for taking the time to comment! Yes, these are interesting waters to explore.
I am intrigued by your notions about science...and I think that my views are exactly the reverse: science uses all sorts of measurements and tests to find out what IS (for example: brains, blood, beetles, bogs, and black holes), but logically there's no way for it to find out what is NOT.
I adore this fit Hermione has in the seventh Harry Potter book:
"But that's--I'm sorry, but that's completely ridiculous! How can I _possibly_ prove it doesn't exist? Do you expect me to get hold of--of all the pebbles in the world and test them? I mean, you could claim _anything's_ real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's _proved_ it doesn't exist!"
So to my mind, seeking truth is about looking for positive, hard reasons for believing something is true--not considering anything that could possibly be true because it hasn't been proven false. Does that make sense?
Again, thank you for sharing this space with me!! <3
We're probably taking about apples and oranges a little. For example, making a medical diagnosis is based a a set of current knowledge which may or may not change over time. Whether spirit or consciousness exists must instead be subjected to hypothesis testing. And scientific method is rigorous in its strength by allowing the hypothesis test to prove something is NOT correct because no experimental designs can cover infinite contributing factors. Nonetheless I am always tickled to share thoughts and be invited to view all the possibilities. 💫