Is free-will an illusion?

Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2016 02:09 pm
If it is an illusion, why did you ask the question? Because you had to? Then you can't expect a real answer just a reflex.
0 Replies
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2016 04:27 pm

A atribute to the discussion of Free will and Consciousness

In the last decennia there is a discussion going on on Free Will, Consiousness and Determinisme and in the end Responsibillity and Moral behavoir.
Especially Antonio Damasio (Feeling of what happen and The Error of Descartes) and Daniel Wegner ( The illusion of Conscious Will) did research on this subject. Earlier Bernard Baars, Daniel Denett and nower days Suzanne Blackmore, Roger Penrose and others make statements about this subject.
In 1980 Kees Ruys and Peter den Hollander wrote a paper called: Verondersteld Bestaan (Presumed Existence). In this paper they show how to look at the existence in the whole. They subtitled it as “bezinning op de menselijke aansprakelijkheid” (reflection on the human responsibility.)
Its this paper that is used as a basis for the comment on what Antonio Damasio, Daniel Wegner and others say about Free Will en Consciousness.

Knowing (beware off)
First we have to define what we are talking about. We can divide the meaning of consciousness in three different meanings: knowing, knowing to know, and controlled by the known.
Consciousness in the meaning of knowing is the basis of our existents. We know a lot. We know how to handle in certain circumstances. (In controlled by the known we will talk about the feeling of the control, here we let out the nuance of controlling)
In several experiments different scientists have shown that we are agents that know, that we handle conform what we know and in that order proofed we are agents that know. We consider that as evident proof, which we will not discuss.
So we recognise human beings as agents that know. In this paper we will address this meaning for conscious as The Known. The theory of Bernard Baars i.e about the Working Memory and the Global Workingspace, is about how we use knowing in our daily acts. In this theory he claims that in our brains exist a kind of workspace which interferes with the systems that handles. Based on contexts and concepts we human-beings handle according a hierarchy competition based on information. The contents off these context and concepts is what we know about our ‘world’ internally and externally, including about our ‘self’[1] [2]

Knowing off the known (consciousness)
In the same way as written by Knowing, scientists of all kinds has shown that we are agents, not only as Knowners but also as Knowners off the Known. We are agents that know what we know, and we know that because we can witness about the things we know. We can tell others about our behaviour, about our thoughts before and after we act. Antonio Damasio as put a lot off effort to show how this knowing off the known works in our minds. He showed this especially with people who had brain damage, he showed that there are area’s in the brain that highlights when the agents makes a appeal on that special ability: knowing the known. He showed with a patient that only could wink with the eyelid that this person although completely paralysed could by winking with its eyelid, answering questions about his consciousness, about how he felt. Damasio had shown that all of our acts not only passed the cerebral cortex so that could be the place where the Knowing of the known is settled. The nerves that serve the eyelid is located at the other side of that cortex, so the paralysing didn’t effect the eye winking. Therefore patient could communicate with the eyelid about his existents.[3] This Knowing off the Known we will call consciousness.

Controlled by the known (Will)
This ability of humans is the centre off the discussion. It has to do with the feeling of free will, is has to do if we are agents with a determinated state of mind, or do we have a free will indeed. It also has to do with responsibility for our acts. It is the philosophy on which our societies are build. We will show that this controlling doesn’t exist. Almost all of the above mentioned scientists puzzle with this item. Especially the ‘older’ ones. Bernard Baars introduces ‘voluntaries’ actions, without explained how this voluntarily occurs. Antonio Damasio accept that consciousness isn’t in controll , but he doesn’t talk about the consequences. Susanne Blackmore will start all over again and ignores all what is written about this subject. Saul Smylanski, gives a suggestion to solve this problem: he suggest first not to talk about the problem of free will and determinisme because is it unsolveble and as second solution he suggest to accepte free will as an illusion, so that we can go on on the discussion.

Now about what we know.

In Assumed Existende , Ruys and Den Hollander say about reality: it only exists because we humans can witness about it. So, to speak off a reality you need two actors: the one that witness the reality and the reality itself. One can’t exist without the other. If there is no witness to speak about reality, speaking about realities isn’t possible and the same occurs when there is no reality; if there is non, one can’t speak of it.

Ruys and Den Hollander splited reality in to two devices: the material and the immaterial.
Both of them are members of the same reality. The immaterial reality is the conformation an-sich of the material reality, it gives sense, it gives meaning to the subject .
There are tree ways reality shows itself to the subject:
1. By a sensory projection
direct when the sense organs, see, feel, hear, smell, it
indirect when the subject think of it
2. As the reality has a meaning for subjects (self)assimilation[4]
3. As a word[5] that describes the reality[6].

All we know we know on this way. There is no immaterial reality that exists outside the subject, all immaterial realities is based on material realities. Love only can experienced when there is somebody to be loved. Sadness exists because there is a cause that causes this sadness and that cause is always material-depended. As Madonna sings: we live in a material world. [7]

A material thing exist when it takes a place in space and in time. There were a thing is taking space and time, an other thing can’t take the same place at the same time.
Experiencing a thing can only happen if that thing is distinguished from his environment. If every thing is black, we will not see, we will not know there are other colours, we will not know about our ability to distinguish colours. [8]

All our knowledge is about this material world.

How we learn about this material word?
Humans has the ability to (self)confirmation. This gives him to experience his world. Without this ability, he would not experience at all, he would not experience a self neither a world he lives in, where the self[9] is indissolublely attached to.
This (self)confirmation is the will, a will that powers him to do the things he need to do to get this (self)confirmation. So the will leads us thru all the realities to find the things that will full fill this (self)confirmation. All we do is related to this search.

The (self)confirmation can go on the positive way and on the negative way:
The (self)confirmation can only be experienced when the confirmation is in opposite of the position the subject is at that time. If the subject is happy, he will get his (self)confirmation, when something unhappy appears and the other way around, if subject is unhappy his (self)confirmation will happen when something happy will appear.[10]
Because the subject will try to be happy, he will learn from the disappointments. He will store those experiences and will make an appeal to them when a (new) disappointed matter occurs.
It is in this sence where the theory for Baars fits in. In the Working Memory are those things stored that the agents needs to feel happy, while the Global Workingspace allows only these contexts and concepts to get consciousness and to action that will make the agents on the short term happy.[11]

In this sence we can discuss about The Free Will.
Free Will is a relative notion. Since we live with a body absolutely free will can’t exist. We always will have to concern about that body. The body ask for feeding, for nursing, for rest, for sex.. So Free Will concentrate around the choices we make to fulfill those needs. As said by the definition of Reality: something exist when there is a subject that can confirm the existence of that reality..[12]
So in that way the Free Will exist: people experience the Free Will.
We can however leave out the word Free, because, as mentioned before, the freedom is relative. Poeple experience a Will, experience choises they make – how it works you can see what we wrote about the (self)confirmation- . Now we have eliminated the freedom of will, are we now determinated agents? Yes and no, Yes because we will all gonna die, so in that way determination isn’t relative and the Terror Management theory as shown that we handle in fear of dead. No, because we as agents choose our way outoff the many contexts and concepts to get the most happy feeling for that moment.
But we experience our will and determination just the other way around: we experience will as a freedom an determination as a phenomena that can be cheated.

How come?
In Verondersteld Bestaan Ruys en Den Hollander show that the drive for living is the search for (self)confirmation, this drive makes us blind for the insurmountable end of live. It isn’t surprising we are blind for this truth: because if we realise that is all end with dead, why should we put any effort in any thing, when it’s all so meaningless.

How does this search for the grail: (self)confirmation, looks like?
In all of the social research in way people handle like they do, always there appears the word: attention, attention for you self, attention for your family, attention for you surroundings, for you environment. People search is very different ways to satisfy this need for attention[13].
They even look for it in negative way, by criminal actions. Almost every, perhaps every criminal has a background with social concerns, with social evidents that explains his behaviour: mostly there is a social neglecting in times of the childhood.
It’s here we plead for a coalesce from the brain science and the social science. It wouldn’t be surprising if some behaviour will give some brain reaction, if our theory is correct, then there will be a brain reaction when human’s (self)confirmation is satisfied, even if this is gained by a negative act.

How is this al linked to the Consciousness: controlled by the known?
We have to disappoint you: we aren’t controlled by the known, we aren’t controlling agents. And we are not the only once. It’s almost common sense in the brain science that we aren’t controlled by a self, a I, a soul or what ever name you will give it.
It’s a matter of timing to show you that Consciousness can’t be a controller. Ask yourself at what moment you can by consciousness about a thing that had happen: precisely...you can only be aware of something that has happen, after it has happen. There is no way there can be a reversed way. Even people who say they can see in the future, can only be aware of the fact that they see something is going to happen, but they can’t interfere in the act, because it still has to happen before he can say he predicted it. As you will understand: if the predicted act didn’t happen, the future teller was wrong about his prediction.

As talked about it by searching for the grail: people act because they search for there (self)confirmation. That’s our conductor, it determine our actions, it’s the one that makes the choices out of all the (former) experiences, to do the right thing. He can make the choices Iucceed on the long term: will I go for a new job, or will I stay longer at this old one and get my satisfaction on the long term, or do I seduce this woman at this moment to get my satisfaction right now.

How about our responsibility.
Saul.Smilansky.from Telaviv wrote about this subject the following:
The Compatibility Question might be answered in a Yes-and-No fashion, for there is no conceptual reason why it should not be the case that certain forms of moral responsibility require libertarian free will, while other forms could be sustained without it. There is nothing to prevent incompatibilists and compatibilists from insisting that real moral responsibility does, or does not, require libertarian free will, but their case must be made in ethical terms, and it may well turn out that there is no single or exhaustive notion of moral responsibility.
He is finding the solution of the compatibilists and hard determinists in two proposals: one he suggested that we live with both explanations, compatibilists and hard determinists, live together not in a opposite way, but as ways humans experience them, as we talked about it in Reality: when people feel the existence its exists.
The second proposal of both Saul Smilansky and Daniel Wegner saying that it is all an illusions, stands in our point of view to far away from the way people experience consciousness.
The Frimisme is leaning at the compatibility view. Althought we say that the drive is to be find in the ability of (self)confirmation. This ability, as wrote above, is also a need. In this term you can say that the Frimisme is also a determinism because it says that people behave to fulfill this need. Still we recognize a free will, because we experience choices, we experience that we make a choice, we can witness that choice both before the act takes place and after the act takes place.
It is because of this testifying the act we can hold responsible. Because we acted in a Presumed Existence.
Our Feelings of remorse are inherently tied to the person's self-perception as a morally responsible agent as Saul Smilansky say it . It’s a ability that gives others the ‘right’ to hold one responsible for his act. It’s that ability that’s responsible for the moral of the human race. We feel truly responsible after action and we are, because, the self, the agent, the I etc etc, did do the action: no one else.
This compunction we have, exists because of the other ability humans have: knowing what anaother humanbeing can feel. Because of the ability to witness our thoughts, we can be aware of what people feel, of the mental state people are in. It’s this ability that must prevent we harm people. But here is the will for the (self)confirmation stronger then the moral culture: the personal will, will lead the agents true its act. It’s his will that makes the choises that are stored in the memory. This storage, always is links with the meaning of the event that’s stored. It’s this meaning that makes if the appeal of the event will lead to ‘good’ or ‘bad’ behaviour.

Dispate of this all, how come we experiences a free will while it doesn’t exists.
Talking with ordinary people they will say: when I have an appointment and I’m there in time, I’m there because I want to, because I have a free will. That’s what they experience they are at a time in a place where they wanted to be at that time at that place, while as written above it is nothing more that that they realise they are in a time space they wanted to be, there was no consciousness decision taken. Still they experience such. The answer for that dilemma is: the decision has taken place in the unconsciousness area and recognised while folding out. So the agent recognised the unconsciousness making decision to go at that time to that place and has the feeling the decision has been made in full consciousness.

Absolute Free Will
Last but nog least, the brains are to consider an unwilling organ, like our hart and other organs, they do there jobs without any ‘conscious stirring', one can’t starting them off or turning them off. The brains does there job based on the information they has collected during their lifetime, they make choices and decisions, without any interfering or what so ever. They balance the pro's and contra's in no time, and if the decision was wrong it was because there was a of lack information.
One could say there is a absolute freedom with the frame off the brains, like my arm is an arm because it functions within his armframe, would it go out off its frame and behave like a leg it becomes a leg. The same way the brains functions in absolute freedom within the frame of being brains.
Peter den Hollander
2 january 2007

[1] These contents had is not been discussed in the book, it’s what we completed.
[2] Baars claims in his theory that in our brains there’s a competition between acts to get consciousness and even to get to an action. It would be intressting to find out wich of the acts wins the competion and why it wins.
[3] In this paper I will not go into the question whether the patient was happy. In The Feeling of What Happens Damasio put a mark at this point. In short: this patient didn’t had any other feeling than the feeling that present in his body. He didn’t had any reference, so he was happy
[4](self)assimilation means: the assimilation of the subject, of the agent with his surroundings, i.c. his mental existence in his environment
[5] Words meaning as a way to communicate: figures and other signs can figure as words, as long as this communication is able to show the inner of the subject.
[6] We say here that there is no consciousness if there is not the possibility to communicate.
[7] Even the non-qualitative conscious events like beliefs, intentions, and expectations are material realated: see the Frimistische Essential Needs Theory, it shows that those ‘desires’ are in serve of the need for (self)confirmation. Even ideas like democracy, and the likes are about objects: with democracy its how to organize society and what this way of organizing means for the subjects (self)assimilation.

[8] It’s this same distinguisd that plays a role in how to get consciousness about the world. One can only be consciousness of something, when the same thing is distinguised from his environment
[9] The self here to read as the consciousness related to the Knower who Knows.
[10] See 8
[11] Here is the need to say that it for the short term, because most of our actions are for the short term. Actions for the long term always need a aproval of the short term action.
[12]How about hallucinations, dreams and the voices heard by people who suffer of schizophrenia? Those phenomena exist as much as a world in Tin Tin exist. Is a world created by he brain: it exist because a hardware reality has created it. It’s a projection by the hardware reality.
[13]We leave aside of this discussion the need for sexual satisfaction. It could be that that is the source of the attention search, but we think it’s the other way around. In our few this is a chicken and egg discussion.
Reply Wed 20 Jul, 2016 10:25 am
There are 3 levels of knowing in your discussion, from most certain and immediate to lesser so:

1) Your knowledge of your own being
2) First Principles, what you can't help not thinking
3) science (loosely thought, as there is no monolithic science)

So, if you want me to discard my immediate knowledge of my freedom (1) for derived knowledge (3) then I ask, Upon what basis is that assured knowledge if I am wrong about my own being?

0 Replies
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2016 10:48 am
If you felt that way you would HAVE TO feel that way, which means it is dogbutt stupid to argue for it. You can't help it, right?
0 Replies
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2017 02:53 am
Octopuses and squids can rewrite their RNA. Is that why they’re so smart?
By Ben Guarino April 6

[...] The intelligence of octopuses goes far beyond escape artistry. They can unscrew glass jars from the inside and solve other complex mechanical problems. They play. Some are capable of body-contorting mimicry. All of this is to say that cephalopods — the spineless, many-legged creatures including octopuses and cuttlefish — stand out among their fellow mollusks. Pity in comparison theoyster, a mollusk that, sadly, doesn't even have a proper brain.

Cephalopods are unusual not only because they solve puzzles and clams cannot. Squids, cuttlefish and octopuses do not follow the normal rules of genetic information, according to research published Thursday in the journal Cell. Their RNA is extensively rewritten, particularly the codes for proteins found in the animals' neurons.

Put simply, that's very weird. According to the central dogma of molecular biology, cells convert DNA sequences to RNA, which then creates proteins.

Imagine a library full of cookbooks, where you're not allowed to check anything out. But you are allowed to copy recipes as you need them. The copies must almost always be verbatim, as though done by a faithful scribe. RNA plays the role of scribe.

Sometimes, cells edit RNA, plucking out the molecule adenosine and inserting a molecule called inosine. University of Utah biochemist Brenda Bass discovered RNA editing three decades ago. “Everything we have learned in the 30 years since these were discovered says that these type of editing events usually don’t change codons,” [ie the message] Bass told The Washington Post, meaning that the edits to RNA did not change what proteins are created. [...]

But ... cephalopods use the tweaked RNA to generate new proteins. Rather than one gene producing one protein, this type of RNA editing, called recoding, could allow a single octopus gene to produce many different types of proteins from the same DNA.

“Recoding by editing effectively creates a new protein sequence, and thus it's expanding the protein repertoire at the organism's disposal,” Eisenberg said.

To return to the metaphorical library of cookbooks, it's as though a chef has replaced the scribe. [the chef interprets and alters the recipe a bit in his cooking]

These RNA changes can have a dramatic impact on squid or octopus biology. In a previous study, Rosenthal discovered that octopuses living in the Antarctic used RNA editing to keep their nerves firing in frigid waters.

In the new report, scientists measured rates of RNA recoding in several cephalopod species. They found that squids, cuttlefish and octopuses — the smartest kinds of cephalopods — frequently edit RNA, in about one out of every two transcribed genes. What's more, RNA editing most often targeted cephalopod genes related to nervous system functions. “It was making tweaks that really make a neuron a neuron,” Rosenthal said.

There was one exception. A type of cephalopod called a nautilus lacked such high rates of RNA recoding. Nautiluses, though, aren't known for their intelligence. Could “massive RNA-level recoding,” as the scientists wrote in their new study, be related to the animals' smarts?

The study did not provide conclusive evidence that RNA recoding was the reason for cephalopod smarts. But it offered “tantalizing hints toward the hypothesis that extensive recoding might have contributed to the exceptional intelligence,” Eisenberg said, of the squids, octopuses and cuttlefish. “Of course, at this point it's just an enticing idea to think about, and we would need much more evidence to say anything definitive in this direction.”


0 Replies
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 04:25 am
By the way, Austrian philosopher Markus Schlosser nailed the Libet experiment and similar naïve materialist neuroscience experiments on free will in this 2014 paper:

The neuroscientific study of free will: A diagnosis of the controversy
Markus E. Schlosser

[...] It has been claimed, in newspapers and in the popular science press, that neuroscience has now shown that we don’t have free will. In philosophy, virtually no one thinks that neuroscience has really shown this.

First, I should note that none of the experiments have uncovered unconscious determinants of conscious choices. For the Libet experiment, we simply don’t know whether participants would move without making also a conscious choice. In follow-up experiments, the decoded brain activity is only very weakly predictive of the conscious choice.Further, experiments of this kind differ from everyday choices in significant respects.

Most importantly, most of our choices are in one sense or another based on reasons. We choose one thing rather than another because we see something favourable in it, and our choices matter to us for that reason.

The neuroscientific research has so far studied only choices that are utterly care-free. There is no reason to perform the movement now or to use the left rather than the right index finger to press a button – without any consequence. In philosophy, we call this ‘freedom of indifference’ and we distinguish it from the kind of freedom that grounds responsible decisions.

The main point here is that there is no obvious reason to think that the findings from those studies apply to everyday choices - that are based on reasons.

Another issue is that participants decide at the beginning of the experiment to perform the requested task. Presumably, they make those decisions consciously, in response to instructions, and so their actions appear to be governed by conscious decisions that were made before the recordings of brain activity. [...]


cicerone imposter
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 10:32 am
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 11:04 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 12:10 pm
"... in response to instructions."
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2017 02:14 am
@cicerone imposter,
why are you so determined to represent yourself as an automaton? (pun intended)
0 Replies
Fil Albuquerque
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2017 04:58 am
People have to understand once and for all that if they believe in causation wills have far more complex causes then just saying I choose.
The god damned bacteria in your gut have a huge impact in your mood. Same goes regarding your chemestry balance, your hormonal system, your DNA, the state of affairs of your "operating system", (mental health), what you know overall, what chunk of information is present out of what you know but can't recall emmidiatly, etc...
I could spend the whole morning bringing up detail to show that will is not a miraculous act and still a great deal of ppl would insist they are free.
Free from what one wonders...
cicerone imposter
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2017 11:02 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Free from government constraints in a democracy. Free to get a good education, and pursue your avocation. Free to go shopping, go see a movie, a park or public library. Free to take a bus tour or drive or fly to any destination. There's the whole world out there waiting to entertain and awe you, but you must make the effort.
I think it's wunnerful.
0 Replies
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2017 11:54 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Causation is unrelated to free will.

Remember the compatibilist position? Free will is compatible with full determinism, as long as your determinist metaphysic assumes that minds are also causes, not just effects. If my mind has a role to play in my decisions, I am free (within limits), in the sense that within these limits, my mind makes the choosing. Even if it does so based on previous mental states and events (eg memory, education...), my memory is me. I own it, I identify with it. My biases and tastes are mine too. So a sense of agency is explained by the need for symbolic decision making.

Fresco could simplify this by saying something like: "symbols make the man".

You could express the same idea by something like: "Man is Reason incarnated".

Of course, the same compatibilist position can work in a undeterminist universe, which as you explained very well is conceptually just like a determinist universe with the addition of "true hazard" as one possible "cause" in the mix of other possible causal factors. This added type of causes (the possibility of hazard among other causes) does not affect the strength of the compatibilist position.

cicerone imposter
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2017 03:27 pm
We have free will with constraints. Some are environmental, some are economic, and some are desire.
Also, there are ways to travel with little or no cost.
0 Replies
think rethink
Reply Fri 14 Apr, 2017 06:25 pm
Will is an illusion,
Forget about free will.
Nothing is free, not even illusion is (it always hunts you down and makes you pay with exorbitant interest).

Yes, the emotion desiring something is really affecting you until you wake up (just like any dream is, while dreaming),
Still that emotion isn't you and this is the greatest delusion of all, that this pile of letters and words (the inner components of any and every emotion), is a human being.
Fil Albuquerque
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2017 03:27 am
@think rethink,
"You" is a real phenomena.
Yes "you" is not fundamental.
Still "you" is fun.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2017 04:07 am
Dumb AI...

Deep neural networks are easily fooled: High confidence predictions for unrecognizable images
Evolving AI Lab
Nguyen A, Yosinski J, Clune J

Deep neural networks (DNNs) have recently been achieving state-of-the-art performance on a variety of pattern-recognition tasks, most notably visual classification problems. Given that DNNs are now able to classify objects in images with near-human-level performance, questions naturally arise as to what differences remain between computer and human vision. A recent study revealed that changing an image (e.g. of a lion) in a way imperceptible to humans can cause a DNN to label the image as something else entirely (e.g. mislabeling a lion a library). Here we show a related result: it is easy to produce images that are completely unrecognizable to humans, but that state-of-the-art DNNs believe to be recognizable objects with 99.99% confidence (e.g. labeling with certainty that white noise static is a lion). Specifically, we take convolutional neural networks trained to perform well on either the ImageNet or MNIST datasets and then find images with evolutionary algorithms or gradient ascent that DNNs label with high confidence as belonging to each dataset class. It is possible to produce images totally unrecognizable to human eyes that DNNs believe with near certainty are familiar objects. Our results shed light on interesting differences between human vision and current DNNs, and raise questions about the generality of DNN computer vision.



0 Replies
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2017 04:32 am
@think rethink,
think rethink wrote:
Will is an illusion

I agree. "Free will" is a poorly worded form of the concept. In English I prefer the term "agency". The French wording is more precise: "libre arbitre" which is archaic french for "free choice setting".

Interestingly, in modern French "arbitre" means "referee" ie the one whose job it is to choose.

Still that emotion isn't you

I disagree here. Emotions are a form of intelligence.
think rethink
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2017 10:45 am
Hi Olivier.
Emotions are a form of intelligence you claim.

Feel free to elaborate (I would appreciate you, for that)

In the meantime, this is my momentarily view.

I admit that I haven't thought this through,
So it's more theory than anything.

Emotions are thoughts taken personal,
For instance,
If you expect something to happen to you,
For the duration that it didn't yet occur,
Or until you learned that it won't happen in the end,

All the energy spent expecting,
Is your ego, moving into the words.

All this time, there was nothing but words.
Without words there is no capacity to expect neither to worry.

Just like a person that's oblivious to an animal threatening his life from behind,
Will never experience anxiety, if he never learns about the incident.

Just like a person looking at a letter which threatens him severely, wouldn't become excited if it's written in a language he does not understand.

So is the person oblivious to the problem without the utility of language.

But language isn't a person,

So how is the person becoming so emotional?

But language is an ego.

Language means stuff while it means nothing.

Meaning and being are the same concept, with being addressing the obvious,
And meaning addressing the hidden definition and essence.

In language this is not the case,
Everything is empty sign signal and symbol.

If this fruit is on the table, and I tell you it is an apple, it's a lie.
The fruit is what it is,
It's not a group of drawn letters.

When meaning in language is taken literally (the fruit on the table is secondary to the word apple describing it),
It is a human fantasy, creating a virtual world, anchored in letters.

This world is totally empty of existence, and filled with memorized fantasy.

When a person dwells in this virtual cyber space, meaning that he identifies himself with virtual experiences thereby becoming a concept himself,

He becomes the letter, the word, the mental idea.

This is where emotions are created.

Can there be anxiety without language?
I believe that something similar exists in the world of sensation.

But how long can it keep you gripped in itself?

Without the infinite extension the virtual world of language provides it,

Only as long as it exists, and it cannot exist for long.

All the threat and suffering we endure involved a tiny potentially harmful conclusion at the very end,
But numerous hours, days, and sometime years of dreadful anticipation.

Combine all the negative actual occurrences of your entire existence, it would be less pain, than the prolonged anxiety and suffering contained in the virtual anticipation of one such instance.

You probably noticed the experience contrast,
Between closing your eyes, and mentally visualize the painting on the wall,
And physically looking at it.

This is how sensation and emotion differ.

When you see with your eyes,
You don't see anything.
It's just a sensation of light rays simulating your brain (you than see your brain output).

When you visualize with closed eyes,
You see nothing either,
But the specific emotion you generated while physically viewing it,
Is now being focused on, so it delivers a unique and matching experience,
than, the missing light rays are assumed to be there.

If you pay close attention, You would notice that you always mentally generate code words when looking at things.

On the highway, I subconsciously name every bus or river I see.

These words later act as memory triggers.

The present moment emotion is embedded in these words,

These words are later recited to reconstruct the emotional structure experienced initially.

Bottom line,
Yes words utilize consciousness and so do emotions.

But the credit is given to the mind and the intelligence is thereby currpted.

In consciousness, the is no ego and therefore no credit.
So intelligence remains sacred.

cicerone imposter
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2017 11:22 am
@think rethink,
Language is communication.

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/23/2021 at 08:57:56