Alas, it looks like the natives are growing restless…
There is NO such action as “thinking.” You have never had a “thought” in your life. Just electrochemical synaptic firings experienced in, and by, a brain. We refer to this electrochemical processing as "thought" or "thinking." But you can call it whatever you want.
Instead of “thinking,” why not call it “yodeling”? You could say, “wait! I’m yodeling about what you just said.” Or how about “kipockling”? Or maybe “stupencracking”? You could say, “wait! let me kipockle about what you just said” or “let me stupencrack about that for awhile.”
What is a “thought,” if not a circuit linked up to other circuits giving an experience you refer to as “conceptual”? Why make it anything more than this, unless you want some thoughts to have particular relevance? Unless you want some “thoughts” to have special significance?
Unless you want some thoughts to lead to your “awakening”?
And they will most certainly set up the circuits that lead to your "awakening," whether "awakening" is real or not.
What I write here, on this very page, is the domino effect of a billion neural circuits rapidly linking up and firing off. This provides a “linguistic” experience in specific centers of the brain (they’re electrochemically lighting up like a xmas tree right now!). From that I tap, tap, tap away, through the use of other circuits involving movement and hand/eye coordination. And all this is happening in a separate, individual brain, protected by a cranial shell atop a bipedal frame.
Nothing “sacred” about it. Nothing special.
However, it is “emotion” that drives the cranial machine. Limbic system synapses are what you seek and what you live for. You want to “feel” your “thoughts” and so, you seek out the guru or enlightened master who will give you the “thoughts” that make you “feel” good.
This is all pretty simple when you break it down….
So you bow at the feet of the one who gives you the “thoughts” that jazz up the limbic centers of your brain. Doesn’t matter if “awakening” is real or not. Doesn’t matter whether “enlightenment” exists or not.
In the moment, you “feel” good and that’s basically what it’s all about.
And these circuits will have you chasing more. You think it’s because it’s “true.” But truth doesn’t matter to the brain. What matters is how you “feel” when certain synapses fire. What doesn’t make you “feel” good (like this blog) you avoid (and may even attack). But that which allows you to fire-off ("think”) positive “emotions” you bow to and keep coming back for more.
It’s not rocket science, folks.
But, as you can see from the comments on other posts, reading these words may tend not to make you “feel” good. In fact, some are processing “fear” through the amygdala (you can tell by the ranting and shouting, which is processed through the limbic system).
You want your "thoughts" to be special. So you've fixated on stringing together particular "thoughts" so you can "feel" good.
Nonetheless, since you have NO control over the circuits in your head, everything is to be expected to occur exactly as it does.
So who cares?
Now.... doesn’t that make you “feel” good to “think” about?
I'm a glutton for punishment, Mike. Keep it coming!
ReplyDeletethanks willie
ReplyDelete“Nothing “sacred” about it. Nothing special.”
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is nothing sacred about thought, but I disagree when you say that they are not special. There is a difference between thoughts and mere patterns of neural firing. A pattern of neural firing is what is happening in the unconscious portion of the brain that keeps the physical body running. Thought is complex recursive self-referencing patterns of neural firing. That ‘complex recursive self-referencing’ makes all the difference, and makes it special. Unequal to any mere pattern of neural firing found in any other of the billions and billions (trillions?) of most other individual animals ever discovered in the universe. That seems special to me.
Saying they are not special because at their base they are merely neurons firing seems to me to be equivalent of saying life is no different than inanimate objects, because at the base of both are simply subatomic particles (or maybe vibrating strings). It is the complex arrangement that makes all the difference, and makes for the explosion of life.
If you tear down an airplane there is nothing special about the parts, it is only glass, wires, rubber, plastic, and metal, but it is the complex arrangement that allows an airplane to soar into the air. Likewise, even though there is nothing special about neurons firing it is the complex recursive self-referencing arrangement that allows thought to soar into abstract conception. This abstract conception, built by physical neural processes in complex arrangements, has the ability to alter the very physical neural arrangements they are built from, seems special to me!
"Thought is complex recursive self-referencing patterns of neural firing."
ReplyDeleteBut the repeated "self-referencing" is neural as well and all patterns are genetically and socio-culturally committed to repeat, until the brain-based organism dies. There is no free-will in that. To reference a "self" is as equally circuit-based as is the impulse to eat or sheit.
"This abstract conception, built by physical neural processes in complex arrangements, has the ability to alter the very physical neural arrangements they are built from, seems special to me!"
i would agree that neurons can alter neurons, just as circuits link-up and redirect other circuits, but only through interaction with reality. Abstractions will always be victim to an outside world. It is one of the reasons we seek to abstract ourselves out of the world through religion and spiritual ideologies.
"Saying they are not special because at their base they are merely neurons firing seems to me to be equivalent of saying life is no different than inanimate objects, because at the base of both are simply subatomic particles (or maybe vibrating strings).
Is this not accurate? Or maybe it would be better to compare to other brain-based organisms? My dog does not concern itself with "awakening" or "enlightenment" as a means to abstract itself out of its reality.
Does yours?
Thanks!
Mike
"To reference a "self" is as equally circuit-based as is the impulse to eat or sheit."
ReplyDeleteJust because all are circuit based does not imply they are all equivalent, otherwise there would be no difference between living and nonliving matter, or a pile of junk and a jet , all of these sets share their base components (living and nonliving matter its subatomic particles, jet and a pile of junk its metal, rubber, glass, etc.). It is the organizational complexity that makes the difference, not the base component.
"But the repeated "self-referencing" is neural as well and all patterns are genetically and socio-culturally committed to repeat, until the brain-based organism dies. There is no free-will in that...i would agree that neurons can alter neurons, just as circuits link-up and redirect other circuits, but only through interaction with reality."
While it is true that the self is circuit based and that it is largely genetically and socio-culturally programmed, the mind has the ability to subtlety modify the circuit patterns that are so programmed. That does not make the process less special, any more than the fact that all matter is made of subatomic particles makes living matter less of a special kind of matter different from non-living matter.
On the issue of ‘free will’, this term largely just obfuscates the issue. Even with the ‘traditional dualistic’ idea of ‘free will,’ the will is constrained, you are not free to jump to the moon just because you decide to do so, you are constrained by physical limitations. There is undoubtedly mindful willing, just because it is constrained by the physical system of the unconscious brain does not negate that fact.
"Saying they are not special because at their base they are merely neurons firing seems to me to be equivalent of saying life is no different than inanimate objects, because at the base of both are simply subatomic particles (or maybe vibrating strings)." -RH
"Is this not accurate?" - Mike
Only in the most base, uninteresting ways, then they start differentiating in organizational complexity allowing for the explosion and diversity of life, while the nonliving matter sits there like…well, a rock. Quite a difference I would say.
“Or maybe it would be better to compare to other brain-based organisms? My dog does not concern itself with "awakening" or "enlightenment" as a means to abstract itself out of its reality. Does yours?”
No, but then again my dog does not nearly have the same level of recursive self reference that those who do concern themselves with such nonsense have.
"While it is true that the self is circuit based and that it is largely genetically and socio-culturally programmed, the mind has the ability to subtlety modify the circuit patterns that are so programmed."
ReplyDeleteIndeed. but only based on past accumulated programming. There does not seem to be any escape from this. I could enter in and teach a method of extraction from circuitry. But that would be based on past circuitry I have accumulated.
"There is undoubtedly mindful willing, just because it is constrained by the physical system of the unconscious brain does not negate that fact."
It constrains it to conditioned neuro-circuitry. I don't subscribe to this nebulous, Freudian concept of an "unconscious." There is only that which is amenable to electrochemical impulse and that which remains dormant, but still existent as a circuit, just not stimulated. Circuits not electrified remain dormant or "unconscious" until stimulated by impulse and impulse is always reality based.
"Only in the most base, uninteresting ways, then they start differentiating in organizational complexity allowing for the explosion and diversity of life, while the nonliving matter sits there like…well, a rock. Quite a difference I would say."
You seem to infer, from this concept "life," that it should be 'interesting' and not 'base.' I feel this is a flaw in your theory, because it is based solely on interpretation and that can be rendered in 6 billion relative ways (depending on the socio-conditioned pathways). who is to say I should NOT be sitting like a rock (other than allowing for basic survival reflexes)?
"No, but then again my dog does not nearly have the same level of recursive self reference that those who do concern themselves with such nonsense have."
Lol...indeed. How to measure levels. But one could counter that the dog, non-reliant on interpretive circuitry, is already "awakened" (simply because it is not 'as' self-referencing?
Fully enjoying the dialogue...
Thanks Havoc!
Mike
When shall we speak of The Peaceful Self?
ReplyDelete"When shall we speak of The Peaceful Self?"
ReplyDeleteLast I heard...
...he's doing okay.
Mike
"Indeed. but only based on past accumulated programming. There does not seem to be any escape from this…It constrains it to conditioned neuro-circuitry."
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is constrained by our past accumulated programming, but constraint does not forbid novelty. We can combine existing neural patterns to create novel associations that activate new neuronal patterns that previously did not exist, thereby modifying (in a very subtle fashion) those programs laid down by the genetic and socio-cultural environment. This is how a new thought arises, and how progress is made. It is what allowed you to reject the genetic and socio-cultural programmed concept of the ‘self’, as an example.
"I don't subscribe to this nebulous, Freudian concept of an "unconscious."
I am not inferring Freudian concepts when I speak of unconscious, but it seems to me that it trivially obvious that there is a myriad of stimulated neural circuitry that is activated without conscious awareness. Our entire neural infrastructure that maintains homeostasis (the reason the brain was developed by evolution) is active, stimulated and electrified, without conscious awareness.
"You seem to infer, from this concept "life," that it should be 'interesting' and not 'base."
Hmm, I argued ‘IS’ and you responded as if I argued ‘AUGHT’. There was no value assigned to the difference, when I said ‘base’ I did not mean ‘low’ or ‘mean’, I meant ‘fundamental.’ And when I said interesting, I merely meant ‘empirically significant.’ There is an empirical difference between living matter and nonliving matter, despite sharing the same building blocks, which was what you asked with your question.
In your equating of complex recursive self-reference with mere neural circuit patterns you overlook the empirically significant difference, which I was pointing out by analogy to an easier to see example of living and nonliving matter, that share a common fundamental element.
"Lol...indeed. How to measure levels. But one could counter that the dog, non-reliant on interpretive circuitry, is already "awakened" (simply because it is not 'as' self-referencing?)"
Yes, I made this same point in a different thread about brains damaged by disease, if you recall. Although, I must say that if you were fortunate in having an owner that ensured you had plenty of food, exercise and affection, there might be much to be recommended in a dog’s life. Of course you always run the risk of having your balls cut off for no discernible reason
"We can combine existing neural patterns to create novel associations that activate new neuronal patterns that previously did not exist, thereby modifying (in a very subtle fashion) those programs laid down by the genetic and socio-cultural environment. This is how a new thought arises, and how progress is made.
ReplyDelete"Novelty" is circuit-based as well, with programed pathways and "we" can't do anything because it is contingent on predetermined circuitry which began development in childhood. It's ALL in there, so to speak. I would contend that there is no "new" thoughts, in terms of unique. Only impulses leading to other impulses, etc, etc and that wiring began in birth and brought you to this point and will take you farther until the whole system shorts out (which, of course, you have no choice in either).
"It is what allowed you to reject the genetic and socio-cultural programmed concept of the ‘self’, as an example."
You can reject and accept all manner of concepts referring to "self," but you cannot reject the self experience. It's genetically hard-wired into the package.
"Of course you always run the risk of having your balls cut off for no discernible reason."
Nothing occurs for a "discernible reason." Meaning/memory circuits superimpose an order upon chaos in reduction of amygdala based fear circuits.
I'm still not clear on your comparison of brain-controlled organisms with non-brain based matter.
Maybe you could elucidate a bit further.
"Novelty" is circuit-based as well…"
ReplyDeleteThis is circular, our discussion is about whether or not being merely circuit based is significant, you beg the question (you assume that it is significant that it is circuit based) by saying it is circuit based.
"we" can't do anything because it is contingent on predetermined circuitry which began development in childhood."
I understand your contention, but I am contending that you can do something by subtly modifying the circuitry which began development in childhood.
"It's ALL in there, so to speak…Only impulses leading to other impulses, etc, etc and that wiring began in birth and brought you to this point and will take you farther until the whole system shorts out (which, of course, you have no choice in either)."
One physical system can change the outcome of another physical system to some outcome other than that which would have resulted if the first physical system had not intervened. I am not proposing anything magical, the brain is physical representational systems that through ever higher tangled hierarchical representation is eventually able to recursively self-reference itself and by using physical processes alter the outcome that would have occurred if it had not intervened.
While you may say that the way that the brain ‘decides’ to intervene is also subject to the genetic and socio-cultural programming laid down previously, but my contention would be that by combining of existing thoughts into unique patterns (an ability brought on by the highly tangled hierarchical recursively self-referencing of the brain) it subtly alters the underlying patterns resulting in different decisions.
I do admit that this process is highly tangled with the genetic and socio-cultural ground, which is why I repeatedly emphasize ‘subtly modify’. But this is unique and special.
"I would contend that there is no "new" thoughts, in terms of unique."
This is obviously wrong unless you suppose our early hunter gatherer ancestors had the concept of the atom, general relativity and quantum mechanics in mind as the tracked down their prey.
"You can reject and accept all manner of concepts referring to "self," but you cannot reject the self experience. It's genetically hard-wired into the package."
Actually you can, you can’t reject that something is experiencing, but you can reject that it is your ‘self’ that is doing it. That something may just be mistaken in thinking it is your ‘self’ and that it has your body.
"Nothing occurs for a "discernible reason." Meaning/memory circuits superimpose an order upon chaos in reduction of amygdala based fear circuits."
This seems amusing since you are basically espousing the hard determinist’s argument where everything is the result of prior cause. Prior cause is discernible.
"I'm still not clear on your comparison of brain-controlled organisms with non-brain based matter."
See above arguments.
mike...sometimes i find your posts too hard to read, to much to take and sometimes they are like a breath of fresh air. Guess its just the neural firings in my brain at the time of readin ur posts which decide whether i like them or not..!! liked this one..keep writing...thanks!
ReplyDeleteThanks!
ReplyDeleteMike