All that quote says is that we experience reality after it has become explicated, we do not experiment life.
Because we are able to observe life as it becomes explicated (from the Implicate order) that proves it does exist in our observable reality.
That different people experience these observations differently, is due to individual sensory acuteness, not due to differences in our observable reality itself.
These sensory abilities can be tested against scientifically measured natural phenomena.
And then there is the subconscious regulation of the body’s electrochemical responses to its environment. These are all functions of the brain and neural network.
But that has nothing to do with free will. We do not create objective reality, we create individually subjective reality. It is these differences in our sensory relationship with reality that govern our choice of action, some of which are entirely outside our conscious control, such as homeostasis.
This musical genius has a different mind altogether.
Not really, he’s saying it’s impossible to know yourself or other people.
That just goes to what she says about no free will and no self.
Not to mention what that other guy said about teleonomic matter that I still don’t get.
From what I gather on that matter it might mean about goal oriented matter is that what seems like a self/agency is just matter working towards a certain end. Like some kind of illusion or whatnot. Supposedly meaning subjectivity without identity, as in if it has goals then it’s subjective since there would have to be one by default.
Or I guess it means we can identify individuals among the matter by the presence of goals.
The other dude says we don’t need an essence or soul, but I don’t think that’s what I mean by the self. I dunno, identity is tricky for me and I think any sort of subjective experience entails making distinctions from others. Even cells do that to some degree, I think.
That absolute statement requires a very thorough explanation. What prevents one from knowing oneself?
It may be impossible to know everything about oneself, being that our access to all of physical reality is limited.
And there are species that have specific abilities far beyond human natural abilities.
But we have done a fairly good job of unpacking our 6million year old reality in a few centuries of applied science. We have NOT stopped learning.
What we cannot figure out by ourselves will be figured out by natural selection.
Our purposes are determined by nature itself. You find a function by any means or you go extinct. That is the function of evolution by natural selection.
Well according to him in that psychology today article all we have are stereotypes about each other and since we only know about ourselves after something happens then that means we are strangers to ourselves and each other.
I’m just trying to make sense of all the new data I’m getting in, I don’t understand it…
Well I mean all the links I showed pretty much upend the notion of what it means to be human, mostly Susan’s stuff. I mean going so far as to say there is no one because without free will there is no “self” or “I” that is acting or feeling these things.
This is not mainstream, but I am a firm believer that physical reality, including he reality of life rests on mathematics, although the mathematics of consciousness itself may not be computable. (Penrose).
I do, the notion that people exist, have feelings and hopes and dreams and desires and goals to achieve.
But according to her that’s not true because it’s just physical clockwork, there is no one there.
And I’m guessing that’s what the Teleonomic matter from that other guy might mean, that it’s just matter doing stuff and the illusion is there is someone or something.
All those emotions are a result of natural selection resulting in evolutionary choices over time.
It is not purely physical clockwork . Consciousness and “will” (ability to make choices) are emergent properties, that already starts with slime-mould’s demonstrated ability for showing “preference” for oats when presented with a choice of 2 edibles…
She doesn’t say it’s not true. Those things exist, they just don’t form in the ways that people have thought they do through the ages. There isn’t a soul that comes from above. There isn’t a little person in our head with levers and controls. We don’t reincarnate. We can’t map our thoughts and download them into a computer.
A person with schizophrenia can’t think their way out of it. A gang member can’t switch off the trauma of their childhood that led them to their poor life choices. We have been upending these notions for a long time
THat’s effectively saying there is no such thing. These feelings don’t mean anything, they’re just there. A confluence of chemsitry and physics.
EVen at the very end when asked what’s the point of doing anything if we have no control, there is no reason to praise or harm, and all she says is there is no point.
Like she even explicitly says how there is no one doing anything or performing these actions, it’s just motion, no individual.
[quote=“inthedarkness, post:35, topic:11368”]
BUt that’s not really will or freedom if it’s just the result of physical processes. like I was saying above:
What do you think will or freedom is? You want divine powers over the universe?
There are no universal gods. But you are god over your own local biome.
I do, the notion that people exist, have feelings and hopes and dreams and desires and goals to achieve.
Eveverybody you see exists, have feelings, and hopes, and dreams, and desires, and goals, to achieve.
ALL YOU NEED DO IS CHOOSE! YOU HAVE THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND THE RESOURCES SUFFICIENT TO ACHIEVE AND “REALIZE” SOME OF THESE EXPECTATIONS.
Again, telling people to “read it again” is not engagement. I’ve quoted Susan to highlight my points. You claim to correctly interpret her conclusions, then say you have a problem with them. If you think they are wrong, then make a case for it.