Does consciousness affect matter?

[Brant Gaede]

Using Your Mind To Change Your Brain from Atlas Summit 2013.

Just watched it. Joel uses a sound approach, because it begins with self observation. He's also spot on about blaming our past treatment by others for our present, and I take that idea even further in that. In my view, all evil acts arise from the angry blame (unjust accusation) of others. All people who do evil first fantasize themselves to be innocent victims of an imaginary injustice who have no choice but to retaliate. This principle is also alluded to in the Bible, where Satan is sometimes referred to as "the accuser". The angry unjust accusation of others is an evil act in itself, for all of the other evils are its spawn.

"All"? "All"?

--Brant

Yes.

All.

It is impossible to commit an evil act without first regarding yourself as an innocent oppressed victim of a perceived injustice, and indulging in the angry blame (unjust accusation) of others.

Why impossible? Why not unlikely?

--Brant

Because no person who does an evil act does so without intellectually justifying it to feel that they're doing what's right by repaying an imaginary evil with a real evil. The common bond of all people who do evil is that they view themselves as victims. But not just victims... an innocent victims of imaginary injustice who have no choice but to act out.

No evil act is ever unjustified within the mind of the evil doer.

You are arguing by mere asseveration offering no data, no studies, to back up your all inclusive position which rationally could only belong to God if there was a God. You sound almost reasonable until you disappear into "All." "No evil act is ever unjustified within the mind of the evil doer" is emblematic of preaching. Suppose swans were commonly black not white and you spent your life travelling the world looking for a white swan and found not a single one nor was any reported? Even then you would not be entitled to say, "There are no white swans" only that you have never encountered one. Even scientists can fall into this epistemological trap--i.e. "The atom will never be split."

--Brant

[moralist]

Using Your Mind To Change Your Brain from Atlas Summit 2013.

Just watched it. Joel uses a sound approach, because it begins with self observation. He's also spot on about blaming our past treatment by others for our present, and I take that idea even further in that. In my view, all evil acts arise from the angry blame (unjust accusation) of others. All people who do evil first fantasize themselves to be innocent victims of an imaginary injustice who have no choice but to retaliate. This principle is also alluded to in the Bible, where Satan is sometimes referred to as "the accuser". The angry unjust accusation of others is an evil act in itself, for all of the other evils are its spawn.

"All"? "All"?

--Brant

Yes.

All.

It is impossible to commit an evil act without first regarding yourself as an innocent oppressed victim of a perceived injustice, and indulging in the angry blame (unjust accusation) of others.

Why impossible? Why not unlikely?

--Brant

Because no person who does an evil act does so without intellectually justifying it to feel that they're doing what's right by repaying an imaginary evil with a real evil. The common bond of all people who do evil is that they view themselves as victims. But not just victims... an innocent victims of imaginary injustice who have no choice but to act out.

No evil act is ever unjustified within the mind of the evil doer.

You are arguing by mere asseveration offering no data, no studies, to back up your all inclusive position which rationally could only belong to God if there was a God.

Correct.

This view does not belong to me. I only made the choice to agree with it because si see that it's true just as you are free to choose to disagree with it because you see it as being false.

And I'm only stating my opinion which is just one of many here. I'm not even arguing that people cannot commit evil acts without first fantasizing themselves as being victims. People either see for themselves that it's true... or they don't.

It's totally your call...

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Using Your Mind To Change Your Brain from Atlas Summit 2013.

Just watched it. Joel uses a sound approach, because it begins with self observation. He's also spot on about blaming our past treatment by others for our present, and I take that idea even further in that. In my view, all evil acts arise from the angry blame (unjust accusation) of others. All people who do evil first fantasize themselves to be innocent victims of an imaginary injustice who have no choice but to retaliate. This principle is also alluded to in the Bible, where Satan is sometimes referred to as "the accuser". The angry unjust accusation of others is an evil act in itself, for all of the other evils are its spawn.

"All"? "All"?

--Brant

Yes.

All.

It is impossible to commit an evil act without first regarding yourself as an innocent oppressed victim of a perceived injustice, and indulging in the angry blame (unjust accusation) of others.

Why impossible? Why not unlikely?

--Brant

Because no person who does an evil act does so without intellectually justifying it to feel that they're doing what's right by repaying an imaginary evil with a real evil. The common bond of all people who do evil is that they view themselves as victims. But not just victims... an innocent victims of imaginary injustice who have no choice but to act out.

No evil act is ever unjustified within the mind of the evil doer.

You are arguing by mere asseveration offering no data, no studies, to back up your all inclusive position which rationally could only belong to God if there was a God.

Correct.

This view does not belong to me. I only made the choice to agree with it because si see that it's true just as you are free to choose to disagree with it because you see it as being false.

And I'm only stating my opinion which is just one of many here. I'm not even arguing that people cannot commit evil acts without first fantasizing themselves as being victims. People either see for themselves that it's true... or they don't.

It's totally your call...

Greg

Like I said. I could say more but you said it for me.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Moralist in addition to his other unique qualities, is the most passive aggressive OLer to come down the pike since I have been here

[moralist]

Using Your Mind To Change Your Brain from Atlas Summit 2013.

Just watched it. Joel uses a sound approach, because it begins with self observation. He's also spot on about blaming our past treatment by others for our present, and I take that idea even further in that. In my view, all evil acts arise from the angry blame (unjust accusation) of others. All people who do evil first fantasize themselves to be innocent victims of an imaginary injustice who have no choice but to retaliate. This principle is also alluded to in the Bible, where Satan is sometimes referred to as "the accuser". The angry unjust accusation of others is an evil act in itself, for all of the other evils are its spawn.

"All"? "All"?

--Brant

Yes.

All.

It is impossible to commit an evil act without first regarding yourself as an innocent oppressed victim of a perceived injustice, and indulging in the angry blame (unjust accusation) of others.

Why impossible? Why not unlikely?

--Brant

Because no person who does an evil act does so without intellectually justifying it to feel that they're doing what's right by repaying an imaginary evil with a real evil. The common bond of all people who do evil is that they view themselves as victims. But not just victims... an innocent victims of imaginary injustice who have no choice but to act out.

No evil act is ever unjustified within the mind of the evil doer.

You are arguing by mere asseveration offering no data, no studies, to back up your all inclusive position which rationally could only belong to God if there was a God.

Correct.

This view does not belong to me. I only made the choice to agree with it because si see that it's true just as you are free to choose to disagree with it because you see it as being false.

And I'm only stating my opinion which is just one of many here. I'm not even arguing that people cannot commit evil acts without first fantasizing themselves as being victims. People either see for themselves that it's true... or they don't.

It's totally your call...

Greg

Like I said. I could say more but you said it for me.

--Brant

Thanks for recognizing that, Brant.

Instead of contending, or arguing, or trying to convince others of my view, I choose to simply describe my view as clearly as I can, and describe as completely as possible how it contrasts to the view of others.

For all practical intents and purposes, we each take the view we have already chosen with us to our graves.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Using Your Mind To Change Your Brain from Atlas Summit 2013.

Just watched it. Joel uses a sound approach, because it begins with self observation. He's also spot on about blaming our past treatment by others for our present, and I take that idea even further in that. In my view, all evil acts arise from the angry blame (unjust accusation) of others. All people who do evil first fantasize themselves to be innocent victims of an imaginary injustice who have no choice but to retaliate. This principle is also alluded to in the Bible, where Satan is sometimes referred to as "the accuser". The angry unjust accusation of others is an evil act in itself, for all of the other evils are its spawn.

"All"? "All"?

--Brant

Yes.

All.

It is impossible to commit an evil act without first regarding yourself as an innocent oppressed victim of a perceived injustice, and indulging in the angry blame (unjust accusation) of others.

Why impossible? Why not unlikely?

--Brant

Because no person who does an evil act does so without intellectually justifying it to feel that they're doing what's right by repaying an imaginary evil with a real evil. The common bond of all people who do evil is that they view themselves as victims. But not just victims... an innocent victims of imaginary injustice who have no choice but to act out.

No evil act is ever unjustified within the mind of the evil doer.

You are arguing by mere asseveration offering no data, no studies, to back up your all inclusive position which rationally could only belong to God if there was a God.

Correct.

This view does not belong to me. I only made the choice to agree with it because si see that it's true just as you are free to choose to disagree with it because you see it as being false.

And I'm only stating my opinion which is just one of many here. I'm not even arguing that people cannot commit evil acts without first fantasizing themselves as being victims. People either see for themselves that it's true... or they don't.

It's totally your call...

Greg

Like I said. I could say more but you said it for me.

--Brant

Thanks for recognizing that, Brant.

Instead of contending, or arguing, or trying to convince others of my view, I choose to simply describe my view as clearly as I can, and describe as completely as possible how it contrasts to the view of others.

For all practical intents and purposes, we each take the view we have already chosen with us to our graves.

Greg

I must point out you totally misunderstand my position which is entirely contrary to yours. I'm assuming you are being honest and taking you at your word, that you are not a master of verbal Aikido.

--Brant

[moralist]

I must point out you totally misunderstand my position which is entirely contrary to yours.

I fully understand that your view is the opposite of mine, Brant... and I'm totally ok with that as I only get the consequences I deserve from my own view, and not the views of others. I was only agreeing with your description of my view as not belonging to me by confirming that I belong to it.

Greg

[Darrell Hougen]

Using Your Mind To Change Your Brain from Atlas Summit 2013.

Merlin,

Thanks for the link.

I really like the positive psychology school. I've actually read Csikszentmihalyi (the "flow" guy) and a few others, although I am not far enough into the lecture yet to know how far Wade is involved. I had to interrupt my viewing last night after about 10 minutes or so.

I only mentioned positive psychology because Wade did at the beginning. But so far, this seems to be more of a lecture on obtaining new habits in a manner very similar to the Kaizen method taken to a personal level while adding some observations about creating new neural pathways.

At any rate, I expect to enjoy the rest of the lecture. Let's see where it goes.

Incidentally, here is the embed:

And here is another lecture from the Atlas Summit 2013 that has bearing on this thread. I intend to watch this one, too.

What Science Says About Free Will -- Raymond Raad

Here is the link to the The Atlas Society YouTube videos if people want to easily access their other lectures: Uploaded videos by Atlas Society

There are several on that list that just now caught my attention. Looks like I am going to be busy watching videos over the next few weeks.

Michael

I watched both videos and found them both interesting. Wade offers good advice for controlling emotions, or at least changing habits --- eliminating bad habits and forming new ones. I liked his advice for gaining distance from emotional reactions. He also talks about forming new neural pathways which relates back to neuroplasticity, but I don't think anything he said was inconsistent with what I said earlier in terms of different levels of description. Changing mental habits at the conscious level is equivalent to changing neural pathways in the brain at a lower level of description. They aren't really two different things, they are just two different descriptions of the same thing.

Of course, it is funny to think that our conscious activities correspond to changes in our brains. We have no direct experience of what is happening in our brains. We don't know what regions of our brains are active or quiescent, what neurons are firing, where new neurons are growing or dying, where they are sending out new dendrites or forming new synapses, etc., so we don't normally realize that learning how to play baseball changes our brains and that therefore, the choice to play baseball corresponds to a choice to change our brains. We experience the changes in our brains as the learning of a skill or the changing of a habit. At the same time, we don't know what neurons fire when we make a choice so we don't even really know what a low level description of making a choice would be.

I also enjoyed Raymond's talk. I think his talk helped me to understand some things about myself. For example, I was fascinated by the experiments concerning "ego depletion." My job requires a lot of conscious thought. So, that might explain why there is a limit to how hard I can work. I sometimes think that if I could just force myself to work longer hours or work weekends that I could get a lot more done. However, when I spend extra time, I often find that I'm not really getting more done. After a while, I find myself getting distracted and having difficulty focusing. Well, perhaps I've already used up my "ego" for the day. Of course, that could easily become an excuse for not getting more done, but it potentially shows the futility of trying to work too hard at some kinds of jobs.

Darrell

[BaalChatzaf]

Use your brain to move your ass.

Yes consciousness affects matter.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I must point out you totally misunderstand my position which is entirely contrary to yours.

I fully understand that your view is the opposite of mine, Brant... and I'm totally ok with that as I only get the consequences I deserve from my own view, and not the views of others. I was only agreeing with your description of my view as not belonging to me by confirming that I belong to it.

Greg

My view is my position respecting what we know and don't know and the vast in-between where resides the tentativeness of knowledge which you traduce.

--Brant

[moralist]

I must point out you totally misunderstand my position which is entirely contrary to yours.

I fully understand that your view is the opposite of mine, Brant... and I'm totally ok with that as I only get the consequences I deserve from my own view, and not the views of others. I was only agreeing with your description of my view as not belonging to me by confirming that I belong to it.

Greg

My view is my position respecting what we know and don't know...

Your position is respecting what you know and don't know...

We each chose different views, and the reality of the just and deserved consequences of our own actions renders the final verdict on their veracity. That cannot be resolved by typing words on a forum.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Is it rational or irrational? Is it reason or not? Conceptuality is a given since we are human, reason is not. Should we champion reason or a viewpoint sans reason? The last may sound reasonable but reasonable doesn't in itself make for rational. When we reason together we are searching for the rational, if we are rational, not per se a "view." What seek thee?

--Brant

[moralist]

Is it rational or irrational? Is it reason or not?

I ask a different question of myself:

Is it moral?

Conceptuality is a given since we are human, reason is not.

Yes.

We are completely subjective beings who cannot be objective ourselves. We can only either subjectively agree or disagree with what is objective.

Should we champion reason or a viewpoint sans reason?

I myself chose a moral viewpoint.

And can only champion it for myself in my own life and not for others. As everyone freely chooses their own view, it is non transferrable to others.

The last may sound reasonable but reasonable doesn't in itself make for rational. When we reason together we are searching for the rational, if we are rational, not per se a "view." What seek thee? --Brant

I seek what is moral.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

I seek what is moral.

Greg

And you probably believe you have found it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

I seek what is moral.

Greg

And you probably believe you have found it.

The reality of the just and deserved consequences of my actions lets me know in no uncertain terms whether or not I found it.

[Brant Gaede]

I seek what is moral.

Greg

And you probably believe you have found it.

The reality of the just and deserved consequences of my actions lets me know in no uncertain terms whether or not I found it.

That can work, but getting run over by a truck to find out you shouldn't stand in front of one might be the wrong price to pay to learn what you found out just before you were turned into a pancake.

--Brant

even if carried butter and maple syrup

[moralist]

I seek what is moral.

Greg

And you probably believe you have found it.

The reality of the just and deserved consequences of my actions lets me know in no uncertain terms whether or not I found it.

That can work, but getting run over by a truck to find out you shouldn't stand in front of one might be the wrong price to pay to learn what you found out just before you were turned into a pancake.

--Brant

even if carried butter and maple syrup

You know the old saying:

"You can do it the easy way or the hard way."

Every calamity is preceded by portents... so if you pay attention to what's going on around you, you'll be just fine.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I also enjoyed Raymond's talk. I think his talk helped me to understand some things about myself. For example, I was fascinated by the experiments concerning "ego depletion." My job requires a lot of conscious thought. So, that might explain why there is a limit to how hard I can work. I sometimes think that if I could just force myself to work longer hours or work weekends that I could get a lot more done. However, when I spend extra time, I often find that I'm not really getting more done. After a while, I find myself getting distracted and having difficulty focusing. Well, perhaps I've already used up my "ego" for the day. Of course, that could easily become an excuse for not getting more done, but it potentially shows the futility of trying to work too hard at some kinds of jobs.

Darrell,

I haven't finished the talks yet, but I want to mention two things. Right now I am going through Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman (I'm doing both audiobook and print book with my own underlines and marginalia--this is a very important book). You might want to look into this. He concentrates on cognition, not emotion, and in cognition, he calls the subconscious "System 1," and conscious awareness "System 2."

System 1 thinks fast and System 2 thinks slow. You can't turn System 1 off, and System 2 takes effort. You have to engage it by will and it can override System 1. Even program System 1 up to a point. It's also lazy.

Fascinating book.

In the problem you mentioned with diminishing mental returns, there is a book I read you might like: The Willpower Instinct: How Self-Control Works, Why It Matters, and What You Can Do To Get More of It by Kelly McGonigal. (It has a great marketing title, but that can be misleading. This is more than just a self-help book based on anecdotes.)

According to research, your willpower literally consumes calories and gets tired like muscles do. McGonigal goes into all the neuroscience behind this, with some surprising results. For example, if you have work you need to complete and your mind is worn out, you can give your willpower a temporary boost by eating something high in calories and quick to digest. Eat a jelly donut. Or several.

Be careful with the blood sugar crash, though. You have to be pumped enough in your task to override the crash. But your mind will function well again. This is only for a short while, obviously. And it's not very good for your waistline.

Michael

[dldelancey]

Michael,

One of my son's early teachers suggested that he follow along with his finger when he was reading (because he was struggling with reading). It didn't help, and she was surprised because apparently it had always helped with other students. On a whim and knowing that he's ambidextrous, I told him to try it with the other hand. It worked! Obvious improvement. Later, we learned he's dyslexic. Following along with his finger is one of many strategies he now employs to compensate. Another is that he figured out how to tell p from q by assigning a musical note to them that he now hears inside his head when he sees them on the page.

No point, just thought you'd find that interesting based your speed-reading post. :-)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Man, did I mess up. The book I read about a year ago on willpower is:

Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength by Roy Baumeister and John Tierney

I own the other one by Kelly McGonigal and plan on reading it. In fact, I've read some things about it. (And what I say about it is accurate from my skim when I got it.) I don't know why I mixed those two up.

Maybe I should start studying memory.

EDIT: btw - I just finished the chapter in Thinking Fast and Slow on ego depletion. Kahneman also talks about the calories used up by mental effort, sort of--he is more accurate than my memory is. He talks about glucose, not calories.

Maybe I should go back to junk food. I was a mess before, but at least I was fat, dumb and happy and my memory worked.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Man, did I mess up.

Michael

Step one of the 12 step un-messing the messup program.

Excellent.

--Brant

the additional self esteem must feel great!

[Peter]

Michael wrote:

I am intrigued by the constant glimpses we see from in between the cracks of our own evolutionary development. I believe human beings are still evolving forms of awareness and I base this on the fact that we have evolved what we have so far from so little.

And later, on this thread, Michael wrote:

On a strict verification level, humans have no way to observe the universe from a big picture perspective. We can only abstract it in a manner that makes sense to our human size.

end quotes

Only as an aside to this excellent discussion, I went to a doctor at the VA today to get a prescription refilled and had a conversation about dementia and Alzheimer’s. From my case files, he knows my Mother exhibited symptoms of dementia when she was in her mid eighties, and I worry about her genes affecting me. A bad recurring dream I used to have concerned losing my car keys, losing my car at the Mall, not being able to understand the training for a new job, etc. The Doc mentioned that a cure for Alzheimer’s is near the end of the “rat testing stage” and THEY HAVE CURED ALZHEIMER’S but it gave the rats diabetes. He was very optimistic that all problems will be solved and human trials will begin.

Anyway, Michael’s above comments got me to thinking about “induced” human brain evolution occurring faster because we want to be smarter and faster, just like our computers, so at some point our processing speeds will be engineered like a computer’s. I truly don’t think we will bone-headedly engineer Superheroes (or Frankenstein’s Monsters) but we will evolve at a faster and faster rate through medical science. As usual, developed countries will surge further ahead of the lesser developed. Because we want it, so shall it be. Consciousness does, and will, affect matter.

I am still a few days behind in reading this thread but I see Darryl has written:

Looking at a very low level, we would see tens of billions of neurons all firing hundreds of times per second with each one firing at its own, individual rate, and those rates would be changing over time in response to the firing rates of other neurons that are connected through thousands or tens of thousands of connections per neuron. At a somewhat higher level, we would see various regions of the brain that are specialized to process incoming sensory signals from each of the sense organs --- the eyes, ears, nose, mouth and tactile neurons

end quote

Does anyone care to speculate how, where, and how fast human brains will evolve? I apologize if this has already been discussed. And would the concept *volition* be supported by choosing to enhance our own brains?

Peter

[Darrell Hougen]

This article contains some updated information on neuroplasticity. Apparently, scientists can now on turn a rat's ability to make associations, or forget them, by giving them certain drugs. I have no particular comment to make at this time, but thought it would be of interest to people who have been following this thread.

Darrell

[Peter]

Darrell wrote:

Apparently, scientists can now on turn a rat's ability to make associations, or forget them, by giving them certain drugs.

end quote

I can see the possibility of great good and great harm.

I remember reading during the Iraq and the Afghanistan Wars about medics ON THEIR OWN giving wounded and traumatized men extra shots of morphine and it DID have the affect of greatly easing the memories and PTS. I have no doubt the medics were made to stand in front of some review board to explain using up their morphine supplies. I am sure that were forced to take drug tests, so the medics were incredibly brave to do it. If newer drugs can lessen the pain of memories that is a good thing. If drugs can ease worrying in the elderly without affecting their cognitive abilities that would be great.

On the dark side, there are the examples of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,” and Nurse Ratchet. Criminal behavior – “Forget you ever saw me;” Government abuse as in Nazi Germany, or the novel “1984.” North Korea has turned its people into public “sheep,” and I am sure the younger people are sheep in private. That is horrible.

Yet can an innovation be stifled? The world tries with nuclear proliferation and fails. If Iran nukes Israel, will Israel retaliate ten times over? I am amazed that America and Russia or America in proxy for Japan against China, North Korea and South Korea, or Pakistan and India have not killed each other by now. Must it, sooner or later, occur?

I remember thinking after reading about that atom smasher in Europe, "Is any innovation too great to know?"

[BaalChatzaf]

Yet can an innovation be stifled? The world tries with nuclear proliferation and fails. If Iran nukes Israel, will Israel retaliate ten times over?

My answer: Recall the story of Sampson.