Almost at peace with my life

[blackh]

Kevin,

I've discovered something. This is all new so I may not have it all right.

The mind is like a radio receiver and thoughts are like radio stations. Or, the mind is like a web address and thoughts are like websites. The mind "tunes in" to a thought, and receives its transmission. That's why thoughts look like they're in "streams".

When the mind changes from one thought to another, the receiver is shifting frequency. Thoughts have feeling associated with them. I am not sure, but I think thoughts generate feelings that can trigger a frequency shift.

I did an experiment where I tried to feel fearful, which is not common for me. I noticed fleeting images of scary faces and so on. I think that feelings (such as fear) affect the tuning of the thought receiver, and this is what I was doing. I also think thoughts can generate new feelings, and that this is a bit like a web hyperlinks to a new thought. So it looks like there's a feedback loop between thoughts and feelings that causes thoughts to lead onto other thoughts in repeatable ways and they can even loop. This happens when a person is worried about something, for example.

I think we can be tuned into more than one thought at a time. I think my so-called "fuzzy ball" is the "I" thought. It is usually running when other thoughts are running. The reason why I think "I" is a thought is that it has a thought-like feeling associated with it. It seems to be especially persistent and pervasive.

I said that by going into a meditative state I can make thoughts go quiet. I'm guessing this is another frequency shift. Even in my meditative state I feel the "I" thought. It must be possible to tune out of the "I" thought altogether.

I previously noted that it's possible to switch to a new thought unconsciously, where the next thing I know is looking back at the new thought. I don't know how this works yet.


Steve

[KevinD]

Hi Steve,

That's an interesting analogy, I never thought of it like that.

Let's move forward a bit and see how thev self relates to the body.

Solely from direct experience:

Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinesthetic)?

Does the body experience sensations and thoughts?


Best,
Kevin

[blackh]

Kevin,

Is the "body" just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile & kinesthetic)?
With eyes closed there are sensations and thoughts about sensations with a spatial quality that suggest "body". I can't see any actual body there.

With eyes open there's an image of a physical object. Physical objects don't exist in direct experience, only sensation of them does.

My answer is: In DE, yes it is.

Does the body experience sensations and thoughts?
Staying in DE, I can't find a body. There are only sensations and thoughts.


Steve

[KevinD]

Hi Steve,
Great stuff.
Short and sweet answers seem to keep you from wandering too far into thought.

Let's recap some of the areas we've covered.

So, there we are then. Let's just look at all this from a slightly different angle:

With 'you' revealed as a thought story, what remains?

What experiences?

What thinks?

What does?

What is aware?


Best,
Kevin

[blackh]

Kevin,

Thanks for this. I think I need your help with the question of will/control. I've rearranged the order of your questions:

What is aware?
I can't see any thing that is aware. But the fact that awareness exists is self-evident.

What experiences?
I think "experience" means "awareness of an event plus thoughts". Common thoughts are "it is happening to me" and judgements about whether the experience was good or bad. I can't see any meaning of "experience" outside of that.

So nothing experiences. It's just awareness of events plus awareness of thoughts.

What thinks?
Thoughts exist and there is awareness of them.

But here's where I have some trouble: Am "I" either causing or choosing thoughts? This appears to be the case.

I know thoughts are mostly automatic, but I don't know they're completely automatic. Is there an "I" influencing what thoughts are observed by awareness? Thoughts can declare the fact of awareness, so could there also be an 'I' connected with awareness influencing them?

What does?
I know the body can make decisions and act without thoughts. But thoughts precede actions and largely predict them, so that they appear to be causing them.

I know thoughts can influence later thoughts, but I don't know that there isn't an "I" also exerting some influence. If "I" can influence thoughts and thoughts can cause actions, then "I" can control the body.

With 'you' revealed as a thought story, what remains?
Awareness sees but is not seen and it is self-evident. Otherwise I can only see thoughts and sensations, and this makes "me" look empty, which is good!

I am convinced 'I' is a thought story because it looks and feels exactly like one, and I've seen plenty of them, so I should know. But it is a persistent thought story. No other theory I know can account for what's observed.

But I am not sure that there isn't a controlling will. That is, some 'I' that can direct thoughts even though it clearly can't control them completely. Even though the body can decide and act without thoughts, it still looks like thoughts can direct the body.

Maybe you know what question to ask to help answer this.


Steve

[KevinD]

Hi Steve,
Thanks for the honest answers.

Am "I" either causing or choosing thoughts? This appears to be the case.

If I is a thought story, as you say, how can it cause our choose thoughts?

I know the body can make decisions and act without thoughts. But thoughts precede actions and largely predict them, so that they appear to be causing them.

Do they really precede action?
Science suggests thoughts trail action by as much as six seconds, but the brain convinces us otherwise.
Do you have evidence tov the contrary?
Best,
Kevin

[blackh]

Kevin,

I watched this video about free will https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqXfQDtPYZU (Susan Blackmore) to get a better overview of the arguments. Because this is specific and on-topic I am hoping this is not breaking the spirit of the "no books and videos" rule. I found it really good. It covered a wide range of arguments, Libet experiments, philosophical arguments, Buddhist teachings, etc.

If I is a thought story, as you say, how can it cause our choose thoughts?
Clearly it can't. But will could conceivably exist outside the "I" story in the same way awareness does, BUT...

Do you have evidence to the contrary?
This is the key point. No I don't. If there was evidence for it I would have seen it in my life somewhere. Human behaviour points to the opposite. People vote based on the information they have, and buy based on the ads they've seen.

Do they [thoughts] really precede action?
Perhaps we should ask, "Do thoughts precede decisions?" And it's not at all obvious whether this is true. Libet and salt shaker experiments cast a lot of doubt on this idea. Actually most decisions happen without any thoughts.

---

I have found today (and I have done this before) that if I imagine that I am awareness watching the Steve being go about its business, that it "feels right". Nothing I observe is inconsistent with this view. So many decisions don't register as thoughts yet are perfectly reasonable. I think this is a major clue.

So I think I'm pretty happy with 'no free will' now, and happy with the "I" story being just a story - one that I'm tired of hearing. When I look inside I am feeling more empty: thoughts/emotions and sensations with empty space in between.

So what now? I need to keep contemplating these things and it's already much clearer, but I will gratefully accept any more suggestions you have.


Steve

[blackh]

Slightly dull but I thought this decision without thoughts was worth documenting (can't always catch them):

I walked to fill a water bottle distracted by thoughts. Between thoughts I briefly imagine the bathroom sink. Surprised to discover I am instead going into the kitchen. The bottle is too big to fit under the bathroom tap. Of course I would go into the kitchen!

[KevinD]

Hi Steve,

Good work so far.

I watched this video about free will

I watched it, it seemed fairly interesting.
Thanks.

But will could conceivably exist outside the "I" story in the same way awareness does, BUT…

And whose will would that be?

People vote based on the information they have, and buy based on the ads they've seen.

Excellent example.
People vote on emotion, the same reason they buy a home. Any brain work assigned to that process is conjured up by, well, the brain.
Surprise, surprise.

Perhaps we should ask, "Do thoughts precede decisions?" And it's not at all obvious whether this is true. Libet and salt shaker experiments cast a lot of doubt on this idea. Actually most decisions happen without any thoughts.

This is the video you should watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih6f-0T2Ow0
Give me your reaction to that video. Did it change your thoughts on the subject of free will?

Note: we can discuss what questions should be asked after we get through this process.
Remember, I will point, you will observe.
No hierarchy, just a walk through the forest, so to speak, me pointing, you observing.
Does that work for you?

Great work,

Kevin

[blackh]

Kevin,

But will could conceivably exist outside the "I" story in the same way awareness does, BUT…

And whose will would that be?

I can't say, but I can't say whose awareness is aware either. I'm just saying it's possible. But, there is no evidence for its existence.

Give me your reaction to that video. Did it change your thoughts on the subject of free will?
We covered free will earlier and you pointed me at this video. I watched it again now and took notes. The video doesn't quite work for me:

• "Either our wills are determined by a long chain of prior causes, or they're determined by some random influences and we're not responsible for them. No matter how you turn the dial between these, it doesn't make the notion of free will make any more sense."
  
  Later in the video he points out a few times that he is arguing for determinism.
  
  By "random influences" I assume he is talking about quantum effects. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that quantum effects are random, but I have never heard any argument as to why they are random. Just because something looks random, doesn't mean it is random. Weather appears random, but it's not random. It's complex. Also we know that the observer has some effect in quantum mechanics.
  
  Surely this argument is illogical: 1. we observe something that looks random, 2. the degree of randomness is affected by something called the observer (and we're not sure what it is), 3. therefore it is random. Now we build a case for a deterministic universe on this basis.
• I completely agreed about how it changes culpability - how we don't blame the grizzly bear that attacks someone, how it could lead to a culture war, and how it undermines Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
• The Charles Whitman example was really interesting, but if we know brain structure can cause actions, it doesn't follow that brain structure is the only cause of actions.
• "If you can't control your next thought, and you don't know what it's going to be before
  it arises, where's your freedom of will?"
  
  To me, this is a more fruitful line of inquiry.
• "If we could perfectly understand the brain of any one murderer, no matter how evil. ... If we could see how the wrong genes could be relentlessly transcribed. If we could see how life circumstances .. lead to a reliably producing bad behaviour..."
  
  What is the point of speculating about what would happen if we could perform a feat of mathematically impossible complexity?

Two main conclusions:

• If you can prove determinism, then free will is safely dealt with. He's trying to prove strong determinism. But I think quantum physics makes determinism very difficult to prove and I've yet to hear an argument that deals with this.
• There is an unstated materialist assumption running through this talk (that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain). In my view NDE research (such as Pim van Lommel) shows that consciousness, memory, thoughts, sight (in adjacent rooms) and hearing can all function when the eyes are closed, ears are plugged, and there is no detectable electrical activity in the brain. I am not speculating about what is going on here - I am just saying that it ruins arguments based on brain activity and structure.

There is enough doubt in these physics-based arguments that they don't work for me. Empirical arguments ("Can we observe free will in our experience?") work much better.

Remember, I will point, you will observe.
No hierarchy, just a walk through the forest, so to speak, me pointing, you observing.
Does that work for you?

That works great! I'll keep observing actions and thoughts.


Steve

[KevinD]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the complete response.
My apologies, we have wandered way off the notion of direct experience.

That said, I'd like this clarified.

And whose will would that be?

I'm just saying it's possible.

As will is an agency, whose agency would that be?
How is it possible that there is will without a director of that?

Best,
Kevin

[KevinD]

Just an fyi, it's starting to get busy here, holiday wise.
I'll try to keep a daily eye on this, but distractions may be happening.

Merry Christmas,
Kevin

[blackh]

Kevin,

As will is an agency, whose agency would that be?
The Kabbalists say that manifestation is the product of a creative urge, and that there is an (unknowable) intention at the root of all causes, and we would call it "divine influence" (mezlah).

How is it possible that there is will without a director of that?
There could be a universal directing principle reflecting as "inspiration" in human decisions.

It's just an idea and I'm not attached to it. I just want the truth. I'm happy to reject anything I can't observe directly, and I can't observe this directly. I'm definitely finding this free will thing a bit of a challenge. I think the solution will be in lots of introspection.

---
Merry Christmas to you too! I have lots of contemplation to do so don't worry about being timely.


Steve

[KevinD]

Hi Steve,

We do need to get back into direct experience here.
Academic debate won't bring further clarity.

I just want the truth.

Perfect, I hope you can find it.

I'm happy to reject anything I can't observe directly, and I can't observe this directly. I'm definitely finding this free will thing a bit of a challenge. I think the solution will be in lots of introspection.

With that in mind, I want you to spend the next bit looking deeply, in direct experience, what it is that apparently has free will.
Don't settle for fast answers.
Let the question roll around a bit.

Best,
Kevin

[blackh]

Kevin,

Thanks again. It may take a short time or it may take a long time, but I am going to find the truth.

I'm working on what it is that apparently has free will? Here's today's report.

I told my daughter I was trying to decide whether we have free will and she said, "Of course we do!" Fair enough.

I've been trying to watch Steve with a meditative mind to see what it does. Going for walks seems good. Behaviour tends to follow set patterns in the house, but out in nature decisions are more arbitrary, and it's quiet.

Do thoughts come before or after decisions? It looks like decisions are made in a subconscious part of the body/mind - by which I mean that they are hidden from view. Thoughts seem to be partially privy to their logic before the action is taken. Thoughts can use this to appear to predict actions. On my walk, thoughts knew "If I go that way, maybe I will find which tree the owl is in", but did not seem sure about which option would be finally taken until it was taken, and then it was suddenly the most obvious thing in the world to have done. Also previous study of human behaviour tells me that people often dream up reasons for (i.e. rationalize) their actions but the true reason is something quite different and is often emotional.

Sensations obviously influence decisions. Decisions are also based on logic and memory. Thoughts either influence decisions, or they are privy to and tell stories about subconscious decision logic. I am not sure which - I suspect the latter.

If free will exists, then it has to be an influence on the subconscious decision making faculty. Two things are becoming pretty obvious: 1. Free will is not visible, and 2. the human body/mind is capable of such sophisticated logic that free will is not required to explain its actions.

I'm perfectly happy to ignore the "I did that" thought story. If something isn't visible and isn't necessary, then it probably doesn't exist. Will continue to watch Steve.


Steve