Writing is my artistic expression. My keyboard is my brush. Words are my medium. My blog is my canvas. And committing to writing daily makes me feel like an artist.
Have you ever wondered about that inner voice you hear? Who is speaking? And who is the voice speaking to?
Is the voice lifting you up or pushing you down?
Is the voice helping you make decisions or making your decisions difficult?
Is the voice convincing you to take action or has it convinced you not to?
There are times the voice listens to your body, telling you of hunger, thirst, or need of sleep. There are other times when it listens to your mind, telling you to question, to learn, to problem solve. These are times when the inner voice makes sense, it is a collaborator, an ally. There is congruence.
And then there are times it negotiates with you, telling you reasons you should or should not do something… it is indecisive or in conflict with your instincts. At these moments I wonder who is talking to who? When the scales tips and the decision is made, whose decision was it? Where does the incongruence come from?
Is there a path we can travel where we live in full congruence with ourselves? Can we find a path where our inner voice always acts in our best interest? Where we do not argue with ourselves? Is this a path worth seeking, or are we indecisive by nature and require internal conflict?
What does your inner voice think when it hears this question: Can our internal voice be harmonious?
Is that a realistic goal or an unrealistic expectation?
“What’s between our ears is the last frontier.” ~ Abraham Truss
Isn’t it amazing how much we know about the complexities of life, the universe and everything, but we don’t know where consciousness comes from? We still debate whether or not we have free will.
There is so much we still don’t know about the last frontier.
If we have free will then I believe that how much choice we have will beinfluenced considerably by our circumstance and by how virtuous we are.
I won’t try to explain this too much further here, visit them post if this idea interests you. The image I added tried to do too much with a single chart, but my main points were that 1. You have more choice when you have more wealth (better circumstances); and, 2. You have less free will when you are more virtuous. Example: A very virtuous person can’t choose to take advantage of someone for profit the way a less virtuous person can, but the less virtuous person can make the choice to do so, or to not do so, or to maybe be 1/2 ‘generous’ and take advantage for less profit than possible, because they consider themselves as being nice.
But where do beliefs fit in? And what does this have to do with facts?
I think we might have less free will than I originally thought because our belief system alters our view of what truth is. When you believe that your religion is the only path to your salvation, then the information that led you to this belief are going to seem like facts… and these facts limit your choices and free will. If you follow Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Judaism, you have beliefs about the world we live in that are different from the other faiths. Based on your interpretation, there are things you can and can’t do, such as dietary restrictions. In many cases, your choice of partner are limited, by faith, or even by gender.
But I’m just using religion as an example. We have many beliefs that affect our perception of facts, and that affect the choices we make. Conspiracy theories work like a religion. They paint the picture of a world that limits our choices and our ability to see alternative views. If you wholeheartedly believe the world is flat, you need to build a whole world model around how international flights arrive on time, and you have to construct entire belief systems around space flight and images of round stars and planets, and how gravity works. And when you do this, you literally create ‘facts’.
Other constructs of our beliefs alter the way we look at at facts, and how much free will we have to make choices. Because if we construct a world where we also construct the facts we choose to pay attention to, these created facts then limit the choices we can make.
If we don’t share the same beliefs then we don’t share the same truths. We alter facts to fit our beliefs.
How does someone on the political left vs the political right define the following:
Communism
Socialism
Fascism
Democracy
Social welfare
Liberty
Freedom
Religion’s place in politics
The definitions of these terms are very different on the political spectrum. Beliefs alter facts. Interpretations of these so-called facts limit our choices, our free will.
We don’t perceive the world as it is. Our beliefs define our world, define the things we are willing to accept as facts, and determine the choices we believe we have to make. Beliefs alter what we perceive as facts and limit our ability to make free choices.
Joe said a couple interesting things, “Freedom comes with restraints.” And, “We influence the world and the world influences us.”
I speak of restraints on freedom in my bell curve post, but I don’t say this explicitly. I think restrictions to our freedom of choice can be circumstantial, or based on how virtuous we live our lives, or by things like our physical and emotional health. These restraints to our freedom can make us feel like we have less choice.
The simple, yet profound statement that, “We influence the world and the world influences us,” is one that I’m interested in deconstructing. When we react to the environment or situation we are in, we ultimately change that environment or situation. There are many experiments that prove the observer changes the experiment. We don’t live in a vacuum, and our interactions with the world alter that world, which alters our future interactions.
An example I’m thinking of is a crisis situation where the person in charge is calm and thoughtfully responsive vs the same crisis situation with a panicked and frantic leader. The crisis can be well handled or escalated. In both cases the leaders work in feedback loops that can help them deal with the situation at hand appropriately or have the situation become unmanageable. The leader’s actions (or inaction) changes the situation, which in turn influences their next action or reaction.
How often do we get stuck in a feedback loop of reciprocal influences between what we feel we can do next and how the outside world reacts? We move through situation after situation feeling like we lack choice and freedom because the restraints on us limit our responses… which in turn limits what we believe can happen next, and what our next actions can or need to be.
There are times when we do what we need to do, or feel obligated to do, and don’t recognize that we are in a feedback loop that continually limits our choices and decision-making. This can be especially true in work and family situations where past relationships and patterns of interactions influence our likelihood of reacting similarly the next time.
“I better do it this way or Peter will be upset.”
“Amy is going to complain about this no matter how hard I try.”
“My brother won’t want to join us, I won’t bother asking.”
We get into pattern ruts, habitual grooves where we get stuck limiting our own choices and freedom to do things differently.
I realize now that my thinking is less about free will, and more about how our habits dictate our future thinking. Our habits influence our world, our world changes and we react by reinforcing the same habits that can ultimately limit our future choices. In some ways we construct a limited future based on our habits, which emboldens our choice to keep these limiting habits. (You can also replace the word ‘habits’ with ‘addictions’.)
“We influence the world and the world influences us.”
Is this a reciprocal relationship, or is it one where we can choose to have more influence? I think there are countless self-help books written to suggest that we have more influence than we believe we do… we just need to make conscious choices rather than letting our past actions and habits limit our ability to influence the world around us.
This is part 2 of my thoughts on Free Will and Consciousness. Part 1 assumed free will and looked at The Bell Curve of Free Will.
Part 3 will look at why I believe we have free will, but to get there I need to look first at consciousness.
Background
I’ve been reading, watching, and listening to ideas about what consciousness is. At the heart of this is the question, the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
We don’t know what creates consciousness, but we know that we integrate information from the physical world and that we are conscious of that world. We also know that the information we integrate from the physical world isn’t perfect.
I’ve said before that, “What we do know is that our perception of the world is based on models of the world and not actually the world itself. We have very faulty user interfaces, insufficient sensors, that warp our perception of reality…
Our user interface with the world is not accurate, we know this, but we also know that the world isn’t just an illusion. We know the sun emits light and heat, we can see the light on surfaces in our field of vision, and we can feel the heat on our faces. But I can’t know that my experience of the colour blue is exactly like yours, or that my comfort with the heat of the sun is similar to yours either. But I wonder how much our upbringing, and the culture we live in influence how we interpret the world around us?”
So we don’t see/hear/feel reality as it is. We have a faulty interface with reality. That relates to our senses, but what if our inner understanding of consciousness is even more faulty than our outer senses are, as they relate to our perception of our reality. What if we can’t grasp what our unconscious mind does because there is a faulty interface with our conscious mind. I think this is why it is so hard to understand free will, because we don’t understand how consciousness works and there is a black box of understanding that separates our conscious and unconscious minds. But I’ll delve into free will another time, for now, I want to look at what consciousness is?
Before I dig into this a little deeper, I’m going to take a stance that relates to the “Integrated information theory” of consciousness… the idea that consciousness comes along with integrated information. This Nova video, ‘Can we Measure Consciousness?‘ is the clearest look at this idea that I could find.
Here are my thoughts:
Increased consciousness beyond survival is not fundamental it is incidental. It’s an accident that is born out of intelligence having idle processing time, (in a way, think of this as smart systems being bored).
To begin with I will assume that every living thing has consciousness. The moment life enters into the equation, then the first ‘desire’ is reproduction. Procreation is hard-wired into living. From one-cell organisms to plants to mammals, the moment there is an opportunity to reproduce, then there is simple consciousness that drives a species to continue life, to avoid harm, and to continue the species. This is the simplest form of consciousness. I used the word ‘desire’ to suggest a form of choosing, or of wanting, that is fundamentally different than non-living things. This is my twist on panpsychism,
With more evolved brains, that have a greater amount of neurons firing, consciousness is greater than in un-evolved brains or entities. I think of this kind of like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
Consciousness can be found within the smallest of organisms. Consciousness increases through evolution, when species develop and move up Maslow’s hierarchy because they have additional time to ‘think’ beyond basic primitive and primary/primal needs. Organisms only consciously worry about physiological and safety needs until their predecessors brains have enough neurons and/or time to ‘think’ beyond survival and reproduction. If a species has the capacity and time to think beyond basic survival then they can think of things like community. Communities in turn create efficiencies that create more time to think beyond survival, which then permits a higher level of consciousness. Look at how far humanity has advanced in the past few hundred years, only after farming and urban living have produced significantly more time for us to be idle, to be creative, and to think about thinking. Our consciousness now allows (most of) us to spend time higher up on Maslow’s Hierarchy.
Put another way, life requires consciousness, and it starts with the desire to reproduce. From there, consciousness coincidentally builds with an organism’s complexity and boredom, or idle processing time, when brains do not have to worry about basic survival. Our consciousness is created by the number of connections in our brains, and the amount of freedom we have to think beyond our basic survival.
But we are not the only conscious animals. To me, an animal or a tree showing some compassion to another species suggests consciousness beyond what is normally attributed to other living things. Whether it is a bear saving a crow,
there appears to be a level of consciousness, thinking, understanding, or intelligence that all living things have. Why else would a bear, a cat, or a tree have compassion for another species if they were not conscious?
I started by saying, “Increased consciousness beyond survival is not fundamental it is incidental. It’s an accident that is born out of intelligence having idle processing time.” I don’t really have an argument to suggest that consciousness is incidental or accidental. Maybe I should state, “Higher consciousness is fundamental, it is a by-product of processing ability and excess time to process.” This would give life itself more reason to exist, but my hunch is that intelligence was not intentional, it is a by-product of abilities exceeding needs. However if I changed my mind, I wouldn’t have an argument for consciousness being fundamental any more than it being incidental and accidental.
Final thoughts:
What prevents us from getting to full actualization of self? The story about the tree above might be a hint. It would seem that trees are interconnected by a symbiotic relationship with microbial fungus to create a greater consciousness of the entire forest. Maybe the challenge we have is that of letting go of the self and connecting our consciousness to other humans or other species in a profound way? What is the next level of consciousness that we can achieve? Maybe I’m wrong and consciousness is truly fundamental. Maybe it is the reason for life, and we are on a journey to understand how all consciousness is connected.
My second bullet below is intentionally (un)bolded to suggest both of these ideas… either way the concepts each fit with my other conclusions.
Conclusions:
Every living thing has consciousness.
Higher consciousness is not fundamental, it is incidental or accidental, (a by-product of processing ability and boredom).
Consciousness increases in relation to two things:
More neurons or more processing ability.
More idle time.
When basic physiological and safety needs are met by an organism they develop higher order consciousness if they have the processing ability and the time to use their consciousness.
Assuming Free Will: There are some interesting and compelling arguments that we do not have free will, and according to Sam Harris, that it is only an illusion. I will address this at another time, because my thoughts on this are not fully formed. I need to read and understand more, but my general thesis on this topic is that the black box of our unconscious mind is only ever opened through bizarre dreams, deep meditation, and psychedelic drug use… all of which suggests metaphorical images and thoughts that seems to transcend logic and linear processing. If that is the case, I highly doubt that our will is somehow ordained by our past experiences in some sequential domino effect. And while our conscious minds might not grasp the true decision-making processes of our unconscious mind, that does not remove the fact that our unconscious mind acts, to some extent, freely… even if our history, our circumstances, and our virtue (among other things) might influence and restrict how much freedom of choice we have.
For now, I want to assume that we all have free will. Given this, I’d like to look at The Bell Curve of Free Will that I constructed to describe my thoughts on this topic.
My Premise:
If we have free will then I believe that how much choice we have will be influenced considerably by our circumstance and by how virtuous we are.
Background on the Graph: I should have created 2 different graphs, one for circumstance and one for virtue, but the dotted line showing how one influences the other is important. Further, I could have created charts about how our choices are increased or limited based on many different factors, like our health, our culture or religion, or our parents. I chose circumstance and virtue because they are easy to connect in my example, and highly influential to our free will, or our lack of ability to make choices.
Here is the image I created:
Circumstance and Free Will: If you are destitute or impoverished, if you are in a situation where you are unsafe or starving, your choices are very limited. You are more likely to go to extreme measures to improve your safety or well-being, at any cost including illegal, unreasonable, or unconscionable means, even if you wouldn’t want to do these things if your circumstances are different. You will act to protect or feed yourself and your family and those reasons overrule reasons you would otherwise have to not do something desperate. However, your circumstances limit you from doing things many other people could easily choose to do.
On the other hand, if you are affluent and have a lot of influence, the choices you get to make are significantly greater than if you are destitute. From living arrangements, to choice of foods, to freedom to travel, to caring for your loved ones, an affluent person can make so many choices and have so much freedom to make those choices compared to those that are only thinking of survival or their next meal. This isn’t a bell curve, this is a direct relationship where affluence and power, or lack of these, directly influence the amount of choice a person has.
Virtue and Free Will: The vast majority of people have a lot of choice and free will, while people on the extremes of the virtue scale do not. If you are a genuinely evil person who gets pleasure out of being hurtful and evil, you are probably limited in your choice and ability to do good deeds and make kind choices. When you are angry, your choices become more limited, your reactions to circumstance are less likely to provide you with more options that if you were more level-headed.
On the other extreme, if you are extremely virtuous and benevolent, you simply could not make choices that are hurtful to others. You have more limited choice because your virtue would compel you to do ‘the right thing’ and not choose other options that are less kind, even if for example, they benefit you. Your choices become limited because you would not have the options that others would in your place. Mother Theresa probably could not choose to walk away from her charity, her virtue would not allow it.
High Virtue and High Affluence: This is shown by the dotted green line on the graph.
Affluence and influence do not necessarily result in endless choice. More virtuous people, who are also affluent, are compelled to be in the service of others and to use their means for good. Their affluence might provide more choice and means for them to do this, but if they are truly virtuous then they would be compelled towards using their affluence and influence in ways that demonstrate their virtuousness, thus reducing their will do to other things.
As a side note: I have seen many instances where people with very little means have gone out of their way to be generous and kind. And, our world is filled with many affluent and influential people who could be more virtuous and choose not to be so… even when it would mean far less sacrifice for them. Bill Gates explained this succinctly:
“My charitable giving is not impressive. What’s impressive is people who give to charities who have to sacrifice something to give it to him. In my family, we don’t even hesitate to buy yet another airplane. But there are people who have to choose, do I go out to dinner? Or do I give this $20 to my church? That’s a very different decision than I make. Those are the people that impress me.” ~ Bill Gates
An inherent flaw in putting these two graphs together is that an unintended extrapolation could be that the impoverished can not be virtuous, With this insight, here is one aspect of the two-in-one graph that is not shown, but should be noted:
High Virtue and Low Affluence: On both ends of these two scales the choice is limited, and so free will would be further diminished. As an example: A devout and benevolent monk or priest who is in the same destitute situation as someone equally as impoverished (but less virtuous) could not choose to harm or steal from someone even if it was to feed his/her own family.
Final Thoughts: I wonder if conscientious people who think about philosophy, and/or are compelled towards the sciences to do ‘good’, and make a difference in the world, are more likely to believe that there is no such thing as free will… since by nature of their virtues, they have less free will than someone that is not as concerned about the well-being of humanity? In a way, I could have titled this graph ‘The Curse of Free Will’ because either you are cursed to be evil, or you are cursed to be kind, since in both cases you are allotted less choice in life, less free will. Is it somehow more blissful and less restrictive to live a somewhat selfish life? Is our propensity towards this unenlightened life the reason religions are born? If free will does not lead us to be more virtuous, what does?
What becomes of an idea unshared? Where do interesting and insightful thoughts go to die? Do they collect in a forgotten part of your brain, or do they just fade away? Can ideas be retrieved and revitalized?
What becomes of a ‘Thank You’ unshared? Does the appreciation diminish, or just the showing of gratitude? Might you be less thankful, having not had the opportunity to make that connection with the person or the kind gesture? Is it too late or can you still express your thanks?
What becomes of feelings of love unshared? Might you feel empty, feel unfilled, or feel less loved? Will the connection be as strong later on? Is it worth your trying to share again?
What becomes of your next mistake? Is it the beginning of a failure, or the launching point of a lesson, a new idea, a different approach? Will the mistake define you, or will your resilience strengthen you?
What becomes of missed opportunities? Do they spur you to seize the next moment, or do they convince you that your misfortune will repeat itself again? Can you create a new opportunity, now?
We decide what we become. We decide how to act, how to react, and how we feel about the choices we make. We can become victims of circumstance, or designers of our own reality. Be bold, be brave, believe in yourself.
