Who cares? Maybe you are just too focused on yourself. Why think you are a pawn of the universe when you could just as well say that you are the universe. Matter begat man, man begat thought, thought begat a concept of the universe. From that perspective, we are the universe reassembling itself into new shapes to increase its self-understanding. You are confusing the binoculars with the view, or rather, you are rejecting the view in favor of the binoculars.

But does "understanding" really *mean* anything to the universe? Is the universe a conscious, sentient being?

That is one of the questions I really go nuts over...one could say that no, it isn't, because it doesn't fit our definition of what a "living being" is, but that definition is just a concept of man, is it not? So really, we're left with the question, "what *really* constitutes a 'living being'? What is it that distinguishes inanimate matter from a 'lifeform'? Is it merely the computational complexity level, plus a few choice rules (ability to reproduce without aid, requirement for energy from a food source, etc.), or could you say that the entire universe is like one big 'lifeform', because it is an active 'entity', so to speak?".

I guess this is really the existential part of the problem, and the part which probaby none of us will be able to agree on.

The part about "are we all just machines?" is really probably just an inferiority complex, but it's closely related to the "do we mean anything to the universe?" question, I believe...

...look at me, analyzing myself! This is something that I would be having fits over if I were in a bad mood, and while yes, it does get me started again just a little bit, I'm kind of in a good mood, so it's not really that big of an issue for me right now.

Although I suppose one could say that self-analysis is somewhat futile, because if you're the one having the problem, then it's probably really hard to look at it from a rational perspective, right?

I think you need to talk it out with someone who is able to offer you support. If this means meeting with a licenced therapist or a religious leader or whoever and also discussing what you are asking about with someone who actually understands it and can point out where your approach may not be the best, then either approach would be better than hashing it out here - LQ not being qualified to do this.

Basically, it seems that you have these questions affecting your mental health. You need to discuss this with a suitably qualified person. At the same time, you are jumping from Wikipedia article to Wikipedia article and winding yourself up more and more. You need to sit down with a suitably qualified person to organise a starting point. Once you can grasp and understand and grok the basic points you can move up to the higher points using the basics as a jumping off point.

Then, when you have a handle on it all, come back and start a thread from this new position if understanding and health.

Perhaps what is needed is to step back from this roadblock your experiencing. You obviously believe that all of our actions and choices ARE derived from our physical state and yet are frightened that this fact wipes out any "spiritual" aspect from our existence. (BTW "spiritual" is way too vague a term for any belief system. Perhaps you need to flesh out what you mean by "spiritual".)

So as an aside, I'd like to hear your reaction to these quotes
I wanted to include more from this passage, but to really express the idea, it'd take more that just a few quotes and I'm not that fond of typing. But to boil now what the author, Brad Warner, is talking about, he's describing what we "know" and that all we really know is the moment, right now. So instead of worrying about the past or future, try merely experiencing the moment as it exists and enjoy the state of "being".

But before you think he's advocating selfish hedonism, read a little about what he's saying, not just my out of context quotes.

So what is the difference between a "cold" equation and a soul determining your actions?

Well obviously life can't be easily reduced to equations; it would be difficult, if at all possible.

There are no completely closed systems except for the entire universe. Everything else is an approximation. Even in computers hardware errors can cause unpredictable behaviour: you can't predict the cosmic ray that flips a bit if you pretend the computer is a closed system. I would imagine tiny variations in temperature, or concentration of chemicals would give rise to unexpected results in a brain. Computers are specifically designed to make their action predictable, the brain is not.

Speaking of assembly instructions, you can understand every individual instruction of a computer program but still have no idea what the program does. Therefore, reductionism fails, no?

You can't be certain there is randomness because there will always be uncertainty, but conversely, absence of randomness will remain uncertain as well.

Those are open questions.

...really? I was kind of convinced that at least the second one ("the brain does not operate on the quantum level") was agreed upon...

I'm glad I was brave enough to read your post anyway (even though you're on my ignore list), because that's the exact sort of thing that my mom is trying to tell me ("live in the now, don't obsess over the past and future").

Anyways, I've gotta catch a filght, so I won't be able to respond for a while.

We don't even know how the brain operates, period.

Wait, I give an honest, thoughtful answer answer to your poll and because you don't agree with my view, you're going to ignore me? Sounds like you don't want a real discussion, you just want someone to hold your hand, give you some milk and cookies and tell you that the monsters under your bed aren't real.

Well, I'm back (home that is)...

I really think I've got that problem narrowed down to an inferiority complex. I feel that if there's some one, unchanging "equation" that can be applied to all human beings to fully describe their behavior from birth, people could use that against each other. Think mind control, only on a level so deep, that there would literally be no way of escaping it, no matter what you did (this is an example of unSpawn's "cognitive hazard" idea).

I'd like to believe that there's something beyond the physical that makes me *me* and you *you*. It's the "subject" of the being, if you will. That's the best way I can put it. Seriously, I think it's something that's really impossible to articulate accurately, but I hope you know what I'm getting at...and please don't bash me for having such a belief I'm sure many other people (yes, even technical people like those in this community) have such a belief.

If there is a "Human Behavior Equation" (or just "Behavior Equation" if you want it to apply to all animals, not just humans), then that renders the idea a complete illusion, without any doubt. See, it's the uncertainty that allows people to believe...the more we learn, the more people's beliefs we crush, IMO.

I know this. That's why I put "closed" in quotes, because I know that in order for a system to be truly "closed", it would have to be constructed such that no other particles could affect it in any way, which is impossible.

Then what does neuroscience study?

I'm sorry I over-reacted. I just don't like the determinist POV (if you want to call it that). Although the blunt statement:

...didn't help. I really do apologize for seeming harsh, though... *ducks* I'll take you off of my ignore list if you like. Really. I think I probaby need to man up and actually read the $#!t that bothers me, and understand it for what it is, rather than always putting an emotional spin on it.

...or not. But seriously, I'll un-ignore you if you really think I should...entz, too, I think. I put him on my ignore list for very similar reasons, i.e. I perceived that he was trying to tell me that living existence is nothing more than a meaningless machine.

BTW, "determinist" is probably more of a blanket term; you could probably say that fundamentalist Christians are "determinists", because as XavierP mentioned above, "apparently there's a plan in place [according to the Bible]"...

EDIT: I remember seeing a link somewhere called "Links to spirituality found in brain". I read the description, which was something along the lines of "Scientists have found that certain portions of the brain, when damaged, lead to greater spirituality", which of course scared the ever-loving $#!t out of me, because I thought, "oh god, I must be brain-damaged!".

Now, I know that's a bit of a hypochondriac way of thinking, and I never read the article (), but I didn't want to anyway, for fear of it confirming my fears. (<- recursive fears, yay! I'm really sick, aren't I? )

In any case, I think I should mark this thread [SOLVED], because what XavierP said is probably the best advice at this point...I need to really talk to someone about this, and not just my mom. Trust me, we've gone over this whole thing waaaay too many times, and still haven't gotten very far .

EDIT EDIT: Okay, maybe I won't mark it solved, because you can't do that with /General threads...

But could it be closed or something? I think I've had enough emotional torment for one thread...

To close:

I can't!

Sounds just like Dostoyevski's Crystal Palace. His character, the Underground Man, was also disturbed by this grand theory of everything, and his counter-belief was that people are NOT rational automatons, that people are chaotic, self-destructive and irrational.

I do feel that "God does not play dice", but I also stopped a long time ago trying to iron out all contradictions in my own beliefs. Instead I've taken a page from my friend Dostoyevski and embraced contradictions in my beliefs. It's these imperfections that make us who we are. So while I consider myself a determinist, I don't feel trapped or controlled. There is a certain order to the universe, but since I will never fully understand it, I think about what I can understand and work within that framework, acknowledging the whole time that it is faulty and full of imperfections.

Angst is a natural reaction to the freewill/determinism debate, but I found my way past that not by resolving the debate, but by leap-frogging the question. Well, that and reading Dostoyevski for about 6 months straight.

I don't think this would be possible since you would need information on every particle in the universe, as I said before, not to mention the computational power required to simulate it...

I still don't understand, what is the difference between physical and non-physical, what puts something "beyond the physical"?


Don't worry, uncertainty is the only certainty.

People are studying the brain but they haven't found all the answers (or even all the questions) yet.

Person comes to a forum asking a theoretical question that he thinks he knows the answer to but doesn't want to believe it. Then when he reads the responses of possible theoretical answers that are along the lines of what he doesn't want to believe, he says that he's upset over people telling him their theories and even puts people on ignore. Ultimately decides he has an 'inferiority complex' which relates to asking the question but ultimately has no bearing on the answer since all possible answers to a theoretical question are theories them self and don't matter.

I think the moral to the story is the end of the OP's signature:

...

After a quick (and very brave) trip to Wikipedia (and after getting over the / factor of some of the articles), I feel stupid...

...apparently the "randomness vs. chaos" debate is still alive and well.

All this time I thought that science had it mostly "figured out" as far as the "free will vs. determinism" question was concerned, and that's why I kept believing that free will has to be an illusion, even though I didn't want to believe it.

I'm still really troubled, but at least I know a little better, and I should know not to assume such profound things from now on ().

Think random number generator or encryption algorithm. Just because you know how it was implemented does not imply you know what the output or input is. While the human brain may be just a set of algorithms (not certainty until we have it all down), it is sufficiently complex to obscure the link between input and output. Not to mention that we have evolved the ability to program ourselves (look up NLP, neurolinguistic programming, for example - which may be just what you need). Whether you do or not is a matter of choice. Stating that is is just more determinism implies a logical fallacy. It is like the slave who so fed up with his master that when he is set free at last, he refuses to go because it is just another order from the master.

But a self-programming machine is more determinism! I suspect there's probably already an AI project out there that uses this method as a way of "evolving" the system. This is sounding a lot like how genetic algorithms work, and is a completely deterministic system, thus proving the point further that the human mind is nothing more than a complex machine, and that "free will" is nothing more than a fantasy designed to keep us from destroying ourselves, emotionally or otherwise.

This is exactly what unSpawn was getting at earlier. It's a Schrödinger's cat: we don't know the answer, but we do know the question, and as such opinions on both sides will arise, because as far as people are concerned, both answers are perfectly valid. This is the only "problem" I have with science: the more we discover, the more we not only find out was correct, but the more we find out was incorrect. If the notion of free will (or free choice, if you prefer) being real is proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be incorrect, do you have any idea what kind of friction that would cause (assuming it became public knowledge)??

I see humanity destroying itself by two means:

• Suicides caused by complete and total madness at the notion that no action is "free" or "random", without any previous cause
• Deliberate manipulation of the mind at the absolute base level of function (whatever that might be), used for malicious purposes ("mind control wars", if you will)

EDIT: Oh, and regarding PRNGs and crypto algorithms......they scare the fsck out of me; what looks like complete and total randomness generated with a fixed deterministic algorithm. It's to the point where I'm even a little weary of playing computer games that have "randomized" elements in them (such as "random" items from a platform block in a side-scroller, or whatever), thinking something like "it seems random, but in reality it was destined to be exactly that item, because the 'random' number generator is really a deterministic algorithm, albeit a highly complex one", or similar.

If you have SoX on your system, do this for me:

What do you hear? Perfect white noise. Scary $#!t, isn't it?