There's no reason to think that people are able to remember everything they think about. We are constantly going through internal ruminations, whether we are paying attention to them or not. I don't think that the internal monologue is something that we turn on and off at will or consciously. I'm not sure if the stream of consciousness that is verbal is always running but when it is running our focus on it fluctuates. Sometimes one can really focus on observing the random thoughts that happen inside the mind. Sometimes one can direct the stream and try to focus where it goes. Sometimes one is completely unable to grasp the internal messages.
Have you ever felt that when you forget whether or not you locked the door it's because you're not sure if you remember locking it just now or the 50 other times you locked it before? Habitual behaviors become automatic. You don't know you're doing them. This might be the same about thoughts in that some thoughts you have so often that you forget that you had them. For example, when you drive toward your old house because you have gone that way so many times your subconscious, which directs your actions, now just goes there unless consciously directed otherwise. Before you realize it you're already there. This habituation only occurs after one has deliberately directed consciousness repeatedly. One can create these habituations consciously but once it becomes a habit one can forget their role in its creation.
Maybe one becomes distracted from their internal monologue long enough to forget it exists. It's still somewhere softly analyzing and contemplating in the background. Maybe one is imagining how the next day will develop while watching a TV show. Their mind is only taking in stimulus but every so often their stream of consciousness breaks through and one is interrupted by an already occurring mental conversation. You pick up a few things about going to your favorite restaurant but then you get distracted again and it's such a mundane thought you disregard it. Then, the next day, when internally debating where to eat you decide to go to your favorite restaurant. The decision was actually decided by yourself long before you realize it. Or at least it was primed. Like when someone tells you the wrong lyric and when you hear the song you can't hear anything other than the wrong word that sounds correct now.
Can one take credit for the forgotten conscious influences one inflicts on one's self? The forgotten fleeting thoughts that are like dreams. Whispy like fog. Like when the right word is on the tip of your tongue. In the back of your mind. Consciousness is like a river in that it is always changing and one day it will not be in the same place. Is it still the same river? Are you responsible for the changes?
Am I a product of only deterministic scientific happenstance? Causes and effects that are completely out of my control? If it is possible to willfully create habituation then it would provide a mechanism for free will to manifest itself in reality and not just in concept. If this mechanism is real then that would mean that it exists within the nervous system and is theoretically identifiable. If free will is a physical reality then determinism has a flaw. This would introduce some amount of unpredictability when it comes to assuming that the future is a series of determined, and predictable causes and effects.
But what about the thoughts that cause the habituation; how can these thoughts be justified if they just erupt out of nowhere? How can free will be proven if the proposed mechanism relies on thoughts that emerge due to the prior causes that are determined by physics? If thoughts are not purely a reaction to the current environment then maybe thoughts arise as a direct result of a free will mechanism that is not verbal, or has become subconscious prior to being verbal?
Maybe the first few years of childhood is a period where a system starts to develop that allows for self-observation and mental manipulation. As the system for self-directed behavior matures the person is consciously learning how to learn, how to speak, how to listen to themself, how the world works, how to imagine multiple outcomes, and how to choose different directions. This system of different sectors of the brain networking together to create something new allows for the development of consciousness and the potential for free will.
As time passes the act of willful self-determination becomes almost entirely habitual and because humans do not develop the concept of consciousness until later in life the subjective perspective that includes both the verbal and nonverbal streams of consciousnesses we collectively call consciousness is almost indescribable. The brain is both emotional and intellectual and yet its functions are elusive to the observer. The system becomes habitual enough at an early enough age that the experience of directing our bodies is forgotten. It goes underground but still provides a mechanism for free will.
As language develops a child begins to incorporate verbal communication into the preexisting paradigm. Self-expression begins to become codified, constrained, and efficiently communicable. As one interacts with reality and develops a language to communicate with others one begins to see the world in a different way. In a way that is constrained by language. When one is aware of one's own attempts to direct one's own path via the verbal route then consciousness becomes possible to communicate about but is not the sole arbiter of free action.
In order to understand this concept of a mechanism, rooted in consciousness, that allows for free will one has to overcome the habituation process and redirect the flow of verbal consciousness, knowing that it isn't the only controlling factor. Learning to control one's emotions becomes another skill in strengthening the potential for free will. Another skill that is needed is the ability to examine past failings and plan to correct them with repetitive thoughts and actions.
If one finds that every time they encounter a certain emotionally distressing situation they act in a way that is dysfunctional then they can make a plan to change how they think about this situation, how they act before, during, and after the situation occurs, and try to understand the underlying emotional states that the situation produces. The more one is self-aware the more they can alter the way they react to situations or attempt to avoid them altogether. This kind of self-awareness is not entirely concerned with internal states but also takes into account the environment that they exist within. The ability to engage in free will is tempered by a person's understanding of everything that can and will affect them.
The concept of responsibility is not the same as the concept of free will. People are responsible for their actions, generally speaking, regardless of the perception that they are in control of their actions. A drunk person is responsible for the consequences of their actions just as a psychotic person is responsible for the consequences of their actions. They may not have any insight into the conscious thoughts that existed prior to or during the act but from the perspective of others, they are the ones to blame. They are the ones to set apart and deal with. Attempting to accept all actions as a matter of fate is a recipe for chaos and discounts the ability of people to control themselves, even without a well developed moral system or strengthened free will.
In conclusion, in regard to thoughts, we are mostly unaware. When we are aware we have an opportunity to self-direct and with enough repetition, we can create new automatic or partially automatic habits. We can consciously control unconscious behaviors through this process. I postulate that before language this ability may have been more open to us and over time our subconscious takes more and more control. Our relationship to consciousness changes as we acquire language. Or maybe it is only after we acquire sophisticated language and maturity that we start to be able to review our thoughts and bring them into some kind of control. It is difficult to halt the momentum of cause and effect that propels us forward but if one can reflect on and redirect their thoughts they just might be able to make lasting change in how they think, how they act, and who they are.
The hardest thing to do is convince someone you're not conscious. People see consciousness everywhere. They apply it to wind and rain. Mountains and rodents. We can personify anything including the universe and god and gods and vegetables. We tell stories of eggs that fall off of castles and bunnies that have tea parties. Everything is a metaphor for ourselves and we are everyone.
This is partly because humans aren't the only things that are conscious. That being said I also do not believe that rocks are conscious. The jury is out on plants and fungi which are mysteriously intelligent. I believe that consciousness exists on a spectrum but only after a few criteria are met. In order to be conscious one must be living. There has to be something more than mere mineral.
Maybe being in nature is soothing because it allows you to change the state of the consciousness that you are in. You can go to the desert to be truly alone. Alone with your thoughts. Alone but not alone in your environment. Out there somewhere there are creatures.
You can go to the forest and surround yourself with ancient trees and listen to the wind. I'd believe trees are conscious before I believed the wind is conscious.
I am not sure where the absolute line is for myself in regards to consciousness. I am not sure there needs to be a clear demarcation when it comes to consciousness. I do not think that people require a clearly formed understanding of consciousness to have empathy for other things, including plants and animals, and even inanimate things such as wind or mountains. Personifying things around us is very natural. When we are born it is very important that a child starts creating mental models of the people around them. By creating models the baby can start to predict what their parents might do and try to understand how to communicate with them. By modeling the environment and generating the concept of agency a baby can start to predict the interactions between agents and objects. A baby immediately starts to differentiate between the significant agents around them and the relatively predictable objects such as tables and binkys.
Agents are party identified by their ability to create change either in their physical location or by changing the physical location of something else. When a person picks up a glass of water they are changing the physical location of the glass and the water and now can be identified as an agent. A mover of things. An actor. Agents act upon other things and cause change to occur. The day that the glass picks up the person then we might call the glass an agent and suspect that it is conscious.
A trait that should be looked for when determining if an entity is conscious or not is to ask, "is the entity capable of agency?". Can it make alterations to its environment? Nearly all animals are agents in that they act upon the world and cause change. The wind does this so then why wouldn't a gust of wind be considered an agent?
Maybe agency is not enough to call something conscious? Maybe it is and maybe by a very loose definition, the wind could be considered an agent in a non-personified way. Maybe the only concepts we have about agency come from a personal and human perspective. If so then the only model we have of agency is of humans, first by observing parents and then by observing the self. We then apply this concept to other things even if it doesn't apply or is only slightly accurate.
Maybe the wind isn't an agent and it is certainly not conscious because my concept of consciousness is rooted in the belief that consciousness emerges from organized biological material such as neurons, muscles, blood, and hormones. Maybe neurons are the most important element in the formation of consciousness but I'm not sure that that is the case.
Maybe each cell is conscious and with complex networks of communication among cells, consciousness is at the apex of that increase in complexity. As an organism evolves toward more complex forms of assembly and more specialization and diversification of cell types along with the bilingual nature that must occur when cells communicate with necessary bacteria and other microbiomes.
Maybe the communication network of biological structures is necessary for consciousness. It is the unintended output of trillions of cells and trillions of bacteria trying to communicate with each other. In order to maintain the megastructure that is the human body creates.
Maybe the difference in humans is that the cells and bacteria in humans have a far more efficient way of communicating than other creatures. Encoded in our DNA and in the DNA of the bacteria there exists a unique instruction or schematic that fundamentally alters the megastructure and allows for an ultra-efficient communication system. One that is so efficient that it produces more than required to survive. Maybe the extra energy that is conserved from this efficiency can be utilized to improve the structure. It can be diverted to the brain and to creating systems that lead to successful gene transfer and multiplication.
Is it the cell's job to multiply? Is the whole system a mechanism of experimentation? Is resource allocation something that can be applied to the body? Or is it just a metaphor taken from the financial world?
Are bacteria small enough that they perceive cells and other microscopic biological structures in an unrelatable way?
Or is consciousness just an epiphenomenon? Just a ghost in the machine? An inert, neutral, unaffecting, wisp of entropy? The waste product of an overactive mind.
Of course, it is another example of the personification of entities that I relate the biological structures to the architectural and electrical systems I see in my life. The macro-environment that I occupy is a system that I have an elaborate model that is generalizable to other systems. I have a more or less organized set of beliefs about what a social system looks like so I can apply those interactions to the complex interactions occurring inside of the body. The idea that it is social is one of personification. Another act of projecting my own perspective onto something else.
While cells are molecular machines and do use molecules to communicate there is no evidence that they communicate in a similar way to what humans do. Proteins do not have mouths, lungs, or lips to make sounds and they do not have legs or arms to gesticulate their thoughts.
The cause and effects chains are highly complex in biological structures.
Plants have very similar cellular structures to humans. The structures of plants are also complex and even if there are no neurons in plants there are definitely communication systems.
Is consciousness a form of communication? If it is then it isn't necessary to have neurons to communicate and therefore it isn't necessary for consciousness. But is it sufficient to have consciousness?
Is all communication a form of consciousness?
What is communication? Communication is the output of information that is then interpreted and comprehended by an input location. Things that communicate are required to be able to take in information and to output information.
If consciousness requires communication then that would mean that the wind is not conscious because any message interpreted by a human would never be falsifiable. There is no way to prove that the output information was comprehended accurately. This is why God does not exist as anyone claiming to be in communication with God can not be falsified. It may be true but by that standard, anything may be true. If the goal is to arrive at the truth then one must be able to rule out impossibilities.
So...
How would a person convince another person they were not conscious? Other than passing out.
Two men enter a room and sit down opposite to each other. The room is well lit but not too bright. There is a table in between the men and there is a small spread of cheese snacks. Each man has their own water bottle and one man's job is to convince the other man that they are not conscious.
The second the other man starts to talk the first man will automatically assume they are conscious. The second the other man reaches for food the first man will assume he is conscious. He will assume that the similarity in physical appearance would necessitate a similarity in mental capacities. As they are both human the first man will project his humanity onto the second man who is not doing a good job of convincing the first man that he is not conscious.
I suppose the second man could never communicate with the first man. Even if the first man yells at him. By never acknowledging them and not moving at all then the person would have little to base their assumptions about the man. At some point, a real human would become fatigued with time and at some point would falter which would give away information to the first man who would start to assume the second man is in fact a person.
This dumb scenario illustrates how agency is connected to consciousness. Out notion that consciousness exists is linked to the ability to act.
If this is true then a brain in a vat can not be conscious. I am not sure this is true. Is a brain in a vat able to make changes to its own brain? Can thoughts cause a change in neural structures? If so then a brain is capable of engaging in the only actions it can. Thought. If it can think about its own existence in an accurate enough way then maybe it can adapt to its surroundings. If a scientist were to measure the brain every day and track its changes and determine that the changes were not random but were in some way positively adaptative then the scientist could say that the brain in the vat is potentially conscious. Because it cannot communicate to the outside world it can not be fully determined whether it was conscious or not.
I think that for there to be certainty regarding the assignment of consciousness to an entity the entity has to be able to communicate with the outside world. This may be false but I'm not sure how else one would ascribe consciousness to something else.
One of the primary ways that consciousness is accepted is by the simple declaration of its existence from an individual. People say they are conscious but is that evidence? I am not sure it is. If just exclaiming things was proof then the justice system would be very easy to administrate.
How would I prove that you were conscious? How would you prove you were conscious?
Do we know of consciousness only by appealing to the similarities in descriptions of subjective experiences? As in it is only through communicating concepts that are comprehended by others does one identify the nature of consciousness. Therefore consciousness only exists with some form of communication. Whether it is internal communication or external communication there has to be some form of information transfer in order to assign consciousness.
This means that the brain in the vat may be conscious as it is possible to be internally communicative and not externally but it isn't possible to communicate your own internal experiences without externally communicating. The brain in the vat needs to come up with a way to project thoughts outward.
What about the role of intention in consciousness? Do we assume we are conscious because we have intentions that we work toward making happen? Maybe we misattribute success to our intentions when it is actually a coincidence and we are not in control of ourselves at all and any success is just a necessary outcome of determined pre-causes.
I would imagine that most people do not go around contemplating the nature of consciousness and this article would be of no value to them. Its value is not important anyway as this article is an exercise in thinking about a topic.
Zombies aren't real so any reference to them as a legitimate metaphor for a being that acts like a human but has no internal conscious experience is nonsensical. The reason this metaphor is confusing and mostly useless is two-fold.
The first issue is the use of the term "zombie". Zombies are not real and appealing to them as a way to create clarity is a contradiction. It's like trying to understand horses by appealing to unicorns. Unicorns do not have a consistent definition and any definition must contain some amount of supernatural or unreal elements. Because unicorns are not real one can ascribe any characteristic they would like. This makes the concept of "unicorn" open-ended and in no way analogous to anything real, like a real horse. Using something fake to understand something real seems counterproductive.
The concept of "zombie" is similarly vague and inconsistent as the term "unicorn". Some definitions have zombies being able to do different things in different ways. Some zombies can run and some can solve simple problems. Sometimes there are zombie animals. All zombies represent the animal instinct of feeding and violence. All zombies represent something to be feared and one is always justified in destroying them. Zombies tend to represent the evil lurking inside of humanity and in my estimation, they do not offer a useful analogy to anything resembling the average person and offer nothing in relation to understanding consciousness.
The Second thing:
Now, when someone like David Chalmers uses the term "philosophical zombies" they are attempting to offer a juxtaposition between the human that has subjective experiences and the human that does not have subjective experiences. This type of "zombie" is not evil, necessarily, or violent or stupid but is, on its face, indistinguishable to a normal person. If you interact with one of these "zombies" you would say that they were conscious and they would say that they had thoughts and feelings but they would be lying or simply saying things that they think you want to hear. A robot seems like a more obvious metaphor in that we understand that a robot can do things just based on response algorithms as opposed to interacting with its own internal decision-making process, where they debate against themself the options and consequences of actions like people seem to do.
I think that it is actually impossible to imagine and understand something that has all of the same properties and characteristics as a human except this one aspect, subjective experience. It is similar to having a substantive understanding of the concept of nothing or infinity. While we can use these terms to express specific concepts in math or as metaphors for a lack of understanding it is impossible to have a realistic representation in your mind of these terms. When you think about what the term "nothing" means you might think of blackness or the vacuum of space of the number zero or the stillness that comes from meditation or ultimate quietness but none of those things you are thinking about are actually nothing. "Nothing" does not contain any concepts, words, thoughts, analogies, substances or thoughts. Actual nothingness is not a concept that contains anything and we lack the capability of understanding it fully. It is the same with the term infinity and in the concept of the philosophical zombie.
Any contemplation of an entity that acts exactly like a person but somehow isn't a person is a contradiction of how we identify people. We only need the term "subjective experience" because we communicate with others. If a person were never to interact with others then the concept of subjective experience would not have any use and the person would never need to contemplate the concept. The person might have consciousness but the identification of these things would be useless and could never be proven. If the person looked inward and was able to communicate to themself that they were conscious they would have no way to test this theory. Also, the idea that a person would spontaneously come up with language or abstract theories without interaction with others is nonsensical. Some thought experiments are so unrealistic they are actually a waste of time.
On consciousness:
If consciousness is derived from physical processes then there is no reason to hold it as a human-only phenomenon. If consciousness is somehow separate from physical processes then one can say anything they want about it and it would never be provable or disprovable. If something can not be scientifically examined then there is no reason to apply scientific standards. If consciousness is emergent from physical networks or is fundamental within physics then there is no reason to think that robots or zombies couldn't be conscious. Just because we don't have a direct physical explanation of consciousness at the moment doesn't mean that consciousness is something metaphysically special.
So what would it be like to be a zombie or a philosophical zombie? This is similar to contemplating what it is like to be a bat or anything other than a human. Just because we can come up with the sentence doesn't mean it is meaningful. Thinking that it is "like" something to be some other entity puts a lot of value in the human imagination. Human creativity and imagination is an amazing tool but it is not an all-knowing power and is rarely accurate scientifically. It is certainly fun and can help to push past certain obstacles of understanding but it isn't a form of divinity that supersede or replace scientific rigor and logic. Just because we can imagine something doesn't mean anything important. The human mind can combine and exaggerate concepts to no end but none of these imaginings should be used as doctrine. Just because I have a dream about something doesn't mean I should act on that imagining.
I'm not sure it "is like" something to be me. My experience of myself is not reducible to a likeness or analogy. If someone were to ask me "what is it like to be you," I could try to answer in many ways. I could say, "well it is the same as anyone else. I wake up. I eat. I sleep. I have thoughts and feelings. I get anxious and experience happiness at times," but is this what it's "like" to be myself or is it just some language that I think the other person might relate to so that I don't seem like a robot or psycho to them? Any attempt to reduce the human experience to what it is "like" to be them is necessarily lacking in detail. Also, all this is "likeness" talk is dependant on language and language may not be capable of describing an accurate model of experience and so there will always be a lack of understanding as we try to map non-linguistic information (feelings) onto language.
This is not to say that language is not useful or helpful it just isn't the entire story when it comes to human experience and consciousness. Consciousness and language are inexorably linked in our communication of consciousness. Our ability to communicate allows for concepts in general and the concept of consciousness seems to be limited by our ability to use communication tools. Language is just one way to communicate so maybe what it is like to be something is better communicated by some other artform. Maybe what it is like to be someone would be communicated better by creating a multimedia artwork that involves all the senses including emotional senses induced by drugs. Maybe what it's like to a bat is closer to what it's like to be on cocaine all the time. I'm not sure how to test this theory.
Also, I'm not sure if consciousness is the only germane factor in ethical considerations. A person in a coma still retains some ethical considerations even if they may never get out of their coma. Using the desire to understand consciousness as justification for ethics doesn't seem to be a sufficient reason. Justice isn't an entirely logical endeavor and relies on emotional intuitions many times. Our sense of justice is often invoked by feelings.
Top-down versus bottom-up.
I like bottom-up explanations so, to me, looking at consciousness as a top-down phenomenon is difficult to understand. You have to take consciousness as given and I don't know why one would do that. We think that consciousness is a certainty but if the history of science shows us anything it is that skepticism is more useful than certainty. Taking consciousness as a given allows one to move past the problem of what creates it and allows one to think of what the effects of consciousness are. This is useful to solve other problems but taking consciousness for granted is not a way to understand what consciousness is on a fundamental level. It is the same as quantum physics. Taking quantum physics for granted allows people to understand its consequences but it doesn't lead any to understand what underlies its existence.
Wouldn't we have to use external observation in the form of some material mechanism?
Maybe one would think that animals could tell us what it is like to be them. Maybe we could interpret their languages and understand that they are experiencing what we are experiencing.
How would you explain to a foreign person that has never heard the word consciousness what consciousness is? How would a dolphin explain to us that it is conscious? How would we ask it?
Saying that humans have consciousness is a fact and then postulating that that fact is an indicator that all things are conscious seems like a very big leap. If consciousness is at the root of all physical reality then many entities would experience the world in a similar way as humans and should at least experience some form of consciousness.
How is consciousness defined? If the definition comes from the only thing we know is conscious then the definition must include the aspects that are linked to the human we experience of it. This means that it would include characteristics such as a self-concept or self-representation, a stream of present tense external and internal stimulus that includes some form of symbolic representation such as a language that interprets, analyses and integrates stimulus in a meaningful and expressible manner.
If the only way we know that something is conscious is to ask them and if we ask someone if they are conscious and they say yes why should we believe them? Why should we trust our own perception of consciousness? How, other than appealing to physical reality, would we ground our confidence that consciousness exists?
Philip also relies on the difference between quantity and quality but I didn't get a good definition of quality. Maybe it is just another term for subjective valuation and has no objective base. If that is true and "quality" can not be judged then there is no reason to study it as it can neither be wrong or right. So how does someone who thinks consciousness is only qualitative expect to study it?
Is there a way to evaluate quality in the form of quantity such as a degree of happiness, or a degree of redness? Also, I'm not sure if "redness" is a qualitative characteristic. Experiences can be quantified such as how many times one experiences something or the amount of hormones, neurotransmitters, and electrical activity that exist before, during and after an experience.
If you care about science then you must care about the means in which we verify intuitions. Also, Philip repeats the idea that neuroscientists can only get at a correlation between brain activity and conscious accounts but that correlation does not disprove causation as much as it proves causation. Also, neuroscience is not the only science that studies consciousness.
Philip keeps asking Sean to explain what a particle is as opposed to what it does but he doesn't explain how if everything is conscious how would we ever prove it if materialism or scientific methods or empiricism is on a different level as consciousness. It is a kind of unmoved mover kind of argument. It's not that physical reality includes consciousness it is that consciousness is what physical reality actually is and therefore cannot be explained by physical reality. Saying that what we do when we do math or science is just describe the behavior of consciousness doesn't explain consciousness or prove its existence at all. It is the same argument that God is before time and space and therefore one can not prove its existence using science.
Why should consciousness be on a different ground than any other concept? It should not be held up higher than any other hypothesis or theory. We should be skeptical of our assumptions regardless of how real they feel and we should be skeptical of our willingness to separate things because they seem mysterious and miraculous. We should ask questions about what we are talking about when we use the word consciousness and why it's important.
I suppose what I mean is I should ask these questions and look into the subject more.
I suppose most of my life I've been a little depressed. Not enough to warrant any one's attention. Just enough to dwindle away any remaining hope, pride or confidence from a once playful child. A once hopeful squirt.
Along the way and at no time, in particular, the lust for life and all it could offer subsided. Reality set in hard and with little push back from myself and for Reality, it was easy to interject a little taste of spiteful consequence into an already uncertain world.
Ahead, I only saw chaos and unpredictability. All I saw was my own failure, greed and no one to make proud, least of all myself. Who am I to demand such things of myself? Am I not just another human, doomed to a life on this earthly hell? With torments within and torments abroad.
The world, seeking to destroy you throws death and confusion at you. So you accept your fate. I told myself I was just another in a long line of worthless humans. No more important than the distant stars, a speck of dust on the planet. With no God and no one to impress and no chance for greatness, why even try?
In the background of my mind negativity was always there, demanding more and expecting less. Never enough and never to anywhere. I thrived amidst the opportunities afforded. Blessed and cursed by the world's prescribed options. Adrift and ashamed.
I am still ashamed of my lack of fortitude and passion. I am still ashamed when I find myself following someone undeserving of my loyalty. But it is not the case that I am just a cog and it is not the case that I have no choices. I have consequences to conjure and futures to inspire.
It is the case that I can accept my frailties and work toward improving the best aspects of myself. To take on tasks that improve my attitude, my mood and that create confidence. The ones that help me appreciate life and find joy. Activities and indulgences that I can take pride in even if I'm not always willing to divulge them to others.
There are positive and negative behavioral feedback loops that one engages in whether one is paying attention or not. If one is paying attention and wants the depression to lessen then it makes sense that one should engage in activities that promote positive psychological feedback.
A great book that I read that facilitated my acceptance of my current state and empowered my dedication to make my life better is called The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem by Nathaniel Brandon. Another book I read that helped me rethink my relationships with others is called Real-Time Relationships: The Logic of Love by Stephan Molyneux. After reading these books I came away with actionable steps to take control over my life in a way that I didn't know was possible beforehand. I started to look at my life as something to be taken seriously as a limited resource that was worth investing in. For more on this topic read my blog about losing 45 lbs and why as well as other blogs about personal development.
Even after about five years of a concerted effort to no longer treat myself as a worthless meat-sac I still get depressed and still, my depression takes the form of a subtle, yet persistent pessimism, nihilism, and doubt. A voice inside my head that looks at my accomplishments, skills, and humanity and judges it all as a pointless endeavor unworthy of continuance. I stop writing, stop learning, stop appreciating myself and I start to doubt that I am worthy of any effort at all. Fortunately, as time goes by and I work at improving my self-esteem these bouts of depression are fewer and far between and I hope that in time positivity and enthusiasm will take on a more dominant role in my psychology.
I am not in control of others. I am barely in control of myself.
The only way to control others is through force, everything else is a negotiation.
When I listen to certain people prognosticate about what we all are doing or should be doing I can't help but become curious about what they mean by "we". "We" is a collective noun that takes on different forms depending on the context it is used in. A Christian can address a group of Christians and say the word "we" and it is to whom they are referring. Namely, Christians. But if that same Christian was in a room full of atheists and used the word "we" he might be referring to his fellow Christians or he might be appealing to a more general "we" as in "we are all humans," or "we are all Americans".
The term "we" requires an assumption on the part of both the speaker and listener which offers two opportunities to misinterpret the meaning of the word. The speaker assumes that the listener knows which group they are referring to and the listener assumes they know what group the speaker is referring to. Both parties may be wrong in their assumptions. This is just another reason why clarification is important and why using vague, abstract or lazy terms is problematic.
Another issue with using the word "we" is that if the group being referred to is large enough it loses any generalizability or coherency. Saying, "We should all do this or that", referring to all people or all Americans, for example, is either so generically obvious it doesn't need to be stated such as in the statement, "We should strive to make the world a better place" or it becomes so vague as in the statement, "We, the people of the United States of America..." that it holds no specificity and therefore does not offer to reveal any real identity.
Another example is in the following sentence, "what we did in Vietnam," and we assume that what they mean is America if they are American, which is exceptionally vague because the "we" in this statement attempts to hold a large number of people responsible for something they had nothing to do with. Not that no one in America still living had nothing to do with the war in Vietnam. Even if the speaker is referring to the historical fact that America did something in Vietnam the meaning is still not clear as the definition relies on the ever-changing definition of the peoples of America, for the word "we", when spoken by a person, typically includes humans and certainly does in the above statement.
The definition of "America" in 1969 would not only include all the individuals that lived during that time but would also describe their actions. Obviously, this is an impossible thing to do accurately, hence the simplifying use of the word "we". The actions of the government would be the most representative of the US to anyone outside of the United States so one must include the actions of the government as well, which means that you have to separate out the individuals that made up the government and weigh their actions heavier than the civilian population. Then you might want to include the most financially affluent as they probably funded many of the politicians that ended up in the government and for their contribution to American culture. The words "America" and "Americans" only represent an abstract concept and it's actual definition evolves constantly.
Can a nation be considered a continuous entity? What is the statute of limitations of a nation's crimes?
Considering that I have asserted that a "nation" is nothing more than a concept referring to individual people, then holding a "nation" accountable could be dealt with in a similar fashion as holding individuals accountable. One can not sit a "nation" down and demand recompense, as the true definition of a "nation" should include the sum total of its inhabitants at a given time. That does not mean that one can't identify those that made decisions that directly lead to the guilty act. This is typically the responsibility of the governing body of the nation but might also include the wealthy and otherwise influential.
When you hold all the weapons you are only accountable to yourself.
If a speaker is using a form of "we" that is devoid of persons or includes non-humans then it should be clear within the context of the statement. Maybe in a world full of sentient aliens and humans, the use of the word "we" would grow to include non-humans as a norm. Also, if the word "we" refers to all biological entities then it refers to non-humans as well but when was the last time someone said the word "we" to refer to all biological forms?
I suppose that part of the reason that I have a problem with anyone using the word "we" in a way that ascribes responsibility is that groups of people don't do anything. Individuals do things and make decisions. When they work together it is easy to group them up and consider their efforts as a whole. It makes it easier to talk about what happened and what you think should have happened.
To be accurate one should name everyone involved but it is hard to say all the names of the people involved when groups become larger than a few people. When there are too many people to state their names one can take shortcuts. The problem with linguistic shortcuts is that when they are repeated without consideration their original meaning can get lost and one stops using our critical faculties. This is one of the reasons that abstract language leads to misunderstandings. Another abstract concept is represented by the word "group". This is another vague term that relies on context and shared knowledge. The word "group" is the more objective version of "we" just and the word "they" is an externalized version of "we".
The pyramids were not built by groups of people. One might say that it was built by Jews, a recognized group of people, but one should not say that it was built by "the Jews". Many Jews had nothing to do with it and considering that it was so long ago the accuracy of any statement about the history of the pyramids should be suspect. Even the word "Jew" as an identifier of individual characteristics is not well defined. In using the word "group" in this fashion one is forgoing every bit of information related to the actual physical reality and representing it in an alternative way. They are redefining the event and abstracting its contents. This is a necessary aspect of communication via language as efficiency is important. People do not have the time to name and address every human and activity related to an event. All of history is told using abstractions, metaphors, and vagueries.
The story of the pyramids is what lingers. Not of the actual entities that were involved.
The pyramids were built by lots and lots of individuals that used their bodies to accomplish work. While one can create endless categories in an effort to describe similarities or differences among individuals the fact still remains that it is individuals that act. They may use justifications that appeal to communal concepts but they still act of their own accord even if not totally of their own volition. They are responsible even if they are not completely in control. Environmental pressures and the drive for survival have a great influence on behavior but even in the face of death, some have had the will to fight their instincts and act of their own will.
So, then in what circumstances is one permitted to use the word "we", you might ask. I actually think it is perfectly fine for people to use the word "we" whenever they want but one should be aware that it may lead to miscommunication and misattribution. One should strive to be accurate in their speech and not succumb to the laziness of using vague words and idioms. If one is referring to all humans then they certainly can use the word "we" but in most other cases one should be careful and deliberate with their use of the word.
Maybe one of the reasons that the word "we" is used so wantonly is that it promotes communalism. By using the word "we" one can hold many people responsible for something without having to find and name all the individuals. Humans are a highly social species and do not thrive in isolation. In fact, I would venture to guess that group identities were formulated well before individual identities in humanity's linguistic past. The identification of outsiders was and is a survival instinct that has roots that go deeper than our Homosapien speciation. Therefore, the notion of a "We" is hardwired into we humans. A small person might be called a wee human.
One of the problems with using the word "we" in a lazy fashion is that one will likely end up holding someone responsible for something they had nothing to do with. This makes it easy to identify large groups of people, some of which might actually be immediately responsible, but some might have just been on the outskirts of the group and knew nothing of the occurrence. Groups are rarely in full unison and while many may act as if they always agree with their group's decisions in public many will debate its merits in private. Groups of humans are not mental monoliths or cyborg hiveminds.
The question might then arise, "are a state's citizens responsible for the actions made using their tax dollars but without their direct permission or involvement. Governments make many decisions that are never put in front of the citizenry so can a citizen be held morally responsible because they did not withdraw their financial support? Can a citizen be expected to risk their life and their family's life to disobey a government that acts against their value system?
While a citizen might not be expected to withdraw financial support to a corrupt government by not paying taxes, they can still use other means such as voting, petitioning, speaking out, or whatever else is not deemed illegal by the sitting government. What is important to understand here is that the government is another group that is incapable of taking action. It is simply a concept. A narrower but still vague "we" that is actually made up of individuals who make decisions and take action. Individuals are responsible for what the government does but it is easy to spread the responsibility thin in a culture the masks responsibility under the guise of communal togetherness.
On Consciousness and Free Will:
Maybe if the universe is deterministic then it doesn't matter if we hold the wrong person responsible for things. Maybe we are all on a rollercoaster that never ends and our momentum leads us down the only path available. Maybe that means that there is no "we" as there is no "you"? If the self is an illusion then so is the concept of we. What is a group of illusions called? Are we only an illusion to ourself or is it that our concept of ourselves is an illusion? Is the entirety of our internal conception of ourselves an illusion or are some aspects real? If the external world is real then are others not real? If others are real then I am real to others? If they are real to me but not to themselves then there is a contradiction.
Either, we are all real or we are all an illusion.
The definition of the self becomes important here. I would use the following to begin to define the self:
1. The self is a minimally reducible entity that still maintains the other attributes.
2. The self is composed of a person's physical body, regardless of deformity or loss of organic material.
3. The self is alive. (Unless one believes that the self is separate from the body or denies biology in general.)
Here is a short list of things I attribute to my personal concept of my self:
4. I am conscious.
5. My consciousness relies on my biology and is born of it.
6. I am responsible for my actions.
7. I am only partly in control of my actions.
8. I can discipline my will power and grow its effectiveness.
Free will is an acceptance of your participation in the actions of your body. Free will is taking responsibility because someone has to. Free will is holding people accountable for not trying. While free will is not always activated it is always available unless the person is broken somehow. That is why we do not imprison people we deem mentally incapable of exercising their will power.
Is it not just an expression of our total narcissism as a species that we might think that we are important or in charge of the world.
The whole concept that there is something bigger out there is based on the collective value system and the vastness of the external world and the hierarchy of the pack.
I think many times when people say "we" they mean "I" such as in the sentence, "How do we feel..." If the speaker had used the word "I" instead, it would have no inaccuracies and cause no confusion about who is being referred to. But when they use the word "we" they create a disconnect from the subject of the statement. They broaden their scope and add something when something more is not needed and may not exist. They are obscuring the meaning of the statement and creating an unnecessary abstraction.
If one draws a picture of people standing around then there are only individuals. If one then draws a circle around them and then calls the group "they" or "we" then one is still referring to individuals but pulling back on the detail which leaves room for entropy and a lack of clarification. One is sacrificing the truth for convenience and efficiency, which is not all bad, and utilizing an abstract concept that only exists within the brain as opposed to referring to actual physical bodies, ie: the individuals.
There are things that exist outside of the body and there are things that only exist within the neural network that exists in the body. Consciousness seems to be an emergent phenomenon that exists due to neural networks. Until recently the only notable network was within the human body but now there are networks outside the human that may contain the same emergent properties such as on the internet. Maybe this is not a meaningful distinction or category of existence.
On AI:
When Sam Harris or Elon Musk talks about the future of AI and say things like, "we" have to consider this or that or that "we" need to be careful, who the fuck are they talking about? Maybe they are just talking to those who are responsible for creating and developing AI and robotics or those that are funding research but because the word can apply to everyone in this context it is hard not to be confused about what they are asking of me. If the "we" here means every human then I am not sure what I can do to stop AI, especially considering it is already here and that I have no idea how it works.
Now, humans have created catastrophically bad technologies but again I ask, who is to blame? It seems like it would be the individuals that acted to create these terrible technologies or who chose to use them. The same human drive that created the atom bomb created the polio vaccine. It seems that with the explosion of creativity and scientific understanding we get a combination of both terrific and terrifying technologies. Thus the universe stays in balance. A balance between chaos and order. Entropy and cohesion. Humans are constantly encountering the sublime and the horrific.
Someone once told me that the world is upside down but our minds correct this and we see the world right-side up. Sky side up. This is not true. The world is right-side up and our eyeballs are curved like a crystal ball that focuses light onto the retina. The resulting image is a projection of the world-oriented upside down because of curvature. The brain does not care that the image is physically disjointed from reality because it can represent the data in almost any orientation. It just so happens that the most adaptive way to represent this data is in a way that doesn't disorient us and lead to injuries; right side up.
What if I told you that the world around you was actually made up of large waves. The floor that seems so flat and straight that you stand on every day is actually undulating and flowing like a steady wave swishing against the rocks. That your mind, from birth, has been correcting for this odd state of nature by filtering out the extraneous oscillations of matter and straightening the world out. Making it useful. Coping with reality for pragmatic purposes the mind manipulates and interprets the universe in a way that "makes sense".
What if I told you that as your mind was forming in the womb you began to see the world as it is; an infinite amalgam, a gelatinous kaleidoscope, a soupy stew of chemistry in motion. Molecules bursting and reforming. Absorption and osmosis. Cell division and quantum entanglement. All there before your eyes. Your skin was not a barrier but instead, it was a fine cheesecloth where molecular bodies eloped. In your ears, you heard the soft whispers of reality as it vibrated and cajoled.
Then, as time went by and the mind developed you slowly morphed the world around you by integrating and discerning inputs. Separating and combining elements and discovering patterns. Your mind, like the universe, churned and moved, creating its own perception of reality. And after birth, you continued to straighten out the world. Soon you learned a language, making the whole endeavor more complicated, rewarding and troublesome. Some are better than others at interacting with reality. Some attempt to probe its deepest mysteries. Some reach for the stars. Most don't care.
None of this is true, of course. You were never able to perceive the quantum world or cell division. As the brain developed it slowly began to perceive the environment from a more macro perspective. Our sensory organs are limited to certain biological parameters. These dictate the range of sensory data we can imbibe and modulate its representation. The size and shape of an eye, for instance, limits its magnification and focusing of light, its field of view and the number of and type of components, ie rods and cones, and potential nerve sites.
But reality is an undulating molasses of possibilities flowing about in front of your face. Our bodies are made up of the most complex set of biological structures, which are all composed of undulating quantum probabilities. Sometimes, with the help of drugs or other tools, we witness a bit of what the world would look like if we could perceive the quantum world. Reality would bend and sway. It would disassemble and reassemble before you.
Consciousness is not singular. Our brain produces two consciousness potentials. They glide along the synapses representing a complex array of connections that may or may not contain meaning. They are like ethereal trains being ever created and ever changed by subconscious layers combining and cooperating to produce consciousness. Each side of the brain is capable of creating high fidelity conscious streams. Streams that, if focused on and stabilized, create what we call consciousness.
Harmony between the two lobes can lead to enlightenment and/or flow states. Harmony between the two lobes comes from the practice of focusing on each stream. Understanding each one as separate consciousnesses that intermingle and inform each other's behavior. Each brain develops from subconscious experiences and then, with self-awareness, develops a certain level of consciousness. Each with their own defense mechanisms, habits, and dysfunctions. Each with its own potential for clarity and inclusion. Each with its own merits and importance. And ultimately accepting that the two are really in one creature designed to survive and thrive.
Perception is singular. We only perceive one consciousness at a time. Our perception allows for feedback to the other consciousness not being perceived. We communicate with ourselves as if there are two minds when we debate a problem or impersonate someone else. When we learn from those around us we have to imagine the mind of the other person which is easier because we are evolved to monitor two streams of concepts. When we put ourselves into the mind of someone else we perceive our own consciousness as well as utilize our second consciousness to role-play as the "other". We "watch" ourselves.
If we watch ourselves reacting to a stimulus via a recording, such as a video, then we are engaging in the third dimension of consciousness. One that allows for an additional source of perception and feedback. When one observes one's self one becomes two in the mind again.
Free will is the feedback loop that occurs when one influences one's self. When one observes their own perception and their consciousness in a way that acknowledges and manifests the concept "I am my own master."
Our consciousness is like the universe. It is like DNA. It is like a binary star.
Schizophrenia is a malfunction in the perception mechanism in that it always for two many conscious layers to surface and combine in unpredictable and unstable ways.
Each side of the brain is capable of mimicking the other. They each create crude backups to memories and functions held in the other half. This has a multitude of practical benefits. One is that if there is damage to one part of the brain that function may already have a backup stored in the other half as a reference or analog. The mimicry can be completely abstract and complexly differentiated.
We utilize our model of ourselves to create simulations and to learn lessons. We imagine what we might have done as if we were someone else. We think about what other's might have done as if we were them. When we run these scenarios we recreate the details with more or less accuracy and each piece of the lesson can be analogized and broken down into generalizations, references, categories, metaphors, syllogisms or what have you. We try to simplify the lesson in an effort to more efficiently extract any knowledge and wisdom from it.
The right brain is for mimicking the left brain and the environment. It is more creative and physical. The right brain is for imagination. For non-verbal representations. For senses and feelings. It is intuitive and spontaneous.
The left brain is more logical and organized. It uses language to create meaning. To connect thoughts. To rationalize. The left brain is for solving problems. For remembering words and doing mathematical calculations.
Mimicking allows for learning. Sympathy. Perspective shifting. Mimicking allows for model building. For system testing or prediction modeling.
The left brain observes the model and dissects it. Analyzes it. Connects parts into a meaningful whole. It categorizes. Catalogs.
Maybe during sleep, the right half has more sway and when we are awake the left side holds more sway. This would be beneficial because it would allow the two sides to exercise their strengths more equally throughout the day. Also, it would allow us to be more rational while awake. More focused but during sleep, the left side is more of a follower than a leader and the right brains takes over allowing for the imagination to run rampant. This is why our dreams are so visually and emotionally stimulating but why we struggle to encode them. The right brain is not good at encoding experiences into easily recalled terms. As we awaken the right brain relinquishes control and the left brain takes over.
When we are awake the right side is either as fast or slightly slower. Not sure if the right side is a follower while we are awake or just running without a language. It might be processing things as fast and just as important but because it is missing a formal language... A deaf person surrounded by hearing people will follow someone around to start understanding the world. They would watch the person react to things. They would watch them interacting with the world and would learn how to experience and interact with the outside world for themselves. Just because there isn't a formal, verbal language there is still an internal language or protocol. There must be some mechanism for action and reaction and for learning.
But is something conscious if it has no language?
If a person loses the ability to communicate, are they still conscious? If so, how would we know?
How do we know someone is conscious other than that they communicate it to us. We tell each other that we are conscious. We tell ourselves that we are conscious. We believe that we are conscious. The definition of consciousness seems to be the feeling inside our heads that is self-reflective, narrative-driven and
The separation between the hemispheres is what allows for the ability to attend to two things simultaneously as long as their forms occupy different domains. Such as music with no lyrics and writing. Or listening to music with lyrics while jogging. Or listening to people speaking while driving. One part of the brain is able to take over control of the body without the need for the language parts freeing up the language parts to be used independently.
The split brain would explain why one can have a meaningful experience from a dream or hallucination or event without having a proper way of describing it. For an event example: If someone jumps out of a plane then there is little to rationalize so the right brain takes over allowing the person to feel the situation and experience it more emotionally.
A hallucination occurs when the right and left side are perceived simultaneously by perception. The right brain is making things up while the left brain is trying to fit these things into their rational models. The person has access to language and imagination to a degree normally unavailable. I wonder if corpus callosum activity is increased due to certain drugs.
An out-of-body experience is the opposite experience of falling out of a plane. In the out-of-body situation, the body is not being felt so the right side has nothing to feel other than emotions stored in the brain. It has no outside stimulus so the left side can take over. It creates elaborate rationalizations and can recall things that they wouldn't be able to normally. The left side takes over and tries to create meaning through language and it uses whatever the most deep-seated concepts you have. When asked it applies your most sophisticated language abilities to the task of explaining the out of body experience to others.
An experienced skydiver has jumped out of a plane so many times that can start thinking from the left side of the brain again. I bet that an experienced skydiver's right and left brain are in such harmony and cooperation during a dive that they are equally stimulated and equally attended to and the person feels at one with themselves and the universe. The two streams act as one allowing the person to feel and think in a way that is complimentary. They fuse together filling the person with understandable emotion. It is the opposite of internal chaos.
Language allows for communication, systemization, ideation, and mathematics. Split Brain Patients:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfGwsAdS9Dc
It would make sense that an adult or someone sufficiently old enough would have a more integrated perception of self that permeates the entire brain and it's the concept of self prior to being cut would remain intact. As time goes by the two minds integrate and live generally as one entity so when they are cut later in life the person is mostly integrated other than a few physical abnormalities.
I wonder what the effects would be on a person born with no corpus callosum. Would they ever feel like a single person? The body would be the mediator. They would have to share the body. I wonder if the right side would be forced to adapt and create a language even just to communicate with the left side. Would they be like twins with their own language?
Consciousness:
Consciousness is a mechanism that grounds us in the now. It is a metronome that pulsates with the rhythm of the present. It measures time and by accessing memories it connects the past to the present. Consciousness analyzes, contemplates, feels, and interacts with the inner and outer worlds simultaneously. Consciousness is the rider on the wave of the nexus or apex of the two minds streaming across the synapses like a massive current, creating waves of experience.
Is consciousness just the voice in the head? The narrator of the story? Is it just the observance of an internal language generator? Is it what allows us to answer questions related to wakefulness? If a person can respond to other humans then we assume they are conscious. If we ask someone if they are conscious they will likely say yes. If we ask ourselves if we are conscious we will likely respond yes. If the internal observer is consciousness then what generates it? In what structure/s does it reside? What structures are their tools? How does it remain stable and singular? How does it become unstable and chaotic?
Is it just the opposite of the unconscious? When we are unconscious are we running on purely subconscious brain activity? So when we are awake and feel conscious we are doing the same that as when we are asleep except we have an added layer on consciousness.
Is consciousness in the corpus callosum? It can't be because when people have the corpus callosum cut they are still conscious. Do they feel disconnected from certain thoughts, feelings or actions? Since each side of the body is controlled by one side of the brain than when they are disconnected the two halves of the body could act independently. At least to some degree. I'm sure that certain aspect of the brain does not require communication between hemispheres and therefore continue to run normally. Many of these functions are probably related to automatic bodily functions that are so vital they do not require that the hemispheres communicate. Music:
If music engages both sides of the brain in a harmonious way then that must help align the streams of consciousness allowing them to become fused and coordinated. Music is creative, surprising, and aesthetic which is appreciated and focused on by the right side. The left side is attracted to and focused on the rational nature of music. Music is rhythmic, measured, mathematical, and when there is singing the left side is even more enticed. Songs evoke emotion and contemplation. When music is the best the two minds become so in tune that the self disappears and the two become one with time devoid of self-centered ego.
Music is fundamental to humans just as sleeping is in that they are both activities that create a balance between the minds. I think that activities that stimulate the two minds in a harmonious way are valued in societies and perpetuated through culture. This would explain why music, stories, and sports proliferate in societies that have the time to indulge in them and why nearly every human society engages in these kinds of activities.
Also, these kinds of activities are social and can help connect people with each other. People are drawn to things that engage their minds and bodies and the ones that do this harmoniously thrive.
The bad side of two minds:
If both sides of the brain are in synch but are both contemplating negativity, doubt, fear etc they work together in a way that creates problems like depressions, nervousness, mania. Actually, with mania, I am not sure what is going on. Maybe the left brain takes over too much and is overstimulated and manifests a frenzied state.
The body:
The fact that the right brain is connected with the left side of the body and vice versa with respect to the left brain makes perfect sense if the two brains are to act in harmony. Because of this fact even if the two hemispheres are disconnected, as in the split-brain patients, the person does not fight themselves to move about the world. The right and left do not try to take their half somewhere else because their half is connected to the other half through the body and the nervous system.
The body and the mind are linked inexorably. They need each other to live and to communicate. If the body is made of cells and cells are like machines then our body needs an "internet". Our nervous system is the bodies internet and allows for massive amounts of communication. The brain needs oxygen and other supplies and gets these things from the body. The lungs breath in oxygen which is absorbed into the bloodstream. The blood is pumped to the brain which keeps the brain alive. The brain helps protect and direct the body ensuring it stays alive.
The body feeds back information to the mind about how the body is doing. Pain indicates to the brain that there is a mutually beneficial reason to solve the problem. The brain analyzes the problem and takes measures to solve the problem (if solutions are available). The body responds to the problem as well and does what it can to solve the problem such as engaging the immune system. The body and brain either help of hinder each other which determines how well the person does physically and mentally.
This link intertwines the body and the mind and forces each side to be dependant on the other. This allows for harmonious communication and cooperation between each half of the person, which might otherwise work independently.
Flow state:
The two are aligned but the right side is dominant.
Opposite of flow would be chaotic or unaligned. The two sides are working at odds.
We live mostly in a state between total chaos and flow.
Two become four:
When people get together the number of brains and consciousnesses double in size. The amount of connections between hemispheres goes from 2 to four. Now the right side of one can connect with either the right or left side of the other and vice versa.
Most people in the world are right-handed. This must be due partly because of a tipping point in engineering as certain tools get shared, selecting for people to share handedness and partly due to the dominance of the left brain. (Especially during waking hours) If the right brain becomes dominant during sleeping then the left side of the body should have some increase in sensitivity and control.
I imagine consciousness as a rider desperately trying to ride a stream of consciousness flowing around the brain and corpus callosum. Sometimes it rides the right side and sometimes it rides the left. Sometimes it straddles the two and sometimes the streams connect and create a torrent of consciousness. Sometimes the two streams meander away from each other creating a disconnect and chaos. All around the rider is an ocean of uncertainty but the rider tries to hang on. Sometimes the rider can barely stay on and sometimes it can pass from one to the other effortlessly.
But... maybe there is no rider. Maybe perception is nonlocal and it just seems to be focused as a stream of words inside our heads. Maybe it is just epiphenomena that just oozes out of the mind with no purpose or effectiveness. If writing these words comes from the same place as consciousness then consciousness must be localized in the mind. It has to come to some kind of focused point to single generate a single word out from the other possible actions. There has to be a filter or funnel that channels the flow of consciousness in a certain direction.
Maybe the rider can mold this funnel by influencing its direction and speed of flow. Maybe the rider can manipulate the environment of the mind responsible for consciousness to help control consciousness. The rider does this through repetition, meditation, learning, and self-awareness. This is where free will exists and where it can be strengthened. When a person decides to take their own consciousness seriously, to listen to themselves as they interpret the world and makes a conscious effort to do something, they are building up their will power. The stronger the will the more freedom a person can attain as they are less and less controlled by the uncertainty of their own mind and body.
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” ― Henry Ford
As humans developed language they were better able to teach and pass on adaptive strategies for survival.
Storytelling is the most effective way to pass on lessons. It takes the lesson and puts it into context which makes it much easier to relate to and remember. Songs do an even better job of helping people remember by adding patterns and rhyming to the story.
I wonder if people started using language to impart helpful information about survival and emotional states before they were able to observe themselves in a conscious way. It seems that many animals have a language or other form of communication but we do not think of them as conscious or of having a sophisticated self awareness and certainly not free will. This would indicate that language evolved prior to consciousness, if consciousness is a new phenomenon so it is reasonable to think that people were telling primitive stories prior to the modern conception of consciousness.
I think that storytelling may be the precursor to the development of consciousness and the more complex the storytelling the more complex the expression of consciousness can manifest. To tell a story is typically to incorporate time into the information being communicated. It also involves the creation of characters, archetypes and perspectives. If communication can develop from primitive grunts to sophisticated storytelling then it may be possible that consciousness is a product of this development.
This would explain why we are so drawn toward narratives and stories. We understand identities and memories as stories that we tell ourselves and others. The more abstract the language the more abstract the self identity and since abstraction seems to be beneficial it grows and is propagated throughout time ever adapting.
I don't think that consciousness came about like a switch being turned on. I think it is the result of incremental advancements in communication over long periods of time. It is a social and mental adaptation that is much more subtle and illusive than physical characteristics. It hides in the brain and taunts from the shadows.
As humans increased in population they begin to interact with others who do not communicate in the same way and therefor do not think in the same way. They would have differing principles and expectations for how one should act. This can lead to conflict but if the two groups can come to an understanding and find some mutual benefits in working together they can trade and intermingle which would allow for more potential adaptation and refinement of survival strategies.
In the modern world groups have become very entrenched in their ideas and some survival strategies seem to work better than others and some are certainly not compatible with others. National identities consist of individual identities which are products of stories.
This is all to say that storytelling is a very powerful force aiding human expansion and proliferation. Storytelling is also a powerful tool for defining the self. Telling yourself a story of woe and sorrow defines the parameters that you see enclosing you, just as telling yourself a story of triumph and empowerment can free you to be the hero of your own story. "Be the hero of your own movie. If your life was a movie and it started now. Forget about whatever financial disasters you’ve had, personal failures, relationship failures. What would the hero of your life’s movie do right now? Do that, do those things. We define ourselves far too often by our past failures. We look at our past and we say, “Well that’s me”. That’s not you, you are this person right now. You’re this person right now, you’re the person who’s learned from those failures and you can choose to be the hero of your own movie right now. Write down your goals, write down things you want to improve, write down things you won’t tolerate from yourself, write down things that you’ve done in the past that you never want to see yourself do again. And go forth, from here, as the hero of your own movie. Build momentum. Build confidence and momentum with each good decision that you make from here on out. You can do it, anyone can do it. We live in unique times. We live in one of the rarest times in human history where you can choose almost all the input that comes your way, whether it’s the movie that you watch, the books you read, the podcasts you listen to. You can choose to be inspired. Do that. Do that and be the hero of your own movie." — Joe Rogan
