The fact that brain scanners can see your decisions before you make them seems to have some people questioning whether or not we actually have “free will.”

In a study published in Nature Neuroscience, researchers using brain scanners could predict people's decisions seven seconds before the test subjects were even aware of making them.



***********

So the question is this. If we are not making these decisions… who or what is?

I think they are suggesting that the subconscious is.

So what exactly is the subconscious? Of course they will probably say that it is part of the activity in the brain.

The thing that amazes me is that instead of looking at evidence that points to a higher mind or a higher decision maker (or consciousness) scientists continue to identify “self” with the physical brain and body, and “consciousness” with the rate at which the brain processes information. (Human consciousness) When they do this, they look at the evidence and question the idea of whether or not “free will” exists.

Human consciousness is different from other kinds of consciousness. Human consciousness is only the (kind and amount) of consciousness that the human brain and body can use or process.




So Hallet, in spite of evidence to the contrary, is still not convinced that the mind exists separate from the body. He states:

"A different way of thinking about it is that your consciousness is only aware of some of the things your brain is doing.”

That is an interesting thing to say. Rather than saying “You are only aware of some of the things your brain is doing.” He says, “Your consciousness is only aware of some of the things your brain is doing.” He has, himself, separated you (the self) from the brain/body and calls it “your consciousness.”

So he has identified “self” with human consciousness, not with the brain or the body.

That is like saying becuase I can see an expression on your face I know your hand in a poker game and can tell what you will do there for you have no free will.

Does not compute

Not exactly the same as a brain scan. However, I think its a wrong assessment to suggest that we have no free will.

But that's what the article implied.

Mark Hallett doubts that free will exists as a separate, independent force, and he states that the idea or belief that mind or "self" is separate from the brain is a "misconception." So he seems to be puzzling over the facts because if he holds onto that premise that means the we may have no "free will."


http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision

Well that's a rather complex issue right there Jeannie.

You see, biologists (and scientists who work in this type of field) view our "Consciousness" as an emergent property of the brain.

So he's probably looking at it from that point of view.

However, that's a bit misleading (even from his perspective I'm sure). In other words, that very perspective is probably misleading him too.

The reason being it's the very nature of science and scientific inquiry to "separate things". That's the only way that science can even work. You need to have a "A" and a "B" before you can investigate how "A" and "B" interact.

So it's the very nature of scientific inquiry to be "reductionism" and that requires separation of things into distinct individual separate entities that can be "reduced" to their individual parts.

But in the truest sense of nature, consciousness can't be an "emergent" property of the brain any more than our shadow can be an "emergent" property of our body standing in a beam of light.

The problem is that as the shadow cannot exist without the body and light source, neither can it be a "separate" thing. You simply can't have a shadow if you don't have a light source and a body to cast a shadow.

Well, it would be the same with with consciousness. If consciousness is indeed an 'emergent property' of the brain then it cannot be "separate" from the brain, anymore than your shadow can be separate from your body and a source of light.

So this study would be like saying, "Hey before your shadow can move (i.e. before you consciousness can know something), you first need to move your body (i.e. you first need to have activity in your brain).

Well, gee whiz? I hope this study didn't cost too much of my tax dollars I could have just told them that without the elaborate laboratory tests.

So where does the "free will" problem come into play?

Well, that's simple. It comes into play from this scientists OWN perspective. He's already separated consciousness from the brain!

Does your shadow have free will? Or does your body have free will?

Think about it.

How is this any different when applied to the brain and consciousness?

Clearly the "self" must include the subconscious.

The only reason this scientist is concerned about "Free Will" is because he or she has decided to make a hypotheical distinction between conscious awareness and subconscious "awareness".

As soon as that arbitrary separation had been made of course the concept of "Free Will" would come into question.

I would be very interested in being there to see precisely what they are doing. I'll bet I could explain to them precisely what they are confused about.

Before they could start questioning "Free Will" they would need to perform an experiment where a person had clearly "decided" to press a particular button even BEFORE they were asked to chose one!

If that "decision" was made at any time AFTER they were made aware that they were going to need to chose a button then where's the probelm with "free will"?

I have a real problem believing that someone would have already decided to press a button before they were even asked to choose one.

That certainly would bring free will into question!

I'll have to look into this experiment in detail. I'd like to know precisely what experiments they are actually performing. Then I'll offer my explanation of what's going on.

I think you have some great points. I wish there was another word, other than consciousness, that made more sense in this case.

What I see is that there are many different kinds of consciousness 'emerging' from many different life forms, and it depends on the vehicle (the life form that consciousness enters and flows through)- what kind of consciousness is possible as the end result.

I think when scientists use the term "consciousness" they are referring to "human consciousness" only because they are self absorbed humans. (LOL)

Human consciousness, is probably what they think is the most significant and important kind of consciousness and no other kind is relevant. They may not even acknowledge any other kind of consciousness.

If this is true, they will have an extremely difficult time if they ever come into contact with any other-worldly intelligent life forms working with a completely different kind of consciousness, and perhaps from a different kind of reality. They will be ill prepared to communicate.

I think of this force I call "consciousness" more like a force of life or awareness potential.

It is like how electricity powers my computer. Without the electricity, my computer is just a lump of useless components and stuff in a plastic box.

Without this force of life flowing through my body, my body is just a pile of stuff. When a person dies, they say it takes about three days to completely die throughout. If a dead person or apparently dead person does not come back to life within three days, it is doubtful they will ever come back.

I have heard of people being dead for three days and coming back alive but I have never heard of anyone being dead for longer than three days and coming back to life.

Sorry, I got off the subject.

You bring up some interesting concepts. Right off the bat I would tend to organize these into categories (the scientist in me coming out). Although my purpose is not to necessarily separate them in terms of separate entities, but rather just to help clarify the difference in the actual concepts themselves.

For example you seem to be viewing consciousness from several different perspectives at once.

First you have "awareness" the very "experience of being conscious and aware of things".

So that would be the first "consciousness concept"

#1. Consciousness as awareness (the actual experience)

In this sense when you speak of the following:



Scientists simply can't study the "conscious awareness" of other animals, or "plants" even! Because we have no real way of determining what they may or may not be experiencing.

We can guess to some degree what animals might "experience" based on their reaction to stimuli. However, if we accept that this represents "Consciousness" then we'd be stuck with assuming that plants too are "conscious" by this definition because the TOO react to stimuli, albeit usually much slower. But still equating reaction to stimuli with "consciousness" runs into problem. I think there are even substance that we consider to be inert that "react" to certain kinds of stimuli. Semiconductors certainly react to electrical stimuli and that's what make modern day electronics possible.

So #1 Consciousness as awareness (the actual experience), basically demands subjectivity. If you're not a dog, or an amoeba or a plant, you can't really say what they may or may not "experience".

Then we have #2 Consciousness as Potential.

Whoo whee! That one can truly be pretty wild. Are we even fully aware of are true potential for consciousness? That's a question that invites things like ESP, Mysticism, Psychic awareness, etc.

Do we even know what our potential for consciousness truly is?

Then we have #3 Consciousness as a "force" or "field".

As you have suggested with the computer and electricity. Well, we already believe that our consciousness does potentially arise from electrical activity in the brain. So is our consciousness the result of that activity, or is it the activity itself.

Hmmmm? Interesting questions indeed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The question that intrigues me the most is the first concept #1 Consciousness as the experience of awareness.

The reason that this one is so profound is because the very next question on the should be obvious,...

What is it that is AWARE of this experience?

The Consciousness itself?

Whoops! That's rather circular isn't it?

Consciousness defined as the "experience" of being aware, yet it is this "awareness" that is having the experience of being "aware".

Whoa! Run that by me again?

And again,..

And again,..

Sounds like a Zen Koan to me.

I could have a shamanic journey with that one.

James, you sound like Eckart Tolle...

I have given these things quite a bit of thought and I am hard pressed to be able to prove my findings to anyone so they hardly seem worthy of stating, but I feel that there are other people who might have the same feelings as I do.

I say "findings" within the scope of my own personal authority. To anyone else they would be called "opinions."

The term "consciousness" sort of implies a state of being aware that you are aware. So I can't state that "self" equals consciousness.

Consciousness describes a state of being aware, but it does not describe or identify self, which is the one who is experiencing awareness.

The brain is not "self" either. I feel that the brain is the vehicle or machine that was manifested to accommodate the thinker of thoughts which is the self.

I think that perhaps the mind is a unified field where thoughts are formed by the thinker. From there, thoughts and decisions are sent to the brain where they are processed.

Whether this unified field of the mind was manifested by the brain or by the thinker of thoughts is still unclear.

I know that science claims that thoughts originate from the brain, but I think they originate from the unified field of the mind.

I don't picture the mind or the thinker of thoughts to be "out there" somewhere but I picture them emerging from within from the thinker of thoughts.

Therefore, the thinker of thoughts (the self) manifests the unified field of the mind, which manifests the brain etc....

So the first think the thinker does is manifest the body and brain, then the work begins where they manifest their reality.

I agree with the above statement.



I feel differently when it come to the above statement.

However, my feelings here may very well be associated with precisely how we define the "self". There are two different ways to define "self".

One way, is to define it jrbogie did in other thread:

#1. self is my mind's opinion of me

Meaning that a sense of "self" is nothing more than what we perceive ourselves to be.

However, there is a second way to define 'self'

#2. self the true essence of my being

In other words, we're trying to suggest here that we have a 'spiritual self' that goes beyond what we can perceive ourselves to be in relationship to known phenomena (i.e. I am a male, or a female, I am a writer, a poet, etc.) Those are all a sense of 'self' in relationship to some other concepts and would belong to definition #1 and not #2.

In fact, I would hold that the 'self' in terms of definition #2 would indeed be the very experience of awareness. That's all that "self" is in the sense of definition #2 (in my opinion).

Of course, the "self" in terms of definition #1 is what most of use perceives "ourselves" to be.

This is the heart of Buddhism or Pantheism in general.

The idea is that the "self" in terms of definition #1 does not exist outside of the relationships that give rise to it. It is transient and impermanent. It's an "illusion" created by the relationships that define it. That doesn't mean that those relationships themselves are an illusion, they can be very real indeed. But the "self" that is constructed from those relations is the illusion of "self".

The "true self" (i.e. Definition #2), is indeed the conscious awareness. That's all it is. Period. There's no sense in trying to put a finger on it, or pin it down.

Just the same everyone would love to understand the nature of this "true self". Just what is it that is having this 'awareness'?

That's the question that the Eastern Mystics answer so simply.

Tat t'vam asi. (it is you)

You are the conscious awareness. Period.

To try to pin that down beyond this insight is futile.

None the less, people are determined to try!

Jeannie, you suggest here that this conscious awareness may arise or be a property of "the quantum field", well, that's just a label, you could just as easily say that it's a property or facet of "The spirit field", or the "Mind of God", or the "Cosmic consciousness"?

The label is unimportant. The bottom line is that you are this conscious awareness. Period amen.

That is the "true you", the "true self". Definition #2.

And there's nothing more to be said about it other than perhaps making the observation that, yes, it probably is eternal since it's a property of something as eternal as a "quantum field" or whatever you want to call this unknowable "spiritual essence" of reality.

To continually "chase the self" (in terms of definition #1) and trying to preserve that self for all of eternity is the folly.

All that amounts to is an attempt to push the "individuality" of the self created by the illusion of relationships onto the unbounded "True Self" of spiritual conscious awareness.

We are DESPERATE to salvage and preserve the "ego" (the sense of self created by the illusion of relationships). Because we have fallen in love with this sense of individuality and we want to preserve it at all cost.

We love ourselves. And that's a good thing. Especially if that love is truly humble and not vain. We love ourselves because we see good in ourselves hopefully.

So we try to preserve that which we love.

Jeanniebean would like to preserve Jeanniebean for all of eternity, and Abracadabra would like to perserve Abracadabra for all of eternity, and we all know that the Christians would love to preserve themselves for all of eternity because that's their greatest dream as a "gift" from God to preserve their egos in paradise for all of eternity.

But that may be a misguided notion. The '"True self" i.e. the conscious awareness is far greater than this and would probably be bored to death being Jeanniebean or Abracadabra for all of eternity.

The true self is unbounded and unlimited. It's just enjoying this incarnation right now to the max and doesn't want to let go of these illusions. But when the time comes it will let go and realize its true nature as pure unadulterated conscious awareness. And nothing will truly have been 'lost' at all.

So that's how I view it.

So I would say, yes, our 'true self' is nothing more (and nothing less) than our very conscious awareness. That's it. Period. There's not really much sense in going beyond that. Other than perhaps to recognize the scientific fact the science has already discovered a 'field' from which this conscious can arise, and reside in permanently, even beyond the space-time fabric of the physical universe. Because while the quantum field can give rise to physical reality, it does not require physical reality to exist.

In fact, the most popular current theory of a Hot Inflationary Big Bang is postulated to have been started by a "quantum fluctuation", thus implying that the 'quantum field' preexisted physical reality and may very well be eternal and timeless.

There we just solved the riddle of self and life.

Of course the Eastern Mystics had already beat us to this ages ago.

If you don't believe in free will then go sit in the corner, take it
easy, eat fries and twinkies for breakfast lunch and dinner and be
quiet. It won't matter anyway and the rest of us who know that there
is such a thing as free will be not have to deal with those who are
confused and believe that everything is predetermined.

There is another way the describe "self." I describe it as "The originator of thoughts, or thinker of thoughts.

In that regard, in a thought universe, self is source.

#1. jrbogie's definition ends up with "self" being simply an opinion of "mind" which is a property of "brain" which is simply an organic machine.

#2. Abra's definition is pretty but it does not say much about the true essence of my being. What does it do? What is its function?

My definition is that the self is the thinker of thoughts, and this being a thought created universe, the self is source, the creator.








That would depend what you actually mean by "conscious." I think the "true self" include the things we know or can have access to through our subconscious. If you define self as only "conscious awareness," then I have lost my "self" when I am passed out cold, or even when I am not paying attention to my surroundings.




No the term I used was not "the quantum field" it was that the mind (my individual mind) I believe, is contained in what is called "a unified field."

A unified field is a field in which all energies are in a state of unification. It is a field in which magnetic, electrical, gravitational, strong/weak nuclear, thermal, acoustical and other radiative attributes are in a state of mathematical, geometric and harmonic unification. They are not de-coupled, separate or broken down into radiative attributes. It is based on Einstein’s modified equation E – mc2 * Oc2, based on E = mc2, where O is the consciousness constant.

It means a shift from Special Relativity to General Relativity by accelerating energy to reach the Bohm Superquantum-Relativistic potential otherwise known as the holographic infinite information continuum, also know as the intelligent field that interpenetrates the universe.

Fields are within other fields.



You sound pretty certain of that. The label is important because "a unified field" is not the whole of "the quantum field." It is a field within a field.



I disagree. I am not the conscious awareness itself. I am the observer. I am the one who is aware. I seek out suitable environments to manifest consciousness.




Here you go sounding very certain again.



What I have found is that one does not have to lose the individual when one passes from this lifetime. By discovering different aspects of myself within this body (multiple personalities within) I have learned that they are all a part of me....Jeannie. This has shown me that when I die in this body, my information and memories will join another self "a true me" if you will, but it will not be "assimilated or lost." It will remain intact, and it will,(or can be) 'saved' if it so choses to remain individual. But it will also be able to live and share with the other individuals that I am.

This is not to say that I am you, or that I am joining or becoming one with with everyone else in the universe or one with "God" at this point. I am only joining with my own true self.... not the entire gambit of all incarnated souls or God.



This is somewhat true. But the person of me, does not have to be lost. All that I am, all my experience, all my memories will remain.
I will not be lost, I will become more aware of who and what I am, and I will know all that I have done in all of my lifetimes.

To me it's the same thing. The conscious awareness is what does the thinking and brings the thoughts into manifestation. Without that awareness nothing would exist. In fact, if something is said to "exist" and no one is aware of it, then what meaning could that possibly even have?




How can you know that you have passed out cold, if you're not consciously aware of it?

Conscious awareness does not mean to me that there necessarily needs to be constant activity in terms of what we perceive to be time. In fact, what's the difference between being 'unconscious' for an infinitesimal amount of time, or for eons?

The only difference would be in relationship to other things with respect to time.



I don't see the need for the distinction. If you are the observer and the one who is aware then it's meaningless to speak in terms of any imagined "times" that you might believe that you have not observed or been aware of something.

Unless you can actually be aware of such times they would be meaningless to you. Therefore all you are truly suggesting is that we may very well be aware of more than we normally credit to our "conscious awareness".

But that would just mean that we'd need to expand that definition a bit. In other words, are we actually "aware" at times when we think we are not? Like when we are sleeping or passed out, etc?

I personally believe we are. And this is why we can only remember part of our dreams remember them only vaguely. Because our true "conscious awareness" includes are subconscious awareness.

That's how I would view that. We're basically always aware, even when we may think we're not.

I can't even remember everything I did in this life.

In fact, some things I'd rather not remember.

Sometimes amnesia can be a good thing. You're memories don't define who you are anyway, unless you allow them to.

A person who has amnesia is still the same person, even though they may develop a whole new persona after their experience of amnesia.

But all this does is show that we are not the personas that we believe we are. If we get amnesia we may create a whole different persona.

So trying to preserve persona though retained memories is probably a futile and meaningless concept to begin with.

In your present state perhaps. But nobody has perfect recall, and our human memories are never very accurate anyway. They are even distorted. But the information is all there to be reviewed if you want to. It is in the subconscious.

Only the lessons we learn from our experience are important enough to look at anyway. And in our current state of consciousness we don't remember them in detail.

But as you say, what you are right now in this moment is what is important. And you owe that to your past. You owe that to who you were in your past.



They don't "define" you at all. But your past experiences taught you things and made you who you are in this moment.



Are they really "the same person?" In body of course they are. But in appearance and feeling and actions, they may be different personalities completely. But you may now have to define what you mean by "person" or "personality" or "persona."

I'm glad I'm not the "same person" I was when I was 20. In fact, I'm glad I'm not the same person I was yesterday. But I'm very glad I am what and who I am now.

I become a 'new person' with every state of spiritual awareness or enlightenment I experience. I become a "new person" when I let one of my other personalities take charge of a situation.

The true me is all of that and all of those persons. If you take any of them away, then I am less.



Your current personality is not who you are. It is not your true self, that is for certain. It is only part of who you are.




You misunderstand what I am talking about. I would not try to preserve a personality to take over the true self. But neither would I destroy it or discard it or destroy the memories.

Your past experiences are what have given you wisdom. You (hopefully) have learned lessons and found wisdom through them. What is the point of experiences if you do not remember them and if your are not changed by them? What would be the point of any life experience at all if you do not learn from them and grow and remember them? You may as well just sit in your chair and never do or experience anything at all.

I think if you throw away your memories you throw away part of your consciousness and that does not honor who you are. I think all of our memories in detail are there, in our subconscious. If they were not, we would be starting over again as the fool on the road of life.

I already defined that. I accepted jrbogie's definition of "self" in that sense. Personality or persona in that sense is nothing more than how I see myself in relationship or context with an external world.



I feel just the opposite. I am the "same person" I have always been ever since I was a very young child. However the reason that I'm able to say this is because I have never viewed myself using jrbogie's definition of "self". I have always recognized my "true self" which is eternal and unchanging.

So again, it depends on the context of how you view yourself.

Have I learned things in life? Well sure, I've learned things in terms of the relationships of context. But since that's never how I viewed myself, *I* have not changed.

What has changed is the context of those relationships.

I am unchanging. I will never change. Because when I speak of *I*, I am speaking of my true self, not the contextual self. The contextual self must necessarily change with the context of situations.



There's a difference between wisdom and knowledge. I believe it is true that we must gain knowledge in contextual situations in order to be able to apply wisdom.

However went it comes to wisdom itself, the idea is that this is always available to us, whether we recognize it or not is depending on how we view are 'self'. In other words, if we view our "self" contextually we will be blind to our own wisdom. If we recognize our true "self" we have all the wisdom we could ever want. This is why the Eastern Mystics call a recognition of the true self "The Enlightenment". You suddenly become enlightened to your true wisdom.



The point to the experiences is just that - the joy of having the experience.

You are an eternal being. There was never a time when you were not and there will never be a time when you will cease to exist. How could you be "growing" or learning anything? That would imply that there was a time when you knew nothing and there will be a time when you could potentially know everything.

What would be the "point" to that? That suggests that there is a goal to achieve some END POINT to reach. For an eternal being that would be pointless.



Starting over again as the fool on the road to life is precisely what it's all about.

That's the game. You lose yourself in an incarnation only to find your true nature again. Then after having found your true nature your lose yourself in yet another re-incarnation, and it's a never-ending experience.

What would happen if it came to an end?

What could be the ultimate goal?

The Christians like to believe that after this life is over they go to an eternal paradise where they are assured to live for eternity in paradise. You say that would be boring. I agree.

So how do you keep it from being boring? You keep fooling yourself into thinking that it's not permanent, and you "loosing" your true recognition of yourself by becoming incarnated into something you're not. You get to experience fear, uncertainty, doubt. Everything is new and fresh and you need to learn and discover it all over again.

You keep renewing the excitement and wonder of life constant reincarnation. That is the "point" to it.

For some people this sounds boring, or frustrating.

I personally believe it's a combination of BOTH ideals.

In other words, right now you are lost in an incarnation. You have clues about your true nature, but it's still a mystery and evidently you are having GREAT FUN trying to figure out the mystery of your true nature, and you're also enjoying all the creativity and physical wonders of the incarnation at the same time.

When your physical body dies you will "awaken" in the "Great Library of Incarnation". That is the "spiritual world" that people call heaven, nirvana, or the astral plane. When in that spiritual state you will know your true nature and you will have no questions of who or what you are. It will be crystal clear to you innately.

You can "hang out" in the spiritual world for as long as you so desire. But it won't be long before you decide to become "incarnated" again into yet another dream world.

And that's it. That's eternal existence.

Am I telling you the truth?

Hell no! I'm just sharing my ideas of what I think it's probably like.

But hey, it might be true, what do I know?

When I speak of "person" or "personality" I am not talking about my true self Abra. I am talking only about THIS LIFE'S incarnation.

So YES I grow and change and become a new person every moment of my life. I would not want to be the foolish (nearly unconscious) girl I was at age 20.

It is my inner being that is unchanging. That is my true self.

So you are simply getting definitions mixed up. My personality is not my true self. I told you that, but you missed it.

I speak to you as this personality.

If you want to speak to my inner being, I can do that too, but she has very little to say.

Except "I am source."

Where do you think the true self acquires its wisdom?

(Some people are born naturally wise (with very little knowledge) and others are not at all in touch with their wise inner self and never seem to find wisdom no matter how much knowledge they acquire. )

If there is a "true" self - then there must be a "false" self or selves. How do you know when you are "being" the true or the false self?

That's really easy.

When you feel good and joyful and when you are happy with what you are doing you are in harmony with your true inner being.

When you are feeling bad, sick, or in agony, you are not in harmony with your inner being.