Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Let's consider the origin of "will". This begins and ends with the drives to grow and survive. How did the survival instinct come about? Organisms that actively worked to survive would have out-competed more passive creatures, which would then resign themselves to a sessile or passive lifestyle of filtering. There was no need for emotions. The organism would sense stimuli and respond with reflex actions.

In time, both the sensing and the reflex responses evolved to become more complex, like a series of if/then statements: With brained animals, the complexity required was too great for reflex responses. Instead, there were vast groups of reflexes which could be triggered by a single sensation. So, if you see a tiger ahead, you don't have time to increase heart rate, dilate pupils, release bladder, stop digestion, release cortisol, and redirect blood to major organs, you only have time to go "Faaarck!", at which point your body's "orchestra" plays that Golden Oldie - The Symphony of Fear.

So emotions can be thought of as compound reflexes, somewhat equivalent to subroutines.

SB!

In your view (then), if there was a point in time where there was not a survival need for emotions, when did emotion(s) appear on the scene of conscious landscape? You may have touched on it, but am not sure... .

But perhaps more importantly, back to the existence of the (metaphysical) Will. To get certain definitions out of the way:

1. According to Schopenhauer, the will is the 'inner essence' of the entire world, i.e. the Kantian thing-in-itself (Ding an sich), and exists independently of the forms of the principle of sufficient reason that govern the world as representation. Schopenhauer believed that while we may be precluded from direct knowledge of the Kantian noumenon, we may gain knowledge about it to a certain extent (unlike Kant, for whom the noumenon was completely unknowable). This is because, according to Schopenhauer, the relationship between the world as representation and the world as it is 'in itself' can be understood by investigating the relationship between our bodies (material objects, i.e. representations, existing in space and time) and our will.

2. All phenomena embodies essential striving: electricity and gravity, for instance, are described as fundamental forces of the will. Human capacity for cognition, Schopenhauer asserts, is subordinate to the demands of the will. Moreover, everything that wills necessarily suffers. Schopenhauer presents a pessimistic picture on which unfulfilled desires are painful, and pleasure is merely the sensation experienced at the instant one such pain is removed. However, most desires are never fulfilled, and those that are fulfilled are instantly replaced by more unfulfilled ones.

SB, this seems to align with Voluntarism where the Will somehow takes primacy in cognition (our way of thinking and feeling about things like fulfillment of wants and needs, happiness and so on that needs to be satisfied first). It also speaks to modern day cognitive science (Maslow, James, and others) wherein one's stream of consciousness, one's needs are never satisfied (after one need is met, it is normal to-interminably-have another need waningt to be fulfilled). So we are always wanting/needing individuals. That is all part of the verb Being. Being dynamic, not static.

To parse, then, the Will itself, along with being self-aware of our own intellectual powers, makes us unique amongst the species. Unless of course, for one, you are thinking self-consciousness is an illusion. Taking that into account, I think one would then have the burden of explaining that which is beyond the self, in a purely objective way. That need to want to exist and be. Or, that thing-in-itself that exists a priori (innate/intrinsic to the species) that causes one to be.

As such, one way of looking at this problem is to consider three things:

1. Does the Will cause humans to be. (Subjectivity)
2. What caused the Will in the first place (Objectivity)
3. The Will, that thing-in-itself, is it metaphysical, physical, or both?

Meta, how related are emotions and will? A brainless and ostensibly emotionless sea star possesses a powerful will - a relentless drive to do what it needs to do, and those caught in its grip will feel the force of that drive. The will - the drive to do things - evolved because organisms that worked fiercely and tirelessly out-competed their less-driven peers. It is a powerful, extremely common, aspect of evolution.

Humans experience their own drives, and then rationalise them post-hoc. This rationalisation seem comical when viewed existentially, but it serves the function of engendering trust that one is civilised, controlled - that one can is capable of overcoming their drives with their executive faculties, which philosophers call will (but I think is part of a greater subset, as above).

Will is the capacity to deny oneself a lesser reward now so as to enjoy a better reward later one. There have been many impulse control tests on children (the Marshmallow Test), and it seems that at around age for or five they are capable of controlling themselves. Other species have passed the control test - apes and monkeys, corvids and parrots, some dogs too, even cuttlefish!

Ultimately, the whole of reality is a game of Survival of the Persistent. All that we see are the winners of this game, who lasted long enough under entropy's constant assault to be observed. Exertion of will in life has been selected as a useful trait for growth and survival. Will is a quality of some physical beings. Rocks don't need will - their entire existence is a metaphor for will. Unyielding. Stars and planets too, by their huge scale, are metaphorical declarations to entropy that they are here to stay.

Small and fragile structures, if they are to persist, must work harder to persist than the large and robust.

With evolution, you have limitations to that theory (it's only a theory, and in the sense that it excludes the first species it only refers to an ensemble of creatures 'already' existing). And, if I remember correctly, even Darwin acquiesced to its limitations. Nevertheless, (you didn't respond to my query which in-turn may provide for more insight) I think you have a few concepts that we are working with here:

1. Emergence
2. Self-awareness
3. Volition
4. Intellect
5. Evolution of the will and sentience
6. The world as Will (propagation of the species through DNA/genetically coded design and other physical/metaphysical phenomena)

We've briefly touched on 1-5 ( and I welcome more discussion as it relates to the contrasting limitations of evolution), but 6 , I think, is the most glaring discrepancy. Essentially, 6 is that which Stephen Hawkins so infamously enunciated to the world of physics: :

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? "


First, my interpretation to that metaphorical fire as it were, is the thing-in-itself called the metaphysical Will. Agree/disagree?

The points to consider of course, are consciousness, cosmology and a bit of Kantian/Schopenhauer metaphysics... . But, we can certainly exhaust those things that may relate to inert matter and evolution and whether things like feelings have evolved... .

The only weakness I see in evolutionary theory is that it starts with abiogenesis. I would have it start with the molecular clouds that form stars. That's when the organisation started that, in time, resulted in abiogenesis and subsequent life. The problem IMO is too much scientific siloing, although new fields like geobiology are emerging, which recognises the links between biology and geology, and the chemical changes that needed to occur to create conditions where abiogenesis can happen.

I think it's rather a jump to take Hawking's "fire in the equations" as being a metaphysical will. The equations did not exist in the pre-big bang universe, just waiting to be actualised. Matter and information being inextricably linked. If the matter is gone, then so is the information. Meanwhile, matter cannot avoid having a configuration.

Maybe your will is dark energy? Life's constant drive towards growth does rather echo dark energy's relentless expansion. We all tend to radiate outwards, physically and informationally.

[Jacob10]

We experience consciousness and can control which consciousness type we experience.

We are unable to do this unless we have awareness.

We are not consciousness or awareness, we are presence (i am).

So we are aware of the consciousness states and can control which consciousness state we experience.

[3017Metaphysician]

SB!

In your view (then), if there was a point in time where there was not a survival need for emotions, when did emotion(s) appear on the scene of conscious landscape? You may have touched on it, but am not sure... .

But perhaps more importantly, back to the existence of the (metaphysical) Will. To get certain definitions out of the way:

1. According to Schopenhauer, the will is the 'inner essence' of the entire world, i.e. the Kantian thing-in-itself (Ding an sich), and exists independently of the forms of the principle of sufficient reason that govern the world as representation. Schopenhauer believed that while we may be precluded from direct knowledge of the Kantian noumenon, we may gain knowledge about it to a certain extent (unlike Kant, for whom the noumenon was completely unknowable). This is because, according to Schopenhauer, the relationship between the world as representation and the world as it is 'in itself' can be understood by investigating the relationship between our bodies (material objects, i.e. representations, existing in space and time) and our will.

2. All phenomena embodies essential striving: electricity and gravity, for instance, are described as fundamental forces of the will. Human capacity for cognition, Schopenhauer asserts, is subordinate to the demands of the will. Moreover, everything that wills necessarily suffers. Schopenhauer presents a pessimistic picture on which unfulfilled desires are painful, and pleasure is merely the sensation experienced at the instant one such pain is removed. However, most desires are never fulfilled, and those that are fulfilled are instantly replaced by more unfulfilled ones.

SB, this seems to align with Voluntarism where the Will somehow takes primacy in cognition (our way of thinking and feeling about things like fulfillment of wants and needs, happiness and so on that needs to be satisfied first). It also speaks to modern day cognitive science (Maslow, James, and others) wherein one's stream of consciousness, one's needs are never satisfied (after one need is met, it is normal to-interminably-have another need waningt to be fulfilled). So we are always wanting/needing individuals. That is all part of the verb Being. Being dynamic, not static.

To parse, then, the Will itself, along with being self-aware of our own intellectual powers, makes us unique amongst the species. Unless of course, for one, you are thinking self-consciousness is an illusion. Taking that into account, I think one would then have the burden of explaining that which is beyond the self, in a purely objective way. That need to want to exist and be. Or, that thing-in-itself that exists a priori (innate/intrinsic to the species) that causes one to be.

As such, one way of looking at this problem is to consider three things:

1. Does the Will cause humans to be. (Subjectivity)
2. What caused the Will in the first place (Objectivity)
3. The Will, that thing-in-itself, is it metaphysical, physical, or both?

Meta, how related are emotions and will? A brainless and ostensibly emotionless sea star possesses a powerful will - a relentless drive to do what it needs to do, and those caught in its grip will feel the force of that drive. The will - the drive to do things - evolved because organisms that worked fiercely and tirelessly out-competed their less-driven peers. It is a powerful, extremely common, aspect of evolution.

Humans experience their own drives, and then rationalise them post-hoc. This rationalisation seem comical when viewed existentially, but it serves the function of engendering trust that one is civilised, controlled - that one can is capable of overcoming their drives with their executive faculties, which philosophers call will (but I think is part of a greater subset, as above).

Will is the capacity to deny oneself a lesser reward now so as to enjoy a better reward later one. There have been many impulse control tests on children (the Marshmallow Test), and it seems that at around age for or five they are capable of controlling themselves. Other species have passed the control test - apes and monkeys, corvids and parrots, some dogs too, even cuttlefish!

Ultimately, the whole of reality is a game of Survival of the Persistent. All that we see are the winners of this game, who lasted long enough under entropy's constant assault to be observed. Exertion of will in life has been selected as a useful trait for growth and survival. Will is a quality of some physical beings. Rocks don't need will - their entire existence is a metaphor for will. Unyielding. Stars and planets too, by their huge scale, are metaphorical declarations to entropy that they are here to stay.

Small and fragile structures, if they are to persist, must work harder to persist than the large and robust.

With evolution, you have limitations to that theory (it's only a theory, and in the sense that it excludes the first species it only refers to an ensemble of creatures 'already' existing). And, if I remember correctly, even Darwin acquiesced to its limitations. Nevertheless, (you didn't respond to my query which in-turn may provide for more insight) I think you have a few concepts that we are working with here:

1. Emergence
2. Self-awareness
3. Volition
4. Intellect
5. Evolution of the will and sentience
6. The world as Will (propagation of the species through DNA/genetically coded design and other physical/metaphysical phenomena)

We've briefly touched on 1-5 ( and I welcome more discussion as it relates to the contrasting limitations of evolution), but 6 , I think, is the most glaring discrepancy. Essentially, 6 is that which Stephen Hawkins so infamously enunciated to the world of physics: :

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? "


First, my interpretation to that metaphorical fire as it were, is the thing-in-itself called the metaphysical Will. Agree/disagree?

The points to consider of course, are consciousness, cosmology and a bit of Kantian/Schopenhauer metaphysics... . But, we can certainly exhaust those things that may relate to inert matter and evolution and whether things like feelings have evolved... .

The only weakness I see in evolutionary theory is that it starts with abiogenesis. I would have it start with the molecular clouds that form stars. That's when the organisation started that, in time, resulted in abiogenesis and subsequent life. The problem IMO is too much scientific siloing, although new fields like geobiology are emerging, which recognises the links between biology and geology, and the chemical changes that needed to occur to create conditions where abiogenesis can happen.

I think it's rather a jump to take Hawking's "fire in the equations" as being a metaphysical will. The equations did not exist in the pre-big bang universe, just waiting to be actualised. Matter and information being inextricably linked. If the matter is gone, then so is the information. Meanwhile, matter cannot avoid having a configuration.

Maybe your will is dark energy? Life's constant drive towards growth does rather echo dark energy's relentless expansion. We all tend to radiate outwards, physically and informationally.

SB!

You said that 'equations' didn't exist pre-BB right? In theory, what are you thinking existed pre-BB?

Why is it, as you say, 'a jump' , to interpret Hawking's metaphor as basically the 'world as will'?

I think one distinction between a dark energy analogy to the metaphysical Will, is that we understand the will to be non-physical is its ability to cause physical things to happen. The simple example of thinking that I want to move my arm, then it moves, starts with the thought itself, the purpose and the desire to do so. The only similarity I can compare dark energy to would be the Will's unknown origins. Both do have a mysterious quality to them... .

[Sy Borg]

Meta, how related are emotions and will? A brainless and ostensibly emotionless sea star possesses a powerful will - a relentless drive to do what it needs to do, and those caught in its grip will feel the force of that drive. The will - the drive to do things - evolved because organisms that worked fiercely and tirelessly out-competed their less-driven peers. It is a powerful, extremely common, aspect of evolution.

Humans experience their own drives, and then rationalise them post-hoc. This rationalisation seem comical when viewed existentially, but it serves the function of engendering trust that one is civilised, controlled - that one can is capable of overcoming their drives with their executive faculties, which philosophers call will (but I think is part of a greater subset, as above).

Will is the capacity to deny oneself a lesser reward now so as to enjoy a better reward later one. There have been many impulse control tests on children (the Marshmallow Test), and it seems that at around age for or five they are capable of controlling themselves. Other species have passed the control test - apes and monkeys, corvids and parrots, some dogs too, even cuttlefish!

Ultimately, the whole of reality is a game of Survival of the Persistent. All that we see are the winners of this game, who lasted long enough under entropy's constant assault to be observed. Exertion of will in life has been selected as a useful trait for growth and survival. Will is a quality of some physical beings. Rocks don't need will - their entire existence is a metaphor for will. Unyielding. Stars and planets too, by their huge scale, are metaphorical declarations to entropy that they are here to stay.

Small and fragile structures, if they are to persist, must work harder to persist than the large and robust.

With evolution, you have limitations to that theory (it's only a theory, and in the sense that it excludes the first species it only refers to an ensemble of creatures 'already' existing). And, if I remember correctly, even Darwin acquiesced to its limitations. Nevertheless, (you didn't respond to my query which in-turn may provide for more insight) I think you have a few concepts that we are working with here:

1. Emergence
2. Self-awareness
3. Volition
4. Intellect
5. Evolution of the will and sentience
6. The world as Will (propagation of the species through DNA/genetically coded design and other physical/metaphysical phenomena)

We've briefly touched on 1-5 ( and I welcome more discussion as it relates to the contrasting limitations of evolution), but 6 , I think, is the most glaring discrepancy. Essentially, 6 is that which Stephen Hawkins so infamously enunciated to the world of physics: :

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? "


First, my interpretation to that metaphorical fire as it were, is the thing-in-itself called the metaphysical Will. Agree/disagree?

The points to consider of course, are consciousness, cosmology and a bit of Kantian/Schopenhauer metaphysics... . But, we can certainly exhaust those things that may relate to inert matter and evolution and whether things like feelings have evolved... .

The only weakness I see in evolutionary theory is that it starts with abiogenesis. I would have it start with the molecular clouds that form stars. That's when the organisation started that, in time, resulted in abiogenesis and subsequent life. The problem IMO is too much scientific siloing, although new fields like geobiology are emerging, which recognises the links between biology and geology, and the chemical changes that needed to occur to create conditions where abiogenesis can happen.

I think it's rather a jump to take Hawking's "fire in the equations" as being a metaphysical will. The equations did not exist in the pre-big bang universe, just waiting to be actualised. Matter and information being inextricably linked. If the matter is gone, then so is the information. Meanwhile, matter cannot avoid having a configuration.

Maybe your will is dark energy? Life's constant drive towards growth does rather echo dark energy's relentless expansion. We all tend to radiate outwards, physically and informationally.

SB!

You said that 'equations' didn't exist pre-BB right? In theory, what are you thinking existed pre-BB?

It does not matter what I think. I am just one more online random.

The most recent information is that before the big bang was space, replete with virtual particles appearing and immediately annihilating. Then one of them didn't annihilate. My guess is that this is far from the first, but it's just a guess.

Could you describe to me what you think equations are?

Why is it, as you say, 'a jump' , to interpret Hawking's metaphor as basically the 'world as will'?

It's a jump because no one actually knows, including the late man from Kent with the American accent.

Theists have always inserted the God of the Gaps into the universe's mysteries and, as ever more mysteries have been determined to have natural causes, theists would shift the goalposts.

It appears that you have inserted a "Will of the Gaps" into what would rightly be seen as a black box problem. It's jumping to conclusions (a conclusion that one likes) where there is still only mystery and clues that physicists and cosmologists are trying to understand.

I think one distinction between a dark energy analogy to the metaphysical Will, is that we understand the will to be non-physical is its ability to cause physical things to happen. The simple example of thinking that I want to move my arm, then it moves, starts with the thought itself, the purpose and the desire to do so. The only similarity I can compare dark energy to would be the Will's unknown origins. Both do have a mysterious quality to them... .

I won't defend the idea that the expansiveness of dark energy being is behind the expansiveness of life. It's just intuition.

What about when your arm moves without your will? Most of what happens in our bodies is only tangentially connected to the will via food energy. Numerous cellular and microbial communities within us are simply leading their microbe-style lives and this drives so much of what our body (and mind) does.

[Jacob10]

There is no such thing as black holes whereby consciousness is concerned.

They are just holes.You can’t define a hole by a colour.

[Jacob10]

Also, if matter is exiting and entering many many holes and it is then how could it have all originally entered from a single hole and how can it all exit from a single hole in the future?

That is just a ridiculous claim from unaware scientists who don’t know what they are talking about.

[Sy Borg]

There is no such thing as black holes whereby consciousness is concerned.

They are just holes.You can’t define a hole by a colour.

If there's no such thing as black holes, could you please explain this image?

[Consul]

If there's no such thing as black holes, could you please explain this image?

It's a blurry picture of a donut.

[Sy Borg]

If there's no such thing as black holes, could you please explain this image?

It's a blurry picture of a donut. :wink:

Well done. As a prize, you may have one such doughnut placed in the centre of your home galaxy.

Back to it, literalist theists often base their criticisms on the language of science. I recognise the dynamic because that's how my mother (who was a writer) operated, and it was how I operated at times in my life pre-Dawkins. The abtractions of language mattered more to Mum than the phenomena. It's the opposite approach to Richard Feynman's approach. He was dismissive of labels and jargon and sought to focus on the dynamics at play. He believed - and I agree - that, for instance, focusing on the label "bird" distracts one's attention to the reality of that bird.

It's like people, if one focuses on the fact that someone is white, black or Asian there is an opportunity cost, where a clearer focus could have been applied to the information or ideas that the person is trying to convey. We are all ultimately entities-that-do-XYZ, including doughnuts.

[Sy Borg]

Thus, we need to take the label "black hole" with a grain of salt and focus on the fact that there is a massive ultradense product of a supernova, whose gravitational pull is so intense that it exceeds light speed (hence light cannot escape, hence "black") and it also attracts any material in its vicinity, creating a ring of stuff it gathers that orbits so quickly that it glows and emits x-rays. When more matter is falling in than the central zone can absorb, the matter bounces out along the lines of intense magnetic fields, blasting out streams of high energy material along its "poles" (perpendicular to direction of spin).

The universe is unlikely to have emerged from a black hole, as posited by Jacob. When entities become orders of magnitude larger, denser or more complex, then subtle aspects of the "lesser" entities can exponentially change once they reach a certain threshold of size, density or complexity. Thus, life came from molecules and consciousness stemmed from reflexes.

[Jacob10]

There is no such thing as black holes whereby consciousness is concerned.

They are just holes.You can’t define a hole by a colour.

If there's no such thing as black holes, could you please explain this image?

You are not taking into account consciousness.All I see is a hole.

You can’t define a hole by a colour.

It’s just a hole with Darkness and Light within it as far as consciousness is concerned.

[Consul]

Thus, we need to take the label "black hole" with a grain of salt and focus on the fact that there is a massive ultradense product of a supernova, whose gravitational pull is so intense that it exceeds light speed (hence light cannot escape, hence "black") and it also attracts any material in its vicinity, creating a ring of stuff it gathers that orbits so quickly that it glows and emits x-rays. When more matter is falling in than the central zone can absorb, the matter bounces out along the lines of intense magnetic fields, blasting out streams of high energy material along its "poles" (perpendicular to direction of spin).

This is so off-topic here, but you're right: A black hole isn't literally a hole, but "an object in space that has collapsed under its own gravitational forces to such an extent that its escape velocity is equal to the speed of light. Black holes are believed to be formed in the gravitational collapse of very large stars at the end of their lives." (Oxford Dictionary of Physics)

By the way—to shamelessly increase the degree of off-topicality—, I've been fascinated by black holes since my youth—after having watched the undeservedly forgotten Disney movie The Black Hole from 1979.

Here's the trailer:

[Sy Borg]

There is no such thing as black holes whereby consciousness is concerned.

They are just holes.You can’t define a hole by a colour.

If there's no such thing as black holes, could you please explain this image?

You are not taking into account consciousness.All I see is a hole.

You can’t define a hole by a colour.

It’s just a hole with Darkness and Light within it as far as consciousness is concerned.

If that works for you, no drama. Many others find them to be fascinating phenomena, operating on the boundary of what is possible. Also, it's uncertain the role they play in the centre of galaxies, but it seems that supermassive black holes are somehow an essential part of galaxy formation.

As a matter of interest, what is your objection to black holes?

[Jacob10]

My objection to “black” holes is that they simply don’t exist.

Why do you define them as “black” holes when they are just holes?

[Sy Borg]

Thus, we need to take the label "black hole" with a grain of salt and focus on the fact that there is a massive ultradense product of a supernova, whose gravitational pull is so intense that it exceeds light speed (hence light cannot escape, hence "black") and it also attracts any material in its vicinity, creating a ring of stuff it gathers that orbits so quickly that it glows and emits x-rays. When more matter is falling in than the central zone can absorb, the matter bounces out along the lines of intense magnetic fields, blasting out streams of high energy material along its "poles" (perpendicular to direction of spin).

This is so off-topic here, but you're right: A black hole isn't literally a hole, but "an object in space that has collapsed under its own gravitational forces to such an extent that its escape velocity is equal to the speed of light. Black holes are believed to be formed in the gravitational collapse of very large stars at the end of their lives." (Oxford Dictionary of Physics)

By the way—to shamelessly increase the degree of off-topicality—, I've been fascinated by black holes since my youth—after having watched the undeservedly forgotten Disney movie The Black Hole from 1979.

Here's the trailer:

That looks like fun - and Ernest Borgnine of McHale's Navy!

I am also enamoured with black holes. My own guess is that black holes are really quark stars or Planck stars, and that the singularity is just a placeholder concept until theoretical physicists work out the quantum processes that prevent infinite density. The sooner that this is determined and the singularity discarded, the sooner that anti-science commentators move on.

Working out how to create sentience would also settle numerous debates ...