Consciousness, Free Will, and Morality

This is an account of consciousness from a materialistic perspective:


Full lecture:

Being No One


My “summary”

“This is a book about consciousness, the phenomenal self, and the first-person perspective. Its main thesis is that no such things as selves exist in the world: Nobody ever was or had a self. All that ever existed were conscious self-models that could not be recognized as models. The phenomenal self is not a thing, but a process—and that subjective experience of being someone emerges if a conscious information-processing system operates under a transparent self-model. You are such a system right now, as you read these sentences. Because you cannot recognize your self-model as a model, it is transparent: you look right through it. You don’t see it. But you see with it. In other, more metaphorical, words, the central claim of this book is that as you read these lines you constantly confuse yourself with the content of the self-model currently activated by your brain.”




I think “free will” as a concept is problematic. We have will, but it doesn’t make any sense to call it free.


Sam Harris’s take is basically what I accept




“Consider the present moment from the point of view of my conscious mind: I have decided to write this blog post, and I am now writing it. I almost didn’t write it, however. In fact, I went back and forth about it: I feel that I’ve said more or less everything I have to say on the topic of free will and now worry about repeating myself. I started the post, and then set it aside. But after several more emails came in, I realized that I might be able to clarify a few points. Did I choose to be affected in this way? No. Some readers were urging me to comment on depressing developments in “the Arab Spring.” Others wanted me to write about the practice of meditation. At first I ignored all these voices and went back to working on my next book. Eventually, however, I returned to this blog post. Was that a choice? Well, in a conventional sense, yes. But my experience of making the choice did not include an awareness of its actual causes. Subjectively speaking, it is an absolute mystery to me why I am writing this.

My workflow may sound a little unconventional, but my experience of writing this article fully illustrates my view of free will. Thoughts and intentions arise; other thoughts and intentions arise in opposition. I want to sit down to write, but then I want something else—to exercise, perhaps. Which impulse will win? For the moment, I’m still writing, and there is no way for me to know why—because at other times I’ll think, “This is useless. I’m going to the gym,” and that thought will prove decisive. What finally causes the balance to swing? I cannot know subjectively—but I can be sure that electrochemical events in my brain decide the matter. I know that given the requisite stimulus (whether internal or external), I will leap up from my desk and suddenly find myself doing something else. As a matter of experience, therefore, I can take no credit for the fact that I got to the end of this paragraph.”





And this has come up a few times, science can provide moral answers, objective ones (not absolute ones).





“Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds—and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe. Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena, fully constrained by the laws of the universe (whatever these turn out to be in the end). Therefore, questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that fall within the purview of science (in principle, if not in practice). Consequently, some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life.”

The problem isn’t just our blindness, but our blindness to our blindness.

The problem isn’t just our blindness, but our blindness to our blindness.

It’s insane the extent to which we don’t expect to be surprised. Each of us is so unjustifiably sure of our implicit understanding of reality, but we continue to be surprised, and then we’re surprised that we’re surprised. Reality doesn’t end at the edge of your imagination. Beyond your imagination is where all the stuff that will surprise you is already becoming.

The linear modeling that we come equipped with is outdated in a world that is changing non-linearly.

My two cents on 9/11

I don’t really know for sure, but think that there obviously should be a real investigation. It’s ludicrous that the official report based off tortured evidence provided by the CIA (which then destroyed the tapes) while Bush and Cheney provided their “testimony” in secret and off the record is considered remotely trustworthy.


Poll: More Americans Believe World Trade Center 7 Was Demolished On 9/11 than Believe the Government’s Explanation

Consensus panel

Bush & Cheney Knew About 9/11 Months Before It Happened Says Whistleblower Charged Under Patriot Act –

WTC7 NIST Finally Admits Freefall by David Chandler Part 3 – Japanese

Why The Military Knows Israel Did 9/11

The false flag is just a fun history

9/11 commissioners themselves say the commission was set up to fail

MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 1

Bitcoin, impressive but flawed

Real Currencies

Bitcoin has already shocked both the establishment and the blogosphere.
A privately controlled currency, completely independent from Government backing.
Bitcoin leads the way in many respects, but is ultimately flawed: it was built on false premises and does not address the key issue, interest.

By Anthony Migchels
This article was updated for Henry Makow and originally posted at Activist Post.

Bitcoin was developed by Satoshi Nakamoto and launched in January 2009. There are currently more than 8 million Bitcoins in circulation and after predictable major price swings after its launch, they have traded at a fairly stable rate of about 5 dollar for more than six months now.

Bitcoin basically is a debt free unit: it comes into circulation through ‘mining’: the solving of complex algorithms by clients yields new Bitcoins. However, no more than 21 million can be mined so there will never be more than that in…

View original post 812 more words