Notes on Consciousness

What I think is that consciousness in the sense of intending, being the author of the action, etc., is a byproduct of higher brain function. Like a virtual reality system. Consciousness only has access to certain brain functions. So the "narrator"(or the subjective "I") isn't just reading what's really going on. The narrator only has access to certain parts of the story, and has to guess at the whole thing. It can easily be deceived. There's proof that there's a strong sense of authorship when the intent occurs virtually simultaneously with the act, even though the act can be proven to be caused by something else. Which suggests that the "narrator" is deceived into thinking it caused the act, and vice versa. Studies have shown that when the brain is hooked up to electrodes that measure intention, that those electrical brain signals cause a slide to be moved BEFORE the person's conscious choice occurs to m0ve a slide. So how can there be any real authorship, although obviously it WAS the person's decision even if they are not aware of it. (who's else could it be?) In other words, consciousness attributes authorship to the person where there is none, and denies it, when there IS- all based on timing, rather than reality. So the bottom line is, the conscious mind attributes authorship, but it only has limited access to what is really going on. So much of the time, it is mistaken, science has shown us. Everything happens automatically- the times we think we're intending are because the awareness has access to info that makes it seem that way, even though it's not reality.

Here's the link-

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

Objectivism and Ayn Rand

I've been reading Ayn Rand's writings and I agree with some parts of Objectivism- but its bases are scientifically wrong. We have no free will- we can't consciously choose anything, and we can't know our own motivations for sure- let alone someone else's (see the link). So yes, there may ultimately be a rational and irrational side to every coin, but we don't choose to act rationally, we either do or don't. So one can be better or worse than another, but not of one's conscious choice. So can someone be praised or blamed then? It's like praising someone for being beautiful. Nothing is exempted from causation - no human will outisde a human brain- which obviously is what it is because of genetics and environment, and personality and character come from the brain. So if I have a high IQ but am lazy, well why is it that the IQ is out of my hands but the laziness isn't? It IS. All reason/rationality is - is a form of action that is conducive to achieving one's goials. Is it rational to eat a cake if you want to lose weight? No- so it is "bad"- but if you desperately need to gain weight, it is "good." We can say it is bad to eat a cake if you're on a diet, but not that YOU are bad, b/c you have no conscious control over whether you do or don't. I'm attracted to her (Ayn Rand's) thoughts that no one should apologize for being smarter or having more ability, that some things and qualities ARE better than others, but how can someone realistically be proud of being an intellectual thinker, if that was her or his destiny? I guess what does it matter? All that matters is that you are content about it- whatever you tell yourself about it. Being resentful b/c you're "better" and everyone envies you or is intimidated by you doesn't get you "justice." Justice being- the treatment you think you deserve. But the world is not "fair," it just "is." In reality, what does it matter WHAT the motivation is behind not being "accepted" by the crowd. As if it even exists. "Motives" are just what we tell ourselves - our ostensible "reasons." The bottom line is - being rejected for whatever reason, but it's just a matter of chemistry- not choice. People who are alike are drawn together- birds of a feather. Most people are average, so the "crowd" is the average, and if you're not average, you don't fit in. That's the bottom line. Mediocrity and laziness shouldn't be praised, though, and since conditioning works, we all operate as though we have free will- people should strive to learn and do their best, and perhaps their programming will change. I admire Ayn Rand immensely. She just didn't have the advantage of modern cognitive neuroscience which proves her theory of free will wrong. But still, for all intents and purposes, we must act as though we have free will, it is a necessary fiction, so she's correct, in some sense. But to deny genetics and environment IS irrational. It's the reason you are who you are, and of course, some people think they are better than most but it's not a "real" achievement of theirs on a metaphysical level, b/c everything that's brought them to where they are was not their "choice." In that sense, theologians like John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards, among others, were right, way before their time, way before science proved them right. At the same time, what "choice" do we have other than to blame or praise the "actor"? After all, we can't isolate all the "causes," and the fact remains, the PERSON who does this or that (no matter the ultimate reason) remains the actor, and thus, the "agent" who can be evaluated as better or worse than other agents, regardless of the reasons why.

Kafka

I've read a lot of Kafka, and a lot about him. He suffered so much in his short life. And I think I've figured something out about him and people like him. The sad thing (one of many sad things) about him is how he "threw his pearls before swine"- with Felice, to whom he was engaged twice but never married. He allowed himself to be upset by her, blaming himself, always apologizing, so insecure, etc. She was someone who simply could not appreciate his genius or suffering, or his interests. Just a shallow, stupid woman. He just wanted to believe the best about people, that they could appreciate and really care about the world and its sufferings, because it's hard when one realizes how most people don't. Then he blamed himself for not being good enough, to capture her attention or love. But why did he blame himself if she (like a "swine") didn't appreciate the jewels he had and tried to give her? Because they were essentially two different beings- he was one of the aware ones and she was one of the deluded- they never could communicate or understand each other. Neither should be blamed. But inevitably, it's the aware, sensitive one who is upset, who feels like a failure, who beats himself up, while the objectively inferior, deluded one is blissfully unaware and happy. It doesn't feel like it's fair. Kafka had so many jewels, but mostly swine around him. He thought that he was wrong, unworthy, weird, defective, etc., because he was so unlike them. He found life unbearable, because he was so sensitive and aware- he could not tune out the suffering of the world, he carried the weight of the world on his shoulders, and thus it turned into his own suffering. But there has to be a benefit to being aware and sensitive. Because of his ability and intelligence, it would have been easy for him to manipulate people to get his own way. The problem was that since he was aware, he was also sensitive and compassionate and the least likely person to WANT to manipulate or get revenge. So I don't know, honestly, what the benefit is to being like he was. He certainly did not benefit during his life, and died a painful death of tuberculosis at age 42, before he became the famous person he did years after his death when new generations discovered and appreciated his genius. But while he was alive, did he ever benefit? Was he ever really happy or content? I guess I don't know. I just find it sad.