Navel-Gazing

June 14, 2003 7:57 AM

What am I? Clearly the most pressing question facing the human race today. Every individual human brain contains around 10^12 (1 trillion) neurons and 10^15 (1 quadrillion) synapses, capable of changing in milliseconds, and there are 6x10^9 (6 billion) people on this planet, all potentially capable of interacting and influencing one another. Last year alone 1.6x10^11 (160 billion) minutes of international telephone calls were made between people talking at a rate of 120 to 150 words per minute. A collection of articles at newscientist.com.
posted by mokey (12 comments total)

My answer, at least: You are molecules. Simply molecules obeying the rules you learned in high school chemistry. That is why none of us have any capacity for free will (to meet the first objection I always hear head-on)

I think most of the obvious arguments people may use against this can be answered by the text message I use for my desktrop background:

You can desire a more ideal state but you cannot choose to make it so. In order to realize the ideal state, go and manifest it now - you have no choice.

It's important for people to realize that all of the experiential processes you have within the course of a day or year can be explained while accepting that there is no mystical component to consciousness. One simply has to be aware of the two sides of the coin: there is the experience of emotions / desire, and these occur because of neurohormones and synaptic configurations. Once you've learned to filter everything through both of these as if they were one (and in fact they are), it's quite easy to live without the false pretense of free will.
posted by Ryvar at 8:46 AM on June 14, 2003

Therefore consciousness is simply a question of highly complex thermodynamics?!
posted by mokey at 8:49 AM on June 14, 2003

i am a rock. i am an island.
posted by quonsar at 9:10 AM on June 14, 2003

I am... well it's none of your business what my collection of molecules is. Stop invading my privacy, you John Ashcroft wannabe!
posted by billsaysthis at 9:25 AM on June 14, 2003

it's a great magazine. and it comes weekly. i can't keep up with all the wonderful information.

i am a new scientist subscriber.
posted by folktrash at 11:56 AM on June 14, 2003

Once you've learned to filter everything through both of these as if they were one (and in fact they are), it's quite easy to live without the false pretense of free will.

But what is wrong living with the false pretense of freewill?

Nice article though.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:30 PM on June 14, 2003

I am Jack's utter lack of interest.
posted by Cerebus at 12:39 PM on June 14, 2003

thanks for posting to tell us, jack.
posted by jimmy at 5:28 PM on June 15, 2003

Simply molecules obeying the rules you learned in high school chemistry.

Ahh, but what about quantum physics? Quite a bit of the excitement centers around the idea that when you get down to a small enough level, particles start behaving in ways scientists cannot predict. They're random.

Also amusingly demonstrated in this article.

The idea that the entire universe is already understood and can be described by physics is simply untrue.
posted by cohappy at 12:45 AM on June 16, 2003

free will and determinism needn't be considered incompatible. check out dan dennet, eg
posted by mdn at 7:26 AM on June 16, 2003

Randomness doesn't help with free will though. Free will would be NON-random.
posted by callmejay at 8:12 AM on June 16, 2003

Randomness doesn't help with free will though. Free will would be NON-random.

Really? What would determinism be them?
posted by cohappy at 10:23 AM on June 16, 2003