apatheist - i love that! where the hell is everybody?
however, true to form, i'd argue against any certainty that we each decide how to handle a given situation. free will? really?
what about our programming and conditioning and habits of mind and genetics and plain old stubborn behavior patterns? do we really believe those things are optional, just like that?
and....do we care?
however, true to form, i'd argue against any certainty that we each decide how to handle a given situation. free will? really?
what about our programming and conditioning and habits of mind and genetics and plain old stubborn behavior patterns? do we really believe those things are optional, just like that?
and....do we care?
-
Re: finding my religion
Wed, April 25, 2007 - 8:03 AMWell, I am a compatiblist on the whole free will / determinism issue. I think most peoples intuitive understanding of the terms is wrong. -
-
-
Re: finding my religion
Thu, April 26, 2007 - 11:09 AMNo need to reinvent the wheel when Dennet has done such a great job on this:
www.amazon.com/Darwins-Da...064-1433759
www.amazon.com/Consciousn...064-1433759
www.amazon.com/Freedom-Ev...064-1433759
Freedom Evolves is probably one of the best. You could also try "Types of Free Will Worth Having", its also excellent.
-
-
Re: finding my religion
Thu, April 26, 2007 - 8:15 AMI tend to believe that few, if any, folks are able to exercise free-will. We are a mass of genetic and conditioned responses. Some folks who know me say I'm proof of free-will, since I have defied so much of my conditioning. I just say, I'm genetically pre-determined to choose a different option. -
-
Re: finding my religion
Thu, April 26, 2007 - 8:42 AMi tend to agree, gwenny. (programmed to, you know....) ;-)
there's a whole 'nother layer to that too, if x % of our actions are wired in yet we're conversely wired to believe we are exercising free will. what is that about? makes for some interesting feedback loops and mind-blowing paradoxes and infinite regresses.....the cosmic joke. and maybe that's the point.
-
Re: finding my religion
Thu, April 26, 2007 - 11:12 AMIt all depends on what lengths you are stretching this concept "free will" too. Like, are you free to jump up off the earth and fly into space at will? No, and that is not what the argument is about. Within a certain level of constraint, as we are a human system built on a certain biological basis, do we have the capability to make decisions and have a certain forward-modeling ability in our brains to help us make these choices? -
-
Re: finding my religion
Thu, April 26, 2007 - 6:18 PMaw, c'mon, give me a synopsis, esp his thoughs regarding free will. i expect to have time to read a dense book in about 2010, so for the sake of conversation, what does he say?
here's a related article:
www.doingnothing.com/article...ain.html
The most fundamental neuroethical issue concerns free will and responsibility. The mind is what the brain does, and the brain is a causal machine. Consequently, deliberations, beliefs, decisions and ensuing behavior are the outcome of causal processes. Typically, the causal processes leading to awareness of a decision are nonconscious. The "user illusion," nevertheless, is that a decision is created independently of neuronal causes, by one's very own "act of will."
etc.... -
-
Re: stuff of sci fi and masters
Sat, April 28, 2007 - 1:50 AMSulevay, it is one thing to have a discussion on free will and another to be actually able to directly experience its absence. I don't really think Dennett is of much use in uncovering the truth on this matter, and though he is certainly a very smart guy (a leader in his field), he approaches the issue from the perspective of the mind-brain dichotomy, and from a research based scientific perspective. Nor are Kirkland and Gazzaniga except for preliminary exposure; they both approach the subject from philosophical and ethical perspectives. Not that I have any thing against science and research - but to get to the core of the matter, it's not really something open for discussion.
Either you can do it or you can't, what it is really is is not important. And you can't really teach it to anyone or learn how to do it from books.
So, in a sense - it's a little like a Zen koan. When you get it you get it. Anything short of that really doesn't count.
Lets for the moment throw science out the window - at least for the purpose of this example... Look at everything in the universe as intersecting waves of energy that at least for us humans impinge upon our senses from entities that our sensory apparatus perceives as matter. The convergence of the waves produces the particles that bond together in various types of items like stars and planets and through some miraculous process produce what we call life - and somewhere down the line - people. Yet, we're just the convergence of waves. We think we have a sense of unity as the genetic byproducts (of course another story in itself) have clumped together into mutually beneficial associations with one another. Again, try to see the entire unit from an electronic point of view - from the perspective of waves doing what they do on the subatomic level. Basically you have a vortex of energy in multi-dimensional coordinates.
So, the universe and the world and everything in it is just a bunch of intersecting waves including our brain and our thoughts and our minds and our bodies. There's nothing really in control as the whole process is but an orchestrated energy transfer.
Of course, if you try to explain this to the average person on the street, they'll think your certifiable. Yet, if you're able to experience any validity whatsoever about what I'm speaking about ... if you can do it ... -
-
Re: stuff of sci fi and masters
Sat, April 28, 2007 - 10:18 AMi wasn't talking about defying the laws of gravity, nor am i concerned about developing states of consciousness through ascetic practices that serve to insert a meta-awareness (the witness) into the actuality of what occurs. i don't doubt that "developing awareness" in this way is effective, but what are we aiming for?
say we do develop this meta awareness and live there. now we're experiencing reality from another (perhaps further removed) perspective, maybe less involved in our emotions and so on. what's happened to our direct experience of the energies underlying all phenomenon? do we feel how we are being moved? are we more at one or are we floating above the appearance of things?
reality is interesting stuff. exploring it takes....well, a lifetime. whatever we do, whether we think we have free will or not, something is going on, and no matter what relationship we conceive to the phenomenon, the bottom line is, we are that and it is us. -
-
Re: stuff of sci fi and masters
Sat, April 28, 2007 - 10:19 AM
"...when you get it, you get it."
get what? :-)
-
-
Re: stuff of sci fi and masters
Sat, April 28, 2007 - 5:46 PMSulevay, good hearing from you.
I’m not speaking about defying gravity or adhering to ascetic practices. As far as what we are aiming for – every person has to determine that for themselves. I’m really not referring to anything far removed, as it appears to me that things most deeply hidden from our awareness are those closest to us. I am also not referring to emotions, which are compensations so-to-speak, aspects of our personalities employed for our survival in one form or another. How we perceive and characterize emotions is personalized and defined by our experiences and our uniquely individual genetic makeups. Similarities fall into more-or-less distinctive groupings that enable us to attach words and communicate our findings to others – at least in a very generalized sense, which of course, and I’d assume you’d agree, are not all that accurate.
Nobody resides in any state permanently. To associate permanence with a particular state is wishful thinking, fantasy or denial.
You can tell someone how far out a roller coaster ride felt, but you can’t transfer to them your direct experience. This is what I’m referring to with respect to the topic we are discussing. We can beat around the bush by theorizing and debating as to whether free will exists or not. We can go one step further by assuming that if it was not possible – how you might go about getting a direct experience of that. Or, simply, you can pop out of the fog bank of philosophical mumbo jumbo and just do it.
When you present an idea that negates free will, people generally (and I’m not referring to you personally) have answers constructed before you’ve even finished your statement. What you are attempting to convey will generally bounce off of them like water off a duck’s back.
Yes, "we are that." I heard Muktananda say this many years ago, though I now have a better understanding of what I think he was attempting to convey – I certainly didn’t at the time. The concept of ‘I am that’ is a valuable one, yet for the sake of our discussion, a little out of focus; maybe you could turn the focus-wheel and sharpen the image and take it one step further – no defying laws, no developing states, no ascetic practices, no floating above appearances, just the perception of:
‘Whatever you consider to be yourself’ is moving through time without the possibility of any intervention on your part having any effect whatsoever.
It’s really very simple. 'Whatever you ascertain as yourself' unfolds moment after moment; this includes every thought, emotion, movement and perception thereof from within and without. Sense the process as best you can while realizing that you’re just along for the ride.
Give it a try. "...get what?" You’ll have to answer this for yourself.
the Best -
-
Re: stuff of sci fi and masters
Sat, April 28, 2007 - 6:39 PM>Give it a try.<
i'd assert that what you're asserting has more to do with *not* giving it a try, if you see what i mean. what you describe is functionally identical to simply living, direct contact with the unknown, and not worrying about conceptualizing the process. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: stuff of sci fi and masters
Sat, April 28, 2007 - 7:53 PMAnd when you think about it - not doing is doing - just as not making a decision is a decision and relaxing is an active process. And of course, just by thinking about something - you change your relationship to it. Can you *not* do? No, as the process and the conceptualization are one and the same, just as 'Give it a try' or 'attempt to fathom an idea' are one and the same.
There's no stopping the blood flowing through your brain or the energy coursing through it, though active redirection is to some degree possible - at least indirectly.
Toying with semantics (though possibly fun and amusing) is simply unconscious rejection. You remember the duck.
So, give it a try :)
-
-
Re: stuff of sci fi and masters
Sun, April 29, 2007 - 9:12 AMmaybe the process and conceptualization are one and the same in the sense of both being functions of time (or, more correctly, the other way around)....but no, conceptualization is not the same thing as direct contact.
and while i agree, you can't stop blood flow to the brain or stop the thinking, it is possible to not be impressed by it.
:-)
-
-
Re: stuff of sci fi and masters
Sun, April 29, 2007 - 8:31 PMsulevay, when you say 'it is possible to not be impressed by it' - are you saying you have a choice of being impressed or not impressed? -
-
Re: stuff of sci fi and masters
Mon, April 30, 2007 - 9:28 AM>sulevay, when you say 'it is possible to not be impressed by it' - are you saying you have a choice of being impressed or not impressed?<
LOL! great question. touché.
answer: i don't know.
:-)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: finding my religion // Free-Will for sale
Sun, April 29, 2007 - 2:29 PMThat's a good synopsis. Right on ... I agree with that totally.
It is the key concept. Weird feeling and counter-intuitive, perhaps, but highly logical and consistent with the evidence.
-
Re: finding my religion // Free-Will for sale
Sun, April 29, 2007 - 2:33 PMRE: "The most fundamental neuroethical issue concerns free will and responsibility. The mind is what the brain does, and the brain is a causal machine. Consequently, deliberations, beliefs, decisions and ensuing behavior are the outcome of causal processes. Typically, the causal processes leading to awareness of a decision are nonconscious. The "user illusion," nevertheless, is that a decision is created independently of neuronal causes, by one's very own 'act of will.' "
That's a good synopsis. Right on ... I agree with that totally.
It is the key concept. Weird feeling and counter-intuitive, perhaps, but highly logical and consistent with the evidence.
-
-
-
Re: finding my religion
Sun, April 29, 2007 - 3:04 PM" I just say, I'm genetically pre-determined to choose a different option." - Gwenny
I wonder if genetics is just a part of the causation ... might it be that is due to experiences and influences which happen upon to us in life (primarily early life) which act as seed-structures which cascade and snowball into forming much of our behavior patterns, thought patterns, belief, etc ... and that genetics might just play an auxiliary role? -
-
Re: finding my religion
Sun, April 29, 2007 - 9:48 PMHi Albe:
Manifestations revealed by the unfolding of our genetic strain parallels influences from everything to which we are exposed. The nature-nurture debate goes on and camps on both sides generate material to support their positions.
From one perspective the composite process can be perceived as one and the same. If you attempt to perceive everything, including us and our perceptions and everything else as but vortices of intersecting energy within a closed system - it may be possible to get a glimpse of the process from a more objective perspective (maybe not) :)
We are composed of intersecting waves crafted into particles, atoms and molecules that ultimately produce the stuff our senses can perceive (and can't). Behavior, thoughts and beliefs are just another part of these decoded manifestations we're capable of perceiving. The same is true for everything else in the universe - in that everything else is composed in the same way. Essentially, I plus not-I is everything. We carve a chunk out and attribute this to being who we are - the person.
This example is devoid of free will and the nature-nurture dilemma - though certainly more abstract.
-
-