Freewill - A useful myth?

[malcymo]

Humanity has always, for some reason, felt the need to support his
world view with a series of myths commonly termed beliefs in order to,
in some way, justify its behaviour. We must not, however, believe that
these myths are always spiritual or mystical in nature. Many are not.

The legitimacy of a myth depends on many features. Umberto Eco in his
excellent tome ‘Foucault’s Pendulum’ quietly draws our attention to
the requirements needed for the creation of a robust myth and there is
no doubt that within most religious and philosophical beliefs the
required elements are found.

Secular myths, however, are somewhat harder to pin down. This may be
because they are founded little more than intuition. They are
therefore difficult to identify as myths in the first place. Also,
such myths can often serve a very useful purpose.

Let us take as an example the idea of freewill. The idea is so
embedded in our psych that most of us believe it to be a reality. Even
so, an in depth study soon reveals the fragility of the idea. So
fragile is it that philosophers have argued over the question of
determinism v free will for generations; time which could have been
more usefully employed on other ventures. Indeed some eminent
philosophers believe that free will and determinism can sit
legitimately together – the so called Such is the nature of a myth.

We can only suppose that such an idea must appear rational to us in
order to give it legitimacy. After all, our ideas of virtuous
behaviour, responsibility and justice are founded on the idea of free
will; that we are responsible for our actions and must accept our
responsibilities. Yet, there is no doubt that free will defies the
tenets embodied in modern physics, the idea of cause and effect. It
seems to be extremely difficult for us to accept that some things just
are.

I am interested in this dilemma because if we eventually discover, if
we have not already, that determinism is beyond dispute how should we
react? How could we possibly recreate our society to live with such a
‘truth’?

[Eman Abdulla]

I think there are two aspects to be addressed in your post, one is the
assumption that free will among other concepts is a myth, the other is
the value or lack thereof of such myth and whether humanity can ever
abandon this notion without serious consequences to the very essence
of civilization and human society. As for the concept of free will, I
think that science is ibeginning to shed light on the indeterministic
aspect of nature and reality based on the quantum theory. Many are now
developing theories about the quantum brain that affects matter
through consciousness.
As for the value of such notion, I doubt that humanity will ever agree
to abandon it not just because of its practical value in providing
motivation and driving action, but because it seems to be embedded at
the very core of the collective human psyche, maybe for a reason that
is not only social and but also natural.

[malcymo]

By the way it is nice to be back. I have been in the jungle for the
last twelve months or so. I shall have access to the net for maybe the
next six months

On Jan 6, 11:03 am, Eman Abdulla <emana...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think there are two aspects to be addressed in your post, one is the
> assumption that free will among other concepts is a myth, the other is
> the value or lack thereof of such myth and whether humanity can ever
> abandon this notion without serious consequences to the very essence
> of civilization and human society. As for the concept of free will, I
> think that science is ibeginning to shed light on the indeterministic
> aspect of nature and reality based on the quantum theory. Many are now
> developing theories about the quantum brain that affects matter
> through consciousness.
> As for the value of such notion, I doubt that humanity will ever agree
> to abandon it not just because of its practical value in providing
> motivation and driving action, but because it seems to be embedded at
> the very core of the collective human psyche, maybe for a reason that
> is not only social and but also natural.
>

> > ‘truth’?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Allan H]

Free will is a reality..  the problem comes once you made your choice and the effects of the choice ,,  these results appear that you have no choice,,  you just mad it earlier.

Allan

--
 (

  )

|_D Allan

Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

[malcymo]

Alan, I like you would sincerely like to believe that free will is a
reality. Life would then be a simple matter of each of us being
ressponsible for our actions.

As Eman points out there have been advances in quantum theory which
may indeed lead us towards a new way of thinking through these matters
giving free will a firm basis..

I, being removed from the latest thinking on the matter, am somewhat
at a loss and would much appreciate some pointers in quantum research
that can point a layman
towards a rational review.

What aspects of quantum theory affect this philasophic issue?

Help is needed.

Malcolm

> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -

[pol.science kid]

i agree with Allan.. some time back.. i had a rather deterministic bent of mind.. but as i grow older.. i am convinced by the importance of 'free' choice.. i dont claim any in depth knowledge through experience.. but what iam trying to say that if taken in immediacy.. our actions are always free... that is why we are moral beings... and because of the question of ethics..it is important that each person know that their action is their alone... theirs is the burden of responsibility .. i agree many factors not individually controlled .. from the language and the social mores that condition us... And not to dispute cause and effect.... i think we are aware of the cause and effect in a rather reverse manner... when we have come to the effect do we look to see the cause.... it is because our lives are so tragically linear.... its the consequences first that we might see.... its only afetr having walked the distance that you mught say.. 'this was to be'... As far as religion goes... what i most appreciate is their proffessed detatchment from the outcome of action... which makes sense to me... i think that is why most religions stress on duty... mostly you come accross good old clasic literature... you can trace out a deterministic finality in the works... i dont know how one would deal with any 'truth' .... but i think the most for someone or yourself is make an informed choice... dont you think we might also allow for impulse under 'free' ..... guess the key thing is to be 'aware' in mind most of the time.. i dnt know where iam going with this.. so ill stop.

--
EverComing

[Molly]

Does human myth justify behavior, or does the premise justify your
view above?

[Molly]

There is more to life than the realm of cause and effect. Many of us
just prefer it there.

[Eman Abdulla]

I don't claim to be well versed in the latest scientific thinking but
because of the interest I developed in understanding the effects of
the latest theories in cosmology and neuroscience on such
philosophical questions such as the existence of the soul, free will,
life after death, beginning of the world, the place of humans on the
map of existence as special and somewhat priveleged, to more closely
look at these questions, I was intrigued by the quantum theory and its
implications. It seems to have single handedly shattered the
determinism and mechanicality of Newtonian physics and disproved that
if we know the exact place, velosity and other variables of a
particle, we can accurately predict where it will go next and its
exact speed. The principle of uncertainty which was developed after
serious empirical scruitiny affirms that at the subatomic level, we
cannot predict the movement of particles. Moreover, particles seem to
have a wave function which enables them to exist in several places at
once, but once measured, they change into actual particles and seem to
chose one position out of many to exist in. These are some of the mind
boggling traits of quantum theory. The particle response to
measurement maybe one aspect of how human consciousness affects
reality. Another more complex and still emerging assumption is that
while the quantum function is steadily reduced in larger bodies of
matter including the human body, the human brain seems to have
developed an ability to amplify the quantum function and hence
maintain the unpredictablity of subatomic particles. Scientists are
trying to build a quantum computer that may be able towork at hugely
faster rates than regular computers employing a similar approach. The
quantum brain theory is still being developed but I can refer you to a
book " The Quantum Brain : The Search for Freedom and the Next
Generation of Man" by Jeffrey Satinover. It is a very interesting
read.

On 1/5/12, malcymo <mal...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Eman Abdulla]

RP, I like your approach to the question of free will. I personally
think that while we do have a free choice, our choices in life are
very limited not only by the physical context but the genetic and
psychological constraints but ultimately,knowing all possible variants
at play in our decision making process, if that can ever be possible,
we cannot always predict the outcome, but have a set of probabilities
some stronger than others.

On 1/6/12, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As far as accountability goes we are free agents and that is the
> reason for making good choice and not an evil one. One can never claim
> exemptions from judgments of the courts or society on the ground of
> determinism , but one can do so if of insane mind. When you do
> something you know you are doing it , and if there is a hidden
> motivation that doesn't absolve you of your actions. We are all robots
> in the hands of God , but to ourselves and the society in general we
> are free agents. Thus there is no need to live in fear of God as He
> knows our bondage , but we should fear our conscience as well as the
> society in which we live. Again, there is much pleasure in living with
> a humanitarian mindset as it gives us a sense of worth and
> satisfaction.

[Allan H]

I totally  agree with you Molly ,  the question was does free will exist to that the answer is yes, what appears  to be the lack of choice often times is the result of cause  and effect.  (I have an injured wrist  because I chose not to drop a butter dish, now I will have to live with the effects of that choice)

No I do not live in a world where I have no choice or one that is predestined
Allan

[Allan H]

I totally  agree with you Molly

On Jan 6, 2012 12:15 PM, "Molly" <moll...@gmail.com> wrote:

[archytas]

Secular myths abound - largely because most of us are early-tuned to
religious ones. I suspect that the idea of social science is one of
them. Peter Winch wrote a small book on the topic in 1960 - I'd guess
he was one of Wittgenstein's students. We mythologise many secular
elements of society - democracy is one, leadership another. Science
becomes one in those thinking it can answer all questions or (as in
Dawkins) is the only important focus. If we have no free will we
should stop locking up criminals. The question on free will is what
life would entail without it and consequent responsibilities denied.
Even Nietzsche insisted having seen the chaos we should make oursleves
works of art.

On Jan 6, 5:17 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I totally  agree with you Molly

[Allan H]

those are just excuses,   yes my back ground and experiences are what I use for making decision ---  that does not bind me,  i still have the choice to respond as i like

Allan

On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:33 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:

We are bound by very subtle ties and our ostensible freedom is wrapped
in bondage. If we lock up criminals we are bound and if we don't we
are still bound. Nature, within our will and that without, binds us.

[malcymo]

Here is a thought.

If rational thinking has resulted from the sucessful evolutionary
developement of the biological brain then that is all it is. Certainly
rational thoght would not have developed in (SAY) a fungus in a cave
for it would have no survival advantage. So freewill is nothing more
than an apt evolutionary development.

On Jan 7, 9:03 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> those are just excuses,   yes my back ground and experiences are what I use
> for making decision ---  that does not bind me,  i still have the choice to
> respond as i like
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:33 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We are bound by very subtle ties and our ostensible freedom is wrapped
> > in bondage. If we lock up criminals we are bound and if we don't we
> > are still bound. Nature, within our will and that without, binds us.
>

[archytas]

I agree with RP that we are looking at complex relations. Lots has
been said on Mal's thought - this is a standard\ example:

"The Darwinian revolution of the nineteenth century suggested an
alternative approach first explored by Dewey and the pragmatists.
Human beings, as the products of evolutionary development, are natural
beings. Their capacities for knowledge and belief are also the
products of a natural evolutionary development. As such, there is some
reason to suspect that knowing, as a natural activity, could and
should be treated and analyzed along lines compatible with its status,
i. e., by the methods of natural science. On this view, there is no
sharp division of labor between science and epistemology. In
particular, the results of particular sciences such as evolutionary
biology and psychology are not ruled a priori irrelevant to the
solution of epistemological problems. Such approaches, in general, are
called naturalistic epistemologies, whether they are directly
motivated by evolutionary considerations or not. Those which are
directly motivated by evolutionary considerations and which argue that
the growth of knowledge follows the pattern of evolution in biology
are called “evolutionary epistemologies.”

Evolutionary epistemology is the attempt to address questions in the
theory of knowledge from an evolutionary point of view. Evolutionary
epistemology involves, in part, deploying models and metaphors drawn
from evolutionary biology in the attempt to characterize and resolve
issues arising in epistemology and conceptual change. As disciplines
co-evolve, models are traded back and forth. Thus, evolutionary
epistemology also involves attempts to understand how biological
evolution proceeds by interpreting it through models drawn from our
understanding of conceptual change and the development of theories.
The term “evolutionary epistemology” was coined by Donald Campbell
(1974)."

I don't agree, incidentally that we need to 'apply science methods' to
look into this and feel this is far too restrictive.

[archytas]

Some of this take on epistemology can be gleaned by observing what's
around us. Teenagers are a minefield of such information. My
grandson (14) is currently making excuses for not having enough baths
and showers along the lines of 'it's my body'. Empirically he stinks.
He's barely noticed how much work gets done around him. He can't keep
his PC free of viruses or use his laptop with enough care not to break
the charger lead (etc.). It has barely dawned on him that I was once
his age and that he has never been my age. He's a good enough lad and
this is all that really matters to me. He was like an Irishman put in
a barrel and told to piss in the corner the other day (add Pole,
Belgian etc. to xenophobic choice). I gave him a power lead straight
from the box and he spent the time trying to fit it to the socket with
the insulation packaging left on. I guess he won't next time, though
I proved a slower learner on some such stuff. It would be easy enough
to leave him alone to "develop" into a useless, smelly nitwit. The
idea is we don't. How do we know?

[Molly]

We know by recognizing his potentiality and helping him to do the
same. Sometimes, given the box it comes in, this takes an
extraordinary amount of love and care. At some point, choice, like
goals and purpose and all the rest, just fall away. And here we are.
Relating to those we love. Feeling the life we've been given. Ten
years ago I would not have imagined myself as I am today. I am here
because somewhere along the line I discovered that the best I can "do"
is express myself with love in each moment, and recognize the same in
others, whatever the circumstance. Given that, life unfolds.

[rigsy03]

Eco was on Charlie Rose (a tv interviewer in the USA) the other night.
His latest book is another mythbuster- the "Protocols"- entitled "The
Prague Cemetary".

I respect deterministic forces-fate-weakness. I was rereading
"Robinson Crusoe" where there is a good deal of debate as Crusoe
adapts/accepts his circumstances- but that was the 18th C- still quite
religious. One must wrestle with accountability- it is so easy to
blame or deny.

[malcymo]

Thanks for the new Eco book.

I likewise respect deterministic forces simply because I know that if
placed again in all the
decision making positions of my past I would, given the social
circumstances, have made the same choices.
There are no "If onlys" in my life.

However, it seems to me that secular authority has tried much harder
to create fairer, more ethical guidance for societies than
those created in the non secular realm. What do you all think?

I must get hold of a copy of 'The prague cemetary'.

Malc

> > ‘truth’?- Hide quoted text -

[gabbydott]

Oh Molly, I believe you are more than the box you come in, too! I
believe you choose to want to feel lovely at each moment, feeling
alive!

[Molly]

Perhaps, gabby. But at this point in my life, for me, there is no
other choice. So is it really a choice?

> ...
>
> read more »

[archytas]

There are many notions of free will. My start these days is in "man"
as a social animal and how this gives opportunity and constraint. I
suspect we still haven't got to grips with what the selfish gene means
and how much isn't being controlled by consciousness rationally
derived.

> ...
>
> read more »

[archytas]

Bees have recently been observed to do more than waggle-dancing in
reaching consensus on choice of hive. They actually clash head and
emit (to bees) loud shrieks. Many people leap in in any consideration
of sociobiology with the haplessly obvious statement 'we are not
animals' and labels like 'biological determinism'. My view is we need
awareness of what we really are as animals in order to prevent
biological determinism.

Human sociobiology aims to understand the evolution of human
sociality. Sociobiologists attempt to trace the evolutionary histories
of particular behavioral strategies in terms of their functional roles
in ancestral and current environments. The sociobiological research
program faces extraordinary challenges. Chief among these is our
ignorance of several crucial facts: the chronology of selective
pressures in human ancestral and current environments, how particular
strategies are activated and controlled, the possibility of radical
transitions in human social organization, the relationship between
biological evolution and cultural evolution, and many others. The
result is a necessarily speculative explanatory structure.
Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to believe that sociobiology offers
a potentially illuminating framework for understanding human behavior,
one that has already achieved important insights. (standard Stanford
stuff)

Most of the early questions about why a female worker bee (sterile)
would put in work (and many more) have now been answered in terms of
their close genetic relations to the Queen's progeny (closer than ours
to sons and daughters). We are now known to be attracted to those
with similar genes to our own. One can see this is statistics.

I think many people may be confused into thinking they are acting in
free will when in fact they are merely responding to gene interaction
- though knowing this one can still choose to go with the flow.
Xenophobia is partly genetic but one can choose to overcome it. This
said one can (and should in my view) resist cultural dross like
political correctness.

I'm diabetic and we know this is broadly genetic - though we are
beginning to see much is epigenetic, including factors of pollution
and the influence of fat on sperm (Dad was fat when I was conceived,
not when my elder brother was). One can't choose to be diabetic but
can choose a lifestyle that limits its effects - this is complex and
many of the drugs tend to make you fat and hence worse, if you eat
like a normal person. I'm lucky that I don't like junk food. I got
fat as soon as I stopped playing professional rugby after injuries in
policing incidents. I stayed fat even though the training I did as an
amateur back at university was pretty tough (we won the national
championship).

Clearly I wouldn't have chosen this situation in free will. How could
I have affected what Mum and Dad did? Or increases in pollution? I
can choose my diet (some are not so fortunate) and to get out walking
with the dog. I've just stopped taking most of my previous medicine
and am taking Victoza (once daily jab). With no other changes weight
is falling off. The cost of this drug is £80 a month - which is free
to me on the NHS.

There are many questions about free will before we get to the
spiritual, though the spiritual is already mixed up in the mess of our
societies. Do we partake of the 'pleasures of life' in free will?
Does "economics" even consider these issues? Molly may be right in
that we have to step away into another "motivation".

> ...
>
> read more »

[rigsy03]

Which reminds me of a quote (Liz Taylor?) that she would do the same
things all over again but with different people.

How are you measuring these societies? Certainly seems like evils
persist in secular societies as readily as the religious. (Eco has a
great paper on fascism- "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at
a Blackshirt" http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html ).

I love certain authors- Eco being one- lust after them, in fact- even
the dead ones!

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

Bringing up Liz reminds me of common experiments in brain science
rigsy. We often think something special about ourselves will beat the
average - that our ownb free will or determination etc. will defy
statistical reality - as in
Ask a bride before walking down the aisle “How likely are you to get
divorced?” and most will respond “Not a chance!” Tell her that the
average divorce rate is close to 50 percent, and ask again. Would she
change her mind? Unlikely. Even law students who have learned
everything about the legal aspects of divorce, including its
likelihood, state that their own chances of getting divorced are
basically nil. How can we explain this?

Psychologists have documented human optimism for decades. They have
learned that people generally overestimate their likelihood of
experiencing positive events, such as winning the lottery, and
underestimate their likelihood of experiencing negative events, such
as being involved in an accident or suffering from cancer. Informing
people about their statistical likelihood of experiencing negative
events, such as divorce, is surprisingly ineffective at altering their
optimistic predictions, and highlighting previously unknown risk
factors for diseases fails to engender realistic perceptions of
medical vulnerability. How can people maintain their rose-colored
views of the future in the face of reality? Which neural processes are
involved in people’s optimistic predictions?

We have some fair answers to some of this, but Catch 22, telling
people is unlikely to affect them!

[malcymo]

Rather a world full of optimists than pessimists. Which type have the
most friends.

[malcymo]

Who would get married if they truly realised the odds the odds.

On Jan 11, 7:56 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:

[gabbydott]

Maybe not. Breaking a routine at this stage might cause so much more damage to oneself than it does good that it should be held up as without alternative. 

[archytas]

Why Gabby - you little old conservative you! One can probably be
optimistic and a realist Mal. Maybe the free will element concerns
keeping oneself in ignorance, trusting to fate and taking what comes?
Some people can only live day to day and hope things will change
around them.

> ...
>
> read more »

[James Lynch]

It is amazing, though comprehensible that in this gene fab lab of life
these processes (behaviors) are occurring. It is interesting that for
everything determinism seems to represent, that the ascension of life
is operating contrarywise, and in every case I can tell is
fundamentally opposed to deterministic reduction in the scope of it's
little environmental niche. There is an almost antithetical quality to
this that is bugging me a bit, after getting over the whole fatalism
trap that is (time+intuition, I call it vitamin TI). :)

[malcymo]

Hey, I am having difficulty with the term evolutionary epistemology. I
can see that physical changes in the brain occur through mutations
which are apt. Better peception, more complex synaptic connections
complex
etc. I can see that we may become more able to construct complex
arguments as a result. But as to the methods, our perceptions
regarding the theory of knowledge arn't they just a by product not
evolutionary particularly apt.
Help me here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[malcymo]

I like the idea of a realistic optimist.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[rigsy03]

By the time one is walking down the aisle the trap has been laid. :-)
It's like joining the army and hoping you don't get killed or maimed
for life, perhaps, or that your being a soldier will bring everlasting
peace to our world. Eventually-hopefully- one reasons out the past and
comes to some understanding- but that's hindsight rather than
foresight. If we live in a liberal country, we might "get over IT".

I do think we absorb a glob of wishful thinking promoted by religion
and culture at an early age and as malcymo says, optimists are more
fun than pessimists and likely to have similar friends- or ones that
share your delusions. Heaven help the truth-teller! "Sit down! You're
Rocking the Boat!" (Guys and Dolls)

[archytas]

I grew up with Hancock's Half Hour - he was a brilliantly pessimistic
comedian! Killed himself. I rather like the gnostic pessimism that
creation is a mistake - one can still build an optimistic life based
on this. I don't go for it myself - the idea is best read in Rosak's
"Flicker" which made me laugh my Hancock off.

Mal - there's some evidence lizards are getting smarter because of
global warming (seriously). Even amoeba are highly adapted creatures
that have "learned". Bushmen in Africa have very low average IQ - but
are we going to pit our IQ against their local intelligence in
surviving in their backyard without our civilized stuff? Their
intelligence is fitted to their conditions - indeed it's likely
"intelligence" in our sense is linked to not living where the (bad)
infectious diseases are. Much we attribute to "genes" and individual-
ethnic superiority concerns geography, climate and a lot more.

Without getting into eternal-TOE stuff we are presumably free to
deconstruct rigsy's glob - though I wonder how many can really make
this choice or have made a choice not to bother. I guess the big
problem of going with such glob-flow is when it's fascist or contains
"religious reasons" to make women walk about in black bags or have to
suffer "churching" and the like. Greek epistemology didn't get to
grips with much we now see as freedom. For that matter, we find what
look like refined, rationalised human mistakes like slavery in some
ant practice and our bodies are evidence we assimilated other life
forms like the Borg in our evolution. Science is making "gene-
splicing" a reality.
I guess we have be able to choose between fictions and at bottom I
like the idea of being able to live in choice. Some fictions prevent
this on a grand scale. The real issues emerge when one realises that
one wants to insist women don't wear black bags and you might have no
right to tell them not to. In practice much changes when coercive
authority-hegemony is removed. At this point I don't consider the
individual as the site of freedom and tend to believe existentialism
hapless.

[malcymo]

Isn't it more like inherited the facility to learn? Some abilities
like language and basicc survival mechanism
easy because we gained these abilities genetically. Reading and maths
hard
because they are not related to geneations of genetic success.

Existentialism may be hapless but it is all I have, I think.

Cheers

[malcymo]

Loved Hancock. Yes, IQ tests are obviously culturally based.

On Jan 12, 5:17 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:

[rigsy03]

This is a complicated subject. Romantic love and choice are new
concepts.

Teenagers (human) are highly sexed yet lowly brained until their late
20's.

I am curious what the Chinese will do with 22 million extra bachelors
due to their birth/abortion policies.

Some species outdo the humans in their courtship rituals as well as
faithfulness. O- the flutter! :-)

[archytas]

Existentialism wandered into over-emphasis on the individual as surely
as fascism and its 'greater leader' dunnage. I can see what you mean
in regard of our more academic learning - though there is good
evidence now that kids have math concepts before they begin to be
taught them. Animals of all kinds pass on learning in their
communities. Our aluminium foil space flight reminds me a bit of some
plant reproductive mechanisms where the seed is tossed out on a wing
and a prayer (sycamores etc.) - we may have got here in spore form.
Some algae seem to climb on each other's "backs" before they are
whipped into the air from a foaming sea and onto the jetstream. One
of my own speculations is we may have once been part of a greater
civilisation that could not defeat problems in speed of light travel
(space has friction) and so seeded itself into the world we know much
as dandelions blow in the wind here. Maybe god is some remnant of
them, all they could do for our comfort?

[James Lynch]

"Evolutionary Epistemology is a naturalistic approach to epistemology,
which emphasizes the importance of natural selection in two primary
roles. In the first role, selection is the generator and maintainer of
the reliability of our senses and cognitive mechanisms, as well as the
“fit” between those mechanisms and the world. In the second role,
trial and error learning and the evolution of scientific theories are
construed as selection processes."[1]

I think the first "role" is relevant and sounds similar in nature to
what you're saying. It seems to be an attempt at grounding better
epistemology with more "ecological" relations, as opposed to say a
'vacuum' of theory.

1 - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-evolutionary/

[James Lynch]

It almost sounds like pseudo-ethics as opposed to eugenics (mostly
considered pseudoscience, though I'm not buying into that 100%). Like
Kid Rock says, "You get what you put in, and people get what they
deserve." With the cultural mythos set, centralization of sanctioned
institutions and the erosion of family units to bleed the maximum per
watt of human potential (there's a performance measure for ya Neil :p
) per individual. But in a world with no actual agency for alternative
outcomes, it would seem that words like "potential" and all the
classical virtues turn to dust. Being skeptical never went so far as
to say that it is all without meaning..

[James Lynch]

Let me try that again and clarify that I suppose a pseudo-ethic to be
the opposite of pursuing personal responsibility in a multidimensional
fashion but instead is the exercise of imitating ethics within
boundaries set by external forces for their gain. Under the threat of
aggression and with coercive undertones. And for what, when I look for
justice among the least of us, it is clear who benefits the greatest
by vast centralized oligarchy while the masses squabble. This seems to
be a ideal utilitarian-dystopian vision I'm headed toward
(unintentionally), perhaps it is that Eco's writing rings true to me
much in the way of Frederick Douglass' words. It is not that I
consider Mal's existential thoughts to be in pseudo-form, to the
contrary I have a strong tendency toward similar reasoning of personal
responsibility. The danger seems again to be in accepting an iron wall
naturalistic fallacy, and the system works not because of the
excellency of our system but from the hard work and intentions of
human beings reduced to the actions of "useful idiots".

[archytas]

Nietzsche got somewhere near your last statement James - going on to
say art was the solution to nihilism. I don't go for sociobiology
much myself to be honest - I just think much we think is specially
human turns out not to be as what we know increases.
The brain science of the last 20 years has established that
rationality usually comes after decision (remember that stuff on
interviews being decided in the first 30 seconds?).
They've sort of taken that down to the blink of an eye. Test after
test shows that people won't go against the established flow even when
simple perception should tell them what the truth is.
My interests are in the area of why we can't get more rational
alternatives into systems of choice for more widespread decision.
Education has broadly failed and I suspect it's really part of the
propaganda-influence system. One assumes free will is free of that
kind of trance? But, of course, a rational system once understood,
requires no agent's decision as solutions become obvious and all one
could do in free will would be to let this happen or do something
wrong. Most people deny adverts work on them but have homes full of
the products. My grandson wants an I-phone - despite hardly using
his current mobile - and claims this is nothing to do with the adverts
in which adolescents with them look cool and happy!
The original thread question is a good one .

> ...
>
> read more »

[malcymo]

Romantic love may be new particularly in evolutionary terms. However,
I like it and would not
have missed my romantic attachments, despite their short term nature
for anything. I guess I will miss the memories when I
cease to exist. Shame.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[malcymo]

Thank you James I see now where it is coming from. I will read the
ref.

On Jan 12, 1:17 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Evolutionary Epistemology is a naturalistic approach to epistemology,
> which emphasizes the importance of natural selection in two primary
> roles. In the first role, selection is the generator and maintainer of
> the reliability of our senses and cognitive mechanisms, as well as the
> “fit” between those mechanisms and the world. In the second role,
> trial and error learning and the evolution of scientific theories are
> construed as selection processes."[1]
>
> I think the first "role" is relevant and sounds similar in nature to
> what you're saying. It seems to be an attempt at grounding better
> epistemology with more "ecological" relations, as opposed to say a
> 'vacuum' of theory.
>

> 1 -http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-evolutionary/

[malcymo]

James, when you cite 'external forces' do you mean nations, churches,
towns, etc. Certainly there
is no ethical foundation for creating boundaries and denying the
individual access to certain areas of the world.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[malcymo]

Yes. The crux. When we racognise behavioural disfunction and know that
many others recognise it as well
why can't we, as a group, do anything about it. Everyone I know seem
to recognises our failings:- materialism, peer group status etc. etc.
but we seem helpless. In fact when individuals react by bucking the
trend they are often vilified even by those who recognise the
rationality of the behaviour.

I guess rationallity is a weak force only used to justify actions
which have been based on something completely different.
Some more genetically ingrained drive. Deterministic even.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[malcymo]

It seems to me that rationality is a week force, only used to justify
decisions besed on much stronger
genetically sucessful forces. Education doesn't work because it is
only tinkering with reason. Too many
of our evolved mechanisms became ingrained during the mega years we
were hunter-gatherers. Clearly rathional
thinking as a persuasive tool is just no good. Advertisers know this.
I suppose we are going to have to beat the advertisers at their own
game.
Environmentalists seem to have something moving with this fear of
global warming stuff.

On Jan 12, 3:53 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[James Lynch]

The ends justify the means does sound utilitarian, it makes me think
of aggressive acts of desperation and punitive excess. The squeaky
wheel gets the grease, there are ways of dealing with those who want
to disrupt the illusion, what a bender!

[James Lynch]

I have a little Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Frankl on my night reading
list under the banner of 'existential psychotherapy', perhaps they
were the shamans of our times? Recurring themes in history I think
along with the stoics and daoism, perhaps even elements of gnosticism.

[James Lynch]

That will make one of us then. ;-) Due to some freak operations of my
memory I will have to read it again and again and will still have to
look up the terms a week from now. You will likely notice this in
conversation. I've read most of this document at least once and reread
portions several times in the past few years along with numerous
others on the server but couldn't even vaguely define the topic
material. Sometimes I wonder, but I keep up hope and envision using a
powerful natural (natural to me) language. Now where is that pesky
thing? :)

[rigsy03]

Sometimes Eco gets a bit smug- but he's still terrific. Am finally
finishing "Travels in Hyperreality"- next wil be "The Island of the
Day Before" which I stopped at page 297 and hope to recall the plot. I
also liked "The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana" though that's
probably the book Eco refers to as a pop-novel with poor reception and
sales.

I doubt the masses-that's us- have the energy of a system- they simply
get caught up in it and go along- at least on the surface as a measure
of safety- especially to protect children, property, income, etc. Few
students really challenge their teacher's point of view since grades
are important, for instance, and that carries over into one's work and
social life.

I find news bias to be irritating but I can turn off the source which
is a relief- this applies also to the extremes of the left or right.
The middle muddles through with repetitive bites and eye-candy types.
They even look alike! Hair cut as bobs- usually blonde- and the recent
rage for necklaces that look like dismantled chandeliers. Oh well...

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[rigsy03]

Falling in love is more fun than staying in love. I think one should
marry a friend...but why ruin a friendship? :-)

[malcymo]

Yes. Philosophers use there own language but at least the words are
purported to be that of my language.
Not Latin or such.

The trouble is, I have reached the age where I firget even the most
basic definitions because I started reading this stuff
when I was too old.

Stuff I learned at school is still there but recall is a bit slow.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[malcymo]

Certainly more fun but less fullfilling I am beginning to think.

[archytas]

I like the idea of rationality as a weak force Mal - so did Hume.

> ...
>
> read more »

[James Lynch]

I am curious whether this ties into the limitations of short term
memory and the process of building up sequences and patterns of
thought and how intuition guides the whole process. It seems to me
that through the process of internalizing knowledge we could bring
about the types of civilization we would "rationally" desire. Not an
easy task but it seems we have the parts it just needs a little
organization, and a bit of vision.

[rigsy03]

Free will was a nettle to the Papacy as it countered their reliance on
Original Sin as a basis for their doctrines and practices and it has
the same problems with other "isms".

On Mar 9, 11:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Will is a consequence of neural activity , one thought leads to another and
> so the chain goes on. Ultimately it is the brain , which is physical , that
> is responsible for all thoughts , consciousness and actions. Whether we
> like it or not, it is matter that is responsible for our psyche.

> > >> > > > legitimately together – the so called Such is the nature of a
> > myth.
>
> > >> > > > We can only suppose that such an idea must appear rational to us
> > in
> > >> > > > order to give it legitimacy. After all, our ideas of virtuous
> > >> > > > behaviour, responsibility and justice are founded on the idea of
> > free
> > >> > > > will; that we are responsible for our actions and must accept our
> > >> > > > responsibilities. Yet, there is no doubt that free will defies the
> > >> > > > tenets embodied in modern physics, the idea of cause and effect.
> > It
> > >> > > > seems to be extremely difficult for us to accept that some things
> > just
> > >> > > > are.
>
> > >> > > > I am interested in this dilemma because if we eventually
> > discover, if

> > >> > > > we have not already, that determinism is beyond dispute how
> > should we
> > >> > > > react? How could we possibly recreate our society to live with
> > such a
> > >> > > > ‘truth’?
>
> > >> > > --
> > >> > >  (
> > >> > >   )
> > >> > > |_D Allan
>
> > >> > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
>

> > >> > > > legitimately together – the so called Such is the nature of a
> > myth.
>
> > >> > > > We can only suppose that such an idea must appear rational to us
> > in
> > >> > > > order to give it legitimacy. After all, our ideas of virtuous
> > >> > > > behaviour, responsibility and justice are founded on the idea of
> > free
> > >> > > > will; that we are responsible for our actions and must accept our
> > >> > > > responsibilities. Yet, there is no doubt that free will defies the
> > >> > > > tenets embodied in modern physics, the idea of cause and effect.
> > It
> > >> > > > seems to be extremely difficult for us to accept that some things
> > just
> > >> > > > are.
>
> > >> > > > I am interested in this dilemma because if we eventually
> > discover, if

> > >> > > > we have not already, that determinism is beyond dispute how
> > should we
> > >> > > > react? How could we possibly recreate our society to live with
> > such a
> > >> > > > ‘truth’?
>
> > >> > > --
> > >> > >  (
> > >> > >   )
> > >> > > |_D Allan
>

> > >> > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -

[James Lynch]

Awash with nettles and kettles alike! Aye, -isms are second to -asms
as those who can "optimimize" do while those who can't are
"optimistic". :p Or perhaps mind over meta won't matter if we put the
carriage before the cargo. I agree on the -isms mostly Rigsy, whenever
I pick one up it's like the flu, perhaps a little druglike at first
then "blah", head feels like it's full of syrup. Unfortunately people
seem to stick with it like an STD!

[rigsy03]

To each their own.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[James Lynch]

My humor is epic (tragedy).

[gabbydott]

I remember how you were the first to offer helping out in the moderator's team when Chris got tired of doing it. You said it in such an unspectacular tone that is was bound to be overheard in bigmouth's blue-eye buddy & cousin world.

I've also questioned myself how we'd find out whether Orn is still alive and kicking. 

[rigsy03]

Maybe. But my description of alcohol was clumsy and incomplete and we
probably were young adults in different eras with different norms. In
the late '50's smoking and drinking were still sophisticated and
glamourous- we thought. Our rules were quite different from the '60's
and '70's.//Sometimes my "tragedies" are slap-stick comedy...The
Perils of Pauline. We simply must "carry on", as they say.

[James Lynch]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 8:41 AM, gabbydott <gabb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I remember how you were the first to offer helping out in the moderator's
> team when Chris got tired of doing it. You said it in such an unspectacular
> tone that is was bound to be overheard in bigmouth's blue-eye buddy & cousin
> world.

Perhaps my tone will change.

> I've also questioned myself how we'd find out whether Orn is still alive and
> kicking.

And I also, sometimes hoping to see a message pop up from him. Molly's
recent ones were a pleasant surprise.

[Allan H]

RP That is the opposite of what you are claiming to believe.  but that is not news

Allan

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:43 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:

I do what I want to do , but why do I so want ? I " want " because
there is biological activity within me , which maybe active from
within  or reactive to the environment.

[Lee Douglas]

Ohhh Molly there is always choice, and we are faced with countless everyday.  Perhaps though the biggest choice is simply " To be"  Or indeed to, not be.

 

 

On Monday, 9 January 2012 23:20:58 UTC, Molly wrote:

Perhaps, gabby.  But at this point in my life, for me, there is no
other choice.  So is it really a choice?

On Jan 9, 6:14 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh Molly, I believe you are more than the box you come in, too! I
> believe you choose to want to feel lovely at each moment, feeling
> alive!
>
> On Jan 9, 11:34 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > We know by recognizing his potentiality and helping him to do the
> > same.  Sometimes, given the box it comes in, this takes an
> > extraordinary amount of love and care.  At some point, choice, like
> > goals and purpose and all the rest, just fall away.  And here we are.
> > Relating to those we love.  Feeling the life we've been given.  Ten
> > years ago I would not have imagined myself as I am today.  I am here
> > because somewhere along the line I discovered that the best I can "do"
> > is express myself with love in each moment, and recognize the same in
> > others, whatever the circumstance.  Given that, life unfolds.
>
> > On Jan 9, 3:42 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Some of this take on epistemology can be gleaned by observing what's
> > > around us.  Teenagers are a minefield of such information.  My
> > > grandson (14) is currently making excuses for not having enough baths
> > > and showers along the lines of 'it's my body'.  Empirically he stinks.
> > > He's barely noticed how much work gets done around him.  He can't keep
> > > his PC free of viruses or use his laptop with enough care not to break
> > > the charger lead (etc.).  It has barely dawned on him that I was once
> > > his age and that he has never been my age.  He's a good enough lad and
> > > this is all that really matters to me.  He was like an Irishman put in
> > > a barrel and told to piss in the corner the other day (add Pole,
> > > Belgian etc. to xenophobic choice).  I gave him a power lead straight
> > > from the box and he spent the time trying to fit it to the socket with
> > > the insulation packaging left on.  I guess he won't next time, though
> > > I proved a slower learner on some such stuff.  It would be easy enough
> > > to leave him alone to "develop" into a useless, smelly nitwit.  The
> > > idea is we don't.  How do we know?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Vam]

" Life is a combination of free will & destiny. More you go deep in
meditation & align with laws of nature, your free will increases - Sri
Sri "

Just read this quote on Twitter.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Allan H]

Strange Vam ,  I have always seen  more choices, now I also see the effect of the choices ..  which leaves only basic first path. I do have absolute free will to leave that path any time I chose.. to date I have seen no one offer a better path.

[Vam]

You are blessed, Allan, I feel... in having a rather uncomplicated
view. Most people are yet to discover that !

Seriously... the complexities they speak of is more about themselves
than of what they speak of. But, peace, dear ones !

On May 18, 12:01 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Strange Vam ,  I have always seen  more choices, now I also see the effect
> of the choices ..  which leaves only basic first path. I do have absolute
> free will to leave that path any time I chose.. to date I have seen no one
> offer a better path.

> ...
>
> read more »

[malcymo]

Hello each,

I shall be within reach of modern technology again for the next 6
months when the jungle will call again.

Have read the new posts on this thread with interest and am sensing a
belief that because the brain makes our choices then they must be
free.
But to understand whether our choices are free or not do we not have
to establish from whence the brain derives the data on which it bases
its choices??? Is not our behavior largely based on evolutionary
successful actions which have proved successful in the past
(sometimes irrational and instinctive) and only slightly modified by
rational thought on which you all know my view.

It seems a worry to me that most evolutionary apt behaviours are now
not adapting quickly enough to be relevant in our present world.

Nice to be back and see the site active.

Malc

> ...
>
> read more »

[Lee Douglas]

Hey Malcymo,

 

The deterministic argument against freewill has just never done it for me.  It seems to me rather like faith based beliefe, and of course those of you here that know me would know that I have nothing against such belife and personaly find it prevalant all round us, heh escpeasily in those who profess to be without it!

 

The argument goes something like this.

 

You agree that nothing exists without a cause, then each of our choices must be predetermined upon a cause of which we have little or no knowledge of.

 

It's a huge leap of faith, I mean to declare determinism true without first pinning down all of these causes.  For if we can find just one counter example then the whole deal just blows away on the wind.

 

As to where the brain gets it's data, well all around, everything that we encounter colours our perceptions and our ideas about the world around us, about how we do, and how we ought to deal with each other, in other words the building of the 'The Self'.  'Common Sense' shows us that we can in some ways mold our Selves, in effect act consiously upon the brain to effect changes inthe brain.  This sure seems akin to freewill to me.

[rigsy03]

The brain may be free but the circumstances may not be open to action.
Many of life's frustrations arise from trying to control others,
circumstances, etc. Possibly this dilemma led to the concept of
determinism which was easier to "explain" than hubris.

[Lee Douglas]

Then we need to detirmine what is meant by free huh.

 

All things are subject to their natures and so it is true that all things are somewhat fettered, and hence not truely free.  Yet this makes a mockery of the word free, to such an extent that we may as well not use the word.  yet we do, and we contiune to do so.  Are we then mistaken calling any things free?  Is the bird not free to fly the skies?  Yes of course the bird is free to fly, but what, I hear you ask, about flying above the atmosphere of the planet?  The bird is certianly not free to do that; so can we say that the bird is not free to fly?

 

 

Of course not, that would be absured.  So free then must mean free within the constraints of it's enviroument or it's nature.

 

 

When a man reaches a desiscion, yes it is true that such a descions can only ever be made within the constraints of the mans nature or enviroment or indeed the many veriables effecting such choice, but the question must be, is it a choice freely made or somehow forced upon the man?

 

Yes indeed if we are to belive that our wills are not free then we must answer by what power are our choices forced upon us?

 

 

 

On Wednesday, 30 May 2012 10:09:12 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:

The will to change ourselves is innate and a part- function of the
brain , which being physical is bound by various factors.

[malcymo]

If the brain gets its data from experience then is it not the case
that its choices are made as a result of manipulating that data either
rationally or emotionally ( The way our ancestors survived)? Does
this not mean that are choices are limited by our experiences and
genes and hence in a sense predetermined?

Anyway I dont want to think about it too much just prefering to be and
do.

> ...
>
> read more »

[malcymo]

How about the force of nature which gives animals and plants far less
'freedom'. Why should our choices be less arbitrary?

On May 30, 11:13 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then we need to detirmine what is meant by free huh.
>
> All things are subject to their natures and so it is true that all things
> are somewhat fettered, and hence not truely free.  Yet this makes a mockery
> of the word free, to such an extent that we may as well not use the word.
> yet we do, and we contiune to do so.  Are we then mistaken calling any
> things free?  Is the bird not free to fly the skies?  Yes of course the
> bird is free to fly, but what, I hear you ask, about flying above the
> atmosphere of the planet?  The bird is certianly not free to do that; so
> can we say that the bird is not free to fly?
>
> Of course not, that would be absured.  So free then must mean free within
> the constraints of it's enviroument or it's nature.
>
> When a man reaches a desiscion, yes it is true that such a descions can
> only ever be made within the constraints of the mans nature or enviroment
> or indeed the many veriables effecting such choice, but the question must
> be, is it a choice freely made or somehow forced upon the man?
>
> Yes indeed if we are to belive that our wills are not free then we must
> answer by what power are our choices forced upon us?
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 30 May 2012 10:09:12 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:
> > The will to change ourselves is innate and a part- function of the
> > brain , which being physical is bound by various factors.
>

> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com>

> ...
>
> read more »

[malcymo]

I have difficulty imagining a mechanism where God binds our freedom
other than the simple constraints of our evolved mental and physical
limitations. Maybe I am not trying hard enough.

On May 31, 3:05 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lee , we may say we are free but our freedom is bound by God's will.

>
>
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Then we need to detirmine what is meant by free huh.
>
> > All things are subject to their natures and so it is true that all things
> > are somewhat fettered, and hence not truely free.  Yet this makes a mockery
> > of the word free, to such an extent that we may as well not use the word.
> > yet we do, and we contiune to do so.  Are we then mistaken calling any
> > things free?  Is the bird not free to fly the skies?  Yes of course the bird
> > is free to fly, but what, I hear you ask, about flying above the atmosphere
> > of the planet?  The bird is certianly not free to do that; so can we say
> > that the bird is not free to fly?
>
> > Of course not, that would be absured.  So free then must mean free within
> > the constraints of it's enviroument or it's nature.
>
> > When a man reaches a desiscion, yes it is true that such a descions can only
> > ever be made within the constraints of the mans nature or enviroment or
> > indeed the many veriables effecting such choice, but the question must be,
> > is it a choice freely made or somehow forced upon the man?
>
> > Yes indeed if we are to belive that our wills are not free then we must
> > answer by what power are our choices forced upon us?
>
> > On Wednesday, 30 May 2012 10:09:12 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:
>
> >> The will to change ourselves is innate and a part- function of the
> >> brain , which being physical is bound by various factors.
>

> >> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Lee Douglas]

Not at all unless you can show how?

 

It is true to say that the ant can only be what ever an ant can be, it cannot ever the bettle, nr the wasp.  But in it's life as ant it is free to be as antish as it will.  It can roam it's land and head towards any food stuffs it encounters, it  is not forced onto a track and may only raid the same kictech over and over again.  In short it enjoys some freedoms within it's enviroment.