Evolution, Science & Religion (Evolution)

by romansh , Sunday, July 01, 2012, 19:46 (4316 days ago) @ xeno6696
edited by unknown, Sunday, July 01, 2012, 19:54

My will is dependent on its environment ...
>>...
>It is, and it isn't.
Which bit is not? Which bit is independent of my education, the food it has eaten, chemistry, physics. Simply saying it is a koan does not quite cut it for me. Unless we assume a compatibilist's view then I just don't see it.->...lets not forget that an observer by necessity is separate from its object.-Hmmn? What exactly do you mean by "separate"? I would argue the the observed and observer are connected by an energy exchange. Without an exchange of energy there is no observation.-> It's Dennett's version of free will: You don't choose what bubbles up from below, but something allows you to say yes or no. And that something can choose for example, to simply sit, do nothing, and observe. THAT is the conscious agent.-Dennett I really like. He is a compatibilist. James much earlier had described compatibilism as a "quagmire of evasion". I think there is a grain of truth in this observation. -Here's a great lecture from Dennett on free will. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E
I have a great deal of sympathy for the gentleman who asked the last question. For me Dennett does not answer the gentleman's question.-> Blakemore's quintessential flaw however is that the Buddhist idea of "observing the mind" *REQUIRES* one to be able to in some way, cognitively separate the observer from the experience. She's tied (by logic) to the thought that even the act of observation must be from the unconscious will, but this isn't so:-Blackmore does not claim to be a Buddhist. I suspect she is as every bit as dilligent in her meditation as you are Matt. So my question to you is: how come your interpretation of her meditations is so different and how come you seem so certain in your own meditative perception? It is completely at odds with hers.-> For an observer to exist in the first place, it is necessary to be able to remove yourself from the raging river of consciousness. -To continue with your metaphor. The river is the universe. We can't remove ourselves from the river, all we can do is find some calmer shallows. That we think ourconsciousness is a product of the brain is grandest illusion of free will. the brain is simply a drop of river water that focuses the universe's inputs.-My two cents worth