Free Will 2 (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, July 02, 2012, 23:02 (4309 days ago) @ romansh

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.
> -This is trivially true. -At the same time, equally trivially true, is that by definition you cannot be both observer and the object being observed. (Yes, if we say there's two people in the room.) -Even if you look into a mirror, you're not observing *you* technically speaking you're observing light reflecting off of you, and bouncing back. The light just happens to give you information about yourself. -
> > 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. 
> -James? Compatibilism is tricky, I admit. Still, I think because of its internal "evasions" and possible contradictions it serves a better model for reality than any of the normal -isms we get when discussing free will. -
> 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.
> -Maybe I'm guilty of wearing masks: My words were precisely to point out that she's not looking at it from a Buddhist perspective. Strictly speaking, neither am I, I have to state: When I talk of cognitive separation and the like, I'm trying to use language against something that language doesn't really describe. It's totally "un-Buddhist." [But if she uses words like "zen" than at a minimum she should at least consider what the "zen" perspective actually IS.]-As for why I seem so certain, that should be obvious. Our lives are a sum of our experiences. I don't have access to Blackmore's *actual* experience, and it really wouldn't be fair for me to comment that hers are purely wrong--yet as you pointed out, mine are different. -Compared to what I've received under instruction, Blackmore is too far to one side. There are parts of will that are deterministic, and parts of will that are choice. -Let me be clear: Buddhism lacks a single, coherent analysis of free will. You might say it deflects free will in exercises in analysis: Think more of Derrida 
and Nietzsche than say, Plato or Chomsky. It'll tell you what it isn't. And what it isn't, is wholly deterministic (Blackmore) or wholly illusory. (Schopenhauer)-> > 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.
> -Focus is an interesting description for that. I suppose that's apt however... rejecting most of reality seems to be a primary role of the brain. You could extend that to "looking at only one part." -At the same time, we're fooled that we see things "as they are." We couldn't really handle, "as they are." The view that I've always taken, is that our brain deliberately limits us. It reminds me that there ARE things that I cannot perceive at all. Focus implies I see things more clearly. Much of the time, this is false.-> My two cents worth -Multiply that by 100, from what I got out of it.-[EDITED]

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"