Free Will 2 (Evolution)

by romansh , Thursday, July 05, 2012, 03:08 (4312 days ago) @ xeno6696

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.-Just going back to your river metaphor. A water molecule is affected by ("aware of") a nearby water molecule through hydrogen bonding. Yet that same water molecule is affected by the original 'observing' molecule. 
 
> 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.-While I think I understand this is an attractive proposition. I am not convinced that either state (conscious or unconscious) can be described as consciousness. My computer, plants in my garden sit and do nothing - is this consciousness?-The problem of compatibilism, it helps us to turn a blind eye to dependent origination (the Buddhist concept) and the concept of causa sui.
 
> 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.-We all have our masks Matt. Blackmore she too has her Buddhist Zen master, though I suspect he is more in a western tradition. Though this is probably OK. her zen master actually critiques her book. -> 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.]-To be honest, I would argue that you are not the sole beholder of zen and its meaning. As Buddha pundits point out, Buddha points to the way, but it has to be 'your' way. As far as I am concerned Blackmore is on a parallel path to you. And I am on mine.-> 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. -I was teasing you Matt - when I last asked are you certain, you implied you were agnostic. Perhaps your agnosticism is for specific subject matter. I do understand that we have assume things as true in our lives or at least go about things as though our truths have use.-> 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.-Can I suggest you read her book, Ten Zen Questions (if you have not already). It is short and an easy read. 
 
> 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)-Her analysis of free will is deterministic, I agree. But indeterminism also leads to a no self, and my will is not independent of indeterminism either.-I tend to anthropomorphize my 86 kg on water and bodily proteins, sugars, etc. Should I? if so why not other elements and compounds? (Just an aside).-> 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." -It is only a small fraction of our brain activity that we think we are aware of. The same way our brain activity is only in immediate energy exchange with a small fraction of the universe. -> 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.-
Essentially I agree, caution is warranted. And yet ultimately a path we must choose, even if it to stay on the current one.