On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 12:41:09 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 9/2/2013 8:50 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
>  
>
>  No matter how complex a system is, it can never be complex enough to 
> contain itself, and is therefore unable to perceive itself directly as a 
> deterministic process. Only in the special cases, where the major causes of 
> its action are made apparent, such as when someone holds a gun to its head, 
> will it realize that it is acting in compulsion and not freedom. In other 
> cases, when the desire to act comes about in a subtle fashion, the system 
> might say to itself, I did x because I wanted to do x, and I could have 
> wanted to do y. The system may be satisfied with such an explanation, 
> without probing into a complete physical description of what constitutes 
> wanting. Since the causal explanation is not easily available or 
> comprehensible (it arose out of the particular and peculiar interaction of 
> many subunits of the system in question), the system settles with the 
> explanation that it acted freely and could have done otherwise. This is how 
> an eight cylinder engine mistakes itself for something which is the 
> specific opposite of engines.
>
>
> Good explanation.  Craig has failed to absorb the dictum of Schopenhauer: 
> "Der Mensh Kann wohl tun, was er will, aber er kann nicht wollen, was er 
> will."
>

I used to argue that point all the time. My reasoning was that you are 
never free to want 'the bad thing' (even if to you the bad thing is what 
others might consider a good thing) - whatever your desire, it is already 
defined for you as desirable. That logic is sound as far as it goes, but it 
cannot help explain how the feeling of rubber stamping the effect of a 
desire to a public action makes sense in a deterministic universe. What is 
overlooked is the difference between sub-personal and impersonal 
influences. 

Just because we are not aware of the origins of our desires does not mean 
that we do not intentionally participate in generating them. Humans are 
complex on many levels, and simple on other levels. If we try to look at 
the simple levels through the lens of sub-personal complexity, we lose 
ourselves. Every cell of our body is the same stem cell. They are all us in 
microcosm. The feeling of the whole is present as the feeling of the parts 
to some extent, and it is absent to some extent. As with the Libet type 
experiments, we get into trouble when we assume that the ability to act 
freely is identical to the ability to know that ability, and to report it, 
and to know that we are reporting it, especially when the private 
experience is rooted in eternity and the action is rooted in public 
locality.

Thanks,
Craig


> Brent
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to