[Quoting Schroedinger:]
> Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory
> > conclusion from the following two premises:
> >
> > (i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws
> > of Nature [determinism].
ME: This is about the physical body.
> >
> > (ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I
> > am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that
> > may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take
> > full responsibility for them [free will].
ME: This is about the mind
> >
> > The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think,
> > that I--I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say,
> > every conscious mind that has ever said "I"--am the person, if
> > any, who controls the "motion of the atoms" according to the Laws
> > of Nature.
Me: Here is where he takes flight. It is a contrivance to claim to be
a conclusion from the two premises.
This conclusion has nothing to do with them, even inductively. It is
far from the "only possible inference".
You must be referring to material you have read from him outside this
quote? Is this from "What is Life?"
I read it years ago.
Your commentary was interesting. I don't have a well formed opinion
about relating the rules governing atoms and our thoughts. It just
seems like more proof by analogy than good science or good philosophy
to me. I can't say that I believe they are separate, because I don't
know enough about either side. But I can challenge that he knows that
they do. He is putting together ideas that may not go together.
This is Wilber's point right?
I read your post many times and wrote quite a few responses before
coming up with this lame contribution! I enjoyed it though.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> >
> [Quoting Schroedinger:]
> > Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory
> > > conclusion from the following two premises:
> > >
> > > (i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws
> > > of Nature [determinism].
> > >
> > > (ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I
> > > am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that
> > > may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take
> > > full responsibility for them [free will].
> > >
> > > The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think,
> > > that I--I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say,
> > > every conscious mind that has ever said "I"--am the person, if
> > > any, who controls the "motion of the atoms" according to the Laws
> > > of Nature.
> >
> >
> > I think I can put my finger on where I disagree with him. it is
> > where he speaks on behalf of "every conscious mind that has ever
> > said 'I'" and then jumps to controlling the motion of atoms. He
> > should have said, "controls the motions of our own bodies". The
> > jump he is making is poetic but wrong. Just because we control our
> > own bodies does not give us the right to claim controlling atoms.
> > The atomic level is working on its own without the participation of
> > the consciousness that emerges from the functioning of our brains
> > which is driven by laws of nature at a completely different level.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
>
> I'm not sure. Let me take it point by point:
>
> First of all, he's saying that you, Curtis, are not
> controlling your own body, as far as science is
> concerned. Rather, it's the gunas, in TM-speak,
> that are doing it. That you, Curtis, think *you*
> are doing it is an illusion. "You" are, however,
> controlling the gunas from the transcendental
> perspective ("Be without the three gunas...")--not
> you the localized body and mind of Curtis, but You
> the universal, unbounded, nonlocal Self of everyone.
>
> Second, he's not saying we (our small selves)
> have the sense of controlling only our bodies but
> of controlling our minds as well; but the "statistico-
> deterministic" laws as observed by science say
> that's also an illusion.
>
> But I'm not sure either of these affect your
> point.
>
> What you're saying, if I understand you, is that
> the control of our thoughts is an emergent property
> that doesn't follow the same laws as those that
> control "atoms" (actually the elementary particles
> that compose the atoms).
>
> This claim, however, is just about as grand, and
> as unsupported by science, as his. I don't think
> your problem with what he says is that he's making
> too big a leap; I think it's that you disagree with
> the premise he's assuming as the very basis for his
> argument. He's saying the control of thought *does*
> follow the same laws as those that "control the atoms."
> You're saying control of thought is independent of
> the laws that "control the atoms."
>
> That's a perfectly respectable philosophical
> position, but it's also essentially a "mystical"
> one in that science cannot observe or test it, any
> more than it can observe or test his.
>
> At least, if I'm understanding you correctly...
>
> > Here is what I consider better poetry in this genre.
> >
> > Kabir through Bly through my memory:
> >
> > Inside this clay jug there are canyons and pine mountains,
> > and the maker of canyons and pine mountains.
> > All seven oceans are inside, and hundreds of millions of stars.
> > The acid that tests gold is there, and the one who judges jewels.,
> > And the music from the strings no one touches,
> > and the source of all water.
> > If you want the truth I will tell you the truth,
> > friend listen:
> > The God whom I love is inside.
> >
> > I think if we are going to make stuff up about reality this is the
> > bar to clear!
>
> It sure is magnificent poetry! It would be a very
> high bar to clear in *any* context.
>
> (But if I had my druthers, I'd like to have *both*
> Kabir and Schroedinger...)
>
> Good stuff, Curtis. Intellectualizing Can Be Fun!
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
