--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> [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

I'm not sure he's making the distinction
the same way you are.  (Remember this is a
translation from the German, so it's possible
there are nuances that got lost.)  As I read
him, he's including the functioning of the
brain in "body"--synapses, chemicals,
electrical currents, etc.

> > > 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.

Again, he does call it an "inference" rather than
a "conclusion."

> This conclusion has nothing to do with them, even inductively.

I'm honestly still not sure why you say that.
I can see why you might *disagree* with it, but
not why you can't see how he gets to that 
inference from that contradiction.  It *does*
resolve the contradiction if you accept as a
possibility the premise that each human consciousness
is an individualization of a single Universal

   It is
> far from the "only possible inference".
> You must be referring to material you have read from him outside
> this quote?

Nope.  It's from the essay (this'll turn you off
real good!) "The 'I' That Is God."

  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. 

Likewise.  A thought-provoking discussion.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to