--- 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].
> > 
> >  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.

ME: I definitely agree with you here. All that stuff is on the body side.
> > > > 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."

Me: OK , he warned me.

> > 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
> Consciousness.

Me: I feel a little thick but I don't see it.  He might as well say,
"then magic happens".  I don't even understand why he thinks the two
separate parts of our existence are contradictory.  They are just on
different levels and don't need to be resolved. But if they did, I
don't see how imagining a universal consciousness helps. Unless he
just believes that to be so and the whole set up was just a ruse for
him to pull this rabbit out of his hat. Perhaps you can help me
understand how this resolves the differences better.   In what way? 
Isn't he just claiming that the mind is not really experiencing free
will but the determinism of the group "I"?  Is that how you see it?

I think our "free will" is actually constrained by habits, past
experiences, and lots of other psychological factors.  Acting freely
in a new direction from my past takes a lot of effort and  force of
will.  My greatest happiness comes from fighting those deterministic
tendencies and doing something new.  It is something I practice.

The fact that my body is determined by laws of nature makes perfect
sense.  I don't want to think about breathing or digesting, and I
accept that it has rule I must follow to survive. I have learned that
I have to impose my will over my body with exercise because inertia is
easy to fall into physically.  It is often an act of will to start to
exercise, even though I enjoy it while I am doing it and afterwards. 
What's with that?  But I have learned that it wont happen if I don't
will it to happen.  This ramble is just me trying to think about where
the contradiction is that needs resolving.  I am not there yet.

>    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."

Me:  I would be open to reading it.  I have learned not to assume that
I know what a person means when they use the word "God".  Sometimes it
just means life using more poetic language and that is fine with me. 
he probably has an interesting version of this concept.

High five for being thought provoking!

>   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