--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> 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.
And I'm feeling a little thick because I'm not seeing what you find objectionable! 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 that's your speculation, not scientific fact. 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? It's experiencing the *free will* of the "group 'I'" and interpreting it as its own free will. > I think our "free will" is actually constrained by habits, past > experiences, and lots of other psychological factors. Sure it is, but as you go on to say, to some extent, at least, it appears to us that we can overcome those constraints. So the fact that there are some constraints doesn't go counter to his thesis. 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. The contradiction is that according to science, your constraints, your sense of exercising an act of will to overcome them, and your enjoyment of all that are all *determined*, because the behavior of the elementary particles that make your mind, as well as your body, function operates via mathematically predictable statistical probabilities; there are no "surprises." Theoretically, if we could compute the billions of bits of behavior of those gazillions of elementary particles, we could predict precisely the chances of your choosing to exercise versus choosing to watch football on TV. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of clinical evidence, as it happens, for free will, whereas there's quite a bit *against* it. I was just reading an article in the Times today about how more and more personality traits are being traced to genetics, for example. And Lawson mentioned the famous (infamous?) studies that appear to show that if you're asked to raise your arm, say, the motor neurons that govern the movement of the arm muscles are activated *before* the area of the brain in which decisions to act are made. (I think I have that straight; Lawson will correct me if I don't, I'm sure!) I was thinking of a third example earlier, darn it, but I can't bring it to mind now. Anyway, the contradiction, again, is our sense of free will versus what science says about the statistico-deterministic behavior of the elementary particles of which we are composed and which animate us. In this sense, determinism is the science, and free will is the speculation, the "then magic happens." The idea of individual free will is "magical thinking." There's no way to prove it exists. That's about the best I can do, Curtis! I don't have the Schroedinger essay to hand, but when I get back I'll have another look and see if anything in the rest of it sheds any light--if you're not sick to death of the whole discussion, for which I wouldn't blame you in the slightest. <snip> > > 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. I *think* I remember that he had been exploring Vedanta, so it's probably along similar lines to MMY's "Impersonal God." "The 'I' That Is God" sounds to me suspiciously like "Atman is Brahman." > High five for being thought provoking! Yeah! I've posted the Schroedinger quote several times on alt.m.t, and here as well, at least once before, and nobody's ever seriously bitten on it, so I appreciate your challenge to it; that requires me to think about it more deeply. Although I wish I were able to see the same disconnect you do; so far I have the feeling I haven't been able to address it properly. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/mDk17A/lOaOAA/i1hLAA/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/
