Aye Ash... great to reconnect. Actually, my observation about excessive imagination pertained to Rigsy saying that we could trace back the power to free will to its roots AND, conclusively stated, find the tendril of determinism.
If Rigsy has traced it back... we'd like to know the specifics and how / where did she find the determinism at its root ! If she has not, which I presumed from the way she wrote, the determinism could only be a result of excessive imagination. The method I spoke of involves understanding of the complex phenomenon we are. It is not logical, cerebral or intellectual... but experiential. Hence, it is impossible to lay it out on a forum like this. Some of my thoughts on such an understanding is put out here : 1) @ http://bit.ly/n3sFYg and 2) @ http://bit.ly/nppWDV Those expecting to find God or its mention here will be frustrated. On Aug 8, 7:53 am, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/7/2011 9:09 PM, Vam wrote:> That's the kind of pitfall one can fall > into... through excessive > > imagination. > > > There is a method to trace it back to the source. > > But I do not know of anyone here who is familiar with that method. > > Yourself included? > > Happy to see you again Vam, I am vividly eager to gain new explanations > in this area, as all else has failed miserably to explain- and I have > been looking.. > > > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 9:16 pm, rigsy03<[email protected]> wrote: > >> One could trace the power back to its root and find the tendril of > >> determinism, imo. > > >> On Aug 7, 5:18 am, Vam<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Let's assume nothing... except " the power to make our choice within > >>> certain constraints." > >>> We could be making a wrong choice, a less preferred choice... > >>> but we have the power to make it... and are free to make, or not. > >>> On Aug 6, 8:35 pm, paradox<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Lets assume (in strategic logic) that all decisions are goal directed, > >>>> and purposive. When we make (or think we make) a decision, are we > >>>> fully minded of our strategic goals, and do we conduct a comprehensive > >>>> purposive review of our options and variables, to arrive at an optimal > >>>> outcome with the best probability of advancing our strategic goals? > >>>> One could argue that this is not free will in action, since the > >>>> strategic goal itself is subject to "organic" constraints; the other > >>>> would have to concede, but could argue that the "decision process" was > >>>> as freely made within overall system constraints as is possible to do. > >>>> On Aug 6, 3:00 pm, Vam<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> "... but is your decision freely made ?" > >>>>> What is meant by " freely " made ? > >>>>> Do you mean ' without being under the influence of gravity ' ? > >>>>> There will always be a dynamics in our background, and some in the > >>>>> foreground. So ? > >>>>> On Aug 6, 4:24 am, paradox<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> Do you really, Allan? Or do you really think you do? If you always > >>>>>> have a choice of 'A', 'B', or 'C', but you were always ever going to > >>>>>> choose 'C', you have free will, but is your decision freely made? > >>>>>> On Aug 5, 8:04 pm, Allan Heretic<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> You lays have free will no matter how you seeing it created. It is > >>>>>>> the consequences of those choices that can be a bitch, > >>>>>>> Allan > >>>>>>> On 4 aug. 2011, at 17:48, paradox<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> There are a number of approaches to this question, Jo; but > >>>>>>>> essentially > >>>>>>>> and in summary (and i do a great injustice to a very powerful > >>>>>>>> philosophical school), the deterministic tradition suggests that > >>>>>>>> since > >>>>>>>> we''re fundamentally bounded chemical systems immersed in a "sea" of > >>>>>>>> ever more elaborate chemical processes, regulated by immutable > >>>>>>>> (replicable and predictive) physical laws, and nothing else (which > >>>>>>>> takes you back to the mind/brain question), our actions are no more > >>>>>>>> than expressions of these chemical processes, constrained at an > >>>>>>>> aggregate level by universal physical laws. When we think we make > >>>>>>>> decisions based on choice, it is the mind "stroking" itself since, in > >>>>>>>> terms of "proximate" action, we know that our decisions are preceeded > >>>>>>>> in time by a neuro-electrcal "footprint" (interesting work by > >>>>>>>> Benjamin > >>>>>>>> Libet, presented in his book "Mind Time"); and in terms of more > >>>>>>>> deliberative action, we are pretty certain to make the same decisions > >>>>>>>> over and over again given the same set of variables, since our > >>>>>>>> cognition is hard wired, and its operations are governed by the self > >>>>>>>> same chemical processes and physical laws. Hence the question: do we > >>>>>>>> have free will? and if we do, how much free will do we have? > >>>>>>>> On Aug 2, 7:44 pm, Jo<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> I don't understand how some can say we don't have free will. You can > >>>>>>>>> choose to do anything you want at any given time. How is that not > >>>>>>>>> free > >>>>>>>>> will? > >>>>>>>>> On Aug 2, 12:51 pm, archytas<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> "We have access to a technology that would have looked like > >>>>>>>>>> sorcery in > >>>>>>>>>> Descartes's day: the ability to peer inside someone's head and read > >>>>>>>>>> their thoughts. Unfortunately, that doesn't take us any nearer to > >>>>>>>>>> knowing whether they are sentient. "Even if you measure brainwaves, > >>>>>>>>>> you can never know exactly what experience they represent," says > >>>>>>>>>> psychologist Bruce Hood at the University of Bristol, UK. If > >>>>>>>>>> anything, brain scanning has undermined Descartes's maxim. You, > >>>>>>>>>> too, > >>>>>>>>>> might be a zombie. "I happen to be one myself," says Stanford > >>>>>>>>>> University philosopher Paul Skokowski. "And so, even if you don't > >>>>>>>>>> realise it, are you." Skokowski's assertion is based on the belief, > >>>>>>>>>> particularly common among neuroscientists who study brain scans, > >>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>> we do not have free will. There is no ghost in the machine; our > >>>>>>>>>> actions are driven by brain states that lie entirely beyond our > >>>>>>>>>> control. "I think, therefore I am" might be an illusion. > >>>>>>>>>> So, it may well be that you live in a computer simulation in which > >>>>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>> are the only self-aware creature. I could well be a zombie and so > >>>>>>>>>> could you. Have an interesting day." (from a recent New Scientist) > >>>>>>>>>> We range over debates in free will and what it is to be human. So > >>>>>>>>>> far > >>>>>>>>>> we haven't established free will or even that we are not merely > >>>>>>>>>> avatars in 'something else's game'. > >>>>>>>>>> I wonder whether there are advantages in considering ourselves as > >>>>>>>>>> creatures limited by programming and also capable of it?- Hide > >>>>>>>>>> quoted text - > >>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > >>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > >>> - Show quoted text -
