That's a great quote by James, Vam- thanks. I think- from personal experience- old reactions/prejudices are very hard to erase- and reaction is the word that is key. Often I will react and then have to mull my thoughts until I am sometimes opposite of where I began.It's like there is an inner spring that traps an event or statement and says "See?" to the mind. There is mental and emotional discomfort until I grapple and wrestle with alternative thoughts and new information to look at a situation/statement rationally and with empathy. My mother was prejudiced, I am less so and my daughter, hardly at all- so there's Hope! :-)
On Aug 12, 5:17 pm, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely re- > arranging their prejudices. ~ William James > > A category, I believe, that is bound to conclude that people are not > free even in their thoughts ! > > On Aug 12, 9:46 pm, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Sorry for that. It must be foggy. My apologies. > > > On Aug 12, 2:26 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I haven't got the foggiest idea what you're going on about here, > > > Vam :) > > > > And who on earth is this "someone in history" that you keep referring > > > to?? > > > > On Aug 9, 9:58 am, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I won't say I was aghast... but I would still suggest we continue to > > > > use our cerebral matter. > > > > > The point is (1) : We ( or someone in history you know of ) sometime > > > > choose PAIN for the body, for pleasure of the mind... > > > > > The point is (2) : We ( or someone in history you know of ) sometime > > > > choose PAIN for the body and PAIN for the mind, for values established > > > > in the intellect... > > > > > The point is (3) : We ( or someone in history you know of ) sometime > > > > choose PAIN for the body, PAIN for the mind and PAIN (= sense of > > > > loss ) for the intellect... for call of freedom in spirit. > > > > > We have the power to choose PAIN ! Even hunger, death... > > > > > Spent people, people who've never won over their self... speak of > > > > determinism as a truth. > > > > > Fate is fact of the moment... that can add up to a smothered or lulled > > > > life. Not the truth, which starts with us... and could be infinite ! > > > > > On Aug 9, 1:33 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > This is not that great a mystery, Vam; why does anyone do anything > > > > > other than basic life regulation? They are either induced or > > > > > compelled. And what lies at the root of inducement or compulsion? > > > > > Pleasure or pain, however cerebral and sophisticated we are at > > > > > articulating it. So, "every which way is biology", the determinist > > > > > might say. > > > > > > On Aug 8, 12:02 pm, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
