I like this, one pattern preferring another pattern. That is pure determinism speak. This whole compatibilism notion seems like trying to ascribe the hierarchical premise of "Betterness" to this age old argument except it is in black or white. How can some things be determined and others not? The same question applies to Free Will. Where does one draw this stark line? If there is a mixture then how does one separate one from the other? If we say that our thoughts have some freedom or Will, where does that suddenly appear from? If we use the Neurochemical analogy of nerve impulses creating thought, then does each nerve have free will. Or does the extreme redundancy and deliberative nature of the human brain suddenly create free will out of nothing? So, where does it start?
>From a million miles away and in geological time, human behavior could be seen >as highly determined. This would be the same way we see the behavior of water >flowing in a river, or the seemingly determined way that we see the cells of a >tree interact to create a tree. An ant would simply see us as part of a >determined Environment, it does not think we have the free will not to step on >it, anymore than we thick a tornado purposely chooses to destroy houses. In my opinion, it has to be black or white. I stick with the MoQ premise that everything has free will, from the mountain to the grain of sand. I do not think that we were determined to believe in free will, unless their is some evil creator that is toying with us. Trust your instincts. Following DQ means not being attached to sq. This is the basis of Buddhism especially Zen. You can't read a book on how to do this since it is so difficult when contemplated in advance yet so easy when you do it! We don't pay any attention to 99% of what is happening to us (by creating static quality) on a moment to moment basis, that is following DQ. Now, there is that other 1%... And I am not talking about "not thinking", far from it. Cheers, Mark On Sep 27, 2011, at 5:46 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Steve, > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:37 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ron: >> Example: >> >> Steve said to DmB >> >> "Compatiblism says that free will and determinism are both true. It says >> that the serpent of causation is thus over everything. "... >> >> How can hey both be true if causation runs over everything? I think you need >> to explain yourself on >> how you envision freedom and free will if it is as true as determinism. >> >> This would help out. > > Steve: > Various compatibilists have various ways of looking at free will and > determinism as compatible notions. If we are talking a pragmatic > perspective on free will/determinism (as I am) then both can coexist > peacefully as intellectual patterns rather than claims about Ultimate > Reality as opposed to mere illusion. Pragmatically they are both > intellectual descriptions of experience about which we need not ask > which is the one True description of The Way Things Really Are beyond > all appearances. > > Ron: > The impression given by the phrase "the serpent of causation is thus over > everything. "... > is that it promotes a kind of true description of how things are beyond the > appearence of > "freewill." I think in order to claim a victory in this thread you need to > expand apon this. > Touting DmB's head down MD main street ala Bodvar-esque style is'nt going to > win it. But in order to grasp what the debate is composed of I must allow you > to > finish your appeal. > > Steve continues... > If you are asking whether free will or determinism is REALLY > true--which is the the REAL painting, which one is the one correct > construction of things corresponding to objective reality, then you > aren't asking a question about which the MOQ is about to take sides > > Connsider looking at it is in terms of Big Self/small self as I > described a Pirsigian reformulation of the free will/determinism issue > back on April 26. I still stand by this compatiblist view of the MOQ's > position on the matter... > > "The MOQ does not posit the existence of the reified concept of a > chooser, a Cartesian self, a watcher that stands behind the senses and > all valuation, the soul. The MOQ does not posit an extra-added > ingredient above and beyond the patterns of value and the possibility > for patterns to change that are collectively referred to as "I" about > which it could possibly make any sense to ask, "do I have free will?" > This question gets dissolved in the MOQ to the extent that it needs to > be unasked. This question presupposes that there is such a thing as > "I" that has important ontological status that transcends those > patterns of value to which it refers. The MOQ makes no such > fundamental postulate. Free will is formulated as a question that is > asked in the SO context. Instead, in MOQ terns we can reformulate the > question where "I" could refer to the static patterns (small self in > Zen terms) or the "I" could refer to the capacity for change, > emptiness, the nothingness that is left when we subtract all the > static patterns that is also the generator and sustainer and destroyer > of those patterns (big Self in Zen terms). That's what Pirsig did with > the question. We can identify with our current patterns of preferences > and the extent to which we do so we are not free. We are a slave to > our preferences. Rather we ARE our preferences. Or we can identify > with the capacity to generate, sustain, or destroy existing patterns > in favor of (we hope) new and better ones. To the extent we do we are > free." > > Ron: > I think what is neglected and the cause of the dispute is explanation of "why" > in this formulation of identifying with "the big self" or "following DQ". > I think ultimately, the arguement, with me atleast, lies in how you mean > favoring or preffering "better" patterns or the capacity to do so. I think > you need > to unpack what you mean by that. One of your arguements was that since > we ARE our prefferences it makes no sense to talk about the capacity of > preffering "better-ness" or better "patterns" or did I get you wrong. > Steve continues: > I am determined to the extent we are controlled by static patterns. To > what extent is that? Well, if "I" refers to small self, a collection > of static patterns of all four levels, then 100%. > I am free to the extent that I follow DQ. To what extent is that? > Well, if "I" refers to Big Self, 100%! > > Ron: > OK, lets frame it like that, the "I" refers to the Big Self. To what extent > do we > have the capacity to preffer better-ness if we ARE our prefferences? > > > thnks Steve > > .. > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
