[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote: To Be Free will only cost you every concept and belief you hold to be true. Will. It will happen just wait. Last summer I reflected back on how perfectly engineered my life appeared to be such that I was still alive and healthy today. But, a day or two later, it occurred to me that I was making a judgment call: who's to say my life wouldn't have been just as perfect if I'd died 20 years ago? In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up perfectly: Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way they happened. That just kills me. Sounds like a deadly case of TTS... Tautological Toxicity Syndrome. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To Be Free will only cost you every concept and belief you hold to be true. Will. It will happen just wait. Last summer I reflected back on how perfectly engineered my life appeared to be such that I was still alive and healthy today. But, a day or two later, it occurred to me that I was making a judgment call: who's to say my life wouldn't have been just as perfect if I'd died 20 years ago? In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up perfectly: Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way they happened. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up perfectly: Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way they happened. Though meaningful perhaps via some other understandings or knowledge, by itself, the quote is hard to distinguish from a tautology. Tautology has at least three distinct meanings: * Tautology (logic), a statement true by virtue of its logical form. * Tautology (rhetoric), undesirable use of redundant language that adds no information. * Truism, an assertion that is so obvious as to add nothing to a discussion. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lik1AB/fOaOAA/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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
On Jun 20, 2006, at 12:57 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up perfectly: Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way they happened. Though "meaningful" perhaps via some other understandings or knowledge, by itself, the quote is hard to distinguish from a tautology. Tautology has at least three distinct meanings: * Tautology (logic), a statement true by virtue of its logical form. * Tautology (rhetoric), undesirable use of redundant language that adds no information. * Truism, an assertion that is so obvious as to add nothing to a discussion. Unfortunately your last post was not meant to happen. Sorry.;-) __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Buddha shakyamuni Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up perfectly: Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way they happened. Though meaningful perhaps via some other understandings or knowledge, by itself, the quote is hard to distinguish from a tautology. And then there's always this old chestnut: Q: Maharishi, if everything is perfect just as it is, why are we working so hard to change things? A: That too is perfect just as it is. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hik1AB/bOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 20, 2006, at 12:57 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up perfectly: Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way they happened. Though meaningful perhaps via some other understandings or knowledge, by itself, the quote is hard to distinguish from a tautology. Tautology has at least three distinct meanings: * Tautology (logic), a statement true by virtue of its logical form. * Tautology (rhetoric), undesirable use of redundant language that adds no information. * Truism, an assertion that is so obvious as to add nothing to a discussion. Unfortunately your last post was not meant to happen. Sorry. ;-) While I find your comment funny, it brings up a deeper point in the free will discssion. Meant to happen, meant to be implies or are at least parallel to assumptions revolving around: A) a Grand or Divine Plan B) a singular determined, fixed, static end-state for the universe -- that is, the last frame of the film has already been writtne, casted and filmed. C) a quite anthropormorphic view of God or Nature as an intesely micro-managing bureaucrat, manageing against a firm, irrevocable, unchangeable '10 Billion Year Plan' D) a singualar correct action in any circumstance. In contrast, MMY has described, echoing many others, the nature of life, the nature of the universe, the characteristics of Nature, the hard-wired rules of the universe, are: 1) to change towards more complex states (evolve) 2) to seek greater happiness A-D are not at all necessary for 1-2. 1-2 imply everything is self-optimizing to seek greater happiness as it defines it, and as it understands how to get there. Seeking happiness is a self-correcting (adaptive and learning) heuristic of everything in life -- from bugs to humans to whatever. Consequently: To say some specific thing should or was supposed to happen in this context is ludicrious. Things happen, as everything tests the limits and boundaries of their existence to gain greater happiness. And everything learns in the process. To say some specific thing was against the laws of nature in this context is ludicrious. Things happen, as everything tests the limits and boundaries of their existence to gain greater happiness. There are limits on understanding i) what yields greater happiness in the short vs long run, and ii) how to achieve such. But these are limitations, progressively overcome with adaptive learning at every step. To say some specific thing should have happened because it happened or more boldly something is perfect because 'it happened' is a bit of a tautology, but consistent with the breader view that 'everything is good' because things happen, as everything tests the limits and boundaries of their existence to gain greater happiness. Any limitations are progressively overcome with adaptive learning at every step. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hik1AB/bOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up perfectly: Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way they happened. Though meaningful perhaps via some other understandings or knowledge, by itself, the quote is hard to distinguish from a tautology. And then there's always this old chestnut: Q: Maharishi, if everything is perfect just as it is, why are we working so hard to change things? A: That too is perfect just as it is. While that too is a tautology as it stands, in a broader context it is a valuable insight and knowledge. And if truely understood, explains why absolute no-free will due to all decisions being based on past causes is no excuse for dropping responsibility for actions. Per responsibility, we all deeply learning behaviors of learning, adaptation and optimizating values (projected outcomes) of any action to derive maximum happiness. And part of learning behaviors include learning that actions have consequences that can either increase or decrease happiness. Taking responsibility is not so much the issue. Responsibility takes us. The result of actions find us. We learn from such. Do more if action yields greater happiness, do less if action yields less happiness. (Do nothing if non-action produces greatest happpiness.) And the same reasons, per above, explain why MMY's quote, if truly understood, clarifies why absolute no-free will due to all decisions being based on past causes does not cause lethargic, do nothing nililism. The latter may be a happiness strategy being tested by some, but over time it is learned that it is not as effective as other strategies, and one moves one. Who would ever say Bangalore today is a lethargic backwater due to Indian cultural beliefs that nothing can or should be done -- one should sit and totally take it as it come, all outcomes are all singularly and absolutely already mapped out. Related points in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/102232?l=1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/102235?l=1 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/jDk17A/gOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote: To Be Free will only cost you every concept and belief you hold to be true. Will. It will happen just wait. Last summer I reflected back on how perfectly engineered my life appeared to be such that I was still alive and healthy today. But, a day or two later, it occurred to me that I was making a judgment call: who's to say my life wouldn't have been just as perfect if I'd died 20 years ago? In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up perfectly: Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way they happened. That just kills me. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hik1AB/bOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up perfectly: Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way they happened. Though meaningful perhaps via some other understandings or knowledge, by itself, the quote is hard to distinguish from a tautology. Tautology has at least three distinct meanings: * Tautology (logic), a statement true by virtue of its logical form. * Tautology (rhetoric), undesirable use of redundant language that adds no information. * Truism, an assertion that is so obvious as to add nothing to a discussion. MMY: When you are in Unity Consciousness, you see that everything happens exactly as it should. Chopra: But Maharishi, if that is the case, why are we working so hard to create Heaven on Earth? MMY: That's exactly as it should be also, and its a lot of fun! Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/jDk17A/gOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
--Thanks, I'll get back to you in about 2 hrs to copy more of the article. The idea that scientific inquiry could have a bearing on free will is a new twist to me, since I thought it was solely a philosophical question. OTOH, Einstein and others were fascinated by the question raised by Bishop Berkeley: is a tree there if nobody's looking at it? Of course, Einstein thought the whole idea was abusurd; (the importance of an observer was emphasized a great deal by his opponent, Neils Bohr; so Einstein brought up a new twist: is the MOON there if nobody was looking at it?) Einstein thought it unnecessary to have an observer in the category of a human, for a number of reasons. An alternative viewpoint, voiced by a recent contributor, is that the universe Itself is the Observer; and this proposal eliminates the need to have humans in a special favored place in the universe (as opposed, to say...chimps, who also can observe;, but if chimps, then why not other creatures like cockroaches?). I'm also planning on presenting some summaries of other recent articles, from New Scientist and Scientific American; that tend to support a basis for a New, New, Physics as opposed to the New Physics propounded by MMY and a few other people during the 70's. (specifically, such persons equated Being with some QM entity). This attempt at equating the Unmanifest with something within the realm of science, bombed; as we know; and such persons could have saved themselves the trouble of promoting that false identity if they had only paid more attention to the writings of the original quantum pioneers such as Schroedinager, Bohr, Heisenberg, and DeBroglie. The original pioneers already were aware of the possibility of equating some QM entity (a field?) to the Unmanifest, but the notion was rejected on the grounds that any such QM entity discovered so far is strictly a relative phenomenon. OTOH, some QM principles may point to the Unmanifest in some analogous way; but one must be careful about proclaiming an actual identity when none is there. There's always the danger that noble intentions can cross the boundary into Ignoble science, as Dr. Hagelin found out.(1994). [EMAIL PROTECTED], authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor matrixmonitor@ wrote: snip I left the article at home and forgot my password, so I can only copy what's in the Newscientist website: the first paragraph. I sure would love it if you could copy in more when you have access to the article again--at least if it's not too technical. Many thanks for the summary. Somehow I doubt dueling mathematical formulas are going to lead to a definitive resolution of the issue, but the arguments ought to be fun! Definitive scientific proof of determinism would most likely be disastrous for the psyche of the human race, absent some larger concept along the lines of that advanced by Schroedinger to validate the *sense* of free will in the Atman = Brahman type of context. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I'm also planning on presenting some summaries of other recent articles, from New Scientist and Scientific American; that tend to support a basis for a New, New, Physics as opposed to the New Physics propounded by MMY and a few other people during the 70's. (specifically, such persons equated Being with some QM entity). This attempt at equating the Unmanifest with something within the realm of science, bombed; as we know; and such persons could have saved themselves the trouble of promoting that false identity if they had only paid more attention to the writings of the original quantum pioneers such as Schroedinager, Bohr, Heisenberg, and DeBroglie. The original pioneers already were aware of the possibility of equating some QM entity (a field?) to the Unmanifest, but the notion was rejected on the grounds that any such QM entity discovered so far is strictly a relative phenomenon. OTOH, some QM principles may point to the Unmanifest in some analogous way; but one must be careful about proclaiming an actual identity when none is there. There's always the danger that noble intentions can cross the boundary into Ignoble science, as Dr. Hagelin found out.(1994). Dr. Hagelin's Ig Noble award came for his Maharishi Effect research, and was awarded BEFORE the research was published, BTW, so it was based on media accounts and not the actual published study (whether this would make a difference to skeptics or not is immaterial --the research wasn't published at that point and shouldn't have been eligible in the first place). And its not a field that is considered the Unmanifest but The Unified Field. You've read Hagelin's paper Is Consciousness the Unified Field? and can refute it, I take it? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lik1AB/fOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
To Be Free will only cost you every concept and belief you hold to be true. Will. It will happen just wait. Tom T Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hik1AB/bOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
--(below, can I refute the MMY/Hagelin/Chopra Unified Field theory?). I don't have to refute what's self-evident baloney!. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor matrixmonitor@ wrote: [...] I'm also planning on presenting some summaries of other recent articles, from New Scientist and Scientific American; that tend to support a basis for a New, New, Physics as opposed to the New Physics propounded by MMY and a few other people during the 70's. (specifically, such persons equated Being with some QM entity). This attempt at equating the Unmanifest with something within the realm of science, bombed; as we know; and such persons could have saved themselves the trouble of promoting that false identity if they had only paid more attention to the writings of the original quantum pioneers such as Schroedinager, Bohr, Heisenberg, and DeBroglie. The original pioneers already were aware of the possibility of equating some QM entity (a field?) to the Unmanifest, but the notion was rejected on the grounds that any such QM entity discovered so far is strictly a relative phenomenon. OTOH, some QM principles may point to the Unmanifest in some analogous way; but one must be careful about proclaiming an actual identity when none is there. There's always the danger that noble intentions can cross the boundary into Ignoble science, as Dr. Hagelin found out.(1994). Dr. Hagelin's Ig Noble award came for his Maharishi Effect research, and was awarded BEFORE the research was published, BTW, so it was based on media accounts and not the actual published study (whether this would make a difference to skeptics or not is immaterial --the research wasn't published at that point and shouldn't have been eligible in the first place). And its not a field that is considered the Unmanifest but The Unified Field. You've read Hagelin's paper Is Consciousness the Unified Field? and can refute it, I take it? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/iDk17A/hOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it - rest of article, quotes and summaries.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Kochen and Conway stress that their theorem doesn't disprove 't Hooft's theory. It simply states that if his theory is true, our actions cannot be free. And they admit that there's no way for us to tell. Our lives could be like the second showing of a movie -- all actions play out as theough they are free, but that freedom is an illusion, says Kochen. Since the mathematicians believe that we have free will, it follows for them that 't Hooft's theory must be wrong. We have to believe in free will to do anything, says Conway. I believe I am free to drink this cup of coffee, or throw it across the room. I believe I am free in choosing to have this conversation. Halvorson [Hans Halvorson, philosopher of physics at Princeton] says the debate really boils down to a matter of personal taste. Kochen and Conway can't tolerate the idea that our future may already be settled,, he says, but people like 't Hooft and Einstein find the notion that the univere can't be completely described by physics just as disturbing.. For philosophers, both arguments can be troubling. Quantum randomness as the basis fo free will doesn't really give us control over our actions, says Tim Maudlin, a philosopher of physics at Rutgers. We're either deterministic machines, or we're random machines. That's not much of a choice. It's almost scary how closely this follows the discussion Curtis and I were having about free will based on the Schroedinger quote. This is exactly the problem Schroedeinger was addressing: our powerful sense of free will, versus the science that says it's just an illusion. The one point we didn't get into was the randomness factor. And I think it's *remarkable* how closely it tracks with the Upanishadic and Gita view of the realization of higher consciousness that MMY teaches, that one is not the author of one's actions, it's all the interplay of the gunas. The only thing missing from the scientists' and mathematicians' ideas is the concept of the Self, that one can be without the gunas. If they were introduced to it--intellectually and experientially--would the mathematicians find the scientists' theories quite so threatening? [last, Halvorson says]:, There are very important questions to be asked about free will, and maybe physics can answer them.. [end of article]. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it - rest of article, quotes and summaries.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's the first part of the article, and then underneath, selected quotes and summaries of the main points: [brackets, mine]. Meant to say, many thanks for posting this! Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lik1AB/fOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To Be Free will only cost you every concept and belief you hold to be true. Will. It will happen just wait. Tom T The great surrender, death and rebirth, the holy insurrection, dwarfing the ego's flailing as Chomolungma dwarfs a pebble. Godspeed! Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/jDk17A/gOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it - rest of article, quotes and summar
It is the only question worth thinking about. High five for posting this! What the mathematicians proved is this: if you have the slightest freedom to choose the axes [in the representative experiment involving the spin of a particle] and order of measurement, then particles everywhere must also have the same degree of freedom. That means they can behave unpredictably. Count me in here. I choose, therefore I am. It ain't easy but it is worth it! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's the first part of the article, and then underneath, selected quotes and summaries of the main points: [brackets, mine]. Free will - you only think you have it 04 May 2006 Zeeya Merali Magazine issue 2550 Underneath the uncertainty of quantum mechanics could lie a deeper reality in which, shockingly, all our actions are predetermined WE MUST believe in free will, we have no choice, the novelist Isaac Bashevis Singer once said. He might as well have said, We must believe in quantum mechanics, we have no choice, if two new studies are anything to go by. Early last month, a Nobel laureate physicist finished polishing up his theory that a deeper, deterministic reality underlies the apparent uncertainty of quantum mechanics. A week after he announced it, two eminent mathematicians showed that the theory has profound implications beyond physics: abandoning the uncertainty of quantum physics means we must give up the cherished notion that we have free will. The mathematicians believe the physicist is wrong. It's striking that we have one of the greatest scientists of our generation pitted against two of the world's greatest mathematicians, says Hans Halvorson, a philosopher of physics at Princeton University. Quantum mechanics is widely accepted by physicists, but is full of apparent paradoxes, which made Einstein deeply uncomfortable and have never been resolved. For instance, you cannot ask what the spin of a particle was before you made an observation of it -- QM says the spin was undetermined. And you cannot predict the outcome of an experiment; you can only estimate the probability of getting a certain result.. [next paragraph - QM works well but it's not complete; e.g. the failure to unite QM with general relativity. A radical change is needed, says Gerard 't Hooft.]. [next -'Hooft has been working on studying a hidden layer of reality at scales smaller than the Planck length of 10-^(-35) meters. The 'states he investigates behave predictably according to deterministic laws. 't Hooft has worked out a kink in his calculations which gave him a negative energy . See www.arxiv.org/quant-ph/0604008.] Essentially, t'Hooft is saying that while particles in QM seem to behave unpredictably, if we could track the underlying states, we can predict the behavior of particles. As enticing as 't Hooft's theory may be to physicists, it has an unexpected and potentially frightful consequence for the rest of us. Mathematicians John H. Conway and Simon Kochen, both at Princeton University, say that any deterministic theory underlying QM robs us of our free will. When you choose to eat the chocolate cake or the plain one, are you really free to decide? asks Conway. In other words, could someone who has been tracking all the particle interactions in the universe predict with perfect accuracy the cake you will pick? The answer, it seems, depends on whether QM's inherent uncertainty is the correct description of reality or 't Hooft is right in saying that beneath that uncertainty there is a deterministic order. ...are your choices a matter of free will, or are they predetermined? What the mathematicians proved is this: if you have the slightest freedom to choose the axes [in the representative experiment involving the spin of a particle] and order of measurement, then particles everywhere must also have the same degree of freedom. That means they can behave unpredictably. However, if particles have no freedom, as implied by 't Hooft's theory, the mathematicians proved that you have no real say in the choice of axes and order of measurement. In other words, deterministic particles put an end to free will (www.arxiv.org/quant-ph/0604079). Kochen and Conway stress that their theorem doesn't disprove 't Hooft's theory. It simply states that if his theory is true, our actions cannot be free. And they admit that there's no way for us to tell. Our lives could be like the second showing of a movie -- all actions play out as theough they are free, but that freedom is an illusion, says Kochen. Since the mathematicians believe that we have free will, it follows for them that 't Hooft's theory must be wrong. We have to believe in free will to do anything, says Conway. I believe I am free to drink this cup of coffee,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --(below, can I refute the MMY/Hagelin/Chopra Unified Field theory?). I don't have to refute what's self-evident baloney!. [...] And its not a field that is considered the Unmanifest but The Unified Field. You've read Hagelin's paper Is Consciousness the Unified Field? and can refute it, I take it? You've read it so you can refute it due to it's self-evident balaneyness... Can you elaborate on this aspect of the paper? And Chopra got his very poorly worded stuff by a cursory reading of Hagelin, who apparently didn't agree with Chopra on a regular basis about Chopra's take on QM as Chopra acknowledged in a presentation where Hagelin was sitting next to Chopra as he spoke. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/iDk17A/hOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
The great surrender, death and rebirth, the holy insurrection, dwarfing the ego's flailing as Chomolungma dwarfs a pebble. Godspeed! You have outdone yourself! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote: To Be Free will only cost you every concept and belief you hold to be true. Will. It will happen just wait. Tom T The great surrender, death and rebirth, the holy insurrection, dwarfing the ego's flailing as Chomolungma dwarfs a pebble. Godspeed! 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
---Forgot to paste in the paragraph. Here it is: Free will - you only think you have it 04 May 2006 Zeeya Merali Magazine issue 2550 Underneath the uncertainty of quantum mechanics could lie a deeper reality in which, shockingly, all our actions are predetermined WE MUST believe in free will, we have no choice, the novelist Isaac Bashevis Singer once said. He might as well have said, We must believe in quantum mechanics, we have no choice, if two new studies are anything to go by. Early last month, a Nobel laureate physicist finished polishing up his theory that a deeper, deterministic reality underlies the apparent uncertainty of quantum mechanics. A week after he announced it, two eminent mathematicians showed that the theory has profound implications beyond physics: abandoning the uncertainty of quantum physics means we must give up the cherished notion that we have free will. The mathematicians believe the physicist is wrong. It's striking that we have one of the greatest scientists of our generation pitted against two of the world's greatest mathematicians, says Hans Halvorson, a philosopher of physics at Princeton University. Quantum mechanics is widely accepted by physicists, but is ... The complete article is 1310 words long. Thanks, previous contributors, for posting your respective opinions on the relationship between free will and determinism; a topic in a recent New Scientist article. Regarding the question as to whether the mind aspect to free will is or can be somehow separate from the determinism of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles; this controversy was not alluded to specifically, in the article. My impresssion is however, that among the two protagonists (pro vs con free will); there's a tacit agreement that mind would definitely be included as a subset in the supposed determinism of the physical particles. Even from a Buddhist perspective, I don't see how such a dualist agenda could be supported. In Essence, Buddhist is Naturalist but not necessarily materialist; but Buddhists are not inclined to separate mind from matter. But let's put this question aside for the moment, and assume that IF matter is determined, THEN mind and the alleged free will within/as mind is also determined by prior causes. This (at this time) is an unprovable assumption, but that's the assumption(IMO) the scientists have agreed upon in laying out the framework for their hypotheses. I left the article at home and forgot my password, so I can only copy what's in the Newscientist website: the first paragraph. Before pasting it in, I will briefly summarize the basic issues. The article is entitled Free Will, you only think you have it.; and alludes to the against free will, pro determinism researcher, Nobel Prize winner Gerhard d'Hooft (or something like that -- can't remember how to spell his name). On the pro-free-will (against determinism) side, we have John Horton Conway, a famous mathematician at Princeton, inventor of the Game of Life cellular automaton. Interestingly, these two giants of science are going at it not with philosophy, but rather with mathematical formulas; but at this time, d'Hooft only believes he's on the right track. Conway differs, and believes that the QM reality of existence is indeterminate. However, I would add that in math, there are many hypotheses that remain unproven, and there's no guarantee that there will ever be a proof pro or con. At any rate, the basic assumption among the two combatants is that mind is only a subset of matter; so the question boils down to determinism vs indeterminism (thus, no free will vs free will). Last point, the article writer brought up the interesting point of the downside to the pro side. (Conway believes QM - and thus the gross level of reality...in fact: existence itself) is fundamentally indeterminate, thus allowing for free will. The downside is that to an extreme, in the absence of determinism, RANDOMNESS is the prodominant status of QM: quantum particles and thus all of existence as an emergent property, is inherently random. So, is a rather bleak tradeoff: if QM reality is indeterminant, free will existence exists, but at a big price: it's free but is fundamentally random. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/jDk17A/gOaOAA/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!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
Interesting, I would like to read the rest. Can you help me with the mind body question? In Essence, Buddhist is Naturalist but not necessarily materialist; but Buddhists are not inclined to separate mind from matter. Do they think of it like the traditions that posit a mental body? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---Forgot to paste in the paragraph. Here it is: Free will - you only think you have it 04 May 2006 Zeeya Merali Magazine issue 2550 Underneath the uncertainty of quantum mechanics could lie a deeper reality in which, shockingly, all our actions are predetermined WE MUST believe in free will, we have no choice, the novelist Isaac Bashevis Singer once said. He might as well have said, We must believe in quantum mechanics, we have no choice, if two new studies are anything to go by. Early last month, a Nobel laureate physicist finished polishing up his theory that a deeper, deterministic reality underlies the apparent uncertainty of quantum mechanics. A week after he announced it, two eminent mathematicians showed that the theory has profound implications beyond physics: abandoning the uncertainty of quantum physics means we must give up the cherished notion that we have free will. The mathematicians believe the physicist is wrong. It's striking that we have one of the greatest scientists of our generation pitted against two of the world's greatest mathematicians, says Hans Halvorson, a philosopher of physics at Princeton University. Quantum mechanics is widely accepted by physicists, but is ... The complete article is 1310 words long. Thanks, previous contributors, for posting your respective opinions on the relationship between free will and determinism; a topic in a recent New Scientist article. Regarding the question as to whether the mind aspect to free will is or can be somehow separate from the determinism of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles; this controversy was not alluded to specifically, in the article. My impresssion is however, that among the two protagonists (pro vs con free will); there's a tacit agreement that mind would definitely be included as a subset in the supposed determinism of the physical particles. Even from a Buddhist perspective, I don't see how such a dualist agenda could be supported. In Essence, Buddhist is Naturalist but not necessarily materialist; but Buddhists are not inclined to separate mind from matter. But let's put this question aside for the moment, and assume that IF matter is determined, THEN mind and the alleged free will within/as mind is also determined by prior causes. This (at this time) is an unprovable assumption, but that's the assumption(IMO) the scientists have agreed upon in laying out the framework for their hypotheses. I left the article at home and forgot my password, so I can only copy what's in the Newscientist website: the first paragraph. Before pasting it in, I will briefly summarize the basic issues. The article is entitled Free Will, you only think you have it.; and alludes to the against free will, pro determinism researcher, Nobel Prize winner Gerhard d'Hooft (or something like that -- can't remember how to spell his name). On the pro-free-will (against determinism) side, we have John Horton Conway, a famous mathematician at Princeton, inventor of the Game of Life cellular automaton. Interestingly, these two giants of science are going at it not with philosophy, but rather with mathematical formulas; but at this time, d'Hooft only believes he's on the right track. Conway differs, and believes that the QM reality of existence is indeterminate. However, I would add that in math, there are many hypotheses that remain unproven, and there's no guarantee that there will ever be a proof pro or con. At any rate, the basic assumption among the two combatants is that mind is only a subset of matter; so the question boils down to determinism vs indeterminism (thus, no free will vs free will). Last point, the article writer brought up the interesting point of the downside to the pro side. (Conway believes QM - and thus the gross level of reality...in fact: existence itself) is fundamentally indeterminate, thus allowing for free will. The downside is that to an extreme, in the absence of determinism, RANDOMNESS is the prodominant status of QM: quantum particles and thus all of existence as an emergent property, is inherently random. So, is a rather bleak tradeoff: if QM reality is indeterminant, free will existence exists, but at a big price: it's free but is fundamentally random. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues . Can you help me with the mind body question? In Essence, Buddhist is Naturalist but not necessarily materialist; but Buddhists are not inclined to separate mind from matter. Do they think of it like the traditions that posit a mental body? Ans: just IMHOperhaps Vaj can answer this in a more technical fashion; but being a Buddhist; mind = what we - ordinary folks - call (mind + matter); but I would imagine that in Buddhism, just as in Hinduism, there are elaborate treatises on the nature of the subtle bodies. It (philosophical and religious orientations) may often be a matter of emphasis. Buddhism even more than most branches of Hinduism, emphasizes the continuum of existence without even bothering (say, when you read the works of the Dalai Lama) to mention a separation between Being, not-Being; mind and matter. Toward the other extreme of dualism, we can get into the Greak dichotomy between Soul and matter (incorporated into Midieval Christianity); or, if one refers to the Judaic Hebrew texts (Ec: 9:5), the Soul IS the body, since when you're dead, you're in the grave, eaten by worms (but awaiting the Resurrection of the body). Personally, I find the continuum aspect to Buddhism refreshing: although I will hasten to add that I have had numerous contacts with dead people such as my parents, who obviously still exist (having subtle non-physical bodies). But subtle or physical, bodies are mind along with everything else. Thus, the determinism of matter such as molecules would not be distinguished from the determinism of mind in Buddhism. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor matrixmonitor@ wrote: ---Forgot to paste in the paragraph. Here it is: Free will - you only think you have it 04 May 2006 Zeeya Merali Magazine issue 2550 Underneath the uncertainty of quantum mechanics could lie a deeper reality in which, shockingly, all our actions are predetermined WE MUST believe in free will, we have no choice, the novelist Isaac Bashevis Singer once said. He might as well have said, We must believe in quantum mechanics, we have no choice, if two new studies are anything to go by. Early last month, a Nobel laureate physicist finished polishing up his theory that a deeper, deterministic reality underlies the apparent uncertainty of quantum mechanics. A week after he announced it, two eminent mathematicians showed that the theory has profound implications beyond physics: abandoning the uncertainty of quantum physics means we must give up the cherished notion that we have free will. The mathematicians believe the physicist is wrong. It's striking that we have one of the greatest scientists of our generation pitted against two of the world's greatest mathematicians, says Hans Halvorson, a philosopher of physics at Princeton University. Quantum mechanics is widely accepted by physicists, but is ... The complete article is 1310 words long. Thanks, previous contributors, for posting your respective opinions on the relationship between free will and determinism; a topic in a recent New Scientist article. Regarding the question as to whether the mind aspect to free will is or can be somehow separate from the determinism of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles; this controversy was not alluded to specifically, in the article. My impresssion is however, that among the two protagonists (pro vs con free will); there's a tacit agreement that mind would definitely be included as a subset in the supposed determinism of the physical particles. Even from a Buddhist perspective, I don't see how such a dualist agenda could be supported. In Essence, Buddhist is Naturalist but not necessarily materialist; but Buddhists are not inclined to separate mind from matter. But let's put this question aside for the moment, and assume that IF matter is determined, THEN mind and the alleged free will within/as mind is also determined by prior causes. This (at this time) is an unprovable assumption, but that's the assumption(IMO) the scientists have agreed upon in laying out the framework for their hypotheses. I left the article at home and forgot my password, so I can only copy what's in the Newscientist website: the first paragraph. Before pasting it in, I will briefly summarize the basic issues. The article is entitled Free Will, you only think you have it.; and alludes to the against free will, pro determinism researcher, Nobel Prize winner Gerhard d'Hooft (or something like that -- can't remember how to spell his name). On the pro-free-will (against determinism) side, we have John Horton Conway, a famous mathematician at Princeton, inventor of the Game of Life
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
Thanks man, that was really interesting. or, if one refers to the Judaic Hebrew texts (Ec: 9:5), the Soul IS the body, since when you're dead, you're in the grave, eaten by worms So now I'm Jewish above the waist too! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues . Can you help me with the mind body question? In Essence, Buddhist is Naturalist but not necessarily materialist; but Buddhists are not inclined to separate mind from matter. Do they think of it like the traditions that posit a mental body? Ans: just IMHOperhaps Vaj can answer this in a more technical fashion; but being a Buddhist; mind = what we - ordinary folks - call (mind + matter); but I would imagine that in Buddhism, just as in Hinduism, there are elaborate treatises on the nature of the subtle bodies. It (philosophical and religious orientations) may often be a matter of emphasis. Buddhism even more than most branches of Hinduism, emphasizes the continuum of existence without even bothering (say, when you read the works of the Dalai Lama) to mention a separation between Being, not-Being; mind and matter. Toward the other extreme of dualism, we can get into the Greak dichotomy between Soul and matter (incorporated into Midieval Christianity); or, if one refers to the Judaic Hebrew texts (Ec: 9:5), the Soul IS the body, since when you're dead, you're in the grave, eaten by worms (but awaiting the Resurrection of the body). Personally, I find the continuum aspect to Buddhism refreshing: although I will hasten to add that I have had numerous contacts with dead people such as my parents, who obviously still exist (having subtle non-physical bodies). But subtle or physical, bodies are mind along with everything else. Thus, the determinism of matter such as molecules would not be distinguished from the determinism of mind in Buddhism. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor matrixmonitor@ wrote: ---Forgot to paste in the paragraph. Here it is: Free will - you only think you have it 04 May 2006 Zeeya Merali Magazine issue 2550 Underneath the uncertainty of quantum mechanics could lie a deeper reality in which, shockingly, all our actions are predetermined WE MUST believe in free will, we have no choice, the novelist Isaac Bashevis Singer once said. He might as well have said, We must believe in quantum mechanics, we have no choice, if two new studies are anything to go by. Early last month, a Nobel laureate physicist finished polishing up his theory that a deeper, deterministic reality underlies the apparent uncertainty of quantum mechanics. A week after he announced it, two eminent mathematicians showed that the theory has profound implications beyond physics: abandoning the uncertainty of quantum physics means we must give up the cherished notion that we have free will. The mathematicians believe the physicist is wrong. It's striking that we have one of the greatest scientists of our generation pitted against two of the world's greatest mathematicians, says Hans Halvorson, a philosopher of physics at Princeton University. Quantum mechanics is widely accepted by physicists, but is ... The complete article is 1310 words long. Thanks, previous contributors, for posting your respective opinions on the relationship between free will and determinism; a topic in a recent New Scientist article. Regarding the question as to whether the mind aspect to free will is or can be somehow separate from the determinism of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles; this controversy was not alluded to specifically, in the article. My impresssion is however, that among the two protagonists (pro vs con free will); there's a tacit agreement that mind would definitely be included as a subset in the supposed determinism of the physical particles. Even from a Buddhist perspective, I don't see how such a dualist agenda could be supported. In Essence, Buddhist is Naturalist but not necessarily materialist; but Buddhists are not inclined to separate mind from matter. But let's put this question aside for the moment, and assume that IF matter is determined, THEN mind and the alleged free will within/as mind is also determined by prior causes. This (at this time) is an unprovable assumption, but that's the assumption(IMO) the scientists have agreed upon in laying out the framework for their hypotheses. I left the article at home and forgot my password, so I can only copy what's in the Newscientist website: the first paragraph. Before pasting it in, I will briefly summarize
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I left the article at home and forgot my password, so I can only copy what's in the Newscientist website: the first paragraph. I sure would love it if you could copy in more when you have access to the article again--at least if it's not too technical. Many thanks for the summary. Somehow I doubt dueling mathematical formulas are going to lead to a definitive resolution of the issue, but the arguments ought to be fun! Definitive scientific proof of determinism would most likely be disastrous for the psyche of the human race, absent some larger concept along the lines of that advanced by Schroedinger to validate the *sense* of free will in the Atman = Brahman type of context. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lik1AB/fOaOAA/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/