What about free will? - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-28T23:27:54Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/what-about-free-will?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A48273&feed=yes&xn_auth=noAfter listening to about 20 m…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2016-07-08:5301756:Comment:658522016-07-08T17:16:46.602ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>After listening to about 20 minutes I must say, what's the fucking point? All this philosophical gibberish is useless to the dire political circumstances under which most people live in this world. And such discussion does absolutely nothing to ameliorate such conditions, much less even address them. What does such fine philosophical parsing have to do with anything other than maintaining one's position and standing in an intellectually effete profession?</p>
<p></p>
<p>After listening to about 20 minutes I must say, what's the fucking point? All this philosophical gibberish is useless to the dire political circumstances under which most people live in this world. And such discussion does absolutely nothing to ameliorate such conditions, much less even address them. What does such fine philosophical parsing have to do with anything other than maintaining one's position and standing in an intellectually effete profession?</p>
<p></p> Just listening to the first f…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2016-07-08:5301756:Comment:658512016-07-08T16:55:25.279ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Just listening to the first few minutes, Harris discusses his previous encounter with Dennett on the topic when things got uncivil, to say the least. Harris wonders if dialog can ever really happen, since we often end up vociferously and often disingenuously defending our steadfast positions instead of mutually learning from each other. I must admit that's pretty much how I've come to view dialog these days unless its within a mutually shared worldview. Even then it can be a challenge. More…</p>
<p>Just listening to the first few minutes, Harris discusses his previous encounter with Dennett on the topic when things got uncivil, to say the least. Harris wonders if dialog can ever really happen, since we often end up vociferously and often disingenuously defending our steadfast positions instead of mutually learning from each other. I must admit that's pretty much how I've come to view dialog these days unless its within a mutually shared worldview. Even then it can be a challenge. More later.</p> Free will revisited with Sam…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2016-07-07:5301756:Comment:660662016-07-07T15:09:36.575ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Free will revisited with Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. Have yet to listen to it, (free) will when I have the time.</p>
<p></p>
<p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vFa7vFkVy4g?wmode=opaque" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="267" width="475"></iframe>
</p>
<p>Free will revisited with Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. Have yet to listen to it, (free) will when I have the time.</p>
<p></p>
<p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vFa7vFkVy4g?wmode=opaque" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="267" width="475"></iframe>
</p> There can be no neurological…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-09-18:5301756:Comment:517522013-09-18T17:33:55.267ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>There can be no neurological argument FOR or AGAINST free will.</p>
<p>Any biophysical mechanism will remain ambiguous in this regard... unless we have pre-specified a definition of this term which has a precise biophysical meaning. But if we do that -- we are almost guaranteed to find whatever functional mechanism most closely resembles our definition.</p>
<p>Multiple overlapping definitions of "Free will" can lead only to irresolvable debate. We may rejoice in the creative friction, or…</p>
<p>There can be no neurological argument FOR or AGAINST free will.</p>
<p>Any biophysical mechanism will remain ambiguous in this regard... unless we have pre-specified a definition of this term which has a precise biophysical meaning. But if we do that -- we are almost guaranteed to find whatever functional mechanism most closely resembles our definition.</p>
<p>Multiple overlapping definitions of "Free will" can lead only to irresolvable debate. We may rejoice in the creative friction, or decide that "irresolvable debate" is itself the shape of truth, but unless we agree in advance on verification parameters then any philosophical, computational or neurological discussion on this topic will necessarily get bumped and recirculated by every participant...</p> In the last video no, just no…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-09-18:5301756:Comment:515822013-09-18T10:57:00.896ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>In the last video no, just noting that readiness potential doesn't mean what the anti-free willers think. But in the long video I referenced yes, which is apparently the same in his new book, which I've yet to read. But of course it depends what we mean by 'free' will, and it's not some Cartesian theater red herring that began this thread.</p>
<p>In the last video no, just noting that readiness potential doesn't mean what the anti-free willers think. But in the long video I referenced yes, which is apparently the same in his new book, which I've yet to read. But of course it depends what we mean by 'free' will, and it's not some Cartesian theater red herring that began this thread.</p> I will listen but haven't had…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-09-18:5301756:Comment:516532013-09-18T03:43:12.718ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>I will listen but haven't had a chance yet. Is he basically arguing for free will?</p>
<p>I will listen but haven't had a chance yet. Is he basically arguing for free will?</p> Readiness potential don't mea…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-09-18:5301756:Comment:515812013-09-18T01:45:18.741ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p><a href="http://integralpostmetaphysicalnonduality.blogspot.com/2013/09/readiness-potential-dont-mean-shit.html" target="_blank">Readiness potential don't mean shit.</a></p>
<p><a href="http://integralpostmetaphysicalnonduality.blogspot.com/2013/09/readiness-potential-dont-mean-shit.html" target="_blank">Readiness potential don't mean shit.</a></p> Blackmore mentioned Peter Tse…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-09-16:5301756:Comment:514742013-09-16T17:23:41.981ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Blackmore mentioned Peter Tse's recent work, as did I on the previous page for his new book. The New Scientist article Blackmore references requires a subscription to access. I somewhere linked before to his 2 hour <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o6H7SWVrKc" target="_blank">YouTube talk</a> but have yet to listen to the whole thing.</p>
<p>Blackmore mentioned Peter Tse's recent work, as did I on the previous page for his new book. The New Scientist article Blackmore references requires a subscription to access. I somewhere linked before to his 2 hour <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o6H7SWVrKc" target="_blank">YouTube talk</a> but have yet to listen to the whole thing.</p> I haven't closely inspected a…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-06-03:5301756:Comment:482732013-06-03T22:32:20.848ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>I haven't closely inspected all the positions alluded to in the conversations presented as part of this thread. What I can do at the moment is situate my own attitude on the subject of Free Will in 3 points:</p>
<p></p>
<p>1. It is a colloquial phrase. "Free will" does not live or die on attempts to nail it down into an absolutist formality. That is already like driving in the ditch rather than on the road. Free intentional is a descriptive concept which establishes a coherence in relations…</p>
<p>I haven't closely inspected all the positions alluded to in the conversations presented as part of this thread. What I can do at the moment is situate my own attitude on the subject of Free Will in 3 points:</p>
<p></p>
<p>1. It is a colloquial phrase. "Free will" does not live or die on attempts to nail it down into an absolutist formality. That is already like driving in the ditch rather than on the road. Free intentional is a descriptive concept which establishes a coherence in relations -- but that is not reductionistic. Semblances are not unreal. I ordered the soup and not the nuts... that is very plain significance of Free Will. This concept only need to be philosophical combated as "incoherent" <em><strong>after</strong></em> it is been taken far too seriously and exaggerated beyond its realm of applicability.</p>
<p></p>
<p>2. Free Will describes the inconclusive situation of complex patterns. Patterns which are "as complex or more complex than the experiencer" reach what Wolfram calls computational equivalence -- they cannot be specifically predicted. There is no functional anticipatory compression despite the fact that they are still embedded participants in the orderly mechanics of Nature. This explanatory limitation, reminiscent of the Uncertainty Principle, does not invoke a simple lack of knowledge but rather an ontological constraint upon the possibilities of knowing. So free Will really IS free will if only it simply describes an unpredictable behavior potential (whether conceived as initiating or inhibiting impulses) relative to a specified system. Other than that the phrase has no significance... <em>not even enough significance to be denied</em>.</p>
<p></p>
<p>3. Does the "I" of the free agent exist? Again -- in order to assert a NO, one must first jettison common sense and assume the "I" which we are discussion is intended to be a fixed separative entity. These terms did not humanly evolve to describe such extremist nonsense but rather to colloquially describe various embodied demonstrations of entity-like behavior in real beings. And -- as it observable -- there is a spectrum of possible variation in the degree to which individual entity-semblances (gross, subtle or causal) can exhibit apparent free-will-like behavior. Practice and chemistry make a lot of difference in the brains of gross entities and it is entirely appropriate to have a term to describe this axis of possibilities... </p>
<p></p>
<p>Meditation is not an ontology. What that means here is that denial of free will, carried to its logical extreme, is a form of Jnana Yoga designed to produce a particular -- and usefully profound -- state of consciousness. Ramesh Balsakar teaches this very thing. But recipes for meditative states, despite the understandably profound urgency which they exericise over the mind of certain thinkers -- are not ontological descriptions of the conditional and inherently relative cosmos.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I hope this is on topic. Either way -- cheers.</p> The Neural Basis of Free Will…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-06-02:5301756:Comment:484022013-06-02T22:15:50.777ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p><em><a href="http://integralpostmetaphysicalnonduality.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-neural-basis-of-free-will.html" target="_blank">The Neural Basis of Free Will</a></em> is the title of a new book by Peter Tse (2013, MIT Press).</p>
<p><em><a href="http://integralpostmetaphysicalnonduality.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-neural-basis-of-free-will.html" target="_blank">The Neural Basis of Free Will</a></em> is the title of a new book by Peter Tse (2013, MIT Press).</p>