Re: Mind's Eye Freewill - A useful myth?

The brain is bound by its nature and hence not free.

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:55 AM, malcymo <malcymo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello each,
>
> I shall be within reach of modern technology again for the next 6
> months when the jungle will call again.
>
> Have read the new posts on this thread with interest and am sensing a
> belief that because the brain makes our choices then they must be
> free.
> But to understand whether our choices are free or not do we not have
> to establish from whence the brain derives the data on which it bases
> its choices??? Is not our behavior largely  based on evolutionary
> successful actions which have proved successful in the past
> (sometimes irrational and instinctive) and only slightly modified by
> rational thought on which you all know my view.
>
> It seems a worry to me that most evolutionary apt behaviours are now
> not adapting quickly enough to be relevant in our present world.
>
> Nice to be back and see the site active.
>
> Malc
>
> On May 18, 9:13 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You are blessed, Allan, I feel... in having a rather uncomplicated
>> view. Most people are yet to discover that !
>>
>> Seriously... the complexities they speak of is more about themselves
>> than of what they speak of. But, peace, dear ones !
>>
>> On May 18, 12:01 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Strange Vam ,  I have always seen  more choices, now I also see the effect
>> > of the choices ..  which leaves only basic first path. I do have absolute
>> > free will to leave that path any time I chose.. to date I have seen no one
>> > offer a better path.
>> > On May 18, 2012 7:46 AM, "Vam" <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > " Life is a combination of free will & destiny. More you go deep in
>> > > meditation & align with laws of nature, your free will increases - Sri
>> > > Sri "
>>
>> > > Just read this quote on Twitter.
>>
>> > > On May 10, 2:19 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > Ohhh Molly there is always choice, and we are faced with countless
>> > > > everyday.  Perhaps though the biggest choice is simply " To be"  Or
>> > > indeed
>> > > > to, not be.
>>
>> > > > On Monday, 9 January 2012 23:20:58 UTC, Molly wrote:
>> > > > > Perhaps, gabby.  But at this point in my life, for me, there is no
>> > > > > other choice.  So is it really a choice?
>>
>> > > > > On Jan 9, 6:14 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > Oh Molly, I believe you are more than the box you come in, too! I
>> > > > > > believe you choose to want to feel lovely at each moment, feeling
>> > > > > > alive!
>>
>> > > > > > On Jan 9, 11:34 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > We know by recognizing his potentiality and helping him to do the
>> > > > > > > same.  Sometimes, given the box it comes in, this takes an
>> > > > > > > extraordinary amount of love and care.  At some point, choice, like
>> > > > > > > goals and purpose and all the rest, just fall away.  And here we
>> > > are.
>> > > > > > > Relating to those we love.  Feeling the life we've been given.  Ten
>> > > > > > > years ago I would not have imagined myself as I am today.  I am
>> > > here
>> > > > > > > because somewhere along the line I discovered that the best I can
>> > > "do"
>> > > > > > > is express myself with love in each moment, and recognize the same
>> > > in
>> > > > > > > others, whatever the circumstance.  Given that, life unfolds.
>>
>> > > > > > > On Jan 9, 3:42 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > Some of this take on epistemology can be gleaned by observing
>> > > what's
>> > > > > > > > around us.  Teenagers are a minefield of such information.  My
>> > > > > > > > grandson (14) is currently making excuses for not having enough
>> > > > > baths
>> > > > > > > > and showers along the lines of 'it's my body'.  Empirically he
>> > > > > stinks.
>> > > > > > > > He's barely noticed how much work gets done around him.  He can't
>> > > > > keep
>> > > > > > > > his PC free of viruses or use his laptop with enough care not to
>> > > > > break
>> > > > > > > > the charger lead (etc.).  It has barely dawned on him that I was
>> > > > > once
>> > > > > > > > his age and that he has never been my age.  He's a good enough
>> > > lad
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > this is all that really matters to me.  He was like an Irishman
>> > > put
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > a barrel and told to piss in the corner the other day (add Pole,
>> > > > > > > > Belgian etc. to xenophobic choice).  I gave him a power lead
>> > > > > straight
>> > > > > > > > from the box and he spent the time trying to fit it to the socket
>> > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > the insulation packaging left on.  I guess he won't next time,
>> > > > > though
>> > > > > > > > I proved a slower learner on some such stuff.  It would be easy
>> > > > > enough
>> > > > > > > > to leave him alone to "develop" into a useless, smelly nitwit.
>> > >  The
>> > > > > > > > idea is we don't.  How do we know?
>>
>> > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 10:34 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > I agree with RP that we are looking at complex relations.  Lots
>> > > > > has
>> > > > > > > > > been said on Mal's thought - this is a standard\ example:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > "The Darwinian revolution of the nineteenth century suggested
>> > > an
>> > > > > > > > > alternative approach first explored by Dewey and the
>> > > pragmatists.
>> > > > > > > > > Human beings, as the products of evolutionary development, are
>> > > > > natural
>> > > > > > > > > beings. Their capacities for knowledge and belief are also the
>> > > > > > > > > products of a natural evolutionary development. As such, there
>> > > is
>> > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > reason to suspect that knowing, as a natural activity, could
>> > > and
>> > > > > > > > > should be treated and analyzed along lines compatible with its
>> > > > > status,
>> > > > > > > > > i. e., by the methods of natural science. On this view, there
>> > > is
>> > > > > no
>> > > > > > > > > sharp division of labor between science and epistemology. In
>> > > > > > > > > particular, the results of particular sciences such as
>> > > > > evolutionary
>> > > > > > > > > biology and psychology are not ruled a priori irrelevant to the
>> > > > > > > > > solution of epistemological problems. Such approaches, in
>> > > general,
>> > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > called naturalistic epistemologies, whether they are directly
>> > > > > > > > > motivated by evolutionary considerations or not. Those which
>> > > are
>> > > > > > > > > directly motivated by evolutionary considerations and which
>> > > argue
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > the growth of knowledge follows the pattern of evolution in
>> > > > > biology
>> > > > > > > > > are called "evolutionary epistemologies."
>>
>> > > > > > > > > Evolutionary epistemology is the attempt to address questions
>> > > in
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > theory of knowledge from an evolutionary point of view.
>> > > > > Evolutionary
>> > > > > > > > > epistemology involves, in part, deploying models and metaphors
>> > > > > drawn
>> > > > > > > > > from evolutionary biology in the attempt to characterize and
>> > > > > resolve
>> > > > > > > > > issues arising in epistemology and conceptual change. As
>> > > > > disciplines
>> > > > > > > > > co-evolve, models are traded back and forth. Thus, evolutionary
>> > > > > > > > > epistemology also involves attempts to understand how
>> > > biological
>> > > > > > > > > evolution proceeds by interpreting it through models drawn from
>> > > > > our
>> > > > > > > > > understanding of conceptual change and the development of
>> > > > > theories.
>> > > > > > > > > The term "evolutionary epistemology" was coined by Donald
>> > > Campbell
>> > > > > > > > > (1974)."
>>
>> > > > > > > > > I don't agree, incidentally that we need to 'apply science
>> > > > > methods' to
>> > > > > > > > > look into this and feel this is far too restrictive.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 8:52 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > Here is a thought.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > If rational thinking has resulted from the sucessful
>> > > > > evolutionary
>> > > > > > > > > > developement of the biological brain then that is all it is.
>> > > > > Certainly
>> > > > > > > > > > rational thoght would not have developed in (SAY) a fungus
>> > > in a
>> > > > > cave
>> > > > > > > > > > for it would have no survival advantage. So freewill is
>> > > nothing
>> > > > > more
>> > > > > > > > > > than an apt evolutionary development.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 9:03 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > those are just excuses,   yes my back ground and
>> > > experiences
>> > > > > are what I use
>> > > > > > > > > > > for making decision ---  that does not bind me,  i still
>> > > have
>> > > > > the choice to
>> > > > > > > > > > > respond as i like
>> > > > > > > > > > > Allan
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:33 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com
>>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > We are bound by very subtle ties and our ostensible
>> > > freedom
>> > > > > is wrapped
>> > > > > > > > > > > > in bondage. If we lock up criminals we are bound and if
>> > > we
>> > > > > don't we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > are still bound. Nature, within our will and that
>> > > without,
>> > > > > binds us.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 5:01 AM, archytas <
>> > > nwte...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Secular myths abound - largely because most of us are
>> > > > > early-tuned to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > religious ones.  I suspect that the idea of social
>> > > science
>> > > > > is one of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > them.  Peter Winch wrote a small book on the topic in
>> > > 1960
>> > > > > - I'd guess
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > he was one of Wittgenstein's students.  We mythologise
>> > > > > many secular
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > elements of society - democracy is one, leadership
>> > > > > another.  Science
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes one in those thinking it can answer all
>> > > questions
>> > > > > or (as in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dawkins) is the only important focus.  If we have no
>> > > free
>> > > > > will we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > should stop locking up criminals.  The question on free
>> > > > > will is what
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > life would entail without it and consequent
>> > > > > responsibilities denied.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Even Nietzsche insisted having seen the chaos we should
>> > > > > make oursleves
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > works of art.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 5:17 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I totally  agree with you Molly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jan 6, 2012 12:15 PM, "Molly" <mollyb...@gmail.com
>>
>> > > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > There is more to life than the realm of cause and
>> > > > > effect.  Many of us
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > just prefer it there.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > On Jan 5, 5:27 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Free will is a reality..  the problem comes once
>> > > you
>> > > > > made your
>> > > > > > > > > > > > choice and
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »