In the beginning

...

...

In the beginning, it was dark.

...

...

What was dark?

...

The darkness. It was very dark. The darkness was everywhere. It stretched onwards and onwards forever into the darkness. Imagine giant curtains made of black satin, immense, jet black curtains, and you are moving through the curtains. You part the curtains and move through them, to find more curtains.

Like drapery.

Yes.

Black drapery.

Yes.

Got it.

You keep moving, parting one set of black curtains...

Drapes.

Parting one set of black drapes after another... hold on.

What is it?

Who said that?

Who said what?

That, right there.

Where?

What do you mean where, there's where.

Where's there?

Nevermind. I'll start over.

...

...

In the beginning, it was dark. The darkness was...no seriously, who the hell are you?

Me?

Of course you. Who else?

There's somebody else?

Of course not.

That's what I thought.

Then why did you ask?

Ask what?

Once more. Who are you?

I'm Bill.

At last, an answer. I'm Bill too.

Two Bills.

Exactly.

That could get confusing. How about you call me Ed?

Why Ed?

Short.

Short for what?

I don't know, we haven't gotten that far yet.

I don't think we've gotten anywhere, Ed.

We must have gotten somewhere, Bill.

Oh, really? What do you see up ahead?

Drapes.

Yeah, drapes. We're going in circles. Around and around.

So what's the problem?

What's the problem? The problem is we're not getting anywhere.

I'll grant that, but why is that a problem, Bill?

Well, it's a problem for me.

I see that.

And it should be a problem for you. Do you like doing nothing, getting nowhere?

I guess I don't think about it that way.

Well I do. I think about it all the time. It's all I think about.

Try and think about something else.

There's something else?

Um, no, I don't think so.

That's my point. Now where was I?

Where were we. 

BB post @ Eratosphere; Williamb

Insofar as it remains to be seen there has still been, despite assiduous efforts from erudite persons across all academic disciplines, nothing which could be described as agreement or at least a nonconfrontational lessening of active hostility, in the realm of intellection or mentation, which is to say within the confines of that which might be called consciousness, or the arena of purely mental activity and operation, howsoever it could be remarked, should one wish to evoke yet another reason or issue about which to cavil and interlocute seemingly inexhaustible permutations of verbal ordnance for the mere sake of maintaining or defending, against common sense and sound judgment, a thesis or hypothesis which under normal circumstances and about which there would be no controversy, it seems prudent at this point to at least, and for the benefit of all parties, to come to terms and to asseverate collectively that there are, at the very least, certain items of general knowledge, which is not to say available only to those with experience in the higher institutions of learning or - lacking formal acquaintance or intercourse with edifices especially manufactured for the intersubjective continuance, analysis, and maintenance of data pertaining to the human species - solely to the industrious autodidact, which ought to be considered axiomatic and incontrovertible, without which any subsequent discourse would by necessity entail the common and perpetually frustrating occurrence of virtually universal confusion and instability of linguistic compatibility and mutually prosperous cooperation among sentient individuals and organizations or affilliations of persons among whom there is at least a general inclination towards providing for themselves and all potentially involved descendents a medium of communication which is not succeptible to the hazardous implementation of ambiguous terminology or dubious parlance.   

- Wilbert Morley Handsock, from Navigations of the Meridian Indent, 1879

On Freewill;BB post;FRDB

My position is as follows (and bear in mind these are my present beliefs. If Determinism is true and all of our actions are wholly determined by natural laws of cause and effect, and if in fact we are not free agents, and if in fact the sense of having two or more realizable courses of action in a given situation is an illusion, then there is no freewill period, a possibility which I do not believe to be the case but which I do not discard out of hand):

Freewill, if it exists at all, is in full swing throughout virtually every waking moment of a person's life, given that we are talking about a normal, intelligent, rational, healthy individual. Life is an ongoing process of action and reaction, of thinking and deciding, of planning, reflecting, speculating, shifting perspectives, changing one's mind, reexamining things, evaluating and reevaluating situations, all the time, on a major or minor scale. Freewill is the ability to consciously choose a course of action from among two or more realizable alternatives. This applies to each and every situation, each and every event, however minute, in a person's conscious, waking life. It does not suddenly cease to exist when a person is in a crisis situation. In fact, it exists even more so, since a crisis situation requires - to a much greater degree than watching a movie or eating a bowl of ice cream - clear thinking and careful decision making. What you are suggesting is precisely the opposite, that when a person is compelled to make a decision (or forced to do something he would rather not do and which he would not have done had not the circumstance necessitated it) in a moment of crisis is exactly the time that that person is not acting of their own freewill. This position of yours makes no sense. Imagine trying to convince a soldier or a policeman, for instance, that they are not acting of their own freewill as they go about their jobs on a daily basis, because their jobs put them in situations of crisis as a matter of routine, situations which require intense training and extraordinary decision making skills? Is the couch potato thumbing through channels on TV acting of his own freewill? Yes? He is, but the man who dives from a bridge into icy water to save a drowning victim is not? If this is the case, then the words free and will are bereft of any meaning they could possibly have. At least for me.

As for the mugging victim, the facts are simple: Y forces X to make a decision. X can literally do any number of things, depending on what X is capable of. He can fight Y, he can take the gun and shove it up Y's fundament, he can run off (many muggers will not shoot if a victim runs, they are thieves, not killers), or he can try to talk Y out of it. Do you see this, kennethamy? This is one of those moments of crisis that require clear thinking and careful decision making. This is one of those moments where freewill comes into play, in a major way, not a minor one. This is a moment where the ability to chose wisely from various options is most crucial. Freewill is far more intensely in operation and is far more vital to one's survival here than when one is at a restaurant wondering which entree to go for. Can you see this?

In this situation X is compelled to act, but is not compelled to any particular action. In other words, I do not see compulsion and freewill as being mutually exclusive. One can be compelled to act and yet free to act. As in my mountainside/boulder/tree/man analogy. The tree is not an agent, it is not free to move away from the boulder, it cannot be compelled to move away; the man is an agent, he is free to move. You can say he was free to move or he was compelled to move, it amounts to the same thing: the ability to move. Freewill is the ability to choose and act, whether under compulsion or not. Compulsion is irrelevant to the issue, unless we are talking about acting freely in a political and not a metaphysical sense.

I'm reminded of Sartre's expression, "condemned to be free." I suppose some people do feel that way, because being a free individual confers upon a person an enormous responsibility, a lifetime of action and decision making. Many people choose to opt out of this responsibility and escape into determinism: I couldn't help it. It's not my fault. It wasn't to be. It wasn't in the cards. Others do not. They take their freedom as a rare and precious opportunity to do something extraordinary. I wish I were more like them.

Thoughts on Hume; FRDB

My main objection to Hume is one that I've voiced before on FRDB, which is, I think he's full of hot air.

It's easy to say, and I will copy your paraphrase, TP: there is nothing in our sensory experience corresponding to our ordinary notion of the causal relation..., but it's quite a difficult matter to invest any kind of truth in the words. In my experience, I can't imagine what Hume means by saying such a thing. I remember when I first read Hume, when I was new to philosophy: I took his propositions to be true, because he is a large historical figure and one of very high esteem and reputation. I remember reading in the introduction where the author said that Hume had "taken a wrecking ball" to the old and established axioms and presuppositions that had held sway in his time. Who was I to argue? I read the words and tried to reconcile them to my experience in life, but when I failed to be able to do that, I didn't blame Hume, the great philosopher, I blamed my tiny little brain instead.

Being older now, and having read a great deal more, I suggest that Hume's skepticism is little more than a bloated, naked emperor swaggering flatulently down the road to human understanding. The idea that the data we collect from our senses, and the manifest proofs of the objective reality of that data, which occur across every moment of every day in our normal lives, cannot give us any real knowledge of causation, is completely without support, and utterly devoid of reason.

If you want to feel more secure in your understanding of cause and effect in the material world, if you sincerely take David Hume's pronouncements seriously, all you need to do is take a sharp knife, put the cutting edge to your palm, and draw the blade downwards toward your wrist, while applying a good amount of pressure. You will instantly have all the proof you need that extremely acute metal objects will, in fact, cause an incision in your skin and flesh, and a subsequent loss of blood, not to mention a strikingly vivid and unpleasant sensation in the area incised.

I know, that's the same as Sam Johnson's famous refutation of Berkeley, kicking at the stone. But that is really all that's required. And that's the truth of the matter. Of course this takes all the fun away from people who like to pretend that they make reality up in their heads, who, for some unknown reason, need to believe that the massive and beautiful engines of the cosmos depend on their own miniscule wink of consciousness for their very existence.

Review of Legion; posted @ Amazon

Though I've revered the film, The Exorcist, for years, I only recently decided to start reading William Peter Blatty's books. I wish I hadn't waited so long! I was pleasantly surprised, when I read The Exorcist, at how well-written the book was, how economical, concise, and how breezy a read. That might sound daft, considering the horrific content of the novel mentioned, but it's quite true nonetheless: the book was a breeze, as far as actual time spent with it is concerned.

On to Legion, which is the sequel to The Exorcist. I had only a vague idea of a film that was made based on the novel, but no real familiarity with the story. What chiefly interested me in the novel, besides the obvious reason that it was penned by Blatty and associated with themes I revere and enjoy, were some of the reviews here at Amazon. As a lover of philosophy, naturally I was not intimidated by the frequent mentions of the novel's protagonist William F. Kinderman's forays into philosophical ruminations. Some have referred to these ruminations as "navel-gazing" asides, distractions, or interruptions in the narrative; but on a deeper understanding of the author's faith and intention in the work, such broodings and mentations are as welcome in the novel as Hamlet's are in the play of that name.

The ideas of good and evil, of cosmic or divine justice, the sad fact of catastrophic human suffering, the capacity of the human nervous system with respect to the toleration of pain, as well as the effects of suffering on human psychology, are integral and essential to Mr. Blatty's work, and of keen corrolation to the details of criminal investigation and pathology.

I'm glad that I had the voice and image of the great Lee J. Cobb in my noggin as I read the book. I'm certain that this was a great help in my enjoyment of it. I don't see the character as a Jewish stereotype, nor do the occasional Yiddish terms and phrases bother me. As a Christian, I have a deep love for the Jewish people and a great interest and love for Judeo-Christian culture, theology, history, and literature. My favorite book, object wise, is my beautiful edition of the Tanakh. I truly don't understand the objections to the Kinderman character in this novel. He is a man of high intelligence and is deeply humane and compassionate. Incidentally, a carp in a bathtub should be so off-putting? So what? We have traditions. Give the book a read, you might like it. Couldn't hurt.

Legion is terrifying, but it's also a pleasure, and important.

Review of Adam Bede posted @ Amazon

What about Seth?!! was all I could think as I neared the end of the George Eliot novel, Adam Bede. Being a second son, and certainly not as good looking as my older brother, and a couple inches shorter no less, how could I not sympathize with Seth Bede, the younger brother who, by the amazing machinations of a brilliant writer, Mary Ann Evans, manages to let his feelings for a woman he admires dwindle away to irrelevance while simultaneously supporting his elder brother's burgeoning affection for that very same woman?

As crazy as it may sound, I am now going to try to explain why Mary Ann Evans was such a great writer, and why her subtle genius points the way to the very reality of nature itself, though it is to many an uncomfortable reality, and to some others still, a hostile, and even malevolent one. I will admit, I was rooting for Seth all the way through the novel. He was enamoured of Dinah Morris, but was keenly aware that she did not return the feeling, and yet still hopeful that in time she might come to love him and think of him in a romantic sense. How many men (and women) have lived in that kind of melancholy hopefulness? I know I have, and many times. It's not easy. In fact, it's an extremely harrowing and painful experience, and I do not recommend it to anyone. But that's the way things are. Nature, despite man's civilization and refinement, is as it always was. There are certain things that are immutable, unalterable, and constant, no matter how clever or sympathetic our race manages to become.

Evans was not a physically attractive woman herself, at least not in the common sense of the term. I am sure she was keenly aware of this, and I'm also sure that she was governed in her art by a kind of Spinozan submission and reverence to the natural order of things, and, far from letting that diminish or spoil her intelligent zest for life, she gave it exquisite expression in some of the most venerated and popular novels of all time. Adam Bede, her first novel, is a crystal clear example of such literary expression. Before I go on, I do not mean to suggest that physical appearance and personal charm are the sole criteria upon which we humans base our judgments and affections toward others; that would be narrow-minded and silly; but, whether we like it or not, such attributes do in fact exert a strong force and influence when it comes to sexual attraction. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.

For all intents and purposes, Adam Bede is the classic alpha male, though Evans gives him a serene and genuinely sensitive side that would be entirely missing from a protagonist in a novel by Ayn Rand, another candidly plain looking woman who took Evans's honest and often sacrilegious reconciliation with nature to what many would say was an irrational extreme; but no more of that. Evans is such a good author that every reader would know that if Seth had claimed to still be holding a candle for Dinah, Adam would not have pursued her. As it happens, Seth comes to feel quite literally happy about the fact that his older brother has stolen the heart that was once the object of his affection. He is happy to be brother to Dinah and uncle to Adam's children. Many have suggested that this was sort of an authorial cheat, or foul play on the part of Evans, that in real circumstances the younger brother would most certainly be deeply hurt by the doubly-painful knowledge that not only did his beloved not find in him a man that she could love as a husband, but in fact had fallen in love with his older brother instead! Wouldn't any man be hurt by such a turn of events. I know I would.

But that's the difference between life and art. Art, in the hands of a genuinely good artist, is a means of not only understanding, appreciating, and celebrating the rich pageant of life, but also of coming to terms with painful truths and realities which a lot of us would rather not confront; and which cause certain well-intended but misgiven people to wreak nothing but havoc by the often absurd pseudo-intellectual deconstruction or denial of long confirmed fact and simple common sense.

My heart will always root for Seth, but my intellect allows me to see that Adam was the obvious object to which Dinah would fix her affection. We second-born, homelier, shorter little brothers will generally just have to deal with it, get over it, and move on.

But, wait a minute. Or, as Monty Python would say, "and now for something completely different! -

The Hetty Sorrel and Arthur Donnithorne characters, who I haven't even mentioned, are a whole 'nuther dimension in this wonderful novel, and serve to remind us, though this may sound contrary to what I've already said, that all that glitters is not gold. Which is to say, at least with respect to Hetty, physical beauty, or material perfection, does not always adorn a beautiful soul, and that the reptilian part of the brain must always be moderated by sound reason and rationality.

And that's that, and it is what it is.

And A is A ('cos God says so).

BB post; free will, communication

j: I guess that's the nub of the problem. Some people seem to think that a "you" exists independently of the brain.

So far I've had no luck in getting anyone to locate that "you" which seems to be something like cloud computing.

No, this I, this you, this self, is the consummation of everything about the organism: the brain, the body, the experiences, the memories, feelings, intelligence, skills, talents, everything. I am more than the sum of my parts, as are you, but that isn't to say that I exist independently of my brain.

Mind you, there are poorly written posts and many confusions and misunderstandings. There are assumptions, insinuations, and innuendoes, and all of the things that make for a lack of good communication. I'm just as guilty as anyone else on this I suppose, but from here on in I will do my best to be clear, to carefully read and edit my posts (hoping others will do the same), and to refrain from being naughty on purpose.

What I believe we "free willers" are trying to say is that nature's technology (to steal a phrase from whynot) is ages (many of them) ahead of our own. The smartest humans who ever lived have not figured out how consciousness, sentience, identity, arises in the organism. There are many theories, there is much knowledge, but there is no literal understanding of this phenomenon as of yet, at least not here on Terra Firma.

Nature and the processes of evolution have brought about quite an astounding organic machine called a human being. At least it astounds me, and it should astound every other person, but it could very well be that there is nothing particularly noteworthy about us to other beings in the universe; in fact we may seem puny to other life forms, or perhaps amusing, or cute; or we may be something like a pestilence. Or a food source at some point in our future? Who knows?

Consciousness, identity, ego, person-hood, self-hood, these are amazing tools, the result of unimaginable ages and ages of evolution. To call them illusory is an insult to nature, and a very grave mistake, for they are the very things that have brought about science, progress, and civilization. The theory of Rights (to name just one human invention) makes no sense without the I's and You's of the world having the intelligence, the will, and the moral fortitude to write it out, to understand it, and to obey it.

If you guys aren't calling consciousness, ego, self-hood, determination, identity (all the ingredients for the property of human actions called free will) illusions - manufactured by brains as a useful means of propagating the human species - then I apologize, but it seems I have seen that very idea stated quite explicitly many times in this sub-forum.

Or is it just the word "free" that's troublesome? Like toker, (I believe, though I could be wrong) I don't care if the term free will is discarded forever. Free will is will, there is no difference. If it aint free, it aint will. The will being defined as the ability to govern one's actions deliberately, with reason or without, in accordance with one's desires or in defiance of one's desires. For good or for evil.

Let us understand one another, if we are to have some progress in this sub-forum.

Contra Metzinger; PSM; frdb; gb

This kind of knowledge cannot be applied to resolve an ontological problem. Therefore if we are "thinking" about our subjective experience then we are identifying with a model of subjective experience rather than actually "being" subjective experience and this does not solve an ontological problem.


One could finally argue that this philosophy destroys itself, and perhaps that is a good thing. For in the final analysis, when the ontological problem is resolved, there is ultimately no need for any philosophy.[/QUOTE]Welcome back, MP.:)


IMO, the lastest exploration on the 'subjective primacy' is from Metzinger.
Note the thread [URL="http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=304787"]'Being No One'[/URL].


Metzinger got rid of the ontological permanent self and replaced it with a modeled self, i.e. the Personal[Phenomenal, not personal;TP's error-gb1.13.2012] Self Model (PSM) as adapted by a specie of organism.


The apparent independent external world and all phenomena are correlated within the framework of the Personal Self Model interdependently interacting with other self-models.


These personal self models are not creations of any entity, but rather, they are random 'freak' resultants of evolutions that happen randomly to acquire self-consciousness as an adaptive feature.


The above, imo, explained away the ontological issue.
But nevertheless, philosophy is still necessary as a tool to be used by these personal self-models (individually and a group) to understand its own 'machinery' to enhance (with some sense of autonomy and will) further its adaptivity in the course of its evolution.[/QUOTE]



There is a much easier solution: first, grasp the fact that the "apparent independent external world" is real, not apparent. There really is an external world which exists independently of the subjective self, and/or the conscious mind. This solves the so-called "ontological problem", by recognizing that there is no problem. The next thing to do is forget about this personal self-model. The person you are is real: you are a real, physical object, a biological organism made up of matter; and you are also sentient and sapient: you are intelligent and understand that you are an individual biological organism with a specific identity, and that what exactly you are is not a matter of personal choice, but is an objective fact. Who you are, as in what kind of person you would like to be, is more of a mixed bag: partially set in motion by a variety of external factors and genetic make-up, plus your own plan for your life, your hopes and dreams. Therefore, you do not need a model of yourself to understand yourself. A model is a representation of something real: the model is therefore less real than the thing it represents. This is true in regard to all models. Logically, therefore, your PSM cannot be more real than the organic individual that you are.

You do not need to fabricate a model of yourself in order to interact with and understand an apparent external world, which by definition is merely a model of reality fabricated in your mind. You don't need one mental model of a real thing to understand another mental model of a real thing. All you need is a real thing (Yourself) interacting with the real world (Reality). This tends to work just fine, until you open philosophy books and try to make sense of the impressive-sounding nonsense they usually contain. Just watch a small child examining the objects in its immediate environment. No PSM there, and no Apparent External World to conflict with the real thing. Just existence, curiosity, and happiness.  

9/14/2011