|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 9, 2015 21:11:57 GMT -5
Background: I find the arguments for free will and volition being an illusion of mind to be very convincing. See Sam Harris' Free Will for a very clear and concise delivery of those arguments. He's a neuroscientist, philosopher, and has already had an 'awakening' of some sort (involving seeing through the illusion of selfhood). He's also a vocal atheist. Recently I've found myself drawn to a number of podcasts and essays by bloggers and such that are into productivity, excellence, "biohacking" and self improvement related subjects in general. All of their arguments rest on the presence of Free Will and self. One book I am reading now basically warns against those irony-addled writers who claim free will does not exist. Leads to passivity among other things. (On a side note, I ran into Sam Harris' book on Free Will and his awakening story Waking Up, via one of these efficiency/excellence podcasts. Evidently the host has yet to ponder the veracity of Free Will or or no-self arguments that Harris has made.) Before, I would touch on these 'how to improve yourself' topics with quite a bit of skepticism. The skepticism was primarily moralistic, based on skepticism of greedy snake-oil salesmen. There was a political bent to the skepticism as it turns out many of these productivity folks are enamored by Ayn Rand to greater or lesser degrees (on Rand, her essay title The Virtue of Selfishness pretty neatly summarizes her views). Nonetheless it's been partly amusing to read and list to these self-improvement spiels from within a perspective where free will and volition are seen as more mind magic. The internal comment is something like "and here I am being exposed to how-to tricks that assume something that does not exist." And I have implemented some of these practical solutions founded on illusion, with success! And that's funny too.Seems to me the free will and self illusions evolved as mental tools which increase survivability on a small, local scale. (On a global scale, it could be argued that this survival mechanism could be the global downfall.) Does anyone have tips to writers proposing that angle? Volition is not required in order to successfully implement a 'how to trick'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 13:12:57 GMT -5
Background: I find the arguments for free will and volition being an illusion of mind to be very convincing. See Sam Harris' Free Will for a very clear and concise delivery of those arguments. He's a neuroscientist, philosopher, and has already had an 'awakening' of some sort (involving seeing through the illusion of selfhood). He's also a vocal atheist. Recently I've found myself drawn to a number of podcasts and essays by bloggers and such that are into productivity, excellence, "biohacking" and self improvement related subjects in general. All of their arguments rest on the presence of Free Will and self. One book I am reading now basically warns against those irony-addled writers who claim free will does not exist. Leads to passivity among other things. (On a side note, I ran into Sam Harris' book on Free Will and his awakening story Waking Up, via one of these efficiency/excellence podcasts. Evidently the host has yet to ponder the veracity of Free Will or or no-self arguments that Harris has made.) Before, I would touch on these 'how to improve yourself' topics with quite a bit of skepticism. The skepticism was primarily moralistic, based on skepticism of greedy snake-oil salesmen. There was a political bent to the skepticism as it turns out many of these productivity folks are enamored by Ayn Rand to greater or lesser degrees (on Rand, her essay title The Virtue of Selfishness pretty neatly summarizes her views). Nonetheless it's been partly amusing to read and list to these self-improvement spiels from within a perspective where free will and volition are seen as more mind magic. The internal comment is something like "and here I am being exposed to how-to tricks that assume something that does not exist." And I have implemented some of these practical solutions founded on illusion, with success! And that's funny too.Seems to me the free will and self illusions evolved as mental tools which increase survivability on a small, local scale. (On a global scale, it could be argued that this survival mechanism could be the global downfall.) Does anyone have tips to writers proposing that angle? Volition is not required in order to successfully implement a 'how to trick'. Evidently. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2015 20:42:19 GMT -5
Volition is not required in order to successfully implement a 'how to trick'. Evidently. Maybe turning it around and looking to see why you think it would be required might reveal the misconception. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 10:09:02 GMT -5
Maybe turning it around and looking to see why you think it would be required might reveal the misconception. What it are you talking about turning around? I'm wondering about if there is a social function of free will. Why did it develop? For example, morality has a social function. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 11, 2015 12:55:45 GMT -5
Maybe turning it around and looking to see why you think it would be required might reveal the misconception. What it are you talking about turning around? I'm wondering about if there is a social function of free will. Why did it develop? For example, morality has a social function. In the law intent is often a question that determines the severity of penalty, and volition is the assignment of ownership to intent. Peeps hear of the idea of the absence of volition and gasp because they read into that the absence of personal accountability, but the fact is that where there are peeps, there will be law.  (** straight face **)  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 13:03:04 GMT -5
What it are you talking about turning around? I'm wondering about if there is a social function of free will. Why did it develop? For example, morality has a social function. In the law intent is often a question that determines the severity of penalty, and volition is the assignment of ownership to intent. Peeps hear of the idea of the absence of volition and gasp because they read into that the absence of personal accountability, but the fact is that where there are peeps, there will be law. (** straight face **) Yes that's good. It is a tool for determining consequences that are socially applied. Is there a positive aspect? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 11, 2015 13:07:13 GMT -5
In the law intent is often a question that determines the severity of penalty, and volition is the assignment of ownership to intent. Peeps hear of the idea of the absence of volition and gasp because they read into that the absence of personal accountability, but the fact is that where there are peeps, there will be law. (** straight face **) Yes that's good. It is a tool for determining consequences that are socially applied. Is there a positive aspect? Yes. Pointing out to people who feel trapped that there are choices available to them that they might not have considered. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 13:37:12 GMT -5
Yes that's good. It is a tool for determining consequences that are socially applied. Is there a positive aspect? Yes. Pointing out to people who feel trapped that there are choices available to them that they might not have considered. And it seems to work (sometimes). You can do it! That actually seems to up the amount of effort expended or something. Like it triggers some sort of hormonal response. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 11, 2015 14:56:52 GMT -5
Yes. Pointing out to people who feel trapped that there are choices available to them that they might not have considered. And it seems to work (sometimes). You can do it! That actually seems to up the amount of effort expended or something. Like it triggers some sort of hormonal response. Mind and body ain't really two different things.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2015 20:35:12 GMT -5
Maybe turning it around and looking to see why you think it would be required might reveal the misconception. What it are you talking about turning around? I mean, assume no volition, and then see if it's still possible for an individual to learn from a how-to process, driven solely by conditioning. I spose there's a social function of assigning responsibility, but really I think the idea of free will is just a natural consequence of mind/body identification. If I am a separate person, and I am making choices, I must have free will and volition. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 11, 2015 21:45:50 GMT -5
What it are you talking about turning around? I mean, assume no volition, and then see if it's still possible for an individual to learn from a how-to process, driven solely by conditioning. I spose there's a social function of assigning responsibility, but really I think the idea of free will is just a natural consequence of mind/body identification. If I am a separate person, and I am making choices, I must have free will and volition.Yeah, it's a no-brainer and the escape hatch for those who know better on that account is to identify with a mind-made object that transcends mind and body.  ... that way they get to be a peep++. It's a great deal! It's a bargain I tells ya'! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 11:21:43 GMT -5
What it are you talking about turning around? I mean, assume no volition, and then see if it's still possible for an individual to learn from a how-to process, driven solely by conditioning. ??.. I was assuming no volition. That's what was amusing. The lessons are founded on free will and self but are not needed. It's just exposure to the elements, behavior shaped by conditioning. I spose there's a social function of assigning responsibility, but really I think the idea of free will is just a natural consequence of mind/body identification. If I am a separate person, and I am making choices, I must have free will and volition. Part and parcel of selfhood. Do you see mind/body identification as being a natural part of development or is it just primarily socially learned? If the latter, what is its function? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2015 19:42:52 GMT -5
I mean, assume no volition, and then see if it's still possible for an individual to learn from a how-to process, driven solely by conditioning. ??.. I was assuming no volition. That's what was amusing. The lessons are founded on free will and self but are not needed. It's just exposure to the elements, behavior shaped by conditioning. I spose there's a social function of assigning responsibility, but really I think the idea of free will is just a natural consequence of mind/body identification. If I am a separate person, and I am making choices, I must have free will and volition. Part and parcel of selfhood. Do you see mind/body identification as being a natural part of development or is it just primarily socially learned? If the latter, what is its function? My guess is that a person dropped off on an a deserted island right after birth would eventually self identify as a separate being (let's assume survival happens).Partly because he has the cognitive ability to contemplate such things, and partly because the illusion points in that direction. |
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Feb 12, 2015 22:31:32 GMT -5
??.. I was assuming no volition. That's what was amusing. The lessons are founded on free will and self but are not needed. It's just exposure to the elements, behavior shaped by conditioning. Part and parcel of selfhood. Do you see mind/body identification as being a natural part of development or is it just primarily socially learned? If the latter, what is its function? My guess is that a person dropped off on an a deserted island right after birth would eventually self identify as a separate being (let's assume survival happens).Partly because he has the cognitive ability to contemplate such things, and partly because the illusion points in that direction. Ok so is it possible to raise some one from birth in such a way that self identification doesn't happen? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2015 23:21:22 GMT -5
My guess is that a person dropped off on an a deserted island right after birth would eventually self identify as a separate being (let's assume survival happens).Partly because he has the cognitive ability to contemplate such things, and partly because the illusion points in that direction. Ok so is it possible to raise some one from birth in such a way that self identification doesn't happen? My guess is no. Self identification seems to happen as soon as the child is able to comprehend the abstract idea, around age two. Prior to that, the child can't be taught about the matter, and after that, it may be too late. There might be a way, but I doubt it. |
|
(** straight face **) 
