[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: free will (was Radio Satan)

By the way, I only get an hour a day on this thing (free library access) so 
I don't have time to clean it up much.   Ryan


>From: "Peter T. Chattaway" <petert at interchange_ubc.ca>
>Reply-To: "Peter T. Chattaway" <petert at interchange_ubc.ca>
>CC: Over the Rhine listserv <Over-the-Rhine at actwin_com>
>Subject: Re: free will (was Radio Satan)
>Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 17:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
>
>On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Peter wrote:
>
> > > Well, I think a person who didn't believe in free will would simply
> > > argue that Ghandi, like many people, had a more complex brain than a
> > > cat, and thus, his actions would not have been influenced quite so
> > > directly by external stimuli.  But Ghandi was certainly responding to
> > > his environment when he went on hunger strikes -- he observed a
> > > political situation, formulated an opinion concerning what the most
> > > effective response to the situation might be, and then chose to act as
> > > he did.  If he had made political ideals more important to himself
> > > than his personal health, for whatever reason, then his actions would
> > > have been an appropriate, and possibly even predictable, response to
> > > his external stimuli.


> > Ryan:
> > I agree with everything stated above.  The problem with the counter
> > arguement is that Gandhi (sorry, my original misspelling) had to choose
> > to make his political ideas more important than himself.


>Peter:
>So you say.  But how do you know that his political ideals were not the
>product of, say, cultural conditioning or other external stimuli?


Ryan:

Well, they were, but this fact does not exclude the reality of choice.  For 
one, Gandhi was a product of multiple cultures (South African, British and 
Indian) and therefore had the advantage of picking and choosing the ideas he 
thought were best from each.  I don't see how it would be possible that his 
personal philosophy was somehow forced upon by culture.  By the way, if you 
really want to understand him read his book "My Experiments with Truth".  It 
may help you understand where his ultimate conclusions about what his 
lifestyle should be came from, not mention that it is a profound sort of 
"how to" book on how to discover what really works or what's "true" in human 
experience.

>   Ryan:
> > Now did this decision come from some impulse further back in his
> > consciousness (or brain chemistry if you don't believe in a soul)?


>Peter:
>Side note:  You don't have to believe in a soul in order to believe that
>people (and other beings) are, in some sense, conscious.


Ryan:
Yes, but self conscious?-that is the real question.  A squirrel is conscious 
but is it aware that it is a squirrel and not, say, a donkey?- maybe, but 
does it think about that fact and why that fact is so?- I highly doubt it, 
at least I've never had a conversation with one in which that particular 
topic was brought up.


>Ryan:
> > The answer is Yes!  When it comes down to the actual act of course it is
> > ultimately a neurological impulses that cause the body to move, or be
> > still in spite of the impulse to not be struck in the case of Gandhi's
> > followers.  Just because the direct cause of an action can finally be
> > reduced to an electrical charge in the brain that tells the fist to
> > strike or the head to duck doesn't mean that said person necessarily had
> > to obey that impulse.  My experience is that it possible to overcome
> > these instinctual drives through conscious choice.
>
>But if the conscious choice to over-ride that instinctual drive expresses
>itself through a neurological impulse, as you say, are you saying, then,
>that the "conscious choice" is *distinct* from, or *identical* to, the
>"neurological impulse" that over-rides the instinctual drive?


Ryan:
I'm saying it is distinct.  I don't see how an impulse could override an 
instinct since they both seem to be of a similar nature.

>Ryan:
> > Again, my conscious choice does not cause my action, it is only a
> > precursor to what I am about to do or not do.


>Peter:
>Distinct, then.  But how do you distinguish between them -- especially if
>your "conscious choice" does *not* cause your action?


Ryan:
One in spiritual (consciousness) and one is material (impulse).  Although 
intimately bound (like lovers perhaps?) they also must be distinct 
(especially if free will is to exist).  I am completely unconvinced that 
human consciousness could have somehow "emerged" from even the most complex 
chemical processes and interactions.  Combine all the chemicals you want and 
I can't even imagine how you could ever attain a compound that was somehow 
aware of it's own properties and even nature- truely absurd!  The only other 
option that makes any kind of sense to me is that the human mind is somehow 
connected to an outside, "divine mind" if you will that allows said person 
to somehow see itself.

>Ryan:
> > Oh, and by the way, "He that the Son has set free is free indeed". :)))
>
>Whatever *that* means.  ;)

Ryan:

What I meant was that I've come to the conclusion that only by following the 
teachings and example of our good friend from Nazareth can we truly be set 
from the grasp of our powerful instinctual drives and the overwhelming force 
of cultural pressures and conditioning.
>
>"Then You capture me / I win the freedom of this slavery..."
>http://www.danielamos.com/lyrics/abriefingfortheascent.html#captureme
>
>--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
>  "I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
>       Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom
>
>---------------
>Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups: