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

Re: free will (was Radio Satan)

On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, ryan richards wrote:

> > > 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.
> >
> > So you say.  But how do you know that his political ideals were not
> > the product of, say, cultural conditioning or other external stimuli?
>
> Well, they were, but this fact does not exclude the reality of choice.

Perhaps you/we should define "choice" first, then?

> 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 any one culture, probably not.  But then, there is no such thing as
belonging to just one culture -- every culture subdivides into various
subcultures, and I think everybody, to some degree or other, feels the
influence of multiple cultures, at least on that level.

So yes, Gandhi was a product of multiple cultures, and his "choices" came
out of the multi-cultural matrix in which he found himself.  But this does
not affect the question of free will one way or the other.  To say that he
was moved along by many currents and not just by one current does not
change the fact that currents were moving him along.

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

Presumably, yes -- for one thing, that is why it mates with other
squirrels and not with donkeys.

> maybe, but does it think about that fact and why that fact is so?- I
> highly doubt it . . .

Ah, so having "consciousness" means asking the question "why am I this and
not that".  Or maybe even just asking the question "why", period.

> . . . at least I've never had a conversation with one in which that
> particular topic was brought up.

Have you tried?  What methods of communication did you try?  How did you
try to arrive at a common language with the squirrel?

> > > Again, my conscious choice does not cause my action, it is only a
> > > precursor to what I am about to do or not do.
> >
> > Distinct, then.  But how do you distinguish between them -- especially
> > if your "conscious choice" does *not* cause your action?
>
> 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).

So you are placing your conclusion (free will must exist, whatever that
means) ahead of your evidence (consciousness, impulses) and ahead of your
arguments (consciousness and impulses are distinct from one another)?

Is there any reason why consciousness and impulses "must be" distinct,
apart from your need to arrive at a certain conclusion?

> I am completely unconvinced that human consciousness could have somehow
> "emerged" from even the most complex chemical processes and
> interactions.

I find this pretty difficult to believe too, actually.

> 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!

Actually, I find it quite easy to believe that chemicals could come
together in biological forms that develop the behavioural characteristics
we associate with self-awareness and so on.  It would make sense to me
that those creatures survive best which can utilize self-knowledge best.  
But what I *do* find peculiar is that I should actually be *aware* of
these activities within my own chemical-biological matrix.

> 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.

[ nod, within limits ]

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

Hmmm.  And yet he was very much a product of his own times, too.  :)  But
don't worry, I think he transcended his times, too.

--- 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/
References: