ilovefuzz.com

The examples of chemical or neurological "conditions" that Neil DeGrasse Tyson brings up in this video as examples precluding free will seem sort of like saying that the fact that conditions are such that some people involuntarily starve to death proves that there is no free will.

The human organism, like all living things, needs sustenance to live. So not eating is not a "choice" even though one can choose what to eat or when to eat. One can even choose to go on a hunger strike or refuse to eat altogether. For life, eating is necessary. Most people would choose to eat if given the choice. But choices can be limited by external logistical factors (you can't choose not to live in a society that allows poor people to starve to death just as you cannot choose not to be subject to gravity. You can, however, choose to lie down and never stand up or try to travel to a country where poor people are not allowed to starve to death—but your ability to travel is curtailed by the same factors and lack of resources that might make you susceptible to starving to death).

The human organism is full of autonomic mechanisms (nervous system) as well as mechanisms that are a mix of controllable and automatic. You can choose to blink or breathe or alter the pattern of either, but these functions also carry on by themselves. The ability to use free will and choose when to hold your breath means you can swim or avoid breathing in noxious fumes.

And sociological and economic circumstance do curtain the spectrum of one's options, but people in all circumstances still make the decisions.

The Boston Strangler was left handed. But that doesn't mean that all people who are left-handed will become serial killers.

I don't think I'd turn to an astrophysicist for a neurology question but I heard this interview a couple of days ago and the author makes some good points:
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/ ... /103702968

If I were anywhere near the Greater NY area, my free will'd do nothing to keep me away from this show:

https://dice.fm/event/v5o2v-e-love-chil ... oc8dMuAAAA



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtEFL_szFZg

I'm reading Robert Sapolsky's Determined right now, where he makes the neurobiological argument against free well. I'm almost a quarter of the way through it, and I'm more unconvinced on whether I'm enjoying him as a writer than having my mind blown by the arguments.

oldangelmidnight wrote:I don't think I'd turn to an astrophysicist for a neurology question but I heard this interview a couple of days ago and the author makes some good points:
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/ ... /103702968

Funny you should say that and use that particular person (Sapolsky) as who you would want to hear from.
Turns out you can do both.

This last one takes away your ability to choose whether to view this clip on ILF.
But, instead of watching it on YouTube, you could go to your local public library
and check out some "Zen Buddhism For Beginners" books and reestablish your
ability to choose to believe that there is no "you" that can "choose" to "believe".

Heraclitus Akimbo wrote:I'm reading Robert Sapolsky's Determined right now, where he makes the neurobiological argument against free well. I'm almost a quarter of the way through it, and I'm more unconvinced on whether I'm enjoying him as a writer than having my mind blown by the arguments.

I find Sapolsky a super interesting guy to listen to on this stuff. I don't know if I'm fully on board with what he says at all times but he has an interesting perspective, and he's certainly thought and investigated a hell of a lot more than I have about the issue.

While I find this debate extremely interesting in a theoretical sense, I'm ultimately very happy to just go along with the fact it feels very much as if I have free will and don't worry too much about whether that's my brain lying to me or not.

this is the sort of philosophical question that i used to wonder about until i accepted the notion that everything is illusion anyway, and the only meaning that exists is to pursue joy. so whether i actually have "free will," whatever that is, is kind of irrelevant. anyway, i don't think it's an all-or-nothing question. i'm quite sure some of my responses are hard-wired into my biology, but i don't think my biochemistry makes me like listening to Merzbow or petting my cat.

It helps me get rid of shame around bad habits and it helps me feel empathy for folks who are having a hard time.
The implications for justice and criminality are probably most consequential.

Knock knock.

Every creature operates within the envelope of its nature.

Who's there?

Human beings feel. And remember. And by virtue of retaining examples and extrapolating from them, humans think.

Banana.

It's in our nature to feel/remember/think.

Banana who?

A genetic or neurological predisposition is not the same thing as having no choice.

Knock knock.

Everything that "is" sets the parameters for the situation of now. Our choices are based on what "was" as filtered through our expectations of what "might be" or "could be" or "will be".

Who's there?

The moment of now is a never-to-be-repeated phenomenon that rhymes.

Banana.

Even if it's just with a soft rhyme.

Banana who?

When contemplating the universe or ourselves, the human mind carries around its assumptions and prejudgements (shortcuts) with it.

Knock knock...

Letting go of some of our personal or collective prejudices is healthy.

Who's there?

Doing so helps us perceive what is really happening instead of predisposing us to fall into the trap of projecting and interacting solely with our own mental patterns.
Patterns that we see everywhere and that seem vaguely familiar (soft rhymes for hard times).

Orange.

Letting go of all of our prejudices and preconceived notions for a controlled, finite period of time can be healthy.

Orange who?

This is something that meditation and/or other forms of open-hearted "mind-expansion" allow for.

Orange you glad I didn't say that I slipped on a banana peel while walking through the "poor ranch"?

But like all such journeys, they are only meaningful and helpful if the traveller returns home safely to metabolize and enact what they've learned from their new experiential perspective shift.

How banal. Let's split.

It is in the nature of humans to possess an ego. I am skeptical of those who suggest "annihilating the ego" as a goal.
Such people often want to demolish the egos of others so that they can extend the sprawl of their own egos like
gated condominium developments.

The way I see it, joy and pleasure are only meaningful within the context of empathy and a healthy understanding of one's self
(ego/id/sensation/feelings/memory/etc.) and the overlapping links of our connection to that which is larger than us (life in all
of its abstractions and particulars).

Drinking a glass of water after meaningful but tiring work is a profound pleasure. The mediated and fleeting nature of
such a seemingly simple pleasure makes it all the more precious. For us to enjoy a glass of water after hard work, we have
to ensure that all the other animals and plants on earth can also enjoy clean, healthy water as well.
Much of what we take for granted, we shouldn't.

The movie?

K2000 wrote:The movie?

Free will is available, but we have to hack our brains to get it, which includes overriding our other forms of will (anger, desire, etc.). For example, I quit smoking over 14 years ago and next month I'll be 14 years alcohol-free, and I could not have achieved or maintained these things without free will. My higher power didn't do it, and my genetics definitely didn't do it. While I don't believe most of us operate by free will, some degree can be attained.

Have we ever considered that Will deserved it?

That's what Chris Rock said.