Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

47237Re: Freedom versus determinism

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Mar 1, 2009
      This post is totally off-topic. From past experience, all questions
      are answered in self-referential manner, as though only forms of
      existential enquiry approved by Chris Lofting himself will receive any
      attention. Persistent enquiry will yield to loss of surface aplomb
      and retreat to juvenile mockery. All of this should not go unnoticed.
      The general habit of thought is cultic and subtly (for those who are
      attracted by technocratic expression) subversive of humane values.
      That is, what may please some may easily damage others. This is
      evidently characteristic of institutional religions and sects in
      general, which is why open enquiry and intelligent satire is a
      desirable part of a free society. I maintain, however, that there is
      very little understanding, in mainstream Western cultures, of the
      major religious traditions, and that this accounts for the frequent
      failures of comprehension when 'believers' debate with 'sceptics' or
      'atheists'. Courtesy is not a superficial social practice. It has
      evolved over long centuries of conflict and the hurt that arises from
      conflict. Feelings are important, even though it may not be possible
      in many cases to respect the arguments of those with different
      beliefs. The complexity and tension of awareness involved is
      desirable. It is part of civilised living.


      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of devogney
      > > Sent: Sunday, 1 March 2009 12:38 PM
      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [existlist] Freedom versus determinism
      > >
      > > I recall a few weeks or so ago the question of freedom versus
      > > determinism was being discussed here. Someone said that you
      > > couldn't have it both ways. I believe we are free to have it
      > > both ways. I believe it is empowering to be able to have more
      > > than one paradigm through which to perceive life.
      > Sure - you can work as a particular of the species and process
      > etc as a genetically-determined being OR as a singular being, 'free'
      to make
      > choices (to a degree, your singular being is always operating WITHIN the
      > bounds set by the biology).
      > Consider consciousness as an agent of mediation in LOCAL contexts
      and that
      > includes serving as a 'randomiser' of the set of behaviours
      available; as
      > such consciousness can let you escape false reasoning by being
      > 'irrational'. We can interpret this as consciousness manifesting
      > mutation now internalised and working 24/7.
      > > I think
      > > that for some endeavors determisism can be a paradigm that
      > > allows us to perceive directions and progressions.Whereas in
      > > many other areas of life, the paradigm of freedom is a more
      > > empowering mode. I understand in quantum physics, that in one
      > > mode the universe can be seen as one energy wave, and in
      > > another mode it is seen as particles.
      > >
      > This is a product of methodology where we cover precision vs
      > in the context of acts of mediation. As such HOW you observe
      determines WHAT
      > you observe. Nothing magical about that once you understand the
      dynamics of
      > meaning derivation in the presence of indeterminacy. The wave/particle
      > duality issue is built-in to our methods of processing information
      and so
      > will appear in experiments that touch on such in high precision
      across the
      > microcosm, mesocosm, macrocosm. QM has been demanding of our
      intellects and
      > so we project all possible forms of interpretation onto our
      experiments and
      > then get surprised with the findings where such reflect more a
      failure to
      > understand our methodology in processing information.
      > > I believe the freedom to have things both ways, or maybe even
      > > three or four ways is very much a part of the evolution of
      > > human freedom itself.
      > ? consciousness actually LIMITS freedom buy reducing the degrees of
      > available - it serves to suppress/repress and as such covers top-down
      > dynamics of regulation to aid in making the 'best fit' choices.
      Since the
      > brain can only deal with 7+/-2 concepts at the same time, so as we work
      > through choices we drop some to pick up others - given lots of
      others this
      > can be experienced consciously as lots of choices being available -
      and if
      > one is ignorant of unconscious activity then a spanner can be thrown
      > the works very quickly.
      > Our more differentiating parts of the brain work of probabilistic
      > subjective probabilities (Bayesian statistics), high risk, partials
      > anti-symmetric. The subjectivity sorts the set of posssibles into a
      > dimension from 'best fit' to 'worst fit'. Objectivity is useful to
      aid in
      > refining the subjectivity and so making the dimension better fit
      'reality as
      > is'.
      > The more choices in the set of probabilities means we exceed that 7+/-2
      > limit. We are naturally attracted to the 'best fit' end of the
      dimension and
      > so work from there 'down'. The point is that ALL of the dimension
      applies to
      > a moment such that elements of the 'worst fit' can still contribute in a
      > small way to the WHOLE experience and we can, do, often miss this
      > one is naturally anxious and so uses imagination to try and cover all
      > possibilities - but this can lead to a failure to act!)
      > Chris
      > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic