Mind's Eye Re: Freewill - A useful myth?

Loved Hancock. Yes, IQ tests are obviously culturally based.

On Jan 12, 5:17 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I grew up with Hancock's Half Hour - he was a brilliantly pessimistic
> comedian!  Killed himself.  I rather like the gnostic pessimism that
> creation is a mistake - one can still build an optimistic life based
> on this.  I don't go for it myself - the idea is best read in Rosak's
> "Flicker" which made me laugh my Hancock off.
>
> Mal - there's some evidence lizards are getting smarter because of
> global warming (seriously).  Even amoeba are highly adapted creatures
> that have "learned".  Bushmen in Africa have very low average IQ - but
> are we going to pit our IQ against their local intelligence in
> surviving in their backyard without our civilized stuff?  Their
> intelligence is fitted to their conditions - indeed it's likely
> "intelligence" in our sense is linked to not living where the (bad)
> infectious diseases are.  Much we attribute  to "genes" and individual-
> ethnic  superiority concerns geography, climate and a lot more.
>
> Without getting into eternal-TOE stuff we are presumably free to
> deconstruct rigsy's glob - though I wonder how many can really make
> this choice or have made a choice not to bother.  I guess the big
> problem of going with such glob-flow is when it's fascist or contains
> "religious reasons" to make women walk about in black bags or have to
> suffer "churching" and the like.  Greek epistemology didn't get to
> grips with much we now see as freedom.  For that matter, we find what
> look like refined, rationalised human mistakes like slavery in some
> ant practice and our bodies are evidence we assimilated other life
> forms like the Borg in our evolution.  Science is making "gene-
> splicing" a   reality.
> I guess we have be able to choose between fictions and at bottom I
> like the idea of being able to live in choice.  Some fictions prevent
> this on a grand scale.  The real issues emerge when one realises that
> one wants to insist women don't wear black bags and you might have no
> right to tell them not to.  In practice much changes when coercive
> authority-hegemony is removed.  At this point I don't consider the
> individual as the site of freedom and tend to believe existentialism
> hapless.
>
> On Jan 11, 12:31 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > By the time one is walking down the aisle the trap has been laid. :-)
> > It's like joining the army and hoping you don't get killed or maimed
> > for life, perhaps, or that your being a soldier will bring everlasting
> > peace to our world. Eventually-hopefully- one reasons out the past and
> > comes to some understanding- but that's hindsight rather than
> > foresight. If we live in a liberal country, we might "get over IT".
>
> > I do think we absorb a glob of wishful thinking promoted by religion
> > and culture at an early age and as malcymo says, optimists are more
> > fun than pessimists and likely to have similar friends- or ones that
> > share your delusions. Heaven help the truth-teller! "Sit down! You're
> > Rocking the Boat!" (Guys and Dolls)
>
> > On Jan 10, 12:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Bringing up Liz reminds me of common experiments in brain science
> > > rigsy.  We often think something special about ourselves will beat the
> > > average - that our ownb free will or determination etc. will defy
> > > statistical reality - as in
> > > Ask a bride before walking down the aisle "How likely are you to get
> > > divorced?" and most will respond "Not a chance!" Tell her that the
> > > average divorce rate is close to 50 percent, and ask again. Would she
> > > change her mind? Unlikely. Even law students who have learned
> > > everything about the legal aspects of divorce, including its
> > > likelihood, state that their own chances of getting divorced are
> > > basically nil. How can we explain this?
>
> > > Psychologists have documented human optimism for decades. They have
> > > learned that people generally overestimate their likelihood of
> > > experiencing positive events, such as winning the lottery, and
> > > underestimate their likelihood of experiencing negative events, such
> > > as being involved in an accident or suffering from cancer. Informing
> > > people about their statistical likelihood of experiencing negative
> > > events, such as divorce, is surprisingly ineffective at altering their
> > > optimistic predictions, and highlighting previously unknown risk
> > > factors for diseases fails to engender realistic perceptions of
> > > medical vulnerability. How can people maintain their rose-colored
> > > views of the future in the face of reality? Which neural processes are
> > > involved in people's optimistic predictions?
>
> > > We have some fair answers to some of this, but Catch 22, telling
> > > people is unlikely to affect them!
>
> > > On Jan 10, 3:41 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Which reminds me of a quote (Liz Taylor?) that she would do the same
> > > > things all over again but with different people.
>
> > > > How are you measuring these societies? Certainly seems like evils
> > > > persist in secular societies as readily as the religious. (Eco has a
> > > > great paper on fascism- "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at
> > > > a Blackshirt"  http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html).
>
> > > > I love certain authors- Eco being one- lust after them, in fact- even
> > > > the dead ones!
>
> > > > On Jan 9, 4:37 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Thanks for the new Eco book.
>
> > > > > I likewise respect deterministic forces simply because I know that if
> > > > > placed again in all the
> > > > > decision making positions of my past I would, given the social
> > > > > circumstances, have made the same choices.
> > > > > There are no "If onlys" in my life.
>
> > > > > However, it seems to me that secular authority has tried much harder
> > > > > to create fairer, more ethical guidance for societies than
> > > > > those created in the non secular realm. What do you all think?
>
> > > > > I must get hold of a copy of 'The prague cemetary'.
>
> > > > > Malc
> > > > > On Jan 10, 2:10 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Eco was on Charlie Rose (a tv interviewer in the USA) the other night.
> > > > > > His latest book is another mythbuster- the "Protocols"- entitled "The
> > > > > > Prague Cemetary".
>
> > > > > > I respect deterministic forces-fate-weakness. I was rereading
> > > > > > "Robinson Crusoe" where there is a good deal of debate as Crusoe
> > > > > > adapts/accepts his circumstances- but that was the 18th C- still quite
> > > > > > religious. One must wrestle with accountability- it is so easy to
> > > > > > blame or deny.
>
> > > > > > On Jan 5, 3:33 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Humanity has always, for some reason, felt the need to support his
> > > > > > > world view with a series of myths commonly termed beliefs in order to,
> > > > > > > in some way, justify its behaviour. We must not, however, believe that
> > > > > > > these myths are always spiritual or mystical in nature. Many are not.
>
> > > > > > > The legitimacy of a myth depends on many features. Umberto Eco in his
> > > > > > > excellent tome 'Foucault's Pendulum' quietly draws our attention to
> > > > > > > the requirements needed for the creation of a robust myth and there is
> > > > > > > no doubt that within most religious and philosophical beliefs the
> > > > > > > required elements are found.
>
> > > > > > > Secular myths, however, are somewhat harder to pin down. This may be
> > > > > > > because they are founded little more than intuition. They are
> > > > > > > therefore difficult to identify as myths in the first place. Also,
> > > > > > > such myths can often serve a very useful purpose.
>
> > > > > > > Let us take as an example the idea of freewill. The idea is so
> > > > > > > embedded in our psych that most of us believe it to be a reality. Even
> > > > > > > so, an in depth study soon reveals the fragility of the idea. So
> > > > > > > fragile is it that philosophers have argued over the question of
> > > > > > > determinism v free will for generations; time which could have been
> > > > > > > more usefully employed on other ventures. Indeed some eminent
> > > > > > > philosophers believe that free will and determinism can sit
> > > > > > > legitimately together – the so called Such is the nature of a myth.
>
> > > > > > > We can only suppose that such an idea must appear rational to us in
> > > > > > > order to give it legitimacy. After all, our ideas of virtuous
> > > > > > > behaviour, responsibility and justice are founded on the idea of free
> > > > > > > will; that we are responsible for our actions and must accept our
> > > > > > > responsibilities. Yet, there is no doubt that free will defies the
> > > > > > > tenets embodied in modern physics, the idea of cause and effect. It
> > > > > > > seems to be extremely difficult for us to accept that some things just
> > > > > > > are.
>
> > > > > > > I am interested in this dilemma because if we eventually discover, if
> > > > > > > we have not already, that determinism is beyond dispute how should we
> > > > > > > react? How could we possibly recreate our society to live with such a
> > > > > > > 'truth'?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -