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

I think there are two aspects to be addressed in your post, one is the
assumption that free will among other concepts is a myth, the other is
the value or lack thereof of such myth and whether humanity can ever
abandon this notion without serious consequences to the very essence
of civilization and human society. As for the concept of free will, I
think that science is ibeginning to shed light on the indeterministic
aspect of nature and reality based on the quantum theory. Many are now
developing theories about the quantum brain that affects matter
through consciousness.
As for the value of such notion, I doubt that humanity will ever agree
to abandon it not just because of its practical value in providing
motivation and driving action, but because it seems to be embedded at
the very core of the collective human psyche, maybe for a reason that
is not only social and but also natural.

On 1/5/12, malcymo <malcymo@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'?
>