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

" Life is a combination of free will & destiny. More you go deep in
meditation & align with laws of nature, your free will increases - Sri
Sri "

Just read this quote on Twitter.

On May 10, 2:19 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ohhh Molly there is always choice, and we are faced with countless
> everyday.  Perhaps though the biggest choice is simply " To be"  Or indeed
> to, not be.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, 9 January 2012 23:20:58 UTC, Molly wrote:
> > Perhaps, gabby.  But at this point in my life, for me, there is no
> > other choice.  So is it really a choice?
>
> > On Jan 9, 6:14 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Oh Molly, I believe you are more than the box you come in, too! I
> > > believe you choose to want to feel lovely at each moment, feeling
> > > alive!
>
> > > On Jan 9, 11:34 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > We know by recognizing his potentiality and helping him to do the
> > > > same.  Sometimes, given the box it comes in, this takes an
> > > > extraordinary amount of love and care.  At some point, choice, like
> > > > goals and purpose and all the rest, just fall away.  And here we are.
> > > > Relating to those we love.  Feeling the life we've been given.  Ten
> > > > years ago I would not have imagined myself as I am today.  I am here
> > > > because somewhere along the line I discovered that the best I can "do"
> > > > is express myself with love in each moment, and recognize the same in
> > > > others, whatever the circumstance.  Given that, life unfolds.
>
> > > > On Jan 9, 3:42 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Some of this take on epistemology can be gleaned by observing what's
> > > > > around us.  Teenagers are a minefield of such information.  My
> > > > > grandson (14) is currently making excuses for not having enough
> > baths
> > > > > and showers along the lines of 'it's my body'.  Empirically he
> > stinks.
> > > > > He's barely noticed how much work gets done around him.  He can't
> > keep
> > > > > his PC free of viruses or use his laptop with enough care not to
> > break
> > > > > the charger lead (etc.).  It has barely dawned on him that I was
> > once
> > > > > his age and that he has never been my age.  He's a good enough lad
> > and
> > > > > this is all that really matters to me.  He was like an Irishman put
> > in
> > > > > a barrel and told to piss in the corner the other day (add Pole,
> > > > > Belgian etc. to xenophobic choice).  I gave him a power lead
> > straight
> > > > > from the box and he spent the time trying to fit it to the socket
> > with
> > > > > the insulation packaging left on.  I guess he won't next time,
> > though
> > > > > I proved a slower learner on some such stuff.  It would be easy
> > enough
> > > > > to leave him alone to "develop" into a useless, smelly nitwit.  The
> > > > > idea is we don't.  How do we know?
>
> > > > > On Jan 7, 10:34 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I agree with RP that we are looking at complex relations.  Lots
> > has
> > > > > > been said on Mal's thought - this is a standard\ example:
>
> > > > > > "The Darwinian revolution of the nineteenth century suggested an
> > > > > > alternative approach first explored by Dewey and the pragmatists.
> > > > > > Human beings, as the products of evolutionary development, are
> > natural
> > > > > > beings. Their capacities for knowledge and belief are also the
> > > > > > products of a natural evolutionary development. As such, there is
> > some
> > > > > > reason to suspect that knowing, as a natural activity, could and
> > > > > > should be treated and analyzed along lines compatible with its
> > status,
> > > > > > i. e., by the methods of natural science. On this view, there is
> > no
> > > > > > sharp division of labor between science and epistemology. In
> > > > > > particular, the results of particular sciences such as
> > evolutionary
> > > > > > biology and psychology are not ruled a priori irrelevant to the
> > > > > > solution of epistemological problems. Such approaches, in general,
> > are
> > > > > > called naturalistic epistemologies, whether they are directly
> > > > > > motivated by evolutionary considerations or not. Those which are
> > > > > > directly motivated by evolutionary considerations and which argue
> > that
> > > > > > the growth of knowledge follows the pattern of evolution in
> > biology
> > > > > > are called "evolutionary epistemologies."
>
> > > > > > Evolutionary epistemology is the attempt to address questions in
> > the
> > > > > > theory of knowledge from an evolutionary point of view.
> > Evolutionary
> > > > > > epistemology involves, in part, deploying models and metaphors
> > drawn
> > > > > > from evolutionary biology in the attempt to characterize and
> > resolve
> > > > > > issues arising in epistemology and conceptual change. As
> > disciplines
> > > > > > co-evolve, models are traded back and forth. Thus, evolutionary
> > > > > > epistemology also involves attempts to understand how biological
> > > > > > evolution proceeds by interpreting it through models drawn from
> > our
> > > > > > understanding of conceptual change and the development of
> > theories.
> > > > > > The term "evolutionary epistemology" was coined by Donald Campbell
> > > > > > (1974)."
>
> > > > > > I don't agree, incidentally that we need to 'apply science
> > methods' to
> > > > > > look into this and feel this is far too restrictive.
>
> > > > > > On Jan 7, 8:52 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Here is a thought.
>
> > > > > > > If rational thinking has resulted from the sucessful
> > evolutionary
> > > > > > > developement of the biological brain then that is all it is.
> > Certainly
> > > > > > > rational thoght would not have developed in (SAY) a fungus in a
> > cave
> > > > > > > for it would have no survival advantage. So freewill is nothing
> > more
> > > > > > > than an apt evolutionary development.
>
> > > > > > > On Jan 7, 9:03 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > those are just excuses,   yes my back ground and experiences
> > are what I use
> > > > > > > > for making decision ---  that does not bind me,  i still have
> > the choice to
> > > > > > > > respond as i like
> > > > > > > > Allan
>
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:33 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > We are bound by very subtle ties and our ostensible freedom
> > is wrapped
> > > > > > > > > in bondage. If we lock up criminals we are bound and if we
> > don't we
> > > > > > > > > are still bound. Nature, within our will and that without,
> > binds us.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 5:01 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Secular myths abound - largely because most of us are
> > early-tuned to
> > > > > > > > > > religious ones.  I suspect that the idea of social science
> > is one of
> > > > > > > > > > them.  Peter Winch wrote a small book on the topic in 1960
> > - I'd guess
> > > > > > > > > > he was one of Wittgenstein's students.  We mythologise
> > many secular
> > > > > > > > > > elements of society - democracy is one, leadership
> > another.  Science
> > > > > > > > > > becomes one in those thinking it can answer all questions
> > or (as in
> > > > > > > > > > Dawkins) is the only important focus.  If we have no free
> > will we
> > > > > > > > > > should stop locking up criminals.  The question on free
> > will is what
> > > > > > > > > > life would entail without it and consequent
> > responsibilities denied.
> > > > > > > > > > Even Nietzsche insisted having seen the chaos we should
> > make oursleves
> > > > > > > > > > works of art.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 5:17 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> I totally  agree with you Molly
> > > > > > > > > >> On Jan 6, 2012 12:15 PM, "Molly" <mollyb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >> > There is more to life than the realm of cause and
> > effect.  Many of us
> > > > > > > > > >> > just prefer it there.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> > On Jan 5, 5:27 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Free will is a reality..  the problem comes once you
> > made your
> > > > > > > > > choice and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > the effects of the choice ,,  these results appear
> > that you have no
> > > > > > > > > >> > > choice,,  you just mad it earlier.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Allan
>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:33 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »