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

Hello each,

I shall be within reach of modern technology again for the next 6
months when the jungle will call again.

Have read the new posts on this thread with interest and am sensing a
belief that because the brain makes our choices then they must be
free.
But to understand whether our choices are free or not do we not have
to establish from whence the brain derives the data on which it bases
its choices??? Is not our behavior largely based on evolutionary
successful actions which have proved successful in the past
(sometimes irrational and instinctive) and only slightly modified by
rational thought on which you all know my view.

It seems a worry to me that most evolutionary apt behaviours are now
not adapting quickly enough to be relevant in our present world.

Nice to be back and see the site active.

Malc

On May 18, 9:13 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are blessed, Allan, I feel... in having a rather uncomplicated
> view. Most people are yet to discover that !
>
> Seriously... the complexities they speak of is more about themselves
> than of what they speak of. But, peace, dear ones !
>
> On May 18, 12:01 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Strange Vam ,  I have always seen  more choices, now I also see the effect
> > of the choices ..  which leaves only basic first path. I do have absolute
> > free will to leave that path any time I chose.. to date I have seen no one
> > offer a better path.
> > On May 18, 2012 7:46 AM, "Vam" <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > " 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »