Dear Peter
Then here is a little update from Europe: We don't make much out of Sartre
these days. Even Merleau-Ponty is far more quoted these days than good old
Sartre (who never understood the Freudian revolution to begin with).
Rather we have arrived at a struggle between Hegel and Nietzsche today
represented by Zizek and Deleuze. Like the new generation of philosophers,
like Manuel DeLanda and Aaron Schuster, I'm in both camps in my work. The
synthesis of Hegel and Nietzsche is simply where it's at. And there is no
determinism in any of these camps. And certainly no talk of any "free will"
since that is just Christian theology and not philosophy proper.
Determinism requires that all things are determined in a closed loop of
cause and effect with no chance involved.
All that is required is one single incident during the Universe's existence
that can be attributed to chance and determinism is dead.
I would argue even that the big bang itself is such a chance. Also if for
example biology was not pre-programmed into the big bang, then determinism
is dead.
Probabilism only looks deterministic when studying a full field. But when
fields are broken, that determinism is also broken. That is essentially
what "chance" is. Whether our own minds then are determinist or not is
beside the point. If our surrounding reality is not determinist then
neither are our lives. The future is open. And that is what scares the shit
out of most of us. Freud, again.
Best intentions
Alexander
Den tis 21 maj 2019 kl 15:30 skrev Peter Lloyd Jones <
[log in to unmask]>:
> Alexander, John, et.al.,
>
> I was wrong to infer that the determinism debate is between only those
> from the field of philosophy, though I am pursuing it as a philosophical
> question. Some today are using interpretations of scientific evidence as
> their argument.
> Maybe John is one who (partially) is a proponent of determinism, as per
> his last note?
> Sam Harris, famously, though painfully unscholarly he is.
> Galen Strawson says he isn’t a determinist but argues that we cannot
> escape the causes that have made us who we are, which is basically a type
> of determinism since for him it means that human autonomy is an
> impossibility because we can never step out from under past causes to be
> autonomous.
> John Searle, though he seems in the last decade to be hedging on
> determinism and starting to embrace quantum indeterminism as justification
> for free will
> Jerry Coyne,
> BF Skinner, who in his philosophy of behaviorism was a determinist.
> Dan Barker doesn’t see free will as a scientific truth or philosophical
> truth, but as a social truth. But I think he is still dealing with ghosts
> of his preacher past.
> It could be that I’m am wasting time on popular opponents of free will
> that would be best to leave behind.
>
> Please know that I am addressing this issue from the context of a
> 70-year-old tome of existential philosophy, comparing Sartre’s metaphysics
> to what some claim today about proofs of physics concerning the concept of
> human autonomy. And I have to do it in 3,000 words.
>
> Also, I use the word consciousness as does Sartre, who did not acknowledge
> subconscious states. He refers to behavior as being reflective or
> non-reflective, asserting that most of our behavior is non-reflective. Much
> of his writing about non-reflective behavior lines up with is being
> compatibly the subconscious. Sartre has plenty to say about motives and
> passions and desires, and it would be revealing to suss that out against
> the background of today’s advances in neuroscience.
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful questions that bolster my self-doubt. I do
> not say that in sarcasm but truly thrive on self-doubt. It makes me work
> harder.
>
> Best to all,
> Peter
>
>
> Peter Lloyd Jones
> [log in to unmask]
> 562-209-4080
>
> Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart.
>
>
>
> On May 21, 2019, at 6:45 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Peter, In the name of shameless self promotion, I have proposed that life
> is both deterministic and probabilistic based on experimental evidence for
> both cell physiology and its relationship to Quantum Mechanics (see
> attached). Perhaps you could comment? Best, John
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 9:51 PM Peter Lloyd Jones <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> John, Alexander, Gregg, and TOK,
>> It seems that we agree also that choice is better than free will because
>> the freedom we are taking about when using the rems “free will" is a doing,
>> not something to have. It is a verb, as John just said, and as Sartre has
>> said. Sartre of course worked this out deeply on the ontological level,
>> saying that freedom, choice, consciousness are all one and the same. His
>> thought is that the only practical way to look at consciousness is how we
>> are discussing looking at choice, that it is an action, not a container of
>> things, that we are temporal beings evolving minute by minute.
>> Consciousness is the life-long pursuit of being that is a doing and never
>> an inert thing to label.
>>
>> A few years ago I read an article by a doctor of medicine who proposed
>> that consciousness is change, a physical change within our brains, and that
>> using AI or computing metaphors only drives us away from understanding
>> consciousness. I wrote him asking if his paper was based on research he
>> might be able to share and he responded that it was just a hypothesis he
>> was pondering. Dang it. But another start.
>>
>> I am, so far, in agreement with Sartre, that we act within “a network of
>> determinants.” That though does not mean that our acts are determined and
>> unfree. So evolution, like conscious choice, is free to go in novel
>> directions in evolving novel environments, within the context of its
>> history.
>>
>> I am pondering whether determinism might not be a problem for
>> determinism. What I mean is, there are countless determinants competing to
>> influence our every choices, or our evolution, and how can it be
>> comprehensibly possible that it is already decided for all time which
>> determinant is going to be the alfa determinant in all events? Further,
>> this has to be taken on faith as it is unrepeatable and untestable. That
>> alone should put it outside the boundaries of science and philosophy.
>>
>> Alexander, I do think it is a waste of time to be arguing against
>> determinism, but, in philosophy, there is a whole movement right now
>> promoting determinism. My hope is to shoot it dead.
>>
>> I do like syndeterminism...
>>
>> Thank you all for your contributions here,
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter Lloyd Jones
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 562-209-4080
>>
>> Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart.
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 20, 2019, at 4:55 PM, Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Peter
>>
>> I agree. Strongly. But why even pretend that determinism has a case any
>> longer? Why not go straight to the point and cut the chase and ask in what
>> way determinism predicted the big bang itself?
>> Now, if the big bang is an emergence proper, as the birth of physics
>> itself, we can then rethink history as emergences that create their own
>> vectors. This means there is fundamentally no difference between parallel
>> universes and the development of physics and later chemistry and later
>> biology and later mind and later culture. They are all vectors of
>> emergences in a fundamentally indeterminist metaverse.
>> Actually a human life can then be seen as vector of an emergence called
>> birth itself. Now that's what I call an emergence theory worthy of proper
>> complexity science.
>> The question is rather whether indeterminism is the appropriate term?
>> Perhaps syndeterminism is even better? Especially since we do not even need
>> chance or dices then either.
>>
>> Best intentions
>> Alexander
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> <1-s2.0-S0079610718300890-main.pdf>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
