Gregg,
Nice blog to take to heart. My default system is that I greatly prefer to read points of view that I disagree with rather than the ones to which I agree. It is only by understanding opposing arguments that I can possibly build arguments against them. If I fail to suss out useful arguments against them then I am faced with the need to question if I am the one in error. 

Anyway, regarding Harris, Coyne and others who poo-poo free will, I half blame those who promote free will for the foothold that determinists have earned in the popular consciousness. I find most of the arguments for free will to be insupportable or misleading. Without meaningful resistance how can we expect Harris and Coyne too see their own errors? That's an unreasonable expectation. 

After authoring my one paper that has been published, the professor who got me into this told me the night before I presented it that my paper was in error. I felt good about it so I asked him why he thought that. He replied, “Because it undoes 30 years of accepted interpretation.” I suggested that that wasn’t an argument and we left it at that.

This is to say, that we can be very crafty at misleading ourselves. I find it works best if I assume that I’m an idiot and work from there.

Thank you again,
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 Sep 14, 2019, at 9:07 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Peter,
>   Great insight and question regarding the ability to justify our version of reality, often with remarkably self-centered blind spots. We are “motivated reasoners” and seek justification and influence, and are designed with psychological defense process like cognitive dissonance reduction dynamics that maintain the idea that we are right, smart, good, etc. and those who think differently are, well, wrong, foolish, evil.
>   I think you are wise to pause and reflect and wonder—as you see it in others so clearly—is it possible that you are also doing it. I always try to maintain a meta-cognitive observer perspective that views me from the light of those who disagree with me. That helps me see where my own biases might be. And it helps to ask others we trust.
>  
>   I am reminded of an adage from my friend and fellow C-I core faculty psychologist, Craig Shealy…We are all full of shit, just to different degrees and different degrees of awareness. Here is a quick blog I did on why it is a useful frame to keep in mind <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201602_humbling-2Dhelpful-2Dadage-2Dlive&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=-O0gKoZk_K7oat2qqQIML3tK1aW8DWb9Fuay7XwVQpE&s=wKBvO6mXlmqypKPZpm_vbo6SCqnmwZjhAbYozhTyLVc&e=>.  
>  
> Best,
> G
>  
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Peter Lloyd Jones
> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 8:10 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: On the concept of sovereignty
>  
> Gregg,
> Thank you for the reference. I fully appreciate the rejection of determinism from this unique direction, and the aesthetics of the quote. I am intrigued. 
>  
> While looking for greater understanding of determinists, yesterday I listened to an interview by Sam Harris of Jerry Coyne. Though they spend too much time critiquing the silliness of those who don’t agree with them, this side hobby of theirs does shed light on the mind-bending intellectual justifications for faith. I don’t remember if I mentioned that my next paper is about the exceptional ability we have, myself fully included, in constructing and justifying insupportable ideas. Those two have gifted me exquisite material of people gaslighting themselves. They are not charlatans; they fully believe what they say. I am left to wonder how often I’ve committed that crime on myself. Am I doing it right now?
> Peter
>  
> Peter Lloyd Jones
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> 562-209-4080
> 
> Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart. 
>  
>  
> 
> 
> On Sep 13, 2019, at 3:05 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>  
> Peter,
>   The concept was from Stuart Kaufman in his recent work, The World Beyond Physics (2019).
>  
>   Here is the quote…
>  
>   But what evolves cannot be said ahead of time: what evolves emerges unprestatably—I know of no better word—and builds our biosphere of increasing complexity.
>  
> It refers to the idea that the future of emergence is not only not determined, it is of such a mystery that is simply cannot be stated what will come about.
> 
> Best,
> Gregg
>  
>  
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Peter Lloyd Jones
> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 1:16 PM
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: On the concept of sovereignty
>  
> Cory, 
> I am hoping that it reminds you that Schrodinger’s cat was meant to reveal the fallacy of applying quantum physics to the robust physical world in which we make choices. 
>  
> Gregg,
> Un-pre-stateable? Does that mean that we cannot dependably reveal potential?
> Peter
>  
>  
> Peter Lloyd Jones
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> 562-209-4080
> 
> Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart. 
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 12, 2019, at 8:03 PM, Cory David Barker <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>  
> @ Gregg
>  
> The un-pre-stateable concept immediately reminds me of Schrodinger’s cat.
>  
> Cory
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 12, 2019, at 4:08 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>  
> The emergentist biologist has a nice word for the fact that the universe is not pre-determined. He argues it is not only not pre-determined, it is “un-pre-stateable” because of the nature of unpredictable emergences…
> G
>  
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Peter Lloyd Jones
> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 4:04 PM
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: On the concept of sovereignty
>  
> Hi Cory,
> As per your suggestion, I think it is best to keep free will and determinism as two separate arguments. Free will does not have too be a proof for the invalidity of determinism, but after everything else is said it can be spoken of how free will does contradict determinism. 
>  
> As you say, there can be degrees of freedom. I think that we all regularly witness this. The problem with determinism is that there cannot be degrees of determinism. That’s a conceptual contradiction. We will need to toss out many words if the universe is determined: choice, choosing, chaos, chance, probability, accident, serendipitous, hope, achievement, failure...
>  
> Peter
>  
>  
>  
> Peter Lloyd Jones
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> 562-209-4080
> 
> Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart. 
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 12, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Cory David Barker <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>  
> @ Peter
>  
> Eeva and I had a lot of conversations about recursive systems because it is a major part of my own work. My thinking has been that if an agent can self-reference, then it determines itself. But… if an agent determines itself, then isn’t that kinda the definition of free will? 
>  
> My best guess has been that the truth is to be found by treating the positions of free-will and determinism as two halves of a greater whole – which is admittedly hard to imagine, since everything we learn about it derives from a historically endless series of literary squabbles that we inherit from the literature, which fogs our vision on the matter.
>  
> Of course the issue is nuanced, and there are degrees of freedom, as is exemplified in nonlinear systems theories, and well-defined in phase space mathematics.
>  
> Cory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 12, 2019, at 2:59 PM, Peter Lloyd Jones <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>  
> Hi, Greg, and others,
> Thank you for sharing the intriguing article by Mascolo and Kallio.
> It was a difficult but inspiring read, though I do not agree with how the “three perennial problems” that need to be addressed are presented: 1.) the dualism of the mental and physical, 2.) that it’s problematic that people argue for the existence free will, 3.) the role of consciousness. My thoughts are, in short, 1.) we are physical beings, 2.) there is no reason to doubt our conscious agency that we minute by minute witness, and 3.) consciousness is not the measure of autonomy because many free acts are accomplished without reflection and even Libet disagrees with the determinist interpretation of his experiment.
> I am guessing that my primary difficulty here, and with your subsequent blog, is that I do not agree that the concept of determinism is compatible with the laws of physics. Meanwhile, despite claims by determinists, free will can exist in a material world and is compatible with the laws of physics. Determinism is a claim about the future, so it is unobservable, unrepeatable, and untestable, and there is useful evidence for doubting it.  
> The premise of the essay by Mascolo and Kallio is; “While consciousness contributes to the production of novel action, it cannot do so autonomously.” (p454-455) This is claimed to be true because “…consciousness is itself an emergent product of nonconscious processes.” But what if consciousness can get in front of the nonconscious processes from which it emerges? What if a “non-autonomous” consciousness chooses to have experiences that alter the biological nonconscious processes from which the consciousness emerges? What if this newly biologically altered “non-autonomous” consciousness then decides to have more experiences that then alter the whole of the embodied biological emergent processes? At what point can one be considered an autonomous agent making free conscious choices that continuously manipulate one’s biological nonconscious processes that in turn manipulate the embodied emergence of one’s (biological) consciousness? In other words, if we are free to alter the environments that alter our biological functions, are we not equally as free to consciously alter the interior environment of our(biological)selves? I am not positing here that there needs to be a specific goal in the alterations, but that even change itself can be a goal.
>  
> Again, thank you for all that you share.
> Peter
> Peter Lloyd Jones
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> 562-209-4080
> 
> Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart. 
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 12, 2019, at 1:57 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>  
> Hi TOK List,
> FYI, I put up a blog today that combines Mascolo and Kaillo’s paper with Jordan Hall’s concept of sovereignty:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201909_the-2Dconcept-2Dsovereignty&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=-O0gKoZk_K7oat2qqQIML3tK1aW8DWb9Fuay7XwVQpE&s=RB2Ykn42_NhI6r7sePJlJkqTgNnoFwGKlc1u1kmi6fM&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201909_the-2Dconcept-2Dsovereignty&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=oTyauDCrbR6EsgDU3ticPOzzfx9nZjyxTc2l0xHX0fw&s=VkwdlXyHMe2vKcETFaU7yuJm2BC99-BJ5Ek1rnJdtuE&e=>
>  
> I think the combination provides a nice, useful picture of self-conscious agency and responsibility.
>  
> Best,
> Gregg
> ############################
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <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] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <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] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <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] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <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] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <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] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <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] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <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] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <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] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <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] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <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