Rick Repetti and John Vervaeke have a good talk about the arguments around free will: https://youtu.be/JpMpEU9_wv4

Rick writes a lot about this and it comes up multiple times in the Routledge Handbook on the Philosophy of Meditation, which he edited and John also has a chapter in: https://www.amazon.com/Routledge-Handbook-Philosophy-Meditation-Repetti-ebook-dp-B09VJDKDBF/dp/B09VJDKDBF/ref=mt_other?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=

Alva Noe and people like Markus Garbriel have interesting philosophical views on human nature that are fun to listen to as well. Alva talks about volition and art, how can you create or appreciate art meaningfully without any perspective or agentic capacity? You can just search them on YouTube and they are both thoughtful and engaging speakers. 

I find Harris' arguments extreme, but he's a great writer and interesting to listen to. He just paints a picture I find no place to be in, and the agent-arena model of Vervaeke and Gregg's models, which try to avoid conflating terms, seem more compelling and useful. Coming from an economics background I like to remember George Box's quote "all models are wrong, but some are useful." 

Great discussion!

All the best,
Robert L. Gray



On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 10:43 PM Peter Lloyd Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Tim, 
Your comments remind me of somethings Edmond O Wilson has said about this subject, that we would lose our minds without creative autonomy. That it just doesn’t makes sense to the life of a human to not have free will. 

Philosopher Galen Strawson, who does not believe we have free will, points out that the arguments for determinism are indefensible and that there are no proofs for determinism and never will be. It cannot be tested. 

Andre,
I think you nailed an important point, sort of. For those who believe in free will, yes, there are an infinite number of determinants. For Sam Harris and the like there is only one determinant: the Big Bang. All that follows from that instant is simply scripted effect.

It is beyond my imagination to grasp that possibility. It not only means that every intended result successfully occurred as it had to, but every error, misunderstanding, myopia, mishearing, breathed in dust that caused a cough, missed basket ball shot, and so on ad infinitum, had to happen as it did and will have to happen in the future as it is scripted, making us victims of determinants while we are disbarred from being conscious determinant ourselves. For something unprovable this is just too much for some to take on faith. 

William, I think that here we are talking about ontological freedom, not freedom from the oppression of other humans. 

Gregg, I haven’t listened to much of the podcast yet but I did buy the book and I am familiar with Harris’ claims. I do suspect that self just needs to be redefined and spoken of in agreed terms, as you point out. I also think that conscious intent needs to be removed from any definition of free will. I know that in my creative process influences and inspirations gestate in my brain without me being consciously aware of what is going on. But that gestation is the result of influences I have purposely exposed myself to, and when an epiphany pops out the other end I am completely comfortable to claim it as mine, authored by me and authored freely and with intent. Reading, traveling, meeting people, are some of the ways we change our environment for the purpose of changing ourselves. Change is great. 

Thank you all for your kindness and comments. 
Peter

Peter Lloyd Jones
562-209-4080

Denial of free will is denial of consciousness. 








On May 26, 2022, at 2:20 PM, Tim Pickerill <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
My question for determinists is why would there be a world if it was all determined already? What's the point?
To me it begs for a God, which I do not believe in, at least the creator God outside of the universe vs the spirit of beingness eminent in a Universe. I don't see how you can have creativity or full diversity in a determinist Universe. And couple that with their love of entropy and I just don't see anything happening; a truly dead dead universe.
As far as Free-will, the same points apply but I would put forward that a philosophy of no free-will such as Harris ascribes to where people are not responsible for their actions is extremely dangerous.

Peace
T

On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 2:11 PM Peter Lloyd Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Yes, it’s a big discussion. I wonder, though, if Sophocles would disagree with you on the origins of determinism, while I’m sure he would disagree with my argument for free will.
Peter

 
Peter Lloyd Jones
562-209-4080

Denial of free will is denial of consciousness. 








On May 26, 2022, at 1:59 PM, Nicholas Lattanzio <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Respectfully I think there's a lot to be said about not having free will as such but still being conscious, certainly aware, without being totally predetermined. And that physics on the whole does not evince free will whatsoever, and further the absence of naturalistic science backing something up does not equate to mythopoetic. But I have a feeling that there's a much larger discussion at hand there.

Regards,

Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.

On Thu, May 26, 2022, 12:00 PM Peter Lloyd Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Nicholas, 
On the other hand, some might see determinism as mythopoetic. I submit that, contrary to its proponents’ claims, determinism is not supported by physics. The laws of cause and effect do not include a claim that events are restricted to one path. Despite one origin, there are gazillions of divergent histories and gazillions of emergent presents. 

I do, though, agree that libertarian free will is based in a mythopoetic narrative. It’s a that concept of free will mucks up the argument because there’s much room for free choice on a physical world. 
Respectfully, 
Peter


Peter Lloyd Jones
562-209-4080

Denial of free will is denial of consciousness. 








On May 26, 2022, at 12:04 PM, Nicholas Lattanzio <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Very enjoyable for the portion I was able to listen to. I like Sam Harris a lot and find very few contrasts between his views and nondual thought, obviously he and Garfield don't disagree much here either.

The mythopoetic nature of free will is an often overlooked point that is so crucial I'm current discussions in neuroscience that many, even highly evolved thinkers, don't seem prepared to reconcile.

Regards,

Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.

On Wed, May 25, 2022, 10:29 PM michael kazanjian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Speaking of self,  the words of Jesus, Buber, and Hillel come into play.   Losing the self for the greater good, means gaining the self.

Michael M. Kazanjian

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022, 10:26:28 PM CDT, Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you, Lee.

Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
(Perseveret et Percipiunt)
Sent from my iPad

On May 25, 2022, at 3:30 PM, lee simplyquality.org <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Sorry about that.
This is the first (most recent) linked podcast.

The podcast is based on Garfield's recent book “Losing ourselves: Learning to live without a self”.

Lee

On May 25, 2022, at 5:45 PM, Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Lee: I don’t see the link to the podcast.

On May 25, 2022, at 11:52 AM, lee simplyquality.org <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
TOK Folk,
Sam Harris recently published the podcast Do You Really Have a Self? A Conversation with Jay Garfield.
This is the most lucid dialogue on this topic I have come across.
(I listened to the full-length subscription version, a shorter non-subscription version is also available.)
I hope it is interesting and informative. 

Lee Beaumont 

Here is the description and link:

In this episode of the podcast, Sam speaks with Jay Garfield about the illusion of the self. They discuss the default sense of subjectivity, the difference between absolute and conventional truth, interdependence, free will, subject-object duality, emptiness, the “mind-only” school of Buddhism, scientific realism and experiential anti-realism, and other topics.

Jay L. Garfield is Chair of the Philosophy department at Smith College, visiting professor of Buddhist philosophy at Harvard Divinity School, professor of philosophy at Melbourne University and adjunct professor of philosophy at the Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. Academicinfluence.com has identified him as one of the 50 most influential philosophers in the world over the past decade.

Garfield’s research addresses topics in cognitive science, modern Indian philosophy, ethics, epistemology, logic, the Scottish enlightenment, and Buddhist philosophy—particularly Indo-Tibetan Madhyamaka and Yogācāra. He is the author or editor of over 30 books and nearly 200 articles, chapters, and reviews.
############################

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

############################

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


############################

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

############################

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