Free will...

danjlittler

Alright, Carl, I've spent a while chewing on this free will issue. I've spent a lot of time reading the various bits on this site, and it comes up time and again.

Hmm... the problem that I have now is articulating the problem I've been having accepting that we have no free will. I understand and agree with the arguments about biology, but... I guess I must ask another question: are you saying that we have absolutely no free will at all, or that we have a sense of free will, but in no way the amount that we think?

All our beliefs and reactions come from our biology and the way civilisation affects this, but what happens when we realise this? Your advice here is obviously meant to have some practical use, and it can't be denied that in changing one's thought processes, one can really improve... oneself in general, I suppose. But, isn't doing this acting? Choosing to look at the world from a different perspective? As if by... free will?

And the changes this perspective change brings will go on to influence how one interacts with the world.

I guess what I'm saying is, since studying taoism, I've tried to approach things differently, like I'll try and view all people with compassion. And that's working, and it feels better than hating every face I see like I used to, which was a symptom of my own insecurities. So I act differently. It seems like I've chosen to impose this on my life.

And if your argument is going to be that my base fear (of whatever) drove me to seek philosophy, which brought me to taoism, wouldn't that just make taoism another glittering distraction, invalidated by its own precepts?

I can't seem to sort this idea out in my head, it's been bugging me for days. I know that in my examples, we'd have to say any free will we have is fairly high level, cognitively, which would naturally invalidate it. I know sensibly, the fact that I feel like I have free will only in the upper echelons of my consciousness (because I believe most of what we do is rooted in the evolutionary imperative) strongly suggests it's nothing but an emergent property, and of course the fact that it "feels" otherwise doesn't matter... I've been trying to find ways of testing free will. I haven't come up with anything yet, every idea that comes, I soon realise any change could be explained by blind biology. I thought, what about hunger strikes? They're dying by choice. But then, I thought that if someone was sufficiently wrapped in an ideology, their "agenda" might be able to override their hunger... but doesn't that sound a bit off? A high-consciousness thing like ideology overriding a basic need like eating? What do you think of that?

I've rambled a bit, and I think I've missed out some passengers on my train of thought, but I'm sure there'll be time. In the meantime, I'm off for now.

Carl

First, I appreciate your sincere attempt to grapple with all this. Of course, you'll never get to the bottom, but that is what makes it so noteworthy. The upside I've found is being more comfortable with the bottomless-ness of it all by attempting to get to the bottom of it. In any case, once our belief's safety net begins to fray and its paradigm begins to fall apart, free fall is our fate. We either land into another paradigm, or do our utmost to attain emptiness; hold firmly to stillness.

Alright, Carl, I've spent a while chewing on this free will issue. I've spent a lot of time reading the various bits on this site, and it comes up time and again.

Hmm... the problem that I have now is articulating the problem I've been having accepting that we have no free will. I understand and agree with the arguments about biology, but... I guess I must ask another question: are you saying that we have absolutely no free will at all, or that we have a sense of free will, but in no way the amount that we think?

The problem is that whatever we think is so, is in one way or another, determined by our biology (and the native paradigm and language under which we grew). As I look around, I can't help but notice how vigorously (often desperately) we hold on to the belief in free will. If anything, I see that as a possibly a symptom of the existence of its opposite. Just as we become more desperate for food when we lack food. Clearly, great need reflects a dearth of that which we need, hence the need. I see countless parallels of this phenomena in human nature.

I wouldn't say "we have absolutely no free will". Such adamancy would reflect some need I'd have that was grounded in its opposite in some way. The most I can say is that I see no evidence of free will. Every example I've considered or have been presented with is easily explained by the 'balance of needs' principle, i.e., the stronger need determines the action we take. It is the same process that drives a duck to do what it does or doesn't. One difference is human thought. However, thought springs from emotion, (need and fear) and so whatever role it appears to play is actually based in those primal emotions (which the duck also feels, just without words).

All our beliefs and reactions come from our biology and the way civilization affects this, but what happens when we realize this? Your advice here is obviously meant to have some practical use, and it can't be denied that in changing one's thought processes, one can really improve... oneself in general, I suppose. But, isn't doing this acting? Choosing to look at the world from a different perspective? As if by... free will?

I don't see it happening quite that way. How we see things determines how we react to them (also true of the duck). How we see things is determined by how we feel. Of course, how we see things also influences how we feel. For us, thinking feed back into all that. This cyclic feeling-seeing-thinking-feeling process makes us perhaps the most unstable and insecure animals on the planet.

I find understanding to be the foundation for what I'd call 'pseudo free will'. The more understanding conforms to how things actually are, the more one's actions will flow wisely, as if by free will. Understanding however is influenced by our emotions (needs and fears). The impartiality of the correlation process is the only way I know to 'force' understanding to breach one's biases (which are products of need and fear).

I guess what I'm saying is, since studying taoism, I've tried to approach things differently, like I'll try and view all people with compassion. And that's working, and it feels better than hating every face I see like I used to, which was a symptom of my own insecurities. So I act differently. It seems like I've chosen to impose this on my life

.

You can't understand what you don't already intuitively know. In other words, The teaching that uses no words. What is real is whatever you bring to 'taoism', not what it, through study, brings to you. Time will tell you what you truly have in contrast to that you think you have.

And if your argument is going to be that my base fear (of whatever) drove me to seek philosophy, which brought me to taoism, wouldn't that just make taoism another glittering distraction, invalidated by its own precepts?

Now you're getting warmer. It most certainly can be as glittering a distraction as anything else.

I can't seem to sort this idea out in my head, it's been bugging me for days. I know that in my examples, we'd have to say any free will we have is fairly high level, cognitively, which would naturally invalidate it. I know sensibly, the fact that I feel like I have free will only in the upper echelons of my consciousness (because I believe most of what we do is rooted in the evolutionary imperative) strongly suggests it's nothing but an emergent property, and of course the fact that it "feels" otherwise doesn't matter... I've been trying to find ways of testing free will. I haven't come up with anything yet, every idea that comes, I soon realise any change could be explained by blind biology. I thought, what about hunger strikes? They're dying by choice. But then, I thought that if someone was sufficiently wrapped in an ideology, their "agenda" might be able to override their hunger... but doesn't that sound a bit off? A high-consciousness thing like ideology overriding a basic need like eating? What do you think of that?

If you can explain every observation by simpler biology common to all animals, you are were I'm at: I have no evidence for, yet much compelling evidence for WHY WE NEED TO BELIEVE. At the heart of it, I think our social instinct drives this 'free will' belief, particularly the 'fairness gene'. The idea of free will fills out a 'social picture' we need to see. Just like the need to believe in God/s originates in the social (tribal) need for 'alpha male' leadership (among other things).

I feel your puzzlement is fueled by a deep seated sense that humans are unique. I also have this sense which accounts for my continuous sense of awe as I see what actually appears to be. It is very odd. Perhaps it is an artifact of thought itself. All animals have a sense of 'self integrity', but without the thought of self. We have the thought as well which may account for this muddled sense of things.

Well, that's enough said. Perhaps I'll turn some of this into a regular post. I know I've touched on all these things before, but I'm always revisiting, challenging and consolidating. Now there's the benefit of 'the teaching that uses no words'!

By the way, where are you geographically? It is odd think how you could be next door, or halfway around the world.

danjlittler

I'm halfway around the world. I've gleaned from your posts that you're somewhere in the States, yes? I'm in the UK. That's the beauty of the internet revolution; it ceases to matter where people are at all. In the end, of course, none of us will leave our homes at all, and do all our socialising, shopping, working and everything else remotely. If you saw the film Surrogates, those guys seemed to be on the right track with their prediction.

Right, this is my own conclusion on the free will issue: I agree with all the biology arguments, and I suppose this is one of those unknowable things about human nature. You yourself admit 'I wouldn't say "we have absolutely no free will'", so I'd like to expand on that slightly. The best compromise I've found is that we have a certain amount of free will, in that we can think things over and compare options, but because of our biological imperatives, any choices we make are more likely to be based on root biological causes. So, we have some freedom of choice, but we don't generally understand our own motivations well enough to make them for the "right" reasons. We make choices, but we don't choose one thing over another for the reasons that we believe we're doing it.

Carl

Your summary is good enough that I find nothing over which to quibble. That's probably unusual, and if I really tried hard I imagine I could find something ;-). Digging any deeper into this would require careful consideration of what we mean by 'free' and 'will'. Correlations is the only way I know to untangle (at least a bit) that conundrum.

I'm in Santa Cruz, California, on the coast a few hours south of San Fransisco. Internet communication is odd. Without indications of age, location, gender (often), wealth, profession, etc., it really becomes a mind-to-mind communication. Not the whole mind, just mostly the thinking part. Time will have to tell whether that's a survival advantage or not.

danjlittler

Very true. The implications of Internet communication really make a mockery of most of society's discriminations, don't they?

Carl

Although, discrimination is a natural function of society. All social animals do so in their own way. As everything has unintended consequences, I wonder what they might be for the Internet in this respect? It's interesting to contemplate.

danjlittler

I've heard an interesting theory about the dangers of the internet, or to be precise, digital information in general. Basically, we're living in a time where all sorts of useless information is stored indefinitely, rather than degrading over time (either by books and papers succumbing to the destructive forces of time, or by people no longer passing it on). Now that information doesn't degrade and we record things that aren't going to be any use to future generations, it won't be long before the world is so full of irrelevant information, no one will know what to do with it.

Come to think of it, this might actually work out well for us taoists. It'll serve to blur the distinction between useful and useless information, in the end, they'll give up information altogether; most of it will be irrelevant.

mr.minor

What one considers irrelevant, useful, or useless information is of course of their own discretion. Many consider the jargon we talk about to be philosophic nonsense, contributing nothing to society.

We rely on information to get us from point A to B. Did you not read about taoism in pursuit of your world view? Is this information irrelevant too?

Nothing is irrelevant as everything is relative to the individual. But even the individual's perception of irrelevant information is still relevant to that individual's world view.

Carl

I see information as similar to sand. Whatever you need of it will always be there, one way or the other. For example, I'd be a 'taoist' even if I'd never come across any particular information on Taoism. In other words, we are what we are from the inside out. We pick out the identity that feels to fit us well from the 'sands' around us at the time (our culture/era). If I'd been born 50,000 years ago, I'd still be who I am, but never have the name/word "taoist" with which to identify myself.

Another way to put this is: information is like clothing. I wear what I wear. Any importance, uniqueness, or beauty I (or anyone) see in it, is in the eye of the beholder. We place an awful lot of importance on information, for it is perceived as a path to power and control. That we value power so highly only reflect our deep seated sense of the void, and our desperate need to keep it 'filled'. The Taoist downplaying of information's (knowledge's) value has been felt by people (albeit only a few) long before there was any Taoism.

On a more practical, but equally speculative note: the glut of information that only grows with time will come to be as mind boggling for anyone seeking to understand history 10,000 years from now as is the paucity of information about the world of 10,000 BCE for those who wish to understand our ancestral existence. Gads what a long sentence :roll:.

danjlittler

I've got to say, I don't think I'd be a taoist (or even a "taoist") if I'd never come across information on it. I may have come to these conclusions in my own time eventually, as I feel like a lot of these ideas were floating around in my head. I just couldn't see how to put them into practice. Still, I feel like I'm a better person since discovering the Tao Te Ching. I know how to deal with life now. Who'd have known it's simplicity itself?

Carl

I am on board with your reverence for and support of the Tao Te Ching. I'd never go to the trouble I've gone through otherwise. Nevertheless, I recognize some distinct undercurrents of tribal instinct and wishful thinking (to name just two) that impact me. Consider the trap described in, Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty. It is pervasive and all but invisible to the mind's eye... alas.

Simplicity itself! Yes indeed. But to truly know simplicity lies in the eye of the beholder. That is what makes a person truly a 'taoist', regardless of cultural background influences. Thus, there are many a Christian (well, perhaps not so many) who are actually 'taoists' and many Taoists (yes, perhaps many) who are actually 'christians'. The innate human social characteristics that make one a 'christian' are for more common that those which make one a 'taoist' (I suspect).

Such is the bell curve of nature!