Enactive cognition and free will?

[silversoul7]

I get what you're saying, but I think the organism is an emergent phenomenon of these self-directing agents that forms a higher level of agency. That is, there are lower self-directed holons with create a higher-level self-directed holon.

[acrislazoiu]

ok so the self is driven and therefore addiction is controlling the free will which is why people have decided to no longer call it free will in the way he has stated it in this video...

[acrislazoiu]

the environment nurtures the body to a high degree such that the body becomes more a part of that environment and that is when the free will is gone

how about when there is free will but not free actions

the human body of one can be controlled by another

using resources in a specific manner

the will remains...

free..

[Muffinfordinner]

These kind of arguments that say freewill and determinism is a meaningless dichotomy seem to me to be obfuscating the issue. The whole point of freewill is why do we praise people, why do we blame people? Do people deserve anything?

You can only claim that the question of freewill needs to be unasked if you dont see this question which underlies it. Obviously it doesn't make sense to talk about it otherwise

[Chick6517]

yeah yeah thats what i am talking about this is the type of video people out there should be making not like other videos i have seen

[phobosx12]

well freewill enough to ask nonsensical questions, and freewill enough to have the deep seeded desire to have freewill, though nonsensical questions could just be like a nonequilibrium thing,like fluid turbulence, that balances itself out with the evolution of the mind, i just wonder that if all this is just "happening" and us just witnesses, how the concept of freewill can even exist, it seems so, i dont know, acasual, free in and of itself.... thoughts anyone??

[unseenstrings]

The accumulative effect of neuron activity in the brain would have no more to do with free will than a butterfly flapping its wings on the 17th of August 1969 at the Woodstock Festival in Bethel, New York, and which supposedly sets off a chain of events that result in three hurricanes during a two month period striking Florida. People try to overcomplicate matters and win arguments by throwing confusion (caused by the unknown/unnecessarily complex) into the equation. Do feral kids have freewill?

[phobosx12]

gotcha... maybe the butterfly had the choice to flap its wings

[unseenstrings]

"maybe the butterfly had the choice to flap its wings"

Of course the butterfly had a choice. My Chihuahuas have a choice of eating the dry food or the canned food. Most of the time they choose to wait until after our walk in the park, in case they find any scraps (like chicken) left over from a picnic. The butterfly had the option of flying a few hundred more feet to the field of daffodils. But instead it choose to alight on the poppy next to the hippie with flowers in her hair.

Naturalism Org

[phobosx12]

im not sure im seeing your point, are you just responding for the hell of it?

[unseenstrings]

"im not sure im seeing your point, are you just responding for the hell of it?"

Exactly my point. Gotcha...!

[phobosx12]

haha ok

[unseenstrings]

Actually when you mentioned fluid turbulence I assumed you were suggesting something called the "Butterfly Effect of Chaos Theory. Some people try to use the "Butterfly Effect" as an explanation for what is called free will when applied to the brain. I merely tried to head off the assumption with a counter argument. Thanks.

Naturalism Org

FamilyLoveZone Com

Unseenstrings Com

[phobosx12]

yea butterfly effect was what i was getting at, fluid turbulence in relation to Hiesenburgs uncertainty principle but in the way i was useing it in that context was not insupport of freewill, it was the opposite

[unseenstrings]

"yea butterfly effect was what i was getting at..."

I suspected as much but misinterpreted. Yes, chaos theory describes the behavior of dynamic systems with no random elements involved. This is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. Also be aware that something can be determined but not determined, because the word has more than one meaning. The uncertainty principle is used to explain wave-particle duality, but is NOT a theory of acausal events. Free will is mainly a religious dogma.

[phobosx12]

or triality,if thats even a word, "religous dogma"? or just spiritual belief, or simply just an assumption of conscious awareness before one is educated in the dogma of a mechanistic universe

[unseenstrings]

"triality" is such an uncommon term that I find it humorous for someone to use it and pretend not to know whether the word exists, especially considering the availability of dictionaries right at the person's fingertips via the Internet. Free will is religious dogma as stated. The dogma is preached from every pulpit in the land. (What was the moral of the story of the "forbidden fruit" and "banishment from Eden"?) The dogma is so ingrained into the public mind that even most atheists believe it.

[unseenstrings]

I see plenty of evidence of free will being disseminated constantly. After all, when the preacher isn't pounding the pulpit and screaming "but man has free will!" the Major Media is suggesting a thousand times over and a thousand different ways that we are "free." (How can "free will" be doubted after such an onslaught?) Yet, tell me, how is the public, as you say, "educated in the dogma of a mechanistic universe"? Only many years of life's experiences and science has revealed the fact to me.

[phobosx12]

well i dont know when you where in school but the fashionable view of the universe that is shoveled over now days is newtonian physics, a purely mechanical stupid universe, and humans are a result of a random interactions of blind forces, i suppose its just another wonderful contridiction of society at large but never the less, this belief in a purely mechanical universe, is a fad, it is a result of one line of thought in many, as an ocean waves, the universe intelligently peoples

[unseenstrings]

Well either you didn't go to college or the supposed teaching apparently didn't have much of an effect on you. Although, admittedly, college attendants/graduates are humans and humans are products of other social forces besides purely college. Besides, Newton's theories still accurately describe the motion of objects above the subatomic level, but below the subatomic level theories of quantum mechanics are required, which is taught in the same course. A fact you seem to have overlooked/denied.

[phobosx12]

and quantum physics requires an observer for anything to every actual happen, without a conscious observe the entire universe would be some kind of expanding superpostion of possibility without anything definite ever actually happening, yes im familiar with qt, another lovely facet of qt is that once you get do so far in to structure of the subatomic your beloved causilty ceases to exist, you know the planck distance/scale, an ocean of infinite FREE energy pulsates everything in existence

[unseenstrings]

LOL! Yeah, okay. I guess the universe was "some kind of expanding superpostition of possibility without anything definite ever actually happening" until we humans started observing "quantum events." Or maybe you are insinuating a superspook is doing the observing? Sounds like creationist's BS. By the way, how can one observe events happening at a level below the atomic? Would you use a microscope? Would the sensing element of test equipment interfere with particles one was attempting to observe?

[phobosx12]

For all we know awarness could be a fundamental part of the universe, to eliminate that as a possibility is the same thing as a fundamentalist christian saying that the big bang is a hoax, not to mention that the big bang is the God of science, if you dont understand it, The BigBang did it! and asking where the big bang came from is as voodoo as asking a baptist preacher where god came from

[unseenstrings]

To eliminate a speculation through experimentation or logical argument does not mean the elimination automatically becomes equivalent to a Fundy's denial of the Big Bang. And there are no taboo questions in science as they are in religion. There are questions which are non-sense, meaning questions dealing with metaphysical speculations. But philosophy deals in areas that are beyond the scope of science. We would still be living in the Dark Ages if it wasn't for the science you so readily condemn

[phobosx12]

the existence of god hasnt been proven or disproven, its simply become the fashion to submit to the view of a dumb universe, a place that has nothing incommon with us and where the evolution of intelligent feeling thinking beings such as ourselves is an unfortunate accident, and when i poke at science it is main stream science that im referring to,NOT condemning, as you have with superstition and as im sure you would with spooky beliefs, right? if the universe is dumb then how has it done

[unseenstrings]

The existence of Pink Unicorns hasn't been proved or disproved. So? No invisible and immaterial (metaphysical) Thing invented by the hopes and/or fears of the imagination can be proved or disproved. But obviously, and contrary to your claim, it is much more fashionable to believe in the existence of such Thing/s than to disbelieve, since about 90% of the population are Believers. You sound like a Fundy who is mad because people can't be scared, as in the past, into accepting your brand of belief

[unseenstrings]

I marvel at the intricacies of the snowflake. Its complexity gives one the impression it had been designed. Although, in a sense, I reckon it was. It was designed by air currents, coldness, and the properties of water molecules. It is an example of complexity arising out of apparently chaotic events. So are natural polymer compounds. RNA likely developed as a result of polymer development or in a similar fashion. DNA could have developed from RNA. God Theories are unnecessary for understanding.

[phobosx12]

"Adolescence is usually synonymous with arrogance and ignorance" way to fill those shoes bud...yes and plants created animals to move seeds around and when we burry our dead its not a symbolic tradition but a unconsious disire to feed the fungi who live in the ground. I understand interconnectivity, and the traditional belief is an old regal gentleman in the sky who is always watching and judging you, i havent once alluded to that idea, but somewhat of a more naturalist view of the "god" idea

[unseenstrings]

"way to fill those shoes bud..."

What are you talking about? Are you talking to yourself? You claim to be a 20 year old college student. That means you are not an adolescent, or at least not one going through the terrible-twos again (arrogant and ignorant 13 to 16 year olds) though you would be much closer to the age of adolescence than me.

And where did you get such an ignorant impression of evolution to state, "yes and plants created animals to move seeds"? Where did you learn antievolution?

[phobosx12]

"Although, in a sense, I reckon it was(it being snowflake). It was designed by air currents, coldness, and the properties of water molecules" i was giving another example of the way you described the 'designing' of a snow flake as the expression of intricate interrelationships, animals in the same way are a product of the same process, just as evolution is ,in its totallity, towards higher order and complexity

[unseenstrings]

Evolution isn't about "higher" order and complexity. Evolution is merely about genetic mutation, genetic drift, procreation, selective pressures, and survival. Evolution is a blind watchmaker. A giant meteor impact or a nuclear war could result in humans and apes changing places, as in the Planet of the Apes. Humans wouldn't deevolve in such a case; they would merely evolve according to existing selective pressures as always. This is my last comment. I hope I've been helpful in your truth quest.

[phobosx12]

and evolution applies to all things not just the biological spectrum of the universe, high order and complexity, electrons to stars, to atoms, to molecules to planets, to organic compounds to viruses, to amoebas, to coomplex sponges, land plants, land animals,reptiles, mammals, then humans, now its time for the evolution of the mind to wherever that takes us

[phobosx12]

i look at the dependence of the subject on the object, the observer on the observed. Can you have up without also having down? what about the trough of a wave without the crest? well if there is no observer than there is no observed, no subject then no object, aka then there is nothing, and you cynical types hate the idea of creation,sumthing from nothing, so what if observer and observed are just to dependent qualities of the same thing, existence

[unseenstrings]

Me cynical? Well shucks, I could take lessons from you. Oh, and your statements seem confused. See, I can exist without being either an observer or observed. However, when I observe something, then I am an observer, and of course, then there would be an object of my observation. No; you can't have only one frame of reference. You can't have up without down, East without West, forward without backward. So what? And I do find it hard to imagine something being created from nothing. Again, so what?

[phobosx12]

so in a world full of objects, things, there ,irrevocably, has to be subjects,

and 'no-things', what has always been your subject..you.. the center of your reality,..the collapse of all objects and information in the no-thing, of your awareness, to say the brain is responsible for consciousness is like saying that the film in a movie projector is responsible for emittion of the light.

[unseenstrings]

You seem to be spouting a bit of Scientology rhetoric, a bunch of vagueness, and certainly some unsuitable analogies. At least part of your comment seems to be a cut and paste without sufficient explanation to make sense of it all. Anyway, to say the brain is NOT responsible for consciousness is to insinuate consciousness can arise and exist independent of the brain. If that was not your intent, maybe you can try again but be clear, crisp, and concise as to what point you are trying to make.

[phobosx12]

Sir francis click said "You, your joys and sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. (I assume you agree) So no more than??Your joys, sorrows, memories ambitions and sense of personal identity and free will ARE more than the behavior of your nerve cells in the same way a Seurat painting is more than thousands of points of paint on a canvas

[unseenstrings]

I agree with the facts you say Crick stated. But obviously you assume you, your joys and sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are MORE than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. But you won't state what this MORE is. And I'm getting tired of allowing you to play this cat and mouse game with me. Tell me how the universe can be sad, glad, or smart and tell me what the MORE is that you are talking about.

[phobosx12]

you can answer what the more is...or do you consider life no more than a deterministic flow of biochemical reactions devoid of anything close to meaning, or at the very least, worth. And by the way those things that crick said are not facts, absolutly none of it explains why anybody should ever have an experience. just the goings on of an organ in the body

[unseenstrings]

Okay, one last comment just for you. You don't seem to have been listening. When our ignorant ancestors couldn't figure something out, they said "Goddidit." When science can't figure something out, they say, "we don't know but we'll continue striving to find out." In areas where the scientific method can't be used to answer all the questions, philosophy is there to take up the slack. Don't be afraid to say you don't know. Quit fearing the unknown and possibly the unknowable. Seek

Naturalism Org

[phobosx12]

i am seeking and so is science, but paradigm shifts happen, and could be happening now, the current one for science, space time and matter are primary, the possible coming one, that consciousness is primary.

And dont be afraid to say you dont know aswell.

I know about awarness, not about freewill

[phobosx12]

and i did tell you how the universe could be happy sad or smart, and its you, your are as much a part of the universe as the sun, or the galaxy, you must see the correlation its not blind mechanics because why the illusion of meaning, the sense that there is more to life than self replication and the perpetuation of a mass of mold called humanity, even if that meaning is to settle down with a wife have a kid and find peace before you die

[phobosx12]

something intelligent(more or less intellgint sometimes im not so sure) Us. when you feel sad thats the universe feeling sad, when you came to the conclusion that deluding yourself with the idea that you have free choice was more pain than its worth that was the universe coming to that conclusion.

[unseenstrings]

Generally when people imagine a god they imagine a god that fits their own needs and purpose. If one is going to imagine a god it would be just as reasonable to imagine a god that fits the needs and purposes of the virus. God created the virus in "his" own image and likeness. And God created humans so that viruses would have something to infect. Humans who fight against viral infection are bad. And come "Judgment Day," God will cast all "bad" people down into Hell to suffer Eternal Torment. PBUG

[phobosx12]

Even planck beleived in something like god "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together, we must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck, and why would i ever denie quantum physics it gives us poor saps looking for freewill hope ;)

[unseenstrings]

If I haven't learned anything else in my 62 years of life I have learnt this one thing: generally humans have superstitious natures. What was the explanation for volcanoes at one time? Goddidit! What was the explanation for the title wave? Goddidit! What was the explanation for disease? Goddidit? And what was Max Planck's explanation for the binding force that holds atoms together? Goddidit! Wow, no mystery. When we can't figure something out we can make the same claims as our ignorant ancestors

[phobosx12]

and im only 20 years old im still in college and havent had a class on quantum physics yet im sumwhat self taught, but in public education, at least the years i experienced, quantum physics was hardly mentioned, and you being all about psychological development understand that the "formative" years are the early one when foundation beliefs about the world are formed, and the pile that is presented to the young minds as 'fact' is a view of the universe as inert mindless matter and forces

[unseenstrings]

Adolescence is usually synonymous with arrogance and ignorance. But youth itself certainly isn't. Take for example Matt (0ThouArtThat0), the author of the video we are commenting on here. Matt (aka, redliterocket4) is only 23. Very bright young man. In fact, his video titled, "Disclaimer" shows a sophistication in thought that we can all learn from. I would recommend you watch it. (watch?v=fxUrhaOoIg4) Oh, and you can believe in any god; but It (the god) can't be used in scientific theories.

[unseenstrings]

From the beginning of brain development, nature (that is, genetic factors) and nurture (that is, the environment or the experience of the organism) interact with each other flexibly and dynamically, in what Harvard Neuro-Psychologist Chuck Nelson has called, "a subtle but orchestrated dance that occurs between the brain and the environment." The basic plan of the brain is governed by genetic expression, but influenced at every point along the way by the experience of the organism. ?v=FugrcVhi2tg

[unseenstrings]

You put the cart before the horse when you stated the body is a self-determining system, since you didn't first clarify where the body comes from. Is the development of the brain and the rest of the body free from the laws of cause and effect? Does mentioning determinism when discussing plant and animal development become incoherent to you, since you can only understand determinism in the context of freedom? Would you be the "autonomous" agent you are today if you'd never been taught language?

[0ThouArtThat0]

A bacterium is also an autonomous agent.

[unseenstrings]

I suspected you realized as much. But I wasn't so sure the average viewer would fully grasp the implications of your video. A super-sophisticated robot would be an autonomous agent also, according to your argument. But I fail to understand why determinism would be incoherent when discussing the inter-dynamics of the robot, even if part of the neural network of the robot were biological instead of purely computational electronics using probabilistic algorithms to function and make choices.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Agency comes from self-production. So far as I know, a robot built by humans would not be self-producing (autopoietic). Maybe there is a technology yet discovered that will allow for it, but until I know of the possibility I'm going to say that only living organisms can be autonomous. The non-determinism is just a fact about how physics works since the uncertainty principle. So not only agents are non-determined (them especially!), but everything is.

[unseenstrings]

Well I can't help but wonder where the self-production comes from that produces the agency you refer to. Does it just magically appear? Or is it the consequence of natural processes? What is the difference between a genetic-environmental process that gives rise to bacterium and human-environmental process that gives rise to the robot? If the bacterium came into existence through natural processes, then wouldn't a robot's agency be the result of natural processes too? Or are humans supernatural?

[0ThouArtThat0]

It is certainly a natural process, but we tend to think of nature as deterministic. It isn't. This doesn't mean it is supernatural, though "magic" in the sense that its processes are deeply mysterious is not necessarily a bad metaphor to use. I think we need to come to see that the cause-effect grid work we project onto nature is just that, a projection. Sure, everything in nature can be described as obeying certain sequences, but ultimately there is no way of predicting what will happen next.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Self-production comes from the same place the whole cosmos comes from (ie, I don't know where it comes from! But it obviously happens, it is real, we can observe it and in fact our very act of observation is possible only because of it).

[unseenstrings]

Without determinism, or methodological naturalism, if you will, not only would prediction be impossible, science itself couldn't exist. In fact, life itself couldn't exist in a random universe, because all "learning from experience" and thus functionality would cease. Besides, I've never witnessed an event that didn't seem to have a cause. I don't know of any sober person of at least average intelligence who has. Furthermore, seems to me that if there are such things as somewhat remote (GoTo(2))

[unseenstrings]

(2) and occasionally random events effecting other things within the universe, then the random events merely become part of the cause-effect grid.

And, by the way, where do the raw materials come from that your agents are made of. Is the development of your agents unpredictable? Can the energy fields external to your agents effect the functionality of your agents? Can the raw materials provided by the environment effect the way your agent function, or effect the way your agent develops?

[unseenstrings]

But thats the point: Random events don't appear to be happening on a level above the subatomic. Are apparently random subatomic events effecting anything? It doesn't seem so. Then why make apparent random subatomic events the central part of any discussions of the mind? This is a fact: If subatomic random events (arising from presently unknown laws) effect anything, then the events become part of the causal web. If subatomic random events don't effect anything, then they are irrelevant (GoTo(3))

[unseenstrings]

(3) for understanding the mind or anything else.

Also in your video watch?v=nKpoya8KOtM while talking about the functionality of DNA you stated, "The information comes out of its relationship with its surroundings, with the intercellular matrix, with the morphology of the body, with the environment and habitat within which the organism is situated and so on" which seems to contradict self-production.

"Self-production comes from the same place the whole cosmos comes from." Implying determinism?

[unseenstrings]

Free will was once an illusion of our ignorant ancestors that has been turned into a delusion by The Church and The State. From our earliest years we are told a thousand times over and a thousand different ways that we are free. The Church teaches The Doctrine of Free Will, and conversely, Predestination, to prevent individuals from seeing the strings by which they are manipulated. The State teaches The Doctrine of Free Will, and conversely, The Doctrine of Biological Determinism, to (GoTo(4))

[unseenstrings]

(4) preserve The Status Quo. I don't know how much this bombardment of propaganda has affected you. But to me your agents whose "inter dynamics are a self-creating system, a self-stabilizing system" seem akin to the notion of free will, that is, it helps preserve The Status Quo by faulting purely the individual instead of looking at the individual's environmental circumstances.

YouTube User, nine9s stated (watch?v=Gn92xHcZ_7g), "That [majoring in philosophy] is a hugely arcane, mind- (GoTo(5))

[unseenstrings]

(5) numbing, pointless, thing to do." The existence of free will, the existence of gods, and the existence of pink unicorns cannot be disproved. So I suspect philosophy will be bogged down with such speculations for a long time to come.

Wittgenstein said, "Philosophy is just by-product of misunderstanding language." You need to be as clear and concise as possible when you communicate your ideas to the public. But maybe your videos are not intended for the general public, though they are public.

[ameroffsky]

certainly everything, at first glance, has a cause, and an effect.

But is not the first cause argument deceptive in some ways since, if one applies it to the world around, one finds that there must have been a beginning somewhere logically?

So in a sense I suppose it's a vicious circle: What came first, the Chicken or the egg?

[unseenstrings]

According to evolutionary theory, the development of egg-laying organisms proceeded the chicken by several million years; and some were precursors of chickens. I guess creationists would say the chicken proceeded the egg. However, I'm not engaged in a first cause argument. I'm merely saying that human thought might seem incoherently complex; but it is not the result of magic or supernatural forces. And science and the scientific method (methodological naturalism)are our only candles in the dark.

[ameroffsky]

That I definitely agree with.

Am not a creationist myself that's for sure.

[23Memes]

what came first? The egg-laying organism, or the egg?

[unseenstrings]

What came first: the finger or the finger-nail? Is it possible that appendages without keratin protection preceeded fingers as we know them today? Of course. Equally the egg without hardened protein matrix (shell) preceeded the egg with a shell. Most fish & amphibians still lay eggs which are surrounded by the extraembryonic membranes instead of a hard shell. But if you put your religious beliefs before scientific fact, then few facts will fit the way you have learned to think.

Naturalism Org

[Erime]

In the context of autopoiesis, a common purpose shared between all Life emerges; a purpose defined by the properties of the system - to self-perpetuate for the sake of it; to keep on keepin' on :D. If our 'Will', free in the sense it can make choices, determined in the sense it is an emergent property of a human autopoietic organism, is always the same, then we are ALL equals. Politicians do not like this kind of stuff unfortunately - maybe a reason why, although simple, AutoP is not in schools.

[Erime]

Indeed; as you say in the last part, it's a nonsensical notion, as are many ideas and labels we project on to Nature when viewed in the context of autopoietic structures. Many of these debates, such as free will, are instigated by politicians attempting to validate their desire to have personal access to a larger share of resources than other people. If there is a free will, then this suggests different purposes for existence; i.e. your purpose for existing is to give, and mine is to take ;)

[otonanoC]

The process of Evolution by Natural Selection is a question about the POSSIBILITIES of existence.  So many people think that its some sort of "competition" between aggressive apes for territory. If we could only use Youtube to help them all see it's true nature!

[MasonCribbs]

hmm.. no original ideas huh? i've watched a randomly selected bulk of your videos and it seems you just read alot of religion, science, and philo books and just want to "talk" about it. you seem not to know actually what it is you're reading.. or even reciting when you make your videos. so.. free will huh?

[0ThouArtThat0]

no idea what I'm reading, nor what I'm saying!

[MasonCribbs]

do you actually use these ideas that you read and speak about? i sure hope so man. if not you're just wasting alot of time, mostly yours.

[bigdaddydylan]

What this young man is doing is both very important and utile. To devalue human works of this nature is misanthropy. I can tell you that the only reason that you do so is because of ignorance. If you were to understand moksha you would not make such statements. I suggest you read Nietzsche on Eternal Recurrence. There is a reason. I hope one day you understand.

[patternsinchaos]

No thing is singular in the sense that it's instances through moments of time are actually separate physical objects. That we cannot sense being in more than one place at a time is a limitation of our senses. Roll that into what your what your model and you can see from where the freedom resonates. ;-)

[0ThouArtThat0]

Gebser suggests that we sense being in more than one place at a time everytime we use and understand the term time at all. Situating ourselves in time requires a sense of both past and future as being present.

[patternsinchaos]

I do not think any of us understand time. I understand the sense to which Gebser might be referring, but even this sense is only a glimpse of a much more complex eternity. My broadest understanding of (hyper)time is so far removed from our common sense it gives me the creeps when I conceive of it. Scientific advances in the understanding of time will definitely do violence to the common sense, and will likely vindicate many of the good spiritual schools.

[patternsinchaos]

"(the neurons) are determined by their own structure and organization, not by anything out there" This argument disrespects the nature of space time. Neurological structures ARE connected "out there"- both to time differentiated instances and to other similar structures which resonate and inductively couple through space and time. :-)

[0ThouArtThat0]

One of the consequences of embodying the mind is that our concepts for such things as space and time have more to do with the structure of the organs involved in perceiving them than they do any perceiver-independent reality.

[patternsinchaos]

Don't forget that underneath the organs is the stuff of which they're made... how it behaves is very mysterious. Thou are not that. ;-) "We are not the stuff of which we are made." - Steve Grand

[0ThouArtThat0]

I think we are the stuff of which we are made, but we are also the pattern they form and the process they are enacting. I didn't say this in the last comment, but it isn't just the substance of the organs, but their form and the emergent property of mind created by their ongoing activity which determines our perception.

[patternsinchaos]

Ahhh, but material manifestation is a process, not a state. ;-) Matter isn't a thing, it's a creature- constantly recreated in the moment from that which dwells in a separate time and space. The process is imperceptible because of the nature of perception. Think Timaeus think I-Ching.

[FartheadOgre]

The philosophy of the abyss.

[HaleyMary]

If the two go together, I think determinism only exists with our free will depending on which choice we make in life, in turn I think free will can also be affected by determinism depending on how many choices are available to us. We can't have total free will if the choice we want to make isn't an option. :)

[jogayot]

btw, i almost forgot: xkcd com /372/

;)

[0ThouArtThat0]

ha, i like that first one

[jogayot]

you mean the boat? if so, yeah, i actually wanted to be a sailor when i was about 10 years old... "mysterious island" ... oh, the memories.

overall xkcd roxxorz.

[jogayot]

but of course our ability to ask that question and consider the problem is exactly sign of this self-regulation. the only way to un-ask it is to replicate it. then at last it would quite those spirit-body dualists.

[SOCRATES012]

We have the ability to control ourselves and others. It is up to us COLLECTIVELY as humans, to DECIDE whether we want FREEDOM in its holistic sense. Up until now, we have been greedy, wed rather worry about ourselves than someone in a worse position. Its time for change. We have much more potential. And we ALL know it

[plenipotentiarius]

Philosophy, one hopes, will never "un-ask" the question of free-will and freedom.

It is a great pity however that Wittgenstein had this blindspot when it came to ethics and politics.

But I suspect that many who follow him also have this blindspot which is also prevalent in science: wake up it is right in front of you. Even as a Buddhist your funds come off the back of someone.

[plenipotentiarius]

Of course an organism (which you neologise as a self-sustaining-pattern or such) may be under control: chickens in a coop are very controlled organisms.

You are in danger of mystifying this crucial relation of freedom and free-will. It is an insult to tell someone who is a slave in Chinese work camp or in a German concentration camp that they are free (or in mystified language "have free-will").

[0ThouArtThat0]

I never said anyone was free.

[plenipotentiarius]

You say "the organism is autonomous, is self-stabilising..determined by its own structure not by anything out there" You also deny such a thing as control or manipulation and say it is not possible. Are slaves not controlled? Are workers not Taylorised? Are children not forced to sit in a small seat all day? And of course this means there are others who are enforcing this control.

[0ThouArtThat0]

The organism is self-determining, not any ego inside the organism. In other words, the skin grows itself, the heart beats itself, and yes even the brain thinks itself. These are ontological claims, not political claims. Slavery and exploitation are issues that we can discuss in more practical, less technical, language. Philosophically speaking, the slave owner and the slave are each products of a larger set of impersonal circumstances which neither has any control over.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Doesn't mean we shouldn't be outraged about these types of situations... Changing the situation involves looking at it in a holistic sense, not trying to pick out a particular scape goat and say THAT is the reason! The reasons are infinite, but we can, by way of approximation, find and alter some circumstances which hopefully lead to less suffering for all.

[plenipotentiarius]

I agree, but are you suggesting I am picking out a scapegoat? I suppose I tend to go for an integrative approach since part of the problem is a dualism that allows one to hop from one side to the other thus reinforcing the problem itself.

[plenipotentiarius]

Ok so you divide the body from the mind, the body as an organism, skin, heart etc. is self-determining but the mind is different.

You also make a, de jure, dualism between practical language and technical language. And likewise between ontology and politics (ethics/action). So perhaps the lack of dualism in enactivism is just moving the dualism to ontology/ethics.

[zezt]

Ok i am gonna be gross. but the image came to mind. This idea of feeling separate from body is like trying to shit?

As though the mind is imposing what body naturally does. yet if you just relax, then is allowed

is like trying to dance. it looks contrived

but our whole sorry culture is based on this control over natural spontaneous process, which acts like a self deafeating clog up

[coaxx]

I agree with what you say, but it's a bit difficult for humans then because everyone feels to a certain extent that their "I" is separate from the body.

I don't think anyone have understood or can manipulate the underlying physics of their bodily machinery, but they still function and can do stuff, if body and mind were one we would surely be more involved with how our body works or?

[SixMillionDollarAcid]

Hey man thanks for that link to that blog.

[havonastudios]

It still has to follow natural law. All things are lawful. Nature is formulaic; mathematical. All of nature adheres to archetypal law. Everything is determined by law. It is a miraculous law. Take a look around. Everything you see and experience is this law in action. It's great.

[9macrina9]

when i saw this post, my first response was "Nooooooooooooooo, oh please unprovable god, no more free anything vs determined anything" LOL....and then the great UNASKING...loved it!5*s lol:-)

[0ThouArtThat0]

I think those highly trained monkeys YouTube's got working for them must have refreshed this page about 250 times in the last 10 minutes.