[MD] Free Will

[MarshaV]

Hello Ham,  

You might find the presentations, discussion and Q&A interesting on 
the reflective self very interesting.  There are times when I would like 
to agree with you but I do not have the language.  The discourse between 
these gentlemen might help.
   

http://www.cbs.columbia.edu/cscp/freewill/  


Marsha




On Jun 29, 2011, at 1:32 AM, Ham Priday wrote:

> 
> On Tues, 6/28/11 at 4:23 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Hi Ham,
>> 
>> Free Will adds indeterminacy into our actions, otherwise they
>> wouldn't be free.  What in me defines the indeterminate so that
>> actions are not predestined?  Pirsig very cleverly suggested a
>> metaphysics DQ/SQ where DQ is a reality which remains
>> indefinable and knowable.  I suggest that emotions are DQ only,
>> while intellect is DQ/SQ.
>> 
>> Evolution defines reality in definable levels in existence.  Calcium
>> is found in a rock and in my bones.  DQ/SQ evolution suggests
>> levels in existence.  I don't exist the same as the rock, and there is
>> something in me that identifies this, and the horse of my actions
>> freely chooses which way to go, sometimes right, sometimes left.
>> 
>> To know DQ in an evolutionary environment (morality) is enabled
>> in a metaphysics which recognizes undefined (free) defined (actions).
>> I suggest the emotional level is DQ only. I have to arrange my reality
>> in some order, even though my indefinable emotions tell me there is
>> always something more.
> 
> Joe, in my epistemology Will is simply intention or what we want.  And the fact that what we want is often not what a deterministic Nature gives us is itself proof that our Will is free.  Free Will is not something "added" to our actions; it is intrinsic to our value sensibility.  What we desire or want out of life is the Value of our essential Source.  We sense this Value as something we do not possess but intend for ourselves; yet we can only realize it in our experience of otherness.  This drives us to create, explore, and manipulate an objective world which represents the values we feel intrinsically.
> 
> You seem to treat Free Will as an emotional-based idée fixé that is imposed on you by an "evolutionary environment" which you call "morality".  I see morality as a code of behavior man has invented to ensure the survival of civilization.  There is nothing particularly "moral" in the law of gravity or the evolution of the species.  On the other hand, Free Will (the power to choose) is a moral principle exercised by a value-sensible agent.  And I think you slight Value ('DQ') when you restrict it to an emotional level. For example, it is not the emotions but intellect that defines the levels of existence.  It is not only emotion but reason that determines the value of a work of art.  And it takes more than compassion to establish the laws and enforce the penalties of a just society.
> 
> Frankly, I find too many operands left "undefined" in the MoQ construct to make it workable.  You claim to "know" DQ but can't define it, much less acknowledge it as the uncreated source.  You say the emotions are "indefinable", despite an abundance of psychological, neurological, and endocrinology studies on the subject.  Mosr disturbing to me is that the majority here either reject the idea of a cognizant agent altogether or blithely accept Marsha's "ever-changing, interrelated and interconnected inorganic, biological, social and intellectual patterns" as a definition for selfness.
> 
> As I've said before, it's meaningless to argue for Free Will unless you acknowledge the existence of the willing agent.
> 
> Thanks, Joe.
> 
> --Ham



 
___