[MD] Free Will

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Steve --

Steve, previously:
>> I'm just saying that the future follows from the present which
>> follows from the past to the extent that we can tell stories about
>> how we got from the past to the present in terms of causes and
>> effects and constantly work on improving those stories to better
>> enable us to predict the future.
>>
>> I don't think we will ever get very good at predicting the future
>> though we have a good mastery of some situations which can
>> be well-described by simple laws from physics.

Ham:
> You are still talking causality, Steve. This rationale is tantamount to
> saying that human life follows from cellular organisms which follow from
> inorganic matter in the chain of evolution.

Steve:
> Yes, but causality in an MOQ view is not some sterile value-free
> phenomenon. Causality is "B values precondition A."

Does this "preconditioning" mean that B values push situation A toward a 
given end without necessarily accomplishing it?  If so, is man's choice an 
intervening factor, or is DQ simply an ineffective cause?

Ham:
> Human civilization does not
> advance by causal evolution but by the will of free people who determine
> their own history.

Steve:
> History is always a back-ward looking perspective from which we can
> always tell stories in terms of causes and effects, actions and
> consequences to explain how we got from then to now. The MOQ denies
> determinism since these stories are not fundamental to reality. Such
< story telling is a late evolutionary development. ...

Apart from the "story-telling", just what IS fundamental to reality?  I 
assume the MOQ accepts evolution as the process or "patterns" that account 
for the present state of reality.

> The MOQ also denies a traditional view of free will since it denies
> the positing of an autonomous agent as a keySOM bad move in
> constructing a metaphysical system. The I that is the supposed possessor
> of free will is a fiction.

The autonomous agent constructs his/her existence, not metaphysical reality. 
For what purpose do we exist other than as free agents of value in a 
relational world?  Why is the creation of an independent agent not the best 
of all possible moves for an absolute source?

Steve quoting Pirsig:
"This self-appointed little editor of reality is just an impossible
fiction that collapses the moment one examines it. This Cartesian 'Me'
is a software reality, not a hardware reality. This body on the left
and this body on the right are running variations of the same program,
the same 'Me,' which doesn't belong to either of them. The 'Me's' are
simply a program format." (LILA)

With due respect to the author, it's easy to conclude that what we cannot 
objectively observe must be illusory.  However, while the cognizant self is 
incapable of empirical analysis, I'm not aware of anyone's self collapsing 
upon examination, whether by psychologists, neurologists, or cognitive 
scientists.  If selflness is "an impossible fiction", how is it that all 
evidence of reality AND VALUE is lost without it?  Why has that fact not 
been examined, or at least considered, by epistemologists and philosophers?

Just curious,
Ham