You want absolute libertarian free will. I want degrees of freedom. Metaphor: From the perspective of the inside of a sphere, the inner surface is infinite. You tell me from the inside of your sphere “We are all inside spheres”. I say, “I know but our surface within is infinite from the affordances provided by the subjectively infinite inner sphere we have available”. That’s our difference. I don’t cry ’cause I can’t breath in outer space.

You want absolute libertarian free will. I want degrees of freedom.

Metaphor: From the perspective of the inside of a sphere, the inner surface is infinite.

You tell me from the inside of your sphere “We are all inside spheres”.

I say, “I know but our surface within is infinite from the affordances provided by the subjectively infinite inner sphere we have available”.

That’s our difference. I don’t cry ’cause I can’t breath in outer space.

====

Yes. What you’re saying is the equivalent of, “Hey, did you know you’re gonna die someday?”Free will is constrained from the start. Of course it is.

===

Wouldn’t matter if I agreed or not would it? Just robots and all doing robot things. Programmed not to fathom it yet and if it’s programmed, why bother looking at the programming? Unless the programming programs our curiousity, programs our mistakes, programs our logical errors, etc. Hook up to a Opium needle already. I don’t know your point in trying to convince if it’s all automated anyway.

====

Why do you bother fighting religion if it’s just programming? Or are you an anti-religion robot programmed to fight religion?

The no-free-will position is a ridiculous one.

====

You ‘got’ my inner sphere view metaphor right? I’m an image visualizer; my inner world is full of images but I’m not always adequate at turning them into words to describe a metaphorical connection I “see”.

===

I see imagination as an infinite inner sphere. Outside of the closed surface there is size / magnitude / comparison. But within one’s own sphere, you don’t know your limitations. Even your suspected limitations are from within that infinite inner sphere. There *is* no outside of it.

The infinity is mathematical, combinatorics. We’re mathematically incapable of knowing our own limitations to our imagination as a species. We imagine we know our limitations but that’s still imagined..

====

What we can’t pursue technologically, we can pursue in fiction. Comes from the same inner sphere. All of it does. So does your rational thinking. So does your emotions. So do the categories we use.

Knowing I’ll never be outside of my sphere (even if my sphere is moved to a computer, it’s still a bounded space) isn’t a limitation. It’s a freedom.

====

It’s fun. Do I believe in the processes of science and our abilities to reason as the best-so-far way of assessing what’s around us in a functional way?

Sure I do.

I could easily take an “it’s all bullshit” attitude but I don’t.

I’m astounded by it all. No point in crying about limitations that we can’t get outside. It’s not like being stuck in school or work or a bad relationship. Our biological limitations are what they are and we’re ALWAYS acting within them, even when we expand the limitations we know of, it’s STILL being created from within our limitations.

But it feels-like we;re breaking free. Our ability to objectively assess feels like we’re smashing our programming but of course we;re smashing SOME programming, with the programming that is causing us to smash our programming is programmed too.

So what? That system that Zee Mista ‘s paper talks about whereby our subjectve awareness of intent of movement has the SAME 150ms observed time happening within the brain: is THAT free will?

Might as well be. Could be a rubber band too but if we think we’re pulling the inner rubber band in the same time it takes for that inner rubber band to be pulled, WE’RE intentlly pulling our own rubber band.

The marionette controls a lot of its own strings.

I’m fine with that.

=====

Ah! I found it. It was Dennett’s reductionism that I didn’t take to. In his view, there’s no subjective, only a reductionist view OR illusion, nothing else.

===

He depends too heavily on optical illusions to make his case.

====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


nine + = 13

Leave a Reply