Calling all materialists and non-materialists (page 6)

willmarite

jgnat, I thought you were referring to Sam Harris's belief that free will is an illusion when you wrote "Well, I'm not Sam Harris. From what I can see there are moments where choice sits on a razors edge and some choose a better life"

prologos

"Choice sits on a razors edge" ? , yes, because we live on a razors edge, the moment with 0 length in time.

perhaps even below the plank length, were the disorder of quantum mechanics rules.

but an eternal record of ALL your activities exists in the fossil record of information that you left in your wake.

the proverbial butterfly wing beat in the Amazon forest that triggers a hurricane up north.

you matter because you are matter, material.

transhuman68

I think what Bertrand Russell in the original OP was trying to say was that there is no other way: that ‘this is this’, as Michael said in The Deer Hunter movie. And once you realise that, you do what you have to do, with the time you have. But it would be interesting to know who he was writing to, and what their beliefs were…

bohm

Transhuman: The full essay is a "Free Mans Worship" from 1903:

http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/freeManWorship.htm

transhuman68

O.K. Thanks.

jgnat

I am not Sam Harris because I am not a nihilist. Hmmm. Not a nihilist; double negative. Properly, I celebrate living.

As a challenge, prologos, individual action has the most effect on the immediate surroundings. When great masses are involved, the tendency is to settle back to "normal". Butterflies don't cause hurricanes. Most gratefully.

I was most struck by the Italian Physicist's description of sand dunes, that demonstrate stunning regularity in the face of random forces. It is the razor's edge of the sand dune I am talking about.

http://www.ted.com/talks/gian_giudice_why_our_universe_might_exist_on_a_knife_edge.html

adamah

Willmarite said-

Let me illustrate it this way. When I was a JW all the work that I did (service, talks, cleaning bathrooms etc.) I believed had lasting merit. I was happy doing it because I thought it had real value. When I found out it didn't have real value that it was without merit I was devasted. All my work was for nothing. If what bertrand russell said is correct as quoted in my opening comment then my personal view is that everything would be without merit in the final scheme of things. I'm sure you can understand this even if you don't agree with it.

From here, it looks like you're jumping from one extreme to the other.

Ponce De Leon's quest for the secret to eternal life emerged long before his day (the idea of cheating death stems from even before Jesus' time), and the JWs are also benefitting from the same ol' con game of a means to cheat death, just a variation of the same theme. The commonality is the idea of immortality appeals to those who think they've found something no one else knows, and are 'special' to have figured out what others are simply to blind to see.

In reading the thread on FS busy-work, I'm reminded of the absurdity of those who chase eternal life, but get bored on a rainy Sunday afternoon when they can't think of anything to do.

Oh, on this-

Willmarite said-

Stephen Hawking has thought thru the question as a materialist or physicalist and writes in his book The Grand Design:

"Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion."

I strongly disagee with the genius of Steven Hawking on his comments, who like alot of physicists, is suspectible to viewing the World in purely mechanistic terms, only, where the classic description of Newtonian physics allows for predicting the positions of Planets in their orbits, etc. Even Einstein downplayed the importance of probability when he said that a deistic God didn't play games of chance with the Universe. Physicists are prone to try to extrapolate their World view into other disciplines where it may or may not apply.

Since then, we've learned more from the world of physics about quantum mechanics (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), such that the sub-atomic world is not as predictable as some may have wished/hoped it to be. Having come at the question of free will from the perspective of a biologist (and NOT as a physicist), I'd say Hawking is overestimating the number of forces at play when he declares free will to be an illusion, but as resulting from predictable 'physical laws'.

Point being, there's plenty enough unpredictability in life to allow for it be to "new to me", at least, such that if it IS predictable and didn't offer an opportunity to surprise every day such that free will is only an illusion, it's a pretty-damned convincing illusion!

Maybe someday we'll be able to confirm whether free will is only an illusion, but that day is a LONG way off and time spent questioning the point of asking the question (or assuming a God exists, with Divine Will) isn't helping to find a solution.

Adam

willmarite

The human ego has a need to feel special. As you say JWs as well as many others need to feel special that they are God's "special people". Perhaps others feel they're special because they feel they are more logical than others. Perhaps others feel special because of financial success. In other words nobody is immune to the belief that they are cut above everyone else and others "just don't get it".

I of course agree with you on your assesment of Hawking's opinion of free will.

prologos

The question was how we feel if we agree with a proposition in esssay by Russel, (the right one, not CT), or the feeling we would have if we disagreed with it.

Bertrand with his triple negatives might elicit responsesthat break rule three.

For me, Iam deeply satisfied with what the material being that I am am has given me, and the great experiences I have are of course the result of the functioning, interactions of Billions of neurons, synapses in my physical brain.

using the computer analogy, is it the hardware, software or the sites like JWN or the users, or their work, thoughts, memories that are important real?

Will this all matter? as long as there is radiation from this planet is moving out, it can not be lost, the details could be untangled from the white noise.

It is better to travel than to arrive,

because we live on a razors edge, and

A butterfly wing can not CAUSE a hurricane but be the final minute trigger that sends a solar powered airmass spinning one way or another.

near the equator.

bohm

Adamah:

I strongly disagee with the genius of Steven Hawking on his comments, who like alot of physicists, is suspectible to viewing the World in purely mechanistic terms, only, where the classic description of Newtonian physics allows for predicting the positions of Planets in their orbits, etc. Even Einstein downplayed the importance of probability when he said that a deistic God didn't play games of chance with the Universe. Physicists are prone to try to extrapolate their World view into other disciplines where it may or may not apply.

Since then, we've learned more from the world of physics about quantum mechanics (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), such that the sub-atomic world is not as predictable as some may have wished/hoped it to be. Having come at the question of free will from the perspective of a biologist (and NOT as a physicist), I'd say Hawking is overestimating the number of forces at play when he declares free will to be an illusion, but as resulting from predictable 'physical laws'.

Well, i am plenty sure Hawkins are fully aware of basic quantum mechanics and include that when he talks about "laws of nature", and I cant tell how this affect his conclusions; the orbit of the planets and the orbitals of an atom is also subject to the uncertainty principle. How, exactly, do you think Hawkins gets it wrong? The main trust of the quote seem to be this:

our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws

It would seem that to disagree with hawkins, you would need to disagree with the last sentence; that our brain operate through the laws of nature. Certainly that is not the case?`But if so, what is left to "strongly disagree" with?

Calling all materialists and non-materialists

Share this