[FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic

[Pieter Steenekamp]

>From a very high altitude perspective, humans are either:
a) the atoms in our bodies and behavior is the result of complexity that
emerges from the interaction of all the different physical components in
our body. To quote Yoshua Epstein "if you haven't grown it, you haven't
explained it"
or
b) the above plus something more.

Then there is the question of free will.

If you accept (a) above and reject free will, your beliefs are congruent.
Also, if you accept (b) and accept free will, your beliefs are also
congruent.
I understand the positions of these two combinations and I can't really
argue against either.

What I do not understand is the acceptance of (a) and the rejection of free
will. It's not that I'm saying it's wrong, it's just that I don't
understand how one can reconcile the acceptance that we are the emergent
complexity from the interaction of all the components in our system and
nothing more with the acceptance of free will.

On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 07:02, jon zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com> wrote:

> "What is this pantheism and why can't we take it apart or study it?"
>
> FWIW, I am also an atheist and I feel that I never had a choice in
> being any other way. The free will-determinism discussion seems to
> happen seasonally on Friam and it provides an opportunity to reason
> differently. This round has proven intellectually fruitful for me, so
> thank you for your thoughtful and determined contributions.
>
> There are some here that post about pan-psychism/theism, posthumanism,
> private consciousness, platonism, transcendentalism, buddhism, satanism,
> libertarianism, goddess worship, you name it. For reasons beyond me, and
> especially lately, I find inspiration in sympathizing with the positions
> of others, others that present experiences radically different than my
> own[0]. For our discussion, pantheism seemed like the kind of doctrine
> that stands to benefit from finding *will in all things*, a generalized
> vitalism[1]. My posted objection to the metaphysical framing of the
> discussion was the result of my grappling with discomfort, a desire to
> clarify something for myself. Ultimately, I am unsure whether we will be
> able to take something like *will* apart. My feeling is that if it
> remains a negative object, then like absence, we certainly will not. If
> on the other hand, like vacuum, it comes to be defined positively, as
> fields or substrate or whatever, well then who knows? It seems to me that
> like a mechanistic description of the cosmos, we have to want to build
> it. In response to your closing remark, I add that if you want to
> change the world, will be granted, you follow the evidence _and_ what
> you want to be true.
>
> [0] Maybe it is from being couped up for a year? Maybe the echo-chamber
> is boring me to tears? Yo no se.
>
> [1] Generalized, perhaps, by abandoning the distinction that living things
> are imbued with non-physical stuff and, instead, imagining *choice* to be
> an inherent and ubiquitous quality of the unfolding universe. And yes,
> this is clearly problematic too.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210408/187b3840/attachment.html>