<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Re: Glen's response to Jochen's reflections on WW and BB...</p>
<p>I am currently trying to ingest more of Robert Sopolsky's
perspective on "Free Will", starting by studying his previous work
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behave_(book)">"Behave"</a>.
He does a pretty good job IMO of teasing the hair of the
nature/nurture debate <insert troll doll image with hair
teased></p>
<p>I'm acutely torn between being very loyal to my physics-culture
of causality and determinism (QC aside) and my very strong
personal sense of "free will" and "agency". What others call
(revile?) as the Hard Problem of Consciousness I am trying to
revel in the mystery of. <br>
</p>
<p>And regarding Privilege (capital P) and Entitlement (E), I
suspect I'm "getting it wrong" again here but I am trying to
embrace (wallow) in my own (P and E) based on the implied
"inevitability" of it all. I was raised to believe that my
intentions mattered as much as my actions and the consequences of
my actions... that all three play, tied together by estimates of
risk, etc. I believed that Character (C) was on a spectrum and
willpower was involved in developing and maintaining and applying
it. Sopolsky's arguments *seem* to imply otherwise, or more to
the point perhaps, that at best all of this is an illusion, though
I'm not clear on whom/what is the inner "I" having the illusion.
<br>
</p>
<p>At least for the moment, I continue to (try to) behave as if C
matters and that owning my own E and P as best I can is an
important part of that. E and P seem to carry their own
blind-spots, so go figure? My modern (most of my adult life)
experience is that the progressive/enlightened amongst us lean
toward the idea of having any E and P represent character flaws
that should be at least concealed if not stifled in some way.
I'm hooked on this myself. I don't like having the scarlet E or P
branded on my forehead, even (because?) the brand fits my
circumstance. Maybe it is more accurate to say the fact of P
leads to an illusion of E which when exercised (free-will assumed)
is where the C flaw resides?<br>
</p>
<p>I *do* feel very Privileged to even have the
background/opportunity/perspective to even be thinking about these
things... yet those who do not, are not, cannot... are also
enviable.... my dog and cat and grandchildren seem to be in that
category... this entire discussion is parallel to other
maunderings I have have shared on the topic of (non-religious)
Grace and the Return to it?<br>
</p>
<p>I'm curious how others pick at these gordian knots? Here is
DALL-E's (prompted by GPT4 based on a discussion with Bard) issue
on the topic. At best, I consider this image to be an "oracle" in
the vein of <span
style="color: rgb(55, 65, 81); font-family: Söhne, ui-sans-serif, system-ui, -apple-system, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Noto Sans", sans-serif, "Helvetica Neue", Arial, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol", "Noto Color Emoji"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruspex">haruspicy</a>, not an actual "creative issue" of a "sentient or conscious entity".</span></p>
<p><img src="cid:part1.rCzsLsdu.nIO7FLE6@swcp.com"
moz-do-not-send="false" alt="" width="2048" height="2048"><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/15/24 11:36 AM, glen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f4aa2366-93da-4f64-b435-bd27d0c8eca6@gmail.com">I have a
friend who calls himself a "virtue ethicist". He means it in some
jargonal sense. But if I hear him with charity, what he means is
something like moral intuitionism. And it's simply another
rendering of nature v nurture, the false dichotomy to end all
false dichotomies. Rather than ask *can* "good people" turn "bad",
we might want to particularize "people", "good", and "bad", then
ask "what does it take to turn type T_0 people into T_1 people?"
<br>
<br>
Despite my abstract re-wording, it applies to Walter White in the
arc of the show. He never turned "bad". He exhibited the same
tribal character throughout, retaining loyalty to those in his
group. But the group definition changed through the arc. The group
boundary permeability hardened (and softened). The Other became Us
and vice versa. Etc. To some extent, we might say the show is less
about breaking bad and more about breaking *out* ... out of the
entitled stupor our standard lives, built on implicitly assumed
bureaucracy, put us into. Were I a betting person, I'd bet that
what many in the media are calling "polarization" can be
well-understood as a "waking up". Some of us are waking up and
realizing our democracy is fragile. Others are waking up and
realizing they're losing autonomy one "freedom" at a time. Etc.
When we make a posterior value judgement about these
transformations, it's difficult to make a charitable one. And what
most of us seem to want is to hide in that comfy stupor of
entitlement, to minimize surprisal.
<br>
<br>
It is a fantastic show.
<br>
<br>
On 1/15/24 09:45, Jochen Fromm wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The TV series Breaking Bad was created 10
years ago, but I only recently was able to watch it on Netflix.
As you know it is about the question how a good man turns bad.
The story starts with a tragedy, a lung cancer diagnosis for the
main character Walt(er) White. Life has not been kind to the
underpaid and overqualified chemistry teacher who has a disabled
son and a pregnant wife. The cancer diagnosis pushes him over
the edge and after it he seems to driven by the question "if
life has been so bad to me why should I be good?". The episodes
that follow describe how he "breaks bad" and turns toward crime.
<br>
<br>
What do you think, did you like the TV series created in
Albuquerque? Is the story accurate from a psychological
perspective, i.e. can good people turn into bad ones if life
refuses to be kind to them? In a way this story of a person who
turns into a villain is the opposite of Joseph Campbell's
classic story of a person who turns into a hero, isn't it?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>