You made a number of new points that are helping me understand how you are seeing the quote. It will take some time for me to unpack it. I think this is worth the time. It is as good a tool as any to discuss the relationship of mind and body and the possibility for universal consciousness. The re-examination of those concepts is a big reason I am on this group. It is challenging to address these concepts. It reminds me of when I used to study Aristotle's metaphysics at MIU. I remember reading an entire paragraph, every word, and it meant absolutely nothing! Word salad. I would pick apart a few words, discover a concept and slowly tease out what the hell he was talking about. So thanks for that.
It may take me a day or two to get back to this. I have to travel for a few days. But that will give me some time to figure out what the hell "I" am talking about! And who is doing the talking...you understand! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > [Quoting Schroedinger:] > > > > > Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory > > > > > > conclusion from the following two premises: > > > > > > > > > > > > (i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws > > > > > > of Nature [determinism]. > > > > > > > > ME: This is about the physical body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I > > > > > > am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that > > > > > > may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take > > > > > > full responsibility for them [free will]. > > > > > > > > ME: This is about the mind > > > > > > I'm not sure he's making the distinction > > > the same way you are. (Remember this is a > > > translation from the German, so it's possible > > > there are nuances that got lost.) As I read > > > him, he's including the functioning of the > > > brain in "body"--synapses, chemicals, > > > electrical currents, etc. > > > > ME: I definitely agree with you here. All that stuff is on the body > side. > > > > > > > > > The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, > > > > > > that I--I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, > > > > > > every conscious mind that has ever said "I"--am the person, if > > > > > > any, who controls the "motion of the atoms" according to the > Laws > > > > > > of Nature. > > > > > > > > Me: Here is where he takes flight. It is a contrivance to claim to > > > > be a conclusion from the two premises. > > > > > > Again, he does call it an "inference" rather than > > > a "conclusion." > > > > Me: OK , he warned me. > > > > > > > > > This conclusion has nothing to do with them, even inductively. > > > > > > I'm honestly still not sure why you say that. > > > I can see why you might *disagree* with it, but > > > not why you can't see how he gets to that > > > inference from that contradiction. It *does* > > > resolve the contradiction if you accept as a > > > possibility the premise that each human consciousness > > > is an individualization of a single Universal > > > Consciousness. > > > > Me: I feel a little thick but I don't see it. > > And I'm feeling a little thick because I'm not > seeing what you find objectionable! > > He might as well say, > > "then magic happens". I don't even understand why he thinks the two > > separate parts of our existence are contradictory. They are just on > > different levels and don't need to be resolved. > > But that's your speculation, not scientific fact. > > But if they did, I > > don't see how imagining a universal consciousness helps. Unless he > > just believes that to be so and the whole set up was just a ruse for > > him to pull this rabbit out of his hat. Perhaps you can help me > > understand how this resolves the differences better. In what way? > > Isn't he just claiming that the mind is not really experiencing free > > will but the determinism of the group "I"? Is that how you see it? > > It's experiencing the *free will* of the "group 'I'" > and interpreting it as its own free will. > > > I think our "free will" is actually constrained by habits, past > > experiences, and lots of other psychological factors. > > Sure it is, but as you go on to say, to some extent, > at least, it appears to us that we can overcome those > constraints. So the fact that there are some > constraints doesn't go counter to his thesis. > > Acting freely > > in a new direction from my past takes a lot of effort and force of > > will. My greatest happiness comes from fighting those deterministic > > tendencies and doing something new. It is something I practice. > > > > The fact that my body is determined by laws of nature makes perfect > > sense. I don't want to think about breathing or digesting, and I > > accept that it has rule I must follow to survive. I have learned that > > I have to impose my will over my body with exercise because inertia is > > easy to fall into physically. It is often an act of will to start to > > exercise, even though I enjoy it while I am doing it and afterwards. > > What's with that? But I have learned that it wont happen if I don't > > will it to happen. This ramble is just me trying to think about where > > the contradiction is that needs resolving. I am not there yet. > > The contradiction is that according to science, > your constraints, your sense of exercising an > act of will to overcome them, and your enjoyment > of all that are all *determined*, because the > behavior of the elementary particles that make > your mind, as well as your body, function operates > via mathematically predictable statistical > probabilities; there are no "surprises." > > Theoretically, if we could compute the billions > of bits of behavior of those gazillions of elementary > particles, we could predict precisely the chances of > your choosing to exercise versus choosing to watch > football on TV. > > There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of clinical > evidence, as it happens, for free will, whereas > there's quite a bit *against* it. I was just > reading an article in the Times today about how > more and more personality traits are being traced > to genetics, for example. And Lawson mentioned > the famous (infamous?) studies that appear to show > that if you're asked to raise your arm, say, the > motor neurons that govern the movement of the arm > muscles are activated *before* the area of the > brain in which decisions to act are made. (I think > I have that straight; Lawson will correct me if I > don't, I'm sure!) > > I was thinking of a third example earlier, darn it, > but I can't bring it to mind now. > > Anyway, the contradiction, again, is our sense of > free will versus what science says about the > statistico-deterministic behavior of the elementary > particles of which we are composed and which > animate us. In this sense, determinism is the > science, and free will is the speculation, the > "then magic happens." The idea of individual free > will is "magical thinking." There's no way to > prove it exists. > > That's about the best I can do, Curtis! I don't > have the Schroedinger essay to hand, but when I > get back I'll have another look and see if anything > in the rest of it sheds any light--if you're not > sick to death of the whole discussion, for which I > wouldn't blame you in the slightest. > > <snip> > > > Nope. It's from the essay (this'll turn you off > > > real good!) "The 'I' That Is God." > > > > Me: I would be open to reading it. I have learned not to assume > > that I know what a person means when they use the word "God". > > Sometimes it just means life using more poetic language and that is > > fine with me. he probably has an interesting version of this > > concept. > > I *think* I remember that he had been exploring > Vedanta, so it's probably along similar lines to > MMY's "Impersonal God." "The 'I' That Is God" > sounds to me suspiciously like "Atman is Brahman." > > > High five for being thought provoking! > > Yeah! I've posted the Schroedinger quote > several times on alt.m.t, and here as well, at > least once before, and nobody's ever seriously > bitten on it, so I appreciate your challenge > to it; that requires me to think about it more > deeply. Although I wish I were able to see > the same disconnect you do; so far I have the > feeling I haven't been able to address it > properly. > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/jDk17A/gOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
