There are a number of pretty interesting, quasi-paradoxes, surrounding non-self and concepts like will, choice, and action that, at minimum, imply a "selfy-thing."
My very first course in Buddhist philosophy (fall 1968 at Macalester College with Professor David White) raised the question: "if there is no self, what reincarnates?" The answer was involved enough it would have been worthy of a graduate seminar all by itself. Same thing for the "complex web" you mention but not the "conditioned responses." Something more akin to patterns arising from localized strange attractors within the context of the Self (Atman). If you want to explore the concepts from your MOOC further, I highly recommend Alex Comfort's book, *Reality and Empathy. *[Yes, it is the same Alex Comfort who wrote *The Joy of Sex*.] davew On Wed, Jun 11, 2025, at 10:57 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: > Many moons ago, I worked through a fascinating MOOC by Robert Wright titled > *Buddhism and Modern Psychology.* The course promo included the following: > > *One of the core principles of Buddhism is the concept of ‘non-self.’ This > means that there is no permanent, unchanging self that exists independently > of the constantly changing physical and mental processes that make up our > experience. This idea can be challenging to grasp, but it is a fundamental > aspect of the Buddhist worldview.* > > The course takes an agnostic stance on the spiritual aspects of Buddhism and > instead focuses on how Buddhist practices align with insights from modern > psychology. I found it all deeply intriguing. > > Now, if I may share my "expert" opinion (imagine someone saying: "Pieter is > such a humble person — he has so much to be humble about")… While Buddhism > denies a permanent self, it still makes space for will and choice — not as > free-floating expressions of some fixed essence, but as part of a complex web > of conditioned processes. > > On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 at 15:26, Prof David West <[email protected]> wrote: >> __ >> A minor curiosity, >> >> If there is "free will" it is essential that there is a "willer;" that which >> wills freely. What is it? >> >> Non-individuated consciousness/intelligence would not seem to be sufficient; >> only an "I" will do. >> >> But, to a [Vedist | Taoist | Buddhist | Alchemist | ...] there is not such >> thing as an "I," only the illusion of one. Similarly a material-monist >> (Marcus?) or a behavior-monist (Nick!) an "I" is nothing in itself, merely >> an epiphenomenon, neither a metaphysical nor ontological thing. >> >> It would seem that any argument, pro/con, for free will is dependent on a >> convincing argument for the existence of an "I" whether embodied in silicon >> or flesh. >> >> davew >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025, at 8:09 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: >>> I have two hats. When I wear Hat #1, I don't think humans have free will.. >>> >>> In this view, our minds are what happen when lots of physical, >>> deterministic processes take place—not just in the brain, but possibly in >>> all the cells of the body. There might be a bit of quantum randomness >>> involved, but nothing too wild—we can probably understand and model it >>> pretty well. So, from this perspective, free will doesn’t really exist. >>> We’re following the rules of physics, whether we like it or not. >>> >>> I don’t think current AI systems are yet capable of reproducing something >>> like the human mind, but in theory, I believe it’s possible. Maybe it’ll >>> happen soon. Maybe it’ll take much longer. But the idea itself is not >>> far-fetched. And even if we don’t get full human-like AI anytime soon, the >>> progress I expect from today’s "narrow" AI will still be enormous. Within a >>> decade or two, I think we’ll see major advances and a kind of radical >>> abundance in goods and services. >>> >>> Then I switch to Hat #2. >>> >>> This hat still believes in science, but it questions whether today’s >>> scientific model of reality is enough to fully explain the human mind. >>> >>> I asked Grok about Roger Penrose’s view on free will. The response was: >>> >>> “Roger Penrose, a renowned physicist and philosopher, believes free will is >>> a real phenomenon, rooted in the complex interplay of quantum mechanics and >>> consciousness. His ideas challenge traditional views, suggesting our >>> choices may stem from non-computable processes in the brain, beyond simple >>> cause-and-effect. While controversial, his work offers a fascinating >>> perspective on how we make decisions.” >>> >>> (Full version here: https://x.com/i/grok/share/aqBDuYD1GxnPOaUSu02UcP4uB) >>> >>> To me, this isn’t mysticism—it’s serious, thoughtful science. And if we >>> want to test these ideas, Seth Lloyd’s “Turing test for free will” is >>> another example of proper science being used to explore difficult questions. >>> >>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 at 01:19, steve smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> __ >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/10/25 3:26 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>>>> This conversation is well into bad faith now. I’m done. >>>>> >>>> Let me dig into my reserves of "good faith" for those who might not have >>>> already exercised their free will by choosing to exit the conversation >>>> (ok... THAT was bad faith also! ) >>>> >>>> FWIW, the *only* thing I have to offer in opposition to the >>>> monistic/deterministic/no-free-will view is my own "experience" which is >>>> *at best* proof (to me) by example... it is not hard for me to grant that >>>> other "beings like me" have the same experience of "free will" (and other >>>> *qualia*). >>>> >>>> My mystical/abstraction-oriented/woo self tends to *grow* the scope of >>>> "beings like me" and even without the benefit of various organic alkaloids >>>> (et al) that others here might use to get into that mood? I'm pretty >>>> open to granting AI/ML models something *like* (my) consciousness, and by >>>> *extension* something *like* (my) free will... while *simultaneously* >>>> (read Lewis Carrol's Red Queen character) believing that determinism IS. >>>> >>>> My snarky flipness was maybe a reflection of the inner tension I feel in >>>> this discussion... that I can take either or both sides pretty effectively >>>> and don't find the arguments of one extrema very compelling to my other >>>> extrema (and vice-versa). The epitome of ambi-valence? >>>> >>>> Maybe there is useful meta-argument which helps resolve that? Maybe >>>> everyone else is able to get a good grip on one extrema or the other and >>>> recognize the opposite one acutely absurd? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *steve smith >>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 10, 2025 2:24 PM >>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever >>>>> wiring?____ >>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>> >>>>> On 6/10/25 9:44 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:____ >>>>> >>>>>> Consider a robot with sensors roughly comparable to humans.____ >>>>>> >>>>>> The robot has access to all the energy it wants. It has a large memory >>>>>> and generous computing resources. It has executive processes with >>>>>> onboard state-of-the-art LLMs to access vast information and can run a >>>>>> wide variety of appropriate programs to plan its next actions. It can >>>>>> use the LLMs to write new programs. It can tune or fine-tune the LLMs >>>>>> constantly from new data. It remembers its actions and their >>>>>> consequences. It has video and audio recordings of every moment. It >>>>>> has time series data of its sensors since it was activated. Because of >>>>>> its general self-tuning ability, any guidance from its authors (like for >>>>>> the LLM) can be overridden. It has americium-241 onboard hardware >>>>>> random number generator that drives its LLM sampling and any other >>>>>> stochastic algorithm.____ >>>>>> >>>>>> ____ >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this robot have free will? Why or why not?____ >>>>>> >>>>> Probably not unless it's brain is *positronic*. ____ >>>>> >>>>> For a *proof by anecdote*, read the corpus of Asimov's work. ;/____ >>>>> >>>>> Then go release an Orca into the wild and holler "Free Willy" at the top >>>>> of your lungs. If you survive being arrested and convicted for your >>>>> declaration of putative "public exposure", then note that the entire >>>>> global population are taking up the practice of head-butting >>>>> sailboats.... free will much? ____ >>>>> >>>>>> The perils of Free Will(y)?____ >>>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >>>>> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >>>> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >>> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... > --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
