romansh

I think Brand is proposing of a different mindset that once we possess it, new avenues of thought and understanding will open up. If he is suggesting new data/evidence will crop up that might create new models of our existence? Then he is likely quite right. If he is suggesting alternatives to reason and evidenced based logic then I am dubious. We are finding out more about our brains all the time ... for example there is a mechanical component to our brain's function other than just electrobiochemical we observe. This did not change my word view. I must admit I am a bit of materialist ... if we do discover some new mysterious force, energy, vibration etc ... then the materialist in me will just adsorb the new reality into my world view. Is Brand suggesting there is a purpose to the universe? If so what is his evidence?

Back more on topic of Universal Purpose ... This sort of implies: 1) Some entity's purpose for the universe and its contents. 2) The universe has a purpose for its contents 3) The contents bestow a purpose on the universe or the supposed entity's purpose for the universe. I am having trouble getting my mind around any of the three. As the universe unfolds saying that the purpose of the universe is to unfold is in effect a tautology for me.

Evolution has endowed us the capacity to perceive suffering.

Brand goes on to say his belief is that we do not currently operate on a frequency of consciousness that is capable of interpreting the information required to understand the great mystery. Paul ... when people talk about the frequency of consciousness, I have no idea what they are on about. Worse still, I suspect neither do they. This prevailing idea that humans are machines, biological robots with computer-like brains. This belief will, to the advanced species that we're evolving into, seem as absurd as the flat earth theories that we scoff at now. If we take away the so called machinery, what is left? Certainly not any pontification or arm waving. Brand seems to be going back to some magical interpretation. While it is true we don't understand everything about this universe, in fact it is likely we understand very little, but we do have an understanding of biochemistry and physics. I am pretty certain without my biological robots (this is obviously a metaphor) we will have little understanding (whatever that is) in general. The little bit of Brand's thoughts sounds like a hail Mary to the end zone, in the US vernacular.

Of course it could be a duck hunter.

No not really. The not-me is not coming back .... it never left.

I broadly agree with this statement ...that is why I dismiss relativism as a whole. So as to life and the inanimate, conscious and unconscious, sentient and non-sentient, purpose and purposelessness ... These divisions I find are illusory and dualistic ... but I am left trying to explain myself in a dualistic language.

I believe in purpose in exactly the same way I believe in the colour purple.

Joseph Whether we have a purpose or not humanity will evolve. I think we are using evolve in two slightly different forms ... the strict biological sense and a more vernacular form. What will we evolve into? A reflection of of our environment I suspect. As to souls and spirits ... these words just add more confusion to the mix, at least for me.

I must admit I would prefer not to have cognitive dissonance when it comes to my world views .., but if we treat purpose as an illusion too, then all is good. You draw a line between evolution and straight lines ... fair enough. You describe us having sentience which is also fair enough, I think I understand what you mean. But is my sentience/consciousness what it seems to be? I somewhat doubt it is. Blackmore talking about Dawkins' controversial thought experiment: Blackmore's assertion was that if we have (for any system that replicates) heredity (traits aquired from a previous form) variation (slight changes to the inherited traits) selection (an environment will tend to allow a particular trait to replicate preferentially) then we must have evolution. Is there any purpose in replication, heredity, variation, selection individually? I would argue not. So why must there be a purpose in evolution? I think human beings a capacity for perceiving morality, purpose, colour, differences and such. Our environment fills those perceptions.

I don't "know" whether we have a higher purpose or not. I don't think so. My world view on purpose has a certain degree of cognitive dissonance in it. Any purpose or meaning in life I might have has not been generated by me ... there is no intrinsic me to generate such things. That purpose or meaning is simply a localized unfolding (if we like) ... Regarding evolving ... evolution is a description of what we observe ... a straight line has no purpose in being straight ... it just is. Your post reminded me of a Carl Sagan quote ... We are a way for the cosmos to know itself. Now I might take pedantic issue with the word know ... but I think I know what he is saying. On a slightly smaller scale I might say our neurons are a way for me to understand my myself. Note I have used meaning and purpose here. I find the two closely related and in turn are "one" with the pairs of opposites thread. We divide things into is and is not.

I don't think there is a purpose. But if there is one mine would be to ask dumb questions.

There are couple of things I see differently here Starr: 1) I do not somehow see human activities as somehow separate from nature ... Man, his motor car and greed are part of nature as far as I am concerned. 2) The original sin is not a rebellion against god, but starting to think in terms of good and evil, ie Tasting the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. I would argue Genesis 3 is relatively clear that we should not think in terms of good and evil. How somebody dying a dew thousand years later stops us from thinking in terms of good and evil is a bit beyond me.

Not to derail Paul's burka thread ... do the women who wear such clothes have a free choice? Here the word free could have a sociopolitical meaning or a more philosophical meaning. You can find people who can argue quite eloquently for and against. On a slightly more philosophical level how do people find themselves with a particular world view? Some people simply grow into that world view, some perhaps after many years research and study find one that resonates with their experience and after the fact they say yes I choose this world view. Others continually search. I suppose there are other models. The point being yes we can argue the women have been brainwashed by a patriarchal world view and that they should be liberated. But if we have an understanding that we too have been brainwashed by circumstance (the universe unfolding) our approach to liberating women who have succumbed to burka wearing changes.

A couple of general questions ... Why on Earth would I want to make choices that are somehow without cause (reason)? ... as opposed to purpose Is there any part of me or my actions (or anyone else fort that matter) that are not without cause? Soma might argue for some quantum phenomena causing me and my actions, but is this really what we mean by free will when we speak of such a thing? Joseph has expressed my point of view quite nicely ... And I am not sure how I can turn compassion on at will ... I either have it or don't for a given situation. I might be able to go through the motions of compassion which is OK as far I can tell. I find understanding is a better tool, but then I cannot understand situations at will either, but I can understand there are a myriad of causes behind every thought and action. No one single cause other than the universe unfolding. The expression, there but for the grace of god go I, sums it pretty nicely. It is an understanding that if my particular bit of the universe had unfolded in a similar way I could also be responsible for an act I disapprove of. It allows me to cut some slack for others and for myself.

Yep ... I would agree the ability to perceive and reason has given us an evolutionary advantage. On my way now .... rom

If we apply our understanding of how we perceive colour, we can be very skeptical about whether the colour purple exists or any colour for that matter. Colour is a perfect example of why we should treat our perceptions with care and perhaps a pinch of salt. ................ Going to be on the road for a few days

Mundane and miraculous I think are just states of the brain ... which in turn is a state of the universe unfolding. Our language is dualistic ... we divide things into is and is not. We end up believing the products of our language. The universe for me is a source of awe. And when I look deep inside of myself I see the universe quietly staring back at me. In essence that what monism is for me.

Except Christ and God John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

What about believing in what you experience? I am not sure about this .... Personally I am very sceptical of my experience. Here is some reading that seems to agree with my distrust: Sleights of Mind by Macknick and Martinez-Conde The Illusion of Conscious Will, Daniel Wegner Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain David Eagleman The Self Illusion by Bruce Hood Subliminal: How your unconscious rules behavior by Leonard Mlodinow The Ego Trick: What does it mean to be you? by Julian Baggini

The OP reads like an agnostic call to arms .... Regarding the mundane and the miraculous ... its all one, is it not?

Did not Bohm and Bell (who carried on with Bohmian mechanics) believe that the universe was causal (deterministic) although in a probabilistic way ... as opposed to the more orthodox interpretations of quantum theory?

So what you are saying here Elen is that you have some wants that are stronger than others, are you not? What Strawson is asking is, are you responsible for who you are (in an ultimate or absolute sense). Whether we take on responsibility or not is really not the issue when discussing free will. While this is valid a definition of free will as any other Elen, the central question remains ... what caused you to take up responsibility? We (as a society) tend to be derogatory of people who don't take responsibility for their actions, don't we? Another way to look at the problem of free will is, does our body chemistry cause us to have thoughts? If so, can "thoughts" cause body chemistry? If we believe the latter then we have a dualistic view of the mind and body problem. This dualistic view is difficult if not impossible to reconcile from the scientific point of view.

Elen ... We don't live in the past or some future. We live in the now, even when we think about the past or the future. That you say you don't know if you want to fit your thinking is my point exactly ... You don't really control your wants. OK you can have multiple layers of want but this results in an infinite regress. eg: http://www.naturalism.org/strawson_interview.htm Regarding truth ... I am not sure I have an unfettered access to it, but I do think I have some degree of access, and when viewed through the lens evidence and logic then, concepts like free will I think are found wanting.

The word religion comes from the Latin to reconnect. The question for me becomes to reconnect to what? God, the universe, the community, to family to one's self, to the atoms we are comprised of. Do we need an orthodox religious belief ... speaking personally ... definitely not? I don't even need to view life through some mythical perspective.