THREAD 5
INTERLOCUTOR: "I don't wanna"
TP:
"You were predestined to say that, weren't you?"
INTERLOCUTOR:
"Yes, ever since I freely willed myself to say it"
TP:
"Or coerced by evolutionary forces into an illusion of free will inspiring one to respond this way, viewing oneself as more free than one actually is as a type of self-promoting narcissism that is beneficial to the propagation of the species?"
INTERLOCUTOR:
"Just seems silly to think that evolution is driving me to say 'pineapple dick clock' through the air waves to a far away stranger. Is that how that works? You certain? Or are you just driven by evolutionary forces to say you're certain even though you really believe you have agency?"
TP:
"Evolution gave you a neurological software program that has the ability to perform machine learning (to learn by observation and generate patterns), and your software program also has random number generators that can be used as needed (to generate nonsense phrases like 'pineapple dick clock' when a need for creativity is detected), just like any video game character incorporates random number generators to augment their determined outcomes.
Agency implies responsibility. You can have responsibility even if there is no free will. You are responsible for you will, since it came from you.
Neurons operate shockingly similarly to a computer bit (0s/1s). When a neuron absorbs ions, it can become negatively charged (value=1), when it releases or blocks ions it can become positively charged (value 0). This flow of ions is very similar to programming logic - 'if 1 (electric current exists) then continue the pathway; else if 0 (lack of electric current) then terminate this pathway.'"
INTERLOCUTOR:
"Shockingly...lol...I like that!
I think agency means ability to choose how to direct your action.
But my question is: how do you trust the faculties given you by evolutionary forces? Why should I trust them? How do you know your trust in them isn't another evolutionary factor? If you're gonna place your faith in your own conclusion, what elevates that choice above placing your faith in free will? And how will you convince me, using just the faculties given you by evolution, which could be driving you to say something based on reproductive advantage?
Sorry, I know that's a lot of questions lol"
TP:
"LOL! Yes... you caught me. This discussion is my attempt at getting laid.
Evolution guides us towards attributes that increase our survival and reproduction. Perhaps delusions of self-worth (free will / divine soul) help individual success for natural selection.
Multilevel selection suggests that perhaps survival issues are not always at the level of the individual, but also at the level of the tribe. If genes survive based on tribe success, then we probably have biases that optimize for tribes. Perhaps we have delusions to listen to tribal authorities and have excessive in-group love and out-group hate (racism/nationalism). We might also have delusions about a "transcendent moral law" that we should always follow (even when there are no cameras watching you), because moral behavior promotes tribe success.
But despite our potential delusions and biases, we also have developed an instinct for rationality and truth. If we want to succeed at the game of evolution, understanding reality helps us be more successful. So, evolution wants us to both care about truth and desire it because of its practical utility. So, if we can develop enough self-awareness to understand which parts of our brain are active, we can know when we are being deluded and when we are focusing on truth. To the extent our truth cortex is activated, we can trust that we are oriented towards cold hard facts."
INTERLOCUTOR:
"To me, it seems if you know enough about causal relations, you can navigate among the ones you understand, to the extent you're able. Is that not an exercise of free will?
Only when you look back through the chain of events that led to something does it appear inevitable. Maybe we're able to leverage randomness. How can that be predetermined? It's like there's a constant need to assume infinite universes running in parallel and diverging with every actualization of an emergence of potential
So, there may be great mathematical models and scientific theories for understanding the past and present, but as for the future, it seems fair-game for us to choose how we engage"
TP:
"Randomness was my go-to principle for my desperate attempt to cling to my treasured idea of free will for a few years. After learning enough to debunk randomness, I switched to magical spirit free will to maintain my hope in the existence of free will. But eventually I learned arguments to debunk spirit-level free will. I definitely have a bias to want free will to exist. But I am now convinced it was pure bias on my part the whole time.
True randomness is antithetical to free will, no one would claim that a pair of dice has free will. Additionally, the brain seems to operate at the level of the neuron, which is such a large object that quantum randomness is too small of a factor to play a significant causal role. Quantum randomness gives electrons the average randomness equal to the size of one atom. Randomness at the atomic level isn't strong enough to alter the course of neuron function.
...I just want people to deal with problems logically, not superstitiously. Superstitious people have horrible ideas for how to solve problems. I come from a Mormon background. They basically think that non-maritial sexual activity increases Satanic energy in the world and corrupts the soul. They think masturbation can make you become gay. They think porn leads to uncontrollable lust that is unable to be satiated because the lust for novelty means that categories of porn get boring and you have to switch to more extreme porn, but eventually the extreme porn gets boring, and people end up becoming rapists and pedophiles at the end of this slippery slope. Seems like they have no idea how causality works.
I'm pretty sure that the Mormon solution (sexual repression) actually increases sexual crime because they are always obsessing over not committing taboo behavior. They don't clearly distinguish between sexual behavior that harms others and sexual behavior that doesn't harm others, so someone who is guilty of masturbation feels so much guilt and then believe that they are already an evil person. So then committing sexual crime might be a self-fulfilling prophecy when that's already how they view themselves."
INTERLOCUTOR:
"See, I come from an atheist background and believe mostly as you do about how matter interacts and influences the illusions we regard as ourselves and our motivations, but from exploring myself by defying my desires and depriving myself of certain rewards, I feel like I lost a large part of how my mind was controlled before, and it opened up possibilities that seemed out of the question.
For instance, I'm somewhat attracted to the Mormon church. Even as an atheist, I led myself to certain moral insights that are highly compatible with their doctrines. My motivation to gain more agency led me to fasting (can go for days), quitting porn, quitting masturbation, quitting sugar, questioning conventional narratives and authorities, and healing injuries that were supposed to be permanent. It was only after all that growth that I started to look for groups of people centered around transformation and personal growth.
I consider myself agnostic now, but believing in my agency has proven very useful."
TP:
"Wow, that's absolutely fascinating. I've always felt a large degree of control over my behavior (perhaps due to Mormon self-control rituals?). So "no free will" was not naturally intuitive to me. Now, I view the "self-control" component as just a managerial software routine within the brain that has the power to inhibit or activate other parts of the brain, if that managerial program can summon enough motivational chemical momentum within the brain. So I routinely use meditation to boost the energy in my managerial cortex to give me more focus and motivation. But it seems more like a causal feedback loop than anything magical. So, learning self-control is just like exercise. If you have the casual variables that motivate you to start exercising that cortex, it can loop into a stronger cortex. But if you never had the casual impetus to try and exercise that cortex in the first place, you will never get the feedback loop going. If you didn't have a healthy motivational system it won't loop properly either. So not even self-control feedback loops meet the requirement of being truly free. But perhaps a "belief in free will" plays a role in building the causal impetus for this self-control feedback loop? My assumption is that an accurate understanding of the brain can lead to this causal impetus as well. I am biased to believe that self-deception is not necessary to obtain the good life."
INTERLOCUTOR:
"I'm with you 99% but I see it as leveraging humility, rather than self-deception. Does that make sense? Cause we can discuss further if not."
TP:
"please explain!"
INTERLOCUTOR:
"So, I really value understanding things in the manner that you're explaining to a bunch of people here, and I think it opens up massive insight into understanding scriptures as well, but I also think both camps (materialist and spiritual) are being woefully arrogant. I see both as lacking key ingredients that the other camp focus on. The feud between them drives both away from the happy middle, in which we can all be humble and admit that we don't know the nature of things for certain, and that we're all equally-as-much in the realm of choosing what or whom to trust, and what beliefs to try and manifest in our action.
So for the materialist side, I say they often lack sufficient grounds for honestly pursuing or achieving their implied goals, or non-hypocritically condemning their implied opponents, and for the spiritual, I think they lack the integrity to stand on their beliefs without the illusion of support from material evidence, causing them to shelter from possible contradictions.
The key, to me, is to be in the middle camp that says "I could be wrong about anything or everything, but I still want to live the best way I know how." Then you're at a place of unity and collaboration, and can appreciate the best of both worlds without hiding from anything
At that point, one can accept what they are, and the limitations thereof, and try to reduce those limitations however they can. Collaboration, self-reflection, discipline, inspiration etc. But when we cling to the need for certainty and knowledge above our human pay grade, I think we block ourselves from our maximum potential.
The religious avenue seems aimed at solving the human mind like a puzzle, but it's used by some to control, and by others to save. It's like someone securing the reigns of your brain and then either giving them to you or keeping them. Regardless of the motive of one shepherd or another, the optimal place for the human is in a flock.
So, to me, that's just a realization: that it's not for us to know the ultimate answers, but to accept what we are, where we belong, and the facts of how we navigate the world. If we're gonna take things for granted every day that we rationally understand to be objectively meaningless, and act as if there's any good reason to do anything, we might as well be honest about which flock seems to be having the best time, or which path seems the most fulfilling (not that this is easy to figure out).
Personally, I lost faith in the materialistic, unaccountable flocks, but I think there's potential to weed out willful ignorance and saintly pretense from certain Christian circles, using Christian transformational principles, and have a pretty optimal environment for humans. But that's just my perspective from outside any church."
TP:
"Great thoughts! I totally get where you are coming from and largely agree.
You seen this yet? Alain seems interested in this middle ground you are talking about -Atheism 2.0 | Alain de Botton - YouTube
Also, this is my blog post on looking for a synthesis between atheism and religion - Rational Religion - Synthesis between Atheism and Theism (transcendentphilos.wixsite.com)
INTERLOCUTOR:
"I will check these out. I recently wrote an essay on the subject for one of my cousins lol. Thinking of editing it for broader consumption. Anyway, I'll check those out"
TP:
"Great thoughts! I totally get where you are coming from and largely agree.
You seen this yet? Alain seems interested in this middle ground you are talking about -Atheism 2.0 | Alain de Botton - YouTube
Also, this is my blog post on looking for a synthesis between atheism and religion - Rational Religion - Synthesis between Atheism and Theism (transcendentphilos.wixsite.com)
INTERLOCUTOR:
"I will check these out. I recently wrote an essay on the subject for one of my cousins lol. Thinking of editing it for broader consumption. Anyway, I'll check those out"
TP:
"I'm definitely interested in your forthcoming essay. Keep me updated?"