I think that once understood fully these ideas would perphaps show evidence for some sort of human 'will' whether free or not.

What do sociology, philosophy, and economics have in common? All of the disciplines use the same tools to come to some conclusion. To say that individuals function based on the "will to live" or the "will to power" is to cut out the underlying economic fact that ALL individuals function around incentives--when are philosophers going to realize that all of their musings could be better analyzed with the help of economics?

Flex: when are philosophers going to realize that all of their musings could be better analyzed with the help of economics?

The concept of economic subsumption was strongly focused on by Sartre with his *death of consciousness*, and much later by Derrida and his post-structuralism. Most philosophers do not discount the usefulness or validity of economics when addressing mundane sociological considerations, but ambition usually carries them beyond this threshold.

I've seen that particular work referenced on a number of occasions, but I have not yet had the good fortune of getting my hands on a copy. C'est la vie. When you've been an intellectual for any extended period of time you tend to become well acquainted with the pleasure and pain of perpetually incomplete knowledge.

I do subscribe to a naturalistic ethic, if that is what you are curious about.

OK, suppose I give up and concede that there is no free will: the slave hypothesis is correct. What are the implications?

Perhaps a slave will person should not try to quit smoking because he has no control over his future behavior: if he quits, he quits, and if he doesn't he doesn't.

That's not right, because as Flex correctly argues, a person always balances the equation to pursue his best interests, and therefore, he might reasonably try to quit smoking.

Therefore, the slave will hypothesis is a "reductio ad absurdum" because there is no way to distinguish between a universe in which slave will is the case and one in which it is not. Therefore the idea of slave will is absurd, and the free will argument is shown to prevail.

She makes the case that human beings are products of both natural and memetic selection;

The Forbidden Fruit Intuition

We all would like to believe that, ultimately, intellectual honesty is not only an expression of, but also good for your mental health. My dangerous question is if one can be intellectually honest about the issue of free will and preserve one's mental health at the same time. Behind this question lies what I call the "Forbidden Fruit Intuition": Is there a set of questions which are dangerous not on grounds of ideology or political correctness, but because the most obvious answers to them could ultimately make our conscious self-models disintegrate? Can one really believe in determinism without going insane?

For middle-sized objects at 37° like the human brain and the human body, determinism is obviously true. The next state of the physical universe is always determined by the previous state. And given a certain brain-state plus an environment you could never have acted otherwise — a surprisingly large majority of experts in the free-will debate today accept this obvious fact. Although your future is open, this probably also means that for every single future thought you will have and for every single decision you will make, it is true that it was determined by your previous brain state.

As a scientifically well-informed person you believe in this theory, you endorse it. As an open-minded person you find that you are also interested in modern philosophy of mind, and you might hear a story much like the following one. Yes, you are a physically determined system. But this is not a big problem, because, under certain conditions, we may still continue to say that you are "free": all that matters is that your actions are caused by the right kinds of brain processes and that they originate in you. A physically determined system can well be sensitive to reasons and to rational arguments, to moral considerations, to questions of value and ethics, as long as all of this is appropriately wired into its brain. You can be rational, and you can be moral, as long as your brain is physically determined in the right way. You like this basic idea: physical determinism is compatible with being a free agent. You endorse a materialist philosophy of freedom as well. An intellectually honest person open to empirical data, you simply believe that something along these lines must be true.

Now you try to feel that it is true. You try to consciously experience the fact that at any given moment of your life, you could not have acted otherwise. You try to experience the fact that even your thoughts, however rational and moral, are predetermined — by something unconscious, by something you can not see. And in doing so, you start fooling around with the conscious self-model Mother Nature evolved for you with so much care and precision over millions of years: You are scratching at the user-surface of your own brain, tweaking the mouse-pointer, introspectively trying to penetrate into the operating system, attempting to make the invisible visible. You are challenging the integrity of your phenomenal self by trying to integrate your new beliefs, the neuroscientific image of man, with your most intimate, inner way of experiencing yourself. How does it feel?

I think that the irritation and deep sense of resentment surrounding public debates on the freedom of the will actually has nothing much to do with the actual options on the table. It has to do with the — perfectly sensible — intuition that our presently obvious answer will not only be emotionally disturbing, but ultimately impossible to integrate into our conscious self-models.

Or our societies: The robust conscious experience of free will also is a social institution, because the attribution of accountability, responsibility, etc. are the decisive building blocks for modern, open societies. And the currently obvious answer might be interpreted by many as having clearly anti-democratic implications: Making a complex society work implies controlling the behavior of millions of people; if individual human beings can control their own behavior to a much lesser degree than we have thought in the past, if bottom-up doesn't work, then it becomes tempting to control it top-down, by the state. And this is the second way in which enlightenment could devour its own children. Yes, free will truly is a dangerous question, but for different reasons than most people think.

[Addressing those with futurist proclivities such as myself, couldn't it be said that 'homo sapiens sapiens' is the vector species for the paradigm shift from genetic to memetic evolution? But I digress.]

All this intelligence.. and all dependant on the current authority.
I guess if you didn't have the internet to point to a link you'd have to actually think for yourself.

Joesus: All this intelligence.. and all dependant on the current authority.
I guess if you didn't have the internet to point to a link you'd have to actually think for yourself.

Well aren't you a rambunctious little bugger! Do you always treat your new guests in such a derogatory manner?

The fact of the matter is that knowledge is beholden to no one. All sources of authority should be subject to the same level of scrutiny. If one does not possess cowardice in his heart, then the world of information is his oyster. I am not above taking anyone's idea if it has merit and claiming it as my own.

And just for the record, my perspective is anything but mainstream. It is unfortunate that you see stereotypes in everything. Perhaps you should try getting to know people better before casting judgement.

Once again I will pose the question:
Joesus would you say that there's more violence now-a-days than say in the 60s and 70s? (your answer to this will give me a good idea about to what extent you do not think for yourself)

All this intelligence.. and all dependant on the current authority.

I guess if you didn't have the internet to point to a link you'd have to actually think for yourself.

This leads to one being the creator of ones reality rather than a victim to it.

Joesus: I only expressed what I felt about people pasting links as a reference for their beliefs.

OK, suppose I give up and concede that there is no free will: the slave hypothesis is correct. What are the implications?

Perhaps a slave will person should not try to quit smoking because he has no control over his future behavior: if he quits, he quits, and if he doesn't he doesn't.

That's not right, because as Flex correctly argues, a person always balances the equation to pursue his best interests, and therefore, he might reasonably try to quit smoking.

Therefore, the slave will hypothesis is a "reductio ad absurdum" because there is no way to distinguish between a universe in which slave will is the case and one in which it is not. Therefore the idea of slave will is absurd, and the free will argument is shown to prevail.

I would say there is just as much violence within mankind as there has ever been in any age. The destructive forces are the same product of the struggle within humanity to overcome compromise.

Then you misunderstood my intentions behind suggesting Chalmers' directory.

Besides from sharing perspectives, sharing intellectual resources is the single most important activity of internet forums. My suggestion was merely an attempt at being friendly.

Also, fyi Jeosus, Crocker's Rules have always been in effect. Stop taking yourself so seriously.

Well Jesus it looks like I was wrong~clearly you do think for yourself (but not necessarily think about any given question). There was no statistical data taken into consideration, no self observation of an obvious decline in crime rates, no persuasion from mass media that the apocalypse is near, no nothing. Just a general statement that could be applied to anything and sound profound with no substance. Your answers are very predictable, and it seems that those answers are predetermined to fit your concrete philosophy. I do not see how there could possible be "as much violence within mankind as there has ever been in any age" since Roe v. Wade. Laws are not a natural thing, and as humans we evolve socially. Crime is destined to wax and wain within societies based on social change. If it didn't there would be no need for social reform or government.

There are no rules, only self imposed limitations. I haven't limited you, you have limited yourself by reacting to my post. You do have a choice.

The whole point is to distribute ideas throughout society to help bring the overall knowledge up. Truth is irrelevant to the process. This has been done time and time again through the manifestation of sound, speech, stories, songs, writing, printing (replicating ideas), radio, TV and the t'internut.

Does no-one else find it odd that all of our lifes expression is done via replication?

Science looks at categories, places in small boxes and creates approximate physical laws. To understand the mind you have to look at what we've done culturally throughout history, whats repeated in the animal world, and not dismiss experiences brought by entheogens or meditative practices. Sorry if I've confused the matter, but the polarity aspect is essential to understanding the way reality is expressed.

The whole point is to distribute ideas throughout society to help bring the overall knowledge up. Truth is irrelevant to the process. This has been done time and time again through the manifestation of sound, speech, stories, songs, writing, printing (replicating ideas), radio, TV and the t'internut.

Does no-one else find it odd that all of our lifes expression is done via replication? Art is the foundation of cultures, and all of it is a poetic replica of the Truth bored intelligent men have been seeking forever. What we are discussing here is whether we have a say in its direction at all. Individually I believe we have a perception of free will, which is the Divine essence combining and co-ordinating us and forming self. But in my opinion, culturally we are bound into commerce and its masculine, orderly and efficient rules. So I honestly suspect that this question will be forever debated. Because we believe we are in control there is always the free will arguement, and because we can see the forever unfolding repeating patterns (memes, cultural behaviors, fashions, religions, plot devices) there is always an arguement for slave will.

Personally I believe that both aspects are required for any functioning of the mind. Our bodies have been constructed from symbiotic processes that were set in motion a long long time ago. This then turned to outward expression of those processes once we were capable biologically, the result is art and culture. I think this part is masculine, simply because of the orderly and efficiency seeking commerce which came as a by-product of bartering and probably microcosm size information passing between processes. The feminine aspect seems to be our creativity, sexuality, parentage, hope, faith etc. The archetype of the Great Goddess/Virgin Mary spoken of by Jung is the belief that we HAD to have had a mother/parent. This proves that there is a force that predates our current biology and sets up belief and momentum.

Without the yin-yang style polarity present in our decisions/perceptions, there would be no space to form a current (maybe wrong?), and no electricity to allow us to function as a whole. Its not a co-incidence that our technologies are infused with this power, in a more logical and orderly expanding of our own capabilities. This force is giving us the capability of carrying information round biologically and now culturally. There would be no space to form ANY reaction, or I/O style processes without this duality. Think about Adam -- and Eve + and the snake in Eden. At the origin something happend and sent out all energy/matter in a process of duality of male/female and the original expression was a waveform (our perpetual search for Truth). This is the Holy trinity and the forces seen throughout our religious history. This is why Buddhism tries to see the reality that there is no + without -, why its an illusion and why people experience the "Ultimate Reality" through meditative and conscious altering techniques.

Science looks at categories, places in small boxes and creates approximate physical laws. To understand the mind you have to look at what we've done culturally throughout history, whats repeated in the animal world, and not dismiss experiences brought by entheogens or meditative practices. Sorry if I've confused the matter, but the polarity aspect is essential to understanding the way reality is expressed.

"Truth is entirely relevent to the spinning wheels of the intellect as it tries over and over again to define itself in terms that have value and permanence. When the mind turns away from the obvious it creates illusions..."

"This realization leads to the question who am "I"..eventually."

"Looking at what we have done isn't the answer but how we are capable of doing it and who we are that both creates it and perceives it will lead you to a greater understanding. There has to be a balance of scientific objectivity and spiritual attunement to complete the puzzle"

You are a 'slave' to your own subconcsious mind which makes decisions for you before you conciously try to rationalise the already pre-determined decisions. 'Free' in this context is not exactly the definite opposite of 'slave'.

Were you reguarding slave morality when you said "slave hypothesis"? If so it was my understanding that a slave morality has nothing to do with determinism as it is present weather or not we have free will~If not care to elaborate on the hypothesis.

When the mind looks at the obvious its creating perceptions and they are illusions of the truth. Our eyes and thoughts are a part of the process. I only wanted to highlight the process is there, and it doesnt care whether its truth or reality.

I know who I am, I am speaking of what we are all part of. We are merely the stepping stone to another wave of expression, however it arrives.

I have already mentioned the balance between masculine/scientific and feminine/spiritual that must be achieved. But to say we should only look at 'How' and only do it on a miniscule scale is wrong. We must look socially at the creations of the mind to see the psychological archetypes and relationship to scientific exploration. Then we must use that knowledge to create the correct foundation for our improvement.

You asked me about violence and I spoke of violence. You haven't looked inside of yourself.

Those who have the eyes will see..

How might I attain these eyes?

Those who have the ears to hear....

And who would you say posesses the ears to hear?

And those who have the ears to hear tells nothing of HOW. HOW will I attain the eyes to see from those with the ears to hear?

Those that have the eyes to see.

You would have to listen but more importantly there would have to be a desire to know yourself beyond textbook definitions.
Then you could follow a process of Faith, Discipline and Focus.

"My belief is that the explanation of emergent phenomena in our brains...for instance ideas, hopes, images, analogies, and finally consciousness and free will...are based on a kind of Strange Loop, an interaction between levels in which the top level reaches back towards the bottom level and influences it, while at the same time being itself determined by the bottom level." ~ Hofstadter

Say I were to follow this process of Faith, Discipine and Focus (all of which are proper nouns) how might I begin the process. I now have a desire to know myself beyond textbook definitions.