Yes well I was trying not to use the word. You've known me for a long long time now so, yes.
But one narrative is as good as the next I suppose when we are dealing with abstract concepts like free will and determinism. We understand what these things are in principle but it's hard to point to them and say "there it is!"
So with your permission I'll just give you the short version - the summary. And if we want to unpack any of the foundational premises maybe another thread will spin off?
The short version presumes:
1) Consciousness is eternal and infinitely divisible and proceeds fractally from a Singularity or Supreme Consciousness.
2) Consciousness is transferable in time and space and is a form of energy that exists within matter.
So, simply speaking, I see this material plane we find ourselves wandering about in human suits as where we experience free will, but do not operate it. Here is we find ourselves constrained by accident of birth, heredity, nature, nurture, socioeconomic circumstances.
We are presented with many choices or no choices, we are compelled, we are at liberty to operate choice within the framework of our circumstances but not beyond it. We can't just sprout wings and fly ourselves out of a given situation even though we might wish with all our might for that ability. We are like rats in a very complicated maze full of choices, but those choices are constrained by the circumstances we find ourselves in by way of a series of binary decisions.
Abundance of choice IMO is not the same thing as free will. Free will, by my own personal definition, is like being the author of a story. Free will is the ability to make anything happen in your story that you want to happen. The author of a story has the ability to sprout wings on her main character and to fly her out of a sticky situation. The story doesn'y even have to make sense. The author has the free will to break the rules of her own narrative universe. She can write the story, but she doesn't know what it really feels like to be the main character unless she enters the story.
So ...
what if ....
Free will is the state of being where we write our story - like in the writers room on a TV show we collaborate with others on the rules of the narrative universe we agree on entrances, exits, lines, delivery, props scenery setting theme. We cast the characters, agree to bit parts in others stories, supporting cast in our own.
And then we come into our actor-bodies to experience what the story feels like. We can't change the story from this level of consciousness, all we can do is enter on time, hit our marks, say our lines, and hope not to bump into the furniture.
And the Eternal Consciousness is the owner of the Playhouse.
Interesting points, AFF. I've mulled over reincarnation, as it elides the ego boundaries which seem to haunt much Western thought. In other words, there is the I, which seems finite, however, the Self seems to spread over everything. Or as a friend of mine says, small I and big I.
Dafyd used the phrase in the Divinity of Christ thread.
I interpret you as saying we might have choices in the moment by moment uncertain material universe we find ourselves but our considerations of free will or determinism cannot answer that question with any certainty given the infinutely complex nature of the material world.
That would make you agnostic about both free will and determinism.
Do I read you right?
Yep. Where doubt doesn't come in to it. Meaning does. And that disappears as the wave retreats down the beach; the sand absorbing the water instantly.
@Dafyd is, of course, perfectly correct in that mental states can't be correlated reductionalistically down the chain of causality, if I may paraphrase him thus. But one of the innate properties of matter is information, and as complexity emerges explosively upon explosively... upon explosively back up, it gets to qualia.
We are in charge of change to the extent that changes are caused by preexisting properties of the particular groups of molecules that are us.
The current state of which depend on their previous state and the physical forces acting on them. I don't think there's room in that model for free will in the colloquial (and libertarian) sense, which leaves various forms of compatibilism and hard determinism.
No, there isn't any room in the metaphysical libertarian sense in that case.
The question here is whether "free will" has a genuine colloquial sense - that is, whether the phrase has any use outside philosophical discussion.
If there's no such thing as free will then questions about human agency and responsibility need to be resolved in a different manner, but they still arise; just as discovering that there was no such thing as phlogiston didn't mean there was no such thing as burning.
That’s a typical, fascinating, post AFF, if I may say so.
One question from the human suits reference. Do you see the essential you as a traveller in human suits? Which I think would mean that for you, conscious awareness is independent of physical body, although it may indeed be affected by its residence. (Or residences).
I think therefore I am. Regardless of the temporary residence of “I”?
Nikolai Bedyaev was, to say the least, an interesting cove! See the Wiki article.
He was cantankerous to the extent of invariably arguing with others opinions. Even when they agreed with his opinions, formally expressed. He wrote a lot. So far as theology was concerned, his two passions were freedom and love.
I can’t find a link but I’m pretty sure he argued that free will expressed without love was just another form of inprisonment, not freedom.
Interesting points, AFF. I've mulled over reincarnation, as it elides the ego boundaries which seem to haunt much Western thought. In other words, there is the I, which seems finite, however, the Self seems to spread over everything. Or as a friend of mine says, small I and big I.
I like to think of it as small I, Bigger I, Bigger I and Bigger I - as a kind of infinite fractal projection emanating indivisibly but sometimes feeling very remote from the encompassing pattern that contains it. I refer to it in short as higher and lower awareness.
If you look at a Mandelbrot set you can see specks in what looks like a vast blank space, separated from the perimeter of the main pattern, floating in a sea of what appears to be nothing. Until you zoom in and you see that the speck is not separated from the main pattern but it's joined to it by a string of even smaller specks like itself. This speaks to me of the sensation that Lower Awareness has of being separated from the Unity it actually belongs to.
The encompassing pattern is bounded by 0 and 1 - alpha and omega as it were - and the number of integers creating all the possible individual fractal patterns being infinite because the space between 0 an 1 is infinite.
That’s a typical, fascinating, post AFF, if I may say so.
One question from the human suits reference. Do you see the essential you as a traveller in human suits? Which I think would mean that for you, conscious awareness is independent of physical body, although it may indeed be affected by its residence. (Or residences).
I think therefore I am. Regardless of the temporary residence of “I”?
Yes you have it essentially.
Although at one level mind is body and body is mind, consciousness per se, that animating energy, permeates and powers matter and exists independently of it. Like any other energy it can't be created or destroyed, it simply changes form.
The way I see it, consciousness and therefore reality is continually affected by the flow of information. The human suit necessarily constrains the reception and broadcast bandwidth of information that is available to the indwelling consciousness, and so it affects what we experience as the operating "mind".
Sorry not to have replied, yesterday, @Barnabas62. SoF wouldn't load at all yesterday afternoon on 3 different wifi systems. "Unrest" (rather than "nationalism") is probably a signal for The Watchers.
Does Berdyaev’s view actually exclude compassion for the sufferings you mention, chrisstyles?
He was writing in the contexts of both reactionary Tsarism and revolutionary communist totalitarianism. Plus he wrote a lot more.
I’m not defending the binary defects of the quote. Of course the issues are more complicated than that simple quote would indicate. And of course it has rhetorical elements.
1. I wasn't considering compassion. But I can. Bedyaev attributes the possibility of emotional/subjective states or responses to freedom. Again it depends on what one means by "freedom" as well as whether one believes states like love and compassion only exist when one may act on those subjective states absolutely.
There is a lot to discuss on this one question.
I thought @Dafyd's and @chrisstiles' reference colloquial and formal meanings of free will, and perhaps therefore freedom, might be useful in relation to my frustrations with the looseness Bedyaev seems to exploit in his use of "freedom."
2a. I picked up on his background through his equating "compulsion" with "determinism." I don't see them as the same. But compulsion could certainly be in the view screen of a person under an authoritarian regime. I'll check in on this in a year, maybe. If I have access to a connected computer by then, one without a Great Firewall in navy blue with gold logo to protect me from myself.
2b. Someone who wrote the paragraph in question surely wrote a lot more.
3a. I didn't notice you defending it. I am curious what you found compelling enough in it to post it.
3b. The binaries comprise much of what I find annoying enough to be compelling in this quote.
3c. I think the way he works back from his conclusions to develop his arguments could also be worthy of discussion.
Nikolai Bedyaev was, to say the least, an interesting cove! See the Wiki article.
He was cantankerous to the extent of invariably arguing with others opinions. Even when they agreed with his opinions, formally expressed. He wrote a lot. So far as theology was concerned, his two passions were freedom and love.
I can’t find a link but I’m pretty sure he argued that free will expressed without love was just another form of inprisonment, not freedom.
To say the least, he was an unusual philosopher!
1. I respect anyone who can argue well against her own conclusions. Few seem to be able to, much less argue well against anothers', which requires a dedication to understanding what is behind another's thinking and faithfully represent it.
2. That view of freedom and love seems consistent with the opening of the quote you posted.
3. What constitutes "unusual" among philosophers?
Welcome back, @A Feminine Force! I'm glad to see you here again.
So, if AI develops consciousness where is that going to or coming from? And what kind of free will does it have?
(Ignore if this is a huge, pointless tangent - I'm well out of my depth)
Personally I don't believe that we at this level of "lower awareness" can create something that is equal to ourselves, because the creation always stands below the creator. It might operate AS IF it has awareness - as a kind of fractal projection of ourselves.
But since we don't even really understand the nature and origin of human or animal consciousness and the mechanism by which it intersects with our own "biocomputer" which we call "body" I doubt that AI could come close to the kind of sophistication that we experience in our bodily being.
If we can't operate free will at this level of being and awareness, how could our creation do what we cannot?
So, if AI develops consciousness where is that going to or coming from? And what kind of free will does it have?
(Ignore if this is a huge, pointless tangent - I'm well out of my depth)
Personally I don't believe that we at this level of "lower awareness" can create something that is equal to ourselves, because the creation always stands below the creator. It might operate AS IF it has awareness - as a kind of fractal projection of ourselves.
But since we don't even really understand the nature and origin of human or animal consciousness and the mechanism by which it intersects with our own "biocomputer" which we call "body" I doubt that AI could come close to the kind of sophistication that we experience in our bodily being.
If we can't operate free will at this level of being and awareness, how could our creation do what we cannot?
AFF
If nature can do it in our artefacts, in silico, through emergent complexity that we can't envisage, she will. She made life in warm alkaline vents, and here it is knowing that. Why would machine emergent sapience need free will? Whatever that is.
I like provocative quotes! They provoke responses.
Berdyaev is not a a typical philosopher by UK/Western European standards. Too rhetorical, too obviously opinionated. He doesn’t hide his light or his ever changing opinions under a bush. But I find he makes me think.
If nature can do it in our artefacts, in silico, through emergent complexity that we can't envisage, she will. She made life in warm alkaline vents, and here it is knowing that. Why would machine emergent sapience need free will? Whatever that is.
I don't believe she can either.
Yeah the whole line of inquiry of the origin and nature of consciousness as it adheres to what we call "life" is still a gigantic question mark. I have my own ideas of the mechanics of these intersections but they're mostly just convenient narratives that dovetail with a larger one that for the moment quiets most of my cognitive dissonance in that direction.
I'm no expert but get the impression that Bedyaev was quite unusual from an Orthodox standpoint too. At least Florovsky and others thought he was too 'Western' in his approach.
I've heard the same said of David Bentley Hart.
But I've not read enough of this stuff to comment beyond the observation that the Orthodox often come at things from unexpected directions and can often be polemical.
I've just come here from an Orthodox WhatsApp group where someone referred to a defrocked priest as a 'rodent', which doesn't sound particularly helpful or edifying in any way, shape or form.
Berdyaev has been described as a Christian Existentialist (Kierkegaard et al) so I’m not surprised contemporary Orthodox often wondered what the heck he was on about!
Of course the key word in existentialism is authenticity and the striving towards it. Sartre’s “Roads to Freedom” novels are a classic exploration of this journey in a time at least in part of the occupation of France by National Socialist Germany.
A bit like Berdyaev, you can see how his ideas got modified by oppression.
Which leads me, naturally, back to my own non-deterministic view and the way my thinking is affected by oppression. I like Kendel’s observation that compulsion is not the same as determinism, but am very happy to concede that I link compulsion, oppression and determinism together in some way. And that’s why I find it hard to accept the idea that freedom of choice may be a robust illusion. Pain caused by others is not an illusion.
And its relation to anything that might be called reality or truth is equally tenuous.
Well, maybe, but we're struggling to find anything that makes it not actually the reality.
Don't get me wrong, I want to resist determinism to the death, but I'm really struggling for an even vaguely evidenced way out of it.
What kind of evidence would suffice, though? If any apparent evidence could be explained away, then I would suggest that this would mean that the methods of analyzing this—specifically, looking at analyses that by their nature only focus on the material—might not be useful to find out something non-material. The existence of free will might even be a matter of faith, rather than absolute knowledge.
I believe that resisting determinism, and resisting materialism, is wise. Don’t give up! ❤️
Propose alternative analysis methods. That's always the problem when people criticise empirical evidence - they don't say what to use instead.
As I just said (well, before the Ship became inaccessible), "The existence of free will might even be a matter of faith, rather than absolute knowledge." I don't know that you would accept this, but I would say that if we have no free will at all, then we were predestined/determined, like robots, to come to the conclusions we each have, throughout all time and space, whether true, false, or a mixture (and indeed to do every single thing we have ever done), and predestined to think our logic is valid, and so on, so this entire conversation (every typo made and corrected as I type, every thought in your head as you read it) was also predestined, all trapped in a hideous world with no spirit or mind, made of nothing but a mechanical dance of atoms, just running on and on like a machine.
Do you believe the world is like that? If you do, I don't know how to "prove" to you that it is otherwise--any apparent "proof" would itself be suspect as just "part of the machine." (But then so would any "proof" that we live in a materialistic universe, without any reason to think our thoughts are true in the first place--in which case, why believe that in the first place?)
I don’t think greater knowledge of how the brain physically works changes anything about the reality of the soul. As for brain damage and related matters, I would say that those are not the fault of the soul at all, though how much it impedes the actual will working through the “broken machinery” it has to work with is, again, something I think only God knows. It’s like someone who is legally considered not guilty, or whose guilt is ameliorated, by reason of insanity.
If we were able to exactly map brain activity with the conscious perception of human emotions, thoughts, and decision-making, would that constitute evidence for the non-existence of the soul? Would anything?
I don't think anything would, barring God literally telling us we have no souls, in a way that we could not resist.
And its relation to anything that might be called reality or truth is equally tenuous.
Well, maybe, but we're struggling to find anything that makes it not actually the reality.
Don't get me wrong, I want to resist determinism to the death, but I'm really struggling for an even vaguely evidenced way out of it.
What kind of evidence would suffice, though? If any apparent evidence could be explained away, then I would suggest that this would mean that the methods of analyzing this—specifically, looking at analyses that by their nature only focus on the material—might not be useful to find out something non-material. The existence of free will might even be a matter of faith, rather than absolute knowledge.
I believe that resisting determinism, and resisting materialism, is wise. Don’t give up! ❤️
Propose alternative analysis methods. That's always the problem when people criticise empirical evidence - they don't say what to use instead.
As I just said (well, before the Ship became inaccessible), "The existence of free will might even be a matter of faith, rather than absolute knowledge." I don't know that you would accept this, but I would say that if we have no free will at all, then we were predestined/determined, like robots, to come to the conclusions we each have, throughout all time and space, whether true, false, or a mixture (and indeed to do every single thing we have ever done), and predestined to think our logic is valid, and so on, so this entire conversation (every typo made and corrected as I type, every thought in your head as you read it) was also predestined, all trapped in a hideous world with no spirit or mind, made of nothing but a mechanical dance of atoms, just running on and on like a machine.
Do you believe the world is like that? If you do, I don't know how to "prove" to you that it is otherwise--any apparent "proof" would itself be suspect as just "part of the machine." (But then so would any "proof" that we live in a materialistic universe, without any reason to think our thoughts are true in the first place--in which case, why believe that in the first place?)
The world absolutely could be like that. We'd never be able to tell the difference - like Arthur Dent's proposed artificial brain.
"Yes. A simple one would suffice!"
"A simple one!?"
"Yes, All you'd have to do is program it to say 'I don't understand', 'what' and 'where's the tea?' and no-one would know the difference!"
"I'd notice the difference!"
"No you wouldn't - you'd be programmed not to!"
Of course, free will being an illusion doesn't mean everything's predetermined - there's fundamental quantum uncertainty which means if you run the whole thing again from scratch with identical starting conditions you'd get different results. But that's not really the problem here - it's whether we can influence the results according to our desires or only think we can, because me "deciding" to have a banana is just another arrangement of chemicals and neurones that looks to me like a free decision.
Which is why I look for a mechanism which can be objectively evidenced (note I avoid the word "scientifically") that avoids that conclusion. The existence of a non-material soul that can presumably psychokinetically change the chemical and neural conditions according to its will is all very well, but I struggle to see evidence of (a) non-material souls and (b) psychokinesis.
...Why does it matter to me whether human freedom, including choice, is a reality or a robust illusion? Because I also believe that abuse of human freedom is very definitely a reality! Not a robust illusion. It hurts a lot if you’re on the receiving end. That would seem to matter. The suffering is very real.
Which leads me, naturally, back to my own non-deterministic view and the way my thinking is affected by oppression. I like Kendel’s observation that compulsion is not the same as determinism, but am very happy to concede that I link compulsion, oppression and determinism together in some way. And that’s why I find it hard to accept the idea that freedom of choice may be a robust illusion. Pain caused by others is not an illusion.
The pain and suffering might not be an illusion, but it doesn't necessarily follow that "caused by others" isn't an illusion. Maybe it's just wanting to have someone to blame.
Putting it another way, it looks like you're saying that having caused by others explanations for pain and suffering makes them easier to accept. In contrast to a deterministic universe that doesn't care one way or the other - where stuff just happens.
The idea that a deterministic universe could have come up with sentient beings that care quite a lot (about what happens to them, and others, and why) seems remarkably unfair. But that's not the same as being unlikely.
I was also thinking about an aspect of Kendel's earlier post - to paraphrase: the idea that everyone has the same amount of freedom (or free will) runs rather contrary to our varied experiences of life. In that respect, a deterministic universe would be fairer - it wouldn't care about us all equally, with neither fear nor favour.
I feel there is a dynamic in play. Some can become more aware of the causes of their (conscious or unconscious) trappedness.
Some people can become more aware of the damage their oppressive control causes.
Both can actually change their minds and do different.
Of course it’s possible to argue that their behaviour was predetermined, that the appearance of choice was a characteristic of robust illusion.
So having chucked in loads of insights, here’s a bit of Shakespeare's Macbeth.
Life’s but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
To quote the almost immortal Victor Meldrew.
“I don’t BELIEVE it!”
Now I appreciate that “signifying nothing” is not confined to determinism. But it’s hard for me to see anything other than illusory significance in robust illusion.
All meaning ultimately nothing in face of the vast heat death of the universe is something else. But I choose not to believe that either. Back on existentialism, I wouldn’t be authentic if I said otherwise.
And its relation to anything that might be called reality or truth is equally tenuous.
Well, maybe, but we're struggling to find anything that makes it not actually the reality.
Don't get me wrong, I want to resist determinism to the death, but I'm really struggling for an even vaguely evidenced way out of it.
What kind of evidence would suffice, though? If any apparent evidence could be explained away, then I would suggest that this would mean that the methods of analyzing this—specifically, looking at analyses that by their nature only focus on the material—might not be useful to find out something non-material. The existence of free will might even be a matter of faith, rather than absolute knowledge.
I believe that resisting determinism, and resisting materialism, is wise. Don’t give up! ❤️
Propose alternative analysis methods. That's always the problem when people criticise empirical evidence - they don't say what to use instead.
As I just said (well, before the Ship became inaccessible), "The existence of free will might even be a matter of faith, rather than absolute knowledge." I don't know that you would accept this, but I would say that if we have no free will at all, then we were predestined/determined, like robots, to come to the conclusions we each have, throughout all time and space, whether true, false, or a mixture (and indeed to do every single thing we have ever done), and predestined to think our logic is valid, and so on, so this entire conversation (every typo made and corrected as I type, every thought in your head as you read it) was also predestined, all trapped in a hideous world with no spirit or mind, made of nothing but a mechanical dance of atoms, just running on and on like a machine.
Do you believe the world is like that? If you do, I don't know how to "prove" to you that it is otherwise--any apparent "proof" would itself be suspect as just "part of the machine." (But then so would any "proof" that we live in a materialistic universe, without any reason to think our thoughts are true in the first place--in which case, why believe that in the first place?)
The world absolutely could be like that. We'd never be able to tell the difference - like Arthur Dent's proposed artificial brain.
"Yes. A simple one would suffice!"
"A simple one!?"
"Yes, All you'd have to do is program it to say 'I don't understand', 'what' and 'where's the tea?' and no-one would know the difference!"
"I'd notice the difference!"
"No you wouldn't - you'd be programmed not to!"
Of course, free will being an illusion doesn't mean everything's predetermined - there's fundamental quantum uncertainty which means if you run the whole thing again from scratch with identical starting conditions you'd get different results. But that's not really the problem here - it's whether we can influence the results according to our desires or only think we can, because me "deciding" to have a banana is just another arrangement of chemicals and neurones that looks to me like a free decision.
Which is why I look for a mechanism which can be objectively evidenced (note I avoid the word "scientifically") that avoids that conclusion. The existence of a non-material soul that can presumably psychokinetically change the chemical and neural conditions according to its will is all very well, but I struggle to see evidence of (a) non-material souls and (b) psychokinesis.
Well, what kind of evidence would convince you, if it could be found? I personally think it is more a matter of philosophy and theology—and, as always, I do recommend C.S. Lewis, in particular here some passages in Miracles and in Abolition of Man.
As I just said (well, before the Ship became inaccessible), "The existence of free will might even be a matter of faith, rather than absolute knowledge." I don't know that you would accept this, but I would say that if we have no free will at all, then we were predestined/determined, like robots, to come to the conclusions we each have, throughout all time and space, whether true, false, or a mixture (and indeed to do every single thing we have ever done), and predestined to think our logic is valid, and so on, so this entire conversation (every typo made and corrected as I type, every thought in your head as you read it) was also predestined, all trapped in a hideous world with no spirit or mind, made of nothing but a mechanical dance of atoms, just running on and on like a machine.
Do you believe the world is like that? If you do, I don't know how to "prove" to you that it is otherwise--any apparent "proof" would itself be suspect as just "part of the machine." (But then so would any "proof" that we live in a materialistic universe, without any reason to think our thoughts are true in the first place--in which case, why believe that in the first place?)
The world absolutely could be like that. We'd never be able to tell the difference - like Arthur Dent's proposed artificial brain.
"Yes. A simple one would suffice!"
"A simple one!?"
"Yes, All you'd have to do is program it to say 'I don't understand', 'what' and 'where's the tea?' and no-one would know the difference!"
"I'd notice the difference!"
"No you wouldn't - you'd be programmed not to!"
Of course, free will being an illusion doesn't mean everything's predetermined - there's fundamental quantum uncertainty which means if you run the whole thing again from scratch with identical starting conditions you'd get different results. But that's not really the problem here - it's whether we can influence the results according to our desires or only think we can, because me "deciding" to have a banana is just another arrangement of chemicals and neurones that looks to me like a free decision.
Which is why I look for a mechanism which can be objectively evidenced (note I avoid the word "scientifically") that avoids that conclusion. The existence of a non-material soul that can presumably psychokinetically change the chemical and neural conditions according to its will is all very well, but I struggle to see evidence of (a) non-material souls and (b) psychokinesis.
I love Hitchhikers et al quotes! My favourite is God’s final word.
“We apologise for the inconvenience”.
But seriously.
KarlB
I do realise that my Victor Meldrew quote is no answer to your serious point. (Much though it amused me as a piece of rhetoric.)
I may be proved wrong as further research unpacks the neurology behind the workings of the brain. And the artificial intelligence point certainly suggests that we may reach a point where, to all intents and purposes, we cannot draw any significant difference between human consciousness and what looks like machine self awareness. I believe that such machine self awareness might need to be governed by something like Asimov’s laws of robotics. But that might be quite wrong of me. Computers given the power to learn how to learn may learn to be ethical. And that would be a kick in the head!
But such a development would not necessarily say much about determinism. As Dafyd said on the earlier thread, ontic determinism is not the same as psychological determinism. And I think is is belief in ontic determinism which leads to the robust illusion hypothesis concerning human free will and choice.
But from what we know now, I think there is a kind of reductio absurdum associated with ontic determinism. The more I consider the consequences the more absurd they seem to me to be.
And here’s the rub. I appreciate that is a conclusion without objective evidence. And I also know that in the field of scientific discovery there is much which is counterintuitive. So my intuition, without physical evidence, that determinism is absurd doesn’t allow for counterintuitive being true.
But, for my own sanity I think, I choose not to believe it and live accordingly. It is a matter of faith. To quote AFF, my human suit is wearing out and when it does, there may no longer be “I”. If so, I’ll never know any difference! But if my “I” survives my human suit, I confidently expect to be very joyful!
I was also thinking about an aspect of Kendel's earlier post - to paraphrase: the idea that everyone has the same amount of freedom (or free will) runs rather contrary to our varied experiences of life. In that respect, a deterministic universe would be fairer - it wouldn't care about us all equally, with neither fear nor favour.
However, this is not a paraphrase of the points I was making here. Mine were:
1) Berdyaev refers to common concepts in Western philosophy without relying on specific definitions. He exploits this play, which allows him to avoid providing actual support for his claims.
2) Berdyaev (as well as others I've read in this discussion and similar) assumes absolute freedom in contrast to absolute determinism. Neither state exists in practical terms of human experience.
3) The cause for our existence is irrelevant to our experience of freedom or determinism.
4) Because we are dependent on and interdependent with others, we do not experience anything like absolute freedom.
5) Our existence and agency are subject to our surroundings as well as our very composition. Absolute freedom is an illusion.
6) Freedom is not the alternative to nihilism. That's a silly claim to make.
7) All humans experience some degree of freedom and some number of "controls" that limit our freedom.
My concern with point 7 is very simple.
I mentioned a sliding scale because the image leaves the argument of "how much freedom" and "how much is determined (and by what)" to the side for now. With this metaphor I am still arguing that the "All or Nothing" model does not reflect human experience (even, as I suspected Berdyaev was hinting at, under an authoritarian regime).
A different model that I've run across is in Kierkegaard's The Sickness Unto Death, where the self is an ongoing dialectical process, which is in part developed through a dialectical interaction of "freedom and necessity."
Your point (not a paraphrase of mine):
the idea that everyone has the same amount of freedom (or free will) runs rather contrary to our varied experiences of life. In that respect, a deterministic universe would be fairer - it wouldn't care about us all equally, with neither fear nor favour
is very different different from what I was expressing.
Without attempting to comment on variety among individual experience, my point is simply that humans experience some degree of freedom and some degree of constraint. Or, perhaps, freedom with constraints.
Fairness of a particular type of universe (as if we have a choice in the matter) is beyond the scope of what I wrote or my interests. The universe and our being are what they are whether we correctly understand or model them or not. My preference for one mode of existence or another has no effect on what is.
@Kendel I think if you're going to make a reference you owe it to all of us to tell us what you're talking about, not PM people like it's some exotic secret.
Who are The Watchers? We all want to know, not individually be PMd
@Kendel I think if you're going to make a reference you owe it to all of us to tell us what you're talking about, not PM people like it's some exotic secret.
Who are The Watchers? We all want to know, not individually be PMd
Oh, sorry, @KarlLB et al! It was an off-hand, sarcastic comment that I assumed would be clearer than it was. I never imagined anyone would care or be confused by it.
For much of Monday, I was unable to get SoF : the Magazine of Christian Unrest - you know, that "foreign" website outside 'Merica - on 3 different wifi systems in different locations and on different devices.
The above situation, occurring within the context of the current dystopian, aspire-to-be-authoritarian "government" where I live, all of which is bolstered by extremist Christian nationalism, rather than unrest, reminded me of novels I've read and history I know, where one is always and obviously under surveillance. The Watchers was my synonym for Big Brother.
So, if at some point I don't log in for a while....or take on an overly polished writing style....or otherwise seem not quite myself.....
That’s how I read it. I just thought “Big Brother is Watching You”. And when SoF went down I had a few paranoid thoughts, but than said to myself “you’re just being silly!”
Not surprisingly, we may be nearer to each other on determinism than you may think. I understand perfectly that none of us may be as free as we think we are. Our reasoning may differ re constraints. But some freedom is better than none.
Having spent some time on X and experienced the weight of MAGA nonsense posts, I observe that there is a good deal more freedom of thought expressed here. There is some on X but you can’t help but feel that its supporters are going up a down escalator. I just gave up in the end.
I noticed the SoF absence too. A glitch. Another 2 bob needed in the meter. Not wild predator bots. Recovery from backup after RAID failure, that sort of thing. Cyberspace is too vast for bad actors to target SoF specifically. We're not significant enough.
Just a few inconclusive thoughts on Berdyaev and so on ...
Generally speaking, the Orthodox claim that we are 'radically free' and promote free will as a big deal ... perhaps in reaction to the Augustinian strand in Western theology. 'Gussie' isn't such a big deal for us even though he is seen as one of 'ours' of course.
Hence you'll generally find that the Orthodox feel warmer towards the Wesleyan tradition with its Arminian emphasis rather than the Big R Reformed tradition with its Calvinist roots. But we'd hasten to add that we are neither Arminians nor Calvinists as neither of these viewpoints reflect our concerns and are something that our overly 'Scholastic' Western brothers and sisters get exercised about.
So, Berdyeav will have been coming at things from that angle and with the added factor of writing against the background of autocratic regimes.
In which case he may very well be over-stating his case - or over-egging the pudding perhaps ...
We are, of course, constrained in our choices by circumstances, contextual issues and neurology, biology and whatever else by the sounds of it - but whatever else Orthodoxy has to say on these issues human agency is a crucial factor. That doesn't mean we 'save' ourselves but there's always an element of synergia - a both/and - going on.
I was also thinking about an aspect of Kendel's earlier post - to paraphrase: the idea that everyone has the same amount of freedom (or free will) runs rather contrary to our varied experiences of life. In that respect, a deterministic universe would be fairer - it wouldn't care about us all equally, with neither fear nor favour.
However, this is not a paraphrase of the points I was making here.
Thanks Kendel. There was something about Berdyaev's assumptions that was a bit neuralgic. The particular point in your post that I had in mind was the following:
Our existence and agency are subject to our surroundings as well as our very composition. Get away from the desk and hang out for a few weeks with brain-injured kids or adults, or with special ed kids. Spend time with residents of senior citizen communities. Learn about the brain-altering affects of certain chemicals such as heroine. Absolute freedom is an illusion. Although Berdyaev doesn't seem to grasp that.
From which, I'd say it follows that
the idea that everyone has the same amount of freedom (or free will) runs rather contrary to our varied experiences of life.
And an implication that occurred to me is that
In that respect, a deterministic universe would be fairer - it wouldn't care about us all equally, with neither fear nor favour
I didn't mean to suggest that this was within the scope of your interests. At that point, I wasn't considering it from what looks like a more existential perspective.
pease
...
Now I appreciate that “signifying nothing” is not confined to determinism. But it’s hard for me to see anything other than illusory significance in robust illusion.
All meaning ultimately nothing in face of the vast heat death of the universe is something else. But I choose not to believe that either. Back on existentialism, I wouldn’t be authentic if I said otherwise.
Thanks - I'm still digesting your post. But in relation to your final point, I'm wondering which notion of authenticity you have in mind here - Kierkegaard? Nietzsche? Sartre?
I don’t think greater knowledge of how the brain physically works changes anything about the reality of the soul. As for brain damage and related matters, I would say that those are not the fault of the soul at all, though how much it impedes the actual will working through the “broken machinery” it has to work with is, again, something I think only God knows. It’s like someone who is legally considered not guilty, or whose guilt is ameliorated, by reason of insanity.
If we were able to exactly map brain activity with the conscious perception of human emotions, thoughts, and decision-making, would that constitute evidence for the non-existence of the soul? Would anything?
I don't think anything would, barring God literally telling us we have no souls, in a way that we could not resist.
So the existence of the soul is non-falsifiable, and thus an article of faith, and there's no point in learning how the brain works to answer any questions about it.
Thanks - I'm still digesting your post. But in relation to your final point, I'm wondering which notion of authenticity you have in mind here - Kierkegaard? Nietzsche? Sartre?
None of the above! Back to the original meaning. Not fake!
I appreciate the word has a specific meaning in existentialism, or perhaps some variation in meaning depending on which existentialist you read.
It’s pretty hard to live authentically in the “not fake” sense. But I try.
I don’t think greater knowledge of how the brain physically works changes anything about the reality of the soul. As for brain damage and related matters, I would say that those are not the fault of the soul at all, though how much it impedes the actual will working through the “broken machinery” it has to work with is, again, something I think only God knows. It’s like someone who is legally considered not guilty, or whose guilt is ameliorated, by reason of insanity.
If we were able to exactly map brain activity with the conscious perception of human emotions, thoughts, and decision-making, would that constitute evidence for the non-existence of the soul? Would anything?
I don't think anything would, barring God literally telling us we have no souls, in a way that we could not resist.
So the existence of the soul is non-falsifiable, and thus an article of faith, and there's no point in learning how the brain works to answer any questions about it.
Learning how the brain works has a lot of good points to it—in medicine especially, certainly.
I don’t think greater knowledge of how the brain physically works changes anything about the reality of the soul. As for brain damage and related matters, I would say that those are not the fault of the soul at all, though how much it impedes the actual will working through the “broken machinery” it has to work with is, again, something I think only God knows. It’s like someone who is legally considered not guilty, or whose guilt is ameliorated, by reason of insanity.
If we were able to exactly map brain activity with the conscious perception of human emotions, thoughts, and decision-making, would that constitute evidence for the non-existence of the soul? Would anything?
I don't think anything would, barring God literally telling us we have no souls, in a way that we could not resist.
So the existence of the soul is non-falsifiable, and thus an article of faith, and there's no point in learning how the brain works to answer any questions about it.
I’d also add that I this the matter (no pun intended) of the soul is a matter of philosophy and theology, so one can use Reason to explore the concept of the soul.
I don’t think greater knowledge of how the brain physically works changes anything about the reality of the soul. As for brain damage and related matters, I would say that those are not the fault of the soul at all, though how much it impedes the actual will working through the “broken machinery” it has to work with is, again, something I think only God knows. It’s like someone who is legally considered not guilty, or whose guilt is ameliorated, by reason of insanity.
If we were able to exactly map brain activity with the conscious perception of human emotions, thoughts, and decision-making, would that constitute evidence for the non-existence of the soul? Would anything?
I don't think anything would, barring God literally telling us we have no souls, in a way that we could not resist.
So the existence of the soul is non-falsifiable, and thus an article of faith, and there's no point in learning how the brain works to answer any questions about it.
Learning how the brain works has a lot of good points to it—in medicine especially, certainly.
I don’t think greater knowledge of how the brain physically works changes anything about the reality of the soul. As for brain damage and related matters, I would say that those are not the fault of the soul at all, though how much it impedes the actual will working through the “broken machinery” it has to work with is, again, something I think only God knows. It’s like someone who is legally considered not guilty, or whose guilt is ameliorated, by reason of insanity.
If we were able to exactly map brain activity with the conscious perception of human emotions, thoughts, and decision-making, would that constitute evidence for the non-existence of the soul? Would anything?
I don't think anything would, barring God literally telling us we have no souls, in a way that we could not resist.
So the existence of the soul is non-falsifiable, and thus an article of faith, and there's no point in learning how the brain works to answer any questions about it.
Learning how the brain works has a lot of good points to it—in medicine especially, certainly.
But above all in psychology. Neurons are biased and that emerges as hope. Alongside an overemphasis on negative experience. From the cellular level up we want to endure.
Comments
I guess reincarnation which is central to your understanding is probably a separate and large topic.
But it’s up to the active Hosts (not a retired old codger like me) to determine when tangents cross the old Stick to the Point guideline!
But one narrative is as good as the next I suppose when we are dealing with abstract concepts like free will and determinism. We understand what these things are in principle but it's hard to point to them and say "there it is!"
So with your permission I'll just give you the short version - the summary. And if we want to unpack any of the foundational premises maybe another thread will spin off?
The short version presumes:
1) Consciousness is eternal and infinitely divisible and proceeds fractally from a Singularity or Supreme Consciousness.
2) Consciousness is transferable in time and space and is a form of energy that exists within matter.
So, simply speaking, I see this material plane we find ourselves wandering about in human suits as where we experience free will, but do not operate it. Here is we find ourselves constrained by accident of birth, heredity, nature, nurture, socioeconomic circumstances.
We are presented with many choices or no choices, we are compelled, we are at liberty to operate choice within the framework of our circumstances but not beyond it. We can't just sprout wings and fly ourselves out of a given situation even though we might wish with all our might for that ability. We are like rats in a very complicated maze full of choices, but those choices are constrained by the circumstances we find ourselves in by way of a series of binary decisions.
Abundance of choice IMO is not the same thing as free will. Free will, by my own personal definition, is like being the author of a story. Free will is the ability to make anything happen in your story that you want to happen. The author of a story has the ability to sprout wings on her main character and to fly her out of a sticky situation. The story doesn'y even have to make sense. The author has the free will to break the rules of her own narrative universe. She can write the story, but she doesn't know what it really feels like to be the main character unless she enters the story.
So ...
what if ....
Free will is the state of being where we write our story - like in the writers room on a TV show we collaborate with others on the rules of the narrative universe we agree on entrances, exits, lines, delivery, props scenery setting theme. We cast the characters, agree to bit parts in others stories, supporting cast in our own.
And then we come into our actor-bodies to experience what the story feels like. We can't change the story from this level of consciousness, all we can do is enter on time, hit our marks, say our lines, and hope not to bump into the furniture.
And the Eternal Consciousness is the owner of the Playhouse.
??
AFF
Yep. Where doubt doesn't come in to it. Meaning does. And that disappears as the wave retreats down the beach; the sand absorbing the water instantly.
@Dafyd is, of course, perfectly correct in that mental states can't be correlated reductionalistically down the chain of causality, if I may paraphrase him thus. But one of the innate properties of matter is information, and as complexity emerges explosively upon explosively... upon explosively back up, it gets to qualia.
Yo AFF!
The question here is whether "free will" has a genuine colloquial sense - that is, whether the phrase has any use outside philosophical discussion.
If there's no such thing as free will then questions about human agency and responsibility need to be resolved in a different manner, but they still arise; just as discovering that there was no such thing as phlogiston didn't mean there was no such thing as burning.
One question from the human suits reference. Do you see the essential you as a traveller in human suits? Which I think would mean that for you, conscious awareness is independent of physical body, although it may indeed be affected by its residence. (Or residences).
I think therefore I am. Regardless of the temporary residence of “I”?
Nikolai Bedyaev was, to say the least, an interesting cove! See the Wiki article.
He was cantankerous to the extent of invariably arguing with others opinions. Even when they agreed with his opinions, formally expressed. He wrote a lot. So far as theology was concerned, his two passions were freedom and love.
I can’t find a link but I’m pretty sure he argued that free will expressed without love was just another form of inprisonment, not freedom.
To say the least, he was an unusual philosopher!
I like to think of it as small I, Bigger I, Bigger I and Bigger I - as a kind of infinite fractal projection emanating indivisibly but sometimes feeling very remote from the encompassing pattern that contains it. I refer to it in short as higher and lower awareness.
If you look at a Mandelbrot set you can see specks in what looks like a vast blank space, separated from the perimeter of the main pattern, floating in a sea of what appears to be nothing. Until you zoom in and you see that the speck is not separated from the main pattern but it's joined to it by a string of even smaller specks like itself. This speaks to me of the sensation that Lower Awareness has of being separated from the Unity it actually belongs to.
The encompassing pattern is bounded by 0 and 1 - alpha and omega as it were - and the number of integers creating all the possible individual fractal patterns being infinite because the space between 0 an 1 is infinite.
AFF
Yes you have it essentially.
Although at one level mind is body and body is mind, consciousness per se, that animating energy, permeates and powers matter and exists independently of it. Like any other energy it can't be created or destroyed, it simply changes form.
The way I see it, consciousness and therefore reality is continually affected by the flow of information. The human suit necessarily constrains the reception and broadcast bandwidth of information that is available to the indwelling consciousness, and so it affects what we experience as the operating "mind".
AFF
(Ignore if this is a huge, pointless tangent - I'm well out of my depth)
1. I wasn't considering compassion. But I can. Bedyaev attributes the possibility of emotional/subjective states or responses to freedom. Again it depends on what one means by "freedom" as well as whether one believes states like love and compassion only exist when one may act on those subjective states absolutely.
There is a lot to discuss on this one question.
I thought @Dafyd's and @chrisstiles' reference colloquial and formal meanings of free will, and perhaps therefore freedom, might be useful in relation to my frustrations with the looseness Bedyaev seems to exploit in his use of "freedom."
2a. I picked up on his background through his equating "compulsion" with "determinism." I don't see them as the same. But compulsion could certainly be in the view screen of a person under an authoritarian regime. I'll check in on this in a year, maybe. If I have access to a connected computer by then, one without a Great Firewall in navy blue with gold logo to protect me from myself.
2b. Someone who wrote the paragraph in question surely wrote a lot more.
3a. I didn't notice you defending it. I am curious what you found compelling enough in it to post it.
3b. The binaries comprise much of what I find annoying enough to be compelling in this quote.
3c. I think the way he works back from his conclusions to develop his arguments could also be worthy of discussion.
1. I respect anyone who can argue well against her own conclusions. Few seem to be able to, much less argue well against anothers', which requires a dedication to understanding what is behind another's thinking and faithfully represent it.
2. That view of freedom and love seems consistent with the opening of the quote you posted.
3. What constitutes "unusual" among philosophers?
Welcome back, @A Feminine Force! I'm glad to see you here again.
Personally I don't believe that we at this level of "lower awareness" can create something that is equal to ourselves, because the creation always stands below the creator. It might operate AS IF it has awareness - as a kind of fractal projection of ourselves.
But since we don't even really understand the nature and origin of human or animal consciousness and the mechanism by which it intersects with our own "biocomputer" which we call "body" I doubt that AI could come close to the kind of sophistication that we experience in our bodily being.
If we can't operate free will at this level of being and awareness, how could our creation do what we cannot?
AFF
If nature can do it in our artefacts, in silico, through emergent complexity that we can't envisage, she will. She made life in warm alkaline vents, and here it is knowing that. Why would machine emergent sapience need free will? Whatever that is.
I don't believe she can either.
I like provocative quotes! They provoke responses.
Berdyaev is not a a typical philosopher by UK/Western European standards. Too rhetorical, too obviously opinionated. He doesn’t hide his light or his ever changing opinions under a bush. But I find he makes me think.
Yeah the whole line of inquiry of the origin and nature of consciousness as it adheres to what we call "life" is still a gigantic question mark. I have my own ideas of the mechanics of these intersections but they're mostly just convenient narratives that dovetail with a larger one that for the moment quiets most of my cognitive dissonance in that direction.
AFF
I've heard the same said of David Bentley Hart.
But I've not read enough of this stuff to comment beyond the observation that the Orthodox often come at things from unexpected directions and can often be polemical.
I've just come here from an Orthodox WhatsApp group where someone referred to a defrocked priest as a 'rodent', which doesn't sound particularly helpful or edifying in any way, shape or form.
Of course the key word in existentialism is authenticity and the striving towards it. Sartre’s “Roads to Freedom” novels are a classic exploration of this journey in a time at least in part of the occupation of France by National Socialist Germany.
A bit like Berdyaev, you can see how his ideas got modified by oppression.
Which leads me, naturally, back to my own non-deterministic view and the way my thinking is affected by oppression. I like Kendel’s observation that compulsion is not the same as determinism, but am very happy to concede that I link compulsion, oppression and determinism together in some way. And that’s why I find it hard to accept the idea that freedom of choice may be a robust illusion. Pain caused by others is not an illusion.
As I just said (well, before the Ship became inaccessible), "The existence of free will might even be a matter of faith, rather than absolute knowledge." I don't know that you would accept this, but I would say that if we have no free will at all, then we were predestined/determined, like robots, to come to the conclusions we each have, throughout all time and space, whether true, false, or a mixture (and indeed to do every single thing we have ever done), and predestined to think our logic is valid, and so on, so this entire conversation (every typo made and corrected as I type, every thought in your head as you read it) was also predestined, all trapped in a hideous world with no spirit or mind, made of nothing but a mechanical dance of atoms, just running on and on like a machine.
Do you believe the world is like that? If you do, I don't know how to "prove" to you that it is otherwise--any apparent "proof" would itself be suspect as just "part of the machine." (But then so would any "proof" that we live in a materialistic universe, without any reason to think our thoughts are true in the first place--in which case, why believe that in the first place?)
I don't think anything would, barring God literally telling us we have no souls, in a way that we could not resist.
The world absolutely could be like that. We'd never be able to tell the difference - like Arthur Dent's proposed artificial brain.
"Yes. A simple one would suffice!"
"A simple one!?"
"Yes, All you'd have to do is program it to say 'I don't understand', 'what' and 'where's the tea?' and no-one would know the difference!"
"I'd notice the difference!"
"No you wouldn't - you'd be programmed not to!"
Of course, free will being an illusion doesn't mean everything's predetermined - there's fundamental quantum uncertainty which means if you run the whole thing again from scratch with identical starting conditions you'd get different results. But that's not really the problem here - it's whether we can influence the results according to our desires or only think we can, because me "deciding" to have a banana is just another arrangement of chemicals and neurones that looks to me like a free decision.
Which is why I look for a mechanism which can be objectively evidenced (note I avoid the word "scientifically") that avoids that conclusion. The existence of a non-material soul that can presumably psychokinetically change the chemical and neural conditions according to its will is all very well, but I struggle to see evidence of (a) non-material souls and (b) psychokinesis.
Not to start a tangent but what does this mean? Who are the Watchers? (I assume you don't mean the ones from Marvel, like Uatu.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watcher_(comics)
Putting it another way, it looks like you're saying that having caused by others explanations for pain and suffering makes them easier to accept. In contrast to a deterministic universe that doesn't care one way or the other - where stuff just happens.
The idea that a deterministic universe could have come up with sentient beings that care quite a lot (about what happens to them, and others, and why) seems remarkably unfair. But that's not the same as being unlikely.
I was also thinking about an aspect of Kendel's earlier post - to paraphrase: the idea that everyone has the same amount of freedom (or free will) runs rather contrary to our varied experiences of life. In that respect, a deterministic universe would be fairer - it wouldn't care about us all equally, with neither fear nor favour.
I feel there is a dynamic in play. Some can become more aware of the causes of their (conscious or unconscious) trappedness.
Some people can become more aware of the damage their oppressive control causes.
Both can actually change their minds and do different.
Of course it’s possible to argue that their behaviour was predetermined, that the appearance of choice was a characteristic of robust illusion.
So having chucked in loads of insights, here’s a bit of Shakespeare's Macbeth.
To quote the almost immortal Victor Meldrew.
“I don’t BELIEVE it!”
Now I appreciate that “signifying nothing” is not confined to determinism. But it’s hard for me to see anything other than illusory significance in robust illusion.
All meaning ultimately nothing in face of the vast heat death of the universe is something else. But I choose not to believe that either. Back on existentialism, I wouldn’t be authentic if I said otherwise.
Thanks for your above response. Still digesting it.
Well, what kind of evidence would convince you, if it could be found? I personally think it is more a matter of philosophy and theology—and, as always, I do recommend C.S. Lewis, in particular here some passages in Miracles and in Abolition of Man.
I love Hitchhikers et al quotes! My favourite is God’s final word.
“We apologise for the inconvenience”.
But seriously.
KarlB
I do realise that my Victor Meldrew quote is no answer to your serious point. (Much though it amused me as a piece of rhetoric.)
I may be proved wrong as further research unpacks the neurology behind the workings of the brain. And the artificial intelligence point certainly suggests that we may reach a point where, to all intents and purposes, we cannot draw any significant difference between human consciousness and what looks like machine self awareness. I believe that such machine self awareness might need to be governed by something like Asimov’s laws of robotics. But that might be quite wrong of me. Computers given the power to learn how to learn may learn to be ethical. And that would be a kick in the head!
But such a development would not necessarily say much about determinism. As Dafyd said on the earlier thread, ontic determinism is not the same as psychological determinism. And I think is is belief in ontic determinism which leads to the robust illusion hypothesis concerning human free will and choice.
But from what we know now, I think there is a kind of reductio absurdum associated with ontic determinism. The more I consider the consequences the more absurd they seem to me to be.
And here’s the rub. I appreciate that is a conclusion without objective evidence. And I also know that in the field of scientific discovery there is much which is counterintuitive. So my intuition, without physical evidence, that determinism is absurd doesn’t allow for counterintuitive being true.
But, for my own sanity I think, I choose not to believe it and live accordingly. It is a matter of faith. To quote AFF, my human suit is wearing out and when it does, there may no longer be “I”. If so, I’ll never know any difference! But if my “I” survives my human suit, I confidently expect to be very joyful!
At any rate, I hope you can see what I was seeking to say in my reply.
PM on the way.
Well, a link would be fine... I'll look for the PM of course.
However, this is not a paraphrase of the points I was making here. Mine were:
1) Berdyaev refers to common concepts in Western philosophy without relying on specific definitions. He exploits this play, which allows him to avoid providing actual support for his claims.
2) Berdyaev (as well as others I've read in this discussion and similar) assumes absolute freedom in contrast to absolute determinism. Neither state exists in practical terms of human experience.
3) The cause for our existence is irrelevant to our experience of freedom or determinism.
4) Because we are dependent on and interdependent with others, we do not experience anything like absolute freedom.
5) Our existence and agency are subject to our surroundings as well as our very composition. Absolute freedom is an illusion.
6) Freedom is not the alternative to nihilism. That's a silly claim to make.
7) All humans experience some degree of freedom and some number of "controls" that limit our freedom.
My concern with point 7 is very simple.
I mentioned a sliding scale because the image leaves the argument of "how much freedom" and "how much is determined (and by what)" to the side for now. With this metaphor I am still arguing that the "All or Nothing" model does not reflect human experience (even, as I suspected Berdyaev was hinting at, under an authoritarian regime).
A different model that I've run across is in Kierkegaard's The Sickness Unto Death, where the self is an ongoing dialectical process, which is in part developed through a dialectical interaction of "freedom and necessity."
Your point (not a paraphrase of mine): is very different different from what I was expressing.
Without attempting to comment on variety among individual experience, my point is simply that humans experience some degree of freedom and some degree of constraint. Or, perhaps, freedom with constraints.
Fairness of a particular type of universe (as if we have a choice in the matter) is beyond the scope of what I wrote or my interests. The universe and our being are what they are whether we correctly understand or model them or not. My preference for one mode of existence or another has no effect on what is.
@Kendel I think if you're going to make a reference you owe it to all of us to tell us what you're talking about, not PM people like it's some exotic secret.
Who are The Watchers? We all want to know, not individually be PMd
Perhaps her freedom is constrained in that respect too ...
Of course.
We are all constrained by family/group/society/country rules and laws.
Imagine if someone who had absolutely no regard for such things were in charge.
Oh, wait ...
Oh, sorry, @KarlLB et al! It was an off-hand, sarcastic comment that I assumed would be clearer than it was. I never imagined anyone would care or be confused by it.
For much of Monday, I was unable to get SoF : the Magazine of Christian Unrest - you know, that "foreign" website outside 'Merica - on 3 different wifi systems in different locations and on different devices.
The above situation, occurring within the context of the current dystopian, aspire-to-be-authoritarian "government" where I live, all of which is bolstered by extremist Christian nationalism, rather than unrest, reminded me of novels I've read and history I know, where one is always and obviously under surveillance. The Watchers was my synonym for Big Brother.
So, if at some point I don't log in for a while....or take on an overly polished writing style....or otherwise seem not quite myself.....
Sorry for confusion over the hopefully trivial.
@Boogie and @Gamma Gamaliel you understood.
That’s how I read it. I just thought “Big Brother is Watching You”. And when SoF went down I had a few paranoid thoughts, but than said to myself “you’re just being silly!”
Not surprisingly, we may be nearer to each other on determinism than you may think. I understand perfectly that none of us may be as free as we think we are. Our reasoning may differ re constraints. But some freedom is better than none.
Having spent some time on X and experienced the weight of MAGA nonsense posts, I observe that there is a good deal more freedom of thought expressed here. There is some on X but you can’t help but feel that its supporters are going up a down escalator. I just gave up in the end.
Generally speaking, the Orthodox claim that we are 'radically free' and promote free will as a big deal ... perhaps in reaction to the Augustinian strand in Western theology. 'Gussie' isn't such a big deal for us even though he is seen as one of 'ours' of course.
Hence you'll generally find that the Orthodox feel warmer towards the Wesleyan tradition with its Arminian emphasis rather than the Big R Reformed tradition with its Calvinist roots. But we'd hasten to add that we are neither Arminians nor Calvinists as neither of these viewpoints reflect our concerns and are something that our overly 'Scholastic' Western brothers and sisters get exercised about.
So, Berdyeav will have been coming at things from that angle and with the added factor of writing against the background of autocratic regimes.
In which case he may very well be over-stating his case - or over-egging the pudding perhaps ...
We are, of course, constrained in our choices by circumstances, contextual issues and neurology, biology and whatever else by the sounds of it - but whatever else Orthodoxy has to say on these issues human agency is a crucial factor. That doesn't mean we 'save' ourselves but there's always an element of synergia - a both/and - going on.
So the existence of the soul is non-falsifiable, and thus an article of faith, and there's no point in learning how the brain works to answer any questions about it.
None of the above! Back to the original meaning. Not fake!
I appreciate the word has a specific meaning in existentialism, or perhaps some variation in meaning depending on which existentialist you read.
It’s pretty hard to live authentically in the “not fake” sense. But I try.
Learning how the brain works has a lot of good points to it—in medicine especially, certainly.
I’d also add that I this the matter (no pun intended) of the soul is a matter of philosophy and theology, so one can use Reason to explore the concept of the soul.
Typo or riff on Descartes?
AFF
After 46 years in medicine not so sure about that
But above all in psychology. Neurons are biased and that emerges as hope. Alongside an overemphasis on negative experience. From the cellular level up we want to endure.