Oh yeah – I know what you wrote in those chapters…my standard practice on Grease Spot Café is to copy and paste entire threads – including the hyperlinks to find each post – into Word docs on my computer, network drive and iCloud. It’s handy for self-referencing of course – that’s why I put a lot of sources, quirky phrasing in my posts – it makes a search much easier…and adding plus – I don’t have to be online to review threads.
For instance, on this thread – so far I’ve got it on 65 pages of a Word doc. I already knew how many times you mentioned rudder when I asked that question. The reason I phrased that question the way I did was to see if you knew what you were talking about…sorry - it seems that you DO NOT.
We used to check out someone’s story that way in high school. One of my friends is now an attorney…asking someone to repeat their story or elaborate on details is a quick an easy vetting process – and sometimes it might expose a bull$hit artist – if you know what I mean.
~ ~ ~ ~
Hey, I’ve got an old joke for this thread – maybe you’ve heard it:
A top economist was talking with his driver on the way to a speaking engagement. The economist has been touring for years and was complaining about how boring it has become. Promoting his books, bragging about the same old projects and think tanks, answering the same old questions from the audience.
The driver said, “I know what you mean – I’ve been hauling you around to all these gigs and listening to you speak for so long – I think I could get up there and give your talk.”
The economist was hallway listening – being distracted by the heavy traffic and frequent stops – and then says “wait…what did you just say?”
The driver replies, “aw it was nothing…just that I’ve heard your talk for so long I think I’ve got it memorized.”
The economist leans forward – puts his hand on the driver’s shoulder “I’ve got a crazy idea, Mac – I bet most of the people in this town don’t know what I look like – let’s switch roles. You get up on stage, give the same old talk, answer the same old questions – and I’ll just sit in the back enjoying our little ruse.”
So, they switch roles, and everything goes fine and without a hitch. But in the middle of the question-and-answer period someone in the audience asked a cost-effective related question that had never been asked before in all the years of their touring.
The quick thinking driver – used to making snap decisions in traffic calmly replied “Ha, that’s an easy one – I bet my driver in the back of the auditorium could answer that – uhm, Mac would you please.”
Good sit-com style joke. I appreciate non-pun jokes, although puns also have their place. Especially when you realize that a P.U.N. is a Play Uh Nwords.
As for my expertise in sailing, did you miss the part where I revealed my complete ignorance of sailing, and how I ignored how sail boats worked all my Physics oriented life?
It wasn't until about 4 years ago that I first heard that sailboats could go faster than wind speed, and it never dawned on me how "magical" it is that they can go INTO the wind until recent years. I was TOTALLY ignorant on sailboats until just 3 or 4 years ago, when I started learning from those 2 friends.
I checked out all my Chapter 2 wording with my friend who writes sailing books and was in the Americas Cup. I don't believe any mistakes slipped through my text with such expert proofreading by my friend, but I could have added something in error after he proofread it.
I did not hide my lack of expertise in sailing. I was up front and honest that I was brand new to it. It shouldn't surprise you (it doesn't me) that my wording and my style of describing sailing is juvenile or less than sophisitcated. I actually FEEL like a 10 year old boy who just got a Lionell Train Set for Christmas when I see sailboats now, or hear talk about them. I am AMAZED at sailboat technology and love learning such new things.
If you spot any technical sailing errors, please flag them for me, and if you see any very poorly written section, flagging that would also help this poor sailing novice, me.
No, it just seems like that to you sometimes, because you don't see the whole picture.
I just handled this issue, and will repeat this response:
You have no idea how many points of contention land in my lap every time I post. (1) I cannot handle all of them for the shear volume, plus (2) many are not serious and mere harassing of me. (3) There are also some points I feel way to incompetent to handle, especially in public. (4) Then there are some that are obviously there to distract and get me off a point I am trying to make. (5) Oh and don't forget when do respond to an idea, but it is within a response to someone else and not read by the one stewing in anger for my supposed dodging.
So, if you are going to be a self appointed steward of the "Issue Dodging Inventory," please do a thorough job and subtract from your ledger all the items I listed above.
Now, can you name one single OUTSTANDING instance of my skirting around an issue? Maybe I'll have time to handle it.
Relax I’m not your stock boy to check on your inventory- your warehouse must be overstocked cuz you’re giving the dodgy stuff away
Sure it is really dark stuff if you leave out the light I posted.
You need to look at the part of my response where I decided (long ago) to DIFFER from LCM:
Here was what you seemed to overlook in my post:
We at TWI would sometimes get that attitude that since we had so many pure fixed doctrines, that we in this "household" were superior beings, and those who "tripped out" of the household were scum of the earth, and those without spirit were "empties" and mere beasts.
I could see this attitude growing as the years went by. (and did not like it)
What I decided to do is respect all humans as either family with spirit, or respect them as possibly future family with spirit.
Similarly with heretics: they can someday turn around and come back to like-mindedness.
My investigative motto is always “overlook nothing”
It is not number one, but of course I want to convince people that I have some good knowledge that IF IT IS TRUE. If I don't know about a topic I will either say so or keep quiet about it.
My number one goal is to get some certain thing said, and said as well as possible. Once I feel that has been achieved I move on. I feel that the Absent Christ thread is relatively finished. The NT Canon still has some things to post, but I did get my main points out there.
Since what you have to say on a topic usually changes and gets contradictory leads me to think I’m right on what your # 1 goal really is - simply because if the actual content was so important and you actually KNEW what you were talking about . So to reiterate what I said your #1 goal appears to be convince others…con others…fool others…I don’t care what you call it - I just want to see you throw out the dirty bath water.
It appears once you’re stymied by the pushback of others not buying your baloney - you move on
I am a bit relieved that your suspicions of me hiding something are less serious than I first thought.
I am VERY much aware of how we were taught that if a man lies, then he has to remember it, or eventually be found out. I dumped a ton of data here about my participation (and continuing relationships with) with world-class brain scientists. If I was lying about any of that, or hiding great ignorance, then my story would have ooodles of contradictions by now. Especially since I have posted several times here about my UCSD activities, starting with my very first post.
It is such a LUXURY to tell the truth. I don't have to check my previous posts for how I lied in the past, because I told the truth. It is SO EASY being honest! Same is true of what I do NOT KNOW. It is just not possible to fake knowledge very long, and it is not fun at all.
No, I am well aware of what I am incompetent to understand, and I seek learn there; not fake it.
I was ignorant of better handlings of the NT Canon than I saw 50 years ago in the "God is Dead" age. When I sampled your links they were much better than I thought and I changed my position on Top-Down canon approaches. I hope you learned something new, that the Bottom-Up approach can have some surprises in it. If not, we can continue over on that thread sometime soon.
One con artist’s squalor of lies could be another con artist’s lap of luxury
Good sit-com style joke. I appreciate non-pun jokes, although puns also have their place. Especially when you realize that a P.U.N. is a Play Uh Nwords.
As for my expertise in sailing, did you miss the part where I revealed my complete ignorance of sailing, and how I ignored how sail boats worked all my Physics oriented life?
It wasn't until about 4 years ago that I first heard that sailboats could go faster than wind speed, and it never dawned on me how "magical" it is that they can go INTO the wind until recent years. I was TOTALLY ignorant on sailboats until just 3 or 4 years ago, when I started learning from those 2 friends.
I checked out all my Chapter 2 wording with my friend who writes sailing books and was in the Americas Cup. I don't believe any mistakes slipped through my text with such expert proofreading by my friend, but I could have added something in error after he proofread it.
I did not hide my lack of expertise in sailing. I was up front and honest that I was brand new to it. It shouldn't surprise you (it doesn't me) that my wording and my style of describing sailing is juvenile or less than sophisitcated. I actually FEEL like a 10 year old boy who just got a Lionell Train Set for Christmas when I see sailboats now, or hear talk about them. I am AMAZED at sailboat technology and love learning such new things.
If you spot any technical sailing errors, please flag them for me, and if you see any very poorly written section, flagging that would also help this poor sailing novice, me.
Good sit-com style joke. I appreciate non-pun jokes, although puns also have their place. Especially when you realize that a P.U.N. is a Play Uh Nwords.
As for my expertise in sailing, did you miss the part where I revealed my complete ignorance of sailing, and how I ignored how sail boats worked all my Physics oriented life?
It wasn't until about 4 years ago that I first heard that sailboats could go faster than wind speed, and it never dawned on me how "magical" it is that they can go INTO the wind until recent years. I was TOTALLY ignorant on sailboats until just 3 or 4 years ago, when I started learning from those 2 friends.
I checked out all my Chapter 2 wording with my friend who writes sailing books and was in the Americas Cup. I don't believe any mistakes slipped through my text with such expert proofreading by my friend, but I could have added something in error after he proofread it.
I did not hide my lack of expertise in sailing. I was up front and honest that I was brand new to it. It shouldn't surprise you (it doesn't me) that my wording and my style of describing sailing is juvenile or less than sophisitcated. I actually FEEL like a 10 year old boy who just got a Lionell Train Set for Christmas when I see sailboats now, or hear talk about them. I am AMAZED at sailboat technology and love learning such new things.
If you spot any technical sailing errors, please flag them for me, and if you see any very poorly written section, flagging that would also help this poor sailing novice, me.
What nerve!
it’s gotta be a lazy con artist who asks for help on editing his con
I did my very best to steal as many of Daniel Dennett’s ideas as I possibly could, in formulating this theory on minFW. This was NOT an easy heist, because Dennett, who is world renown for clear explanations, is unusually difficult to understand when it comes to the topic of free will.I have found others with this same complaint. This is an odd and complex story; hence it needs its own chapter.
But seriously, I really do want to plead guilty to Attempted Plagiarism of Dennett’s ideas on “free will.”It would actually be a happy day for me, to see page numbers and proof that I succeeded in this attempted piggy-back, in building my theory.
What I wrote earlier, in previous chapters about minFW was RICHLY lifted from Daniel Dennett, to the best of my knowledge.I mixed in plenty of tiny pieces from other scientists as well, but not nearly enough to be charged with plagiarism.If I understand him right, then what I wrote I got largely from Dennett, as I’ll explain.
I’m pretty sure I succeeded in this theft. I say “pretty” sure because this is an ongoing work. I’m still studying his two books on this, “Elbow Room” and “Freedom Evolves.”
Dennett needs to be decoded, IMO, because for decades NO ONE I know has been able to explain in any detail (to me) how his theory on free will works. Just the opposite has often occured: many good thinkers have told me they are baffled by his free will theories.
There are various reasons that his FW texts are a bit indecipherable, and I have been documenting their workarounds as I discover them. I want to help, because I’ve slowly seen many points of light in his work.
Let me tell you more about this long story with Dennett.
*/*/*
My history with DD’s FW theory goes way back to the mid-1990s when I attempted to read his first edition (1984) of “Elbow Room.” Looking back on that, I see my path with his FW theory over the decades as confused and strewn with misunderstandings and miscommunications.…mostly my fault
Nonetheless, Dennett has also guided and helped me along that path as I produced my theory on FW. I did glean many items from his writings, but have not yet fully seen the “big picture” of what he has in print. It is only in recent years that I have found in Dennett’s videos a much clearer presentation on some of the ideas, compared to his books.
*/*/*
I saw Dennett speak at UCSD around 1995 when he was a guest speaker at at the Philosophy Department. He had a bestselling book out at the time, “Consciousness Explained” and everyone had been avidly reading it.
The topic of free will did not come up much in that book, but he was so good in explaining things that I wanted to see him and find out more. I wondered if he had worked on free will much.The grad students in attendance that I asked this question of said, “Yeah, he has a book called ‘Elbow Room,’ but nobody understands it.”
I got a copy right away. I probably did a much better job of not understanding Elbow Room (ER) than those grad students. …LoL… I did get one thing, though, that totally stuck with me. It’s the subtitle of the book, and some of the references DD made to it in the bewildering text within:
“The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting”
It had not occurred to me then, that there were alternate varieties of free will (FW) out there to compare. Slowly, after that, over the decades I have come to realize that most ideas on free will are tainted by old religion, and then glamorized with modern secular and metaphysical terms, only to be something far removed from actual real life.
So, I first started my attempt to “crack the Dennett code” in the mid-1990s, but with minimal success. But quickly, I also did savor the wonderful notion that we should pursue the types of free will in our theorizing that are “worth wanting.”
Optimization is a concept that saturates science and math.
In more recent years, I learned that people have long sought to describe FW as grand, easy, effortless, democratically distributed to all, and metaphysically glorious. But this isn’t how biology works. Biology makes do brilliantly with less.
It occurred to me, finally, to seriously explore the other end and deliberately pursue schemes that don’t have much freedom. I thought this might be a way to avoid the problems with determinism.I briefly explored this bare minimum about 5 years ago, let it incubate, and then went full steam on it more recently.
This is pretty much what Dennett has been advocating: ask for less and we might find it. How much FW do we really need?
*/*/*
I thought a simple tweak, as per this hint from Dennett, in the definition of free will, could do wonders. The problems that emerge from classical Libertarian Free Will (LibFW) are not due to the main idea of freedom, but to the extreme nature of the definition’s demands. The tweak would not disrupt the main idea, only eliminate the extravagant expectations of LibFW.
The main idea in the everyday YEARNING for free is to possess the ability to steer one’s life better, and to be able to make better decisions.
By asking for less freedom than what the old LibFW promises, I thought a new definition of theoretical FW could be useful and robust. I decided to go all the way and look for a crazy bare minimum.It promised to be unexplored territory, almost by its reckless and unglamorous initial look.
Cracking the Dennett code has gone better this past year, in that others have joined me in discussion and research on this. Breakthroughs have occurred. One thing that I started picking up on is that Dennett teases the reader by not letting on where he stands on determinism and on free will in the early chapters of “Elbow Room.”He, instead, catalogs and details just about every OTHER major position philosophers of the past have taken, on all the fundamental ideas involved in free will studies.
Just as I was catching on to this, he actually admits to it around Chapter 4 or so. I’ll find the pages sometime soon.
In the early chapters of “Elbow Room” Dennett paints intricate and broad pictures of ideas, detail by detail, and it can be overwhelming. Dennett’s ideas display extreme precision and detail, and are roughly similar to the same ideas that I slopped together very quickly in my construction of minFW.
I see now why DD slowly and painstakingly paints these pictures. He keeps talking about putting them together later. Meanwhile I am quite humbled at how thorough Dennett is in all this. I’m learning a lot more than I bargained for in this book.
But in the mid-1990s, when first exposed to “Elbow Room,” my main pursuit for decades had been finding a way to nullify determinism in order to rescue Libertarian Free Will (LibFW). At that time Roger Penrose was making a big pitch for the same thing. I thought maybe DD had found another way to nullify determinism, which was the WORST possible angle to look at ER from!
I’d probably NEVER have gotten wise to the fact that Dennett is solidly in the camp of determinism and solidly against LibFW, from my early readings of ER.He very much avoids landing solidly on any side, except when he quotes or explains others’ explanations for being there.
But Dennett’s videos and his clear, frank admissions in them that he is a determinist got me to finally enjoy reading “Elbow Room” and to spot his veiled allegiance to determinism in it. He just doesn’t seem to be up-front and open about this in print.
So, if I read him right, in Dennett’s preferred and most worthily wanted FW, each and every performance is robotic, or deterministic, and ZERO free will can be found at the performance’s point on the timeline. I copied this idea, as I perceived it being hinted or suggested, from ER as well as from his other book, “Freedom Evolves.”I’m not finished studying that one yet, either.
It took me years to get to this. That Dennett agrees to this about determinism is a very hard thing to discern in the text of Elbow Room. He is clear as mud on this in writing, but I have to make room for the fact that I am not at all trained in Philosophy. But then also, I remember how professors and grad students I know, STILL to this day, after 25 years, tell me that they don’t understand his writings on FW.
HOWEVER, in videos he is clear as a bell on it.
So, in Cracking the Dennett Code this determinism base of Dennett’s is Item #1. Dennett’s most-worth-wanting FW theory is 100% deterministic, it does not try to elude or nullify determinism in any way, and it actually USES determinism in order for its mechanisms to function. It is a deterministic mechanism.He says this clearly in videos.
Dennett, in his writing, will discuss and describe in great detail ALL that is contrary to this, but there still is NO evasion of determinism up his sleeve. Dennett’s FW (DenFW) is definitely not the same as Libertarian Free Will, but on this point, also, he is hard to pin down. Just ask Sam Harris.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #1 - Pro Determinism, Anti LibFW
*/*/*
Dennett is totally a determinist, and eschews Libertarian FW. His model USES determinism to function; it DEPENDS on determinism. He does not believe LibFW is accurate with our biology. Ditto for me and minFW.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #2 - New Edition to “Elbow Room”
This is pretty important. Make sure you have the New Edition of “Elbow Room” from 2015!The first edition of ER from 1984 is almost hopeless, from my dim memories of a few attempted reads in the 1990s.
It was from 1991 to 1998 that I hung out with a several grad students focusing on brain studies, and they all said they could not understand Elbow Room. I tried to read it back then a few times, and would always give up half-way through.
Sam Harris also can’t understand Dennett. Others in the field are baffled at Dennett’s approach to free will, and I suspect POSSIBLY some of them may have been exposed to only the first edition of Elbow Room. I suspect that SO many of Dennett’s colleagues had difficulty with this book, that after 30 years they finally convinced him to revamp it. (my guess)
Making SURE that you have the New Edition (2015) is a primary step to understanding Elbow Room. The New Edition has two prefaces, and the new paperback has an ancient statue with an exposed elbow, the old paperback has a light two-tone gray cover and the image is an abstract background.
It’s really easy to order this book on Amazon and get the WRONG edition, because the used book market is flooded with first editions. The first edition was so notoriously dense and hard to understand, that I suspect many people sold or gave away their copies over the decades.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #3 - Timing is Everything
The actual TIMING of Dennett’s free will (DenFW) is not when people usually expect it, when they think of “free will.” This unexpected timing was built into the motorcycle analogy in Chapter 2.
Dennett seems to argue that DenFW happens in the future. Future considerations happen in his writing often. I have several times seen large sprinklings of future references occur on a series of pages. One such example is pages 4, 5, 6 in ER.
In most people’s mind picture of free will they see it “happening” right at the time of performance or choice. But this is contrary to how determinism works, and hence the big debate/paradox.
But in Dennett’s model the free will “happens” not at the same point in time as the performance or choice. This is quite baffling, IMO. I can’t say this is clearly stated in the texts, or I’d have the page numbers and quotes right here.This is something I picked up slowly over many years and many chapters of reading.
The strange timing that I built into minFW is a primary example of my copying Dennett, AS I perceive him. I can’t yet pinpoint a page or two where he says these things explicitly, but little pieces of it are abundant. I may get down to documenting this someday. (remember: work in progress)
Dennett strictly avoids calling us humans “robots” like I am doing!
But I think he is shielding his audience from this shock. In 1984, when he first published ER, I can see reasons for this.
It is now time, IMO, to confront and accept our “roboticity” just like we accept our mortality.
It’s hard to accept this for our own lives, and it’s hard to for a reader to accept that Dennett is actually even writing such a thing, that the timing of the freedom comes later, in the future.…and that we are deterministic robots. He is very careful NOT to say that, but to imply it profusely.
*/*/*
THE future is something we have no access to. But predictions of the future are possible, and if accurate, can be very valuable to living life. This short 10-minute video below of Dennett shows his orientation to the future.Agents are skilled at avoiding (predicted) future harm and finding (predicted) future benefits.
I’m pretty sure this timing thing is big. I’ve not seen anyone talk about it, but many complain of confusion. Dennett’s perspective on timing is odd and unexpected. Everyone is stuck on the idea that Free Will means they can launch into a performance, and NOT be 100% driven by their prior synapse settings. That’s the mind picture everyone has of FW, that we can “rise above” the prior synapse settings RIGHT AWAY, IMMEDIATELY, NOW!
Dennett (and I) say you can rise above them, but not immediately. You have to wait on that freedom to show up (maybe) in the NEXT performance.
This is harsh. Maybe Dennett softens it too much, and thus camouflages it in the text? I am taking the opposite, the blunt approach.
*/*/*
To Dennett, it’s not the freedom we have NOW to do anything that is important. It’s the freedom to steer a better course into the FUTURE. It’s like “sailboat freedom.” It takes brains and effort, and is NOT magical freedom like “I Dream of Jeannie” nose twitching.
This unexpected location of freedom on the timeline, after the performance, I copied into minFW.
*/*/*
So far in my Dennett text travels, page 184 in ER is the clearest expression of Dennett’s vision on FW:
“What we want when we want free will is the power to decide our courses of action, and to decide them wisely, in the light of our expectations and desires. We want to be in control of ourselves, and not under the control of others. We want to be agents, capable of initiating, and taking responsibility for, projects and deeds. All this is ours, I have tried to show, as a natural product of our biological endowment, extended and enhanced by our initiation into society. We want, moreover, to have enough elbow room in the world so that when we exercise these powers, it is not always a matter of settling for the only desperate course of action that has a chance of fulfilling our desires.”
Does that sound familiar to you?
Gulp! It sounds familiar to ME! And I can hear sirens off in the distance. The Plagiarism Police are coming to get me!I used nearly every idea in that paragraph in building minFW. Surely, I’m busted NOW!
No one, especially me, suspected that DD had all that in mind when he wrote this (following) brief hint of the above, way earlier on page 60 of ER:
“…we can plan in the light of our expectations, and take steps to prevent, avoid, preempt, avert, harness, exploit, or accommodate ourselves to those circumstances.”
Dennett’s focus is on the future conforming to expectations or desires, and not the immediate performance that Libertarian FW focuses on.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #4 - Videos Help
Though videos were mentioned several times already, there’s still more detail to this Item.
The many, many videos of Dennett contain clues as to what he means in his FW books, even if they may not be directly on the topic of FW.These videos have helped me MUCH! There DD can give a much clearer presentation on some of the ideas, compared to his books.
He tends to simplify in his vocal mode, while he tends to be detailed in his written mode.
In writing he seems to have the goal of being ultra-thorough.I guess that’s one reason he’s a real professional Philosopher.He has rescued me though, via the lighter videos, to a better understanding of the heavier of his writings.
The biggest breakthrough from these videos, for me, is his simple admission that he favors a FW mechanism that is 100% deterministic, that it respects determinism. In video format Dennett clearly says that whatever biological mechanism is actually installed in human brains, that mechanism USES determinism to accomplish whatever freedom it enjoys.
I wish I had known he was saying this in 1995.
I was thinking then, and for decades afterwards, that Dennett had found some clever scheme to elude or avoid determinism. As I read ER back then, I was looking for points he was NOT making, hence some of my massive confusion.
So, this is a big key to Dennett: whatever kind of freedom he sees as possible, he ALSO totally embraces regular old, vanilla, scientific determinism, and therefore totally rejects Libertarian Free Will (LibFW). I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating here as I really learned this first in the videos, and THEN I was able to see it (with difficulty) in the texts.
I’ve also seen Dennett say in video that consciousness is good and wonderful, but that it is ALSO hyped way beyond what it actually is. He says it’s a large collection of TRICKS that make it look magical.
This video is only 6 minutes long. …But says a lot! It’s a great summary of many of his ideas.
Notice in it that Dennett often refers to the FUTURE to find some freedom. Dennett and I are looking for free will in how humans handle the future. This time element is crucial.
Earlier here in Chapter 2, as I explained the mechanics of minFW, you can see frequent mention of performing the “next time.” I wish my past experiences with his “Elbow Room” were this clear, but armed with videos like this, the book is getting clearer all the time.
*/*/*
This next video, below, is also a short six and a half minutes, and also says a lot about determinism being our friend.
You-Tube title:
“Daniel Dennett Explains Consciousness and Free Will”
The notion of minimalization comes out loud and clear in this video. This central theme in my minFW comes straight from Dennett. Maybe, if I say this just the right way, I could cut a plea bargain on my “borrowing” of his ideas?
Dennett says that consciousness is good and wonderful, AND REAL, but that it is ALSO hyped way beyond what it actually is. He says it’s a large collection of tricks that make it look magical. Then there’s centuries of literature and song that culturally embed the idea. Consciousness is real, but our descriptions of it for centuries have been over awed by the bag of tricks.
*/*/*
One last video, and this one is longer, so I’ve pinpointed a couple passages’ time stamps.
You-Tube title:
“Dr. Daniel Dennett - Freedom Evolves: Free Will, Determinism, and Evolution”
“Don’t underestimate the power of a simple deterministic world to support innovative, surprising, flexible phenomena.”
This corresponds to minFW (and sailboats) using tricky (innovative) determinism to find surprising freedom (flexibility). Then another clear half sentence can be heard at 40:05 timestamp:
“…so determinism is your friend not your foe.”
This is spoken after a section detailing how determinism can HELP us in our predicting the future, so we are more FREE to navigate the future.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #5 - Third Party Help
The Wikipedia article on Elbow Room was detailed and very helpful. I’ll soon look at the wiki on “Freedom Evolves.”Unfortunately, Cliff Notes don’t do Dennett. Are there are others?
Facebook groups have been a good place to discuss Dennett’s books. From them I have several friends who are researching with me.
Because he is so well known, many other writers have reviewed and critiqued Dennett’s ideas. Many kinds of pooling of efforts on cracking this code have been helpful to me.
You can help me here if you know of any good expositors of Dennett.
In other contexts, I mention earlier that Dennett teases by not revealing his hand very clearly until late in ER. (This seems less the case in FE.)
There seem to be several reasons for this, and some of them have already come up. But after seeing his strategy and his admissions, another piece fell into place from a clue in the Preface to ER. The chapters of that book originally were individual lectures held at Oxford University, famously called the John Locke Lectures.
As a guest speaker he surely wanted his audience to attend every lecture. Planning his lectures must have included a strong element of wanting to keep the audience coming back after the first lecture. The best way to do that is to not tell the whole story that first night, but dangle some bait, a teaser to keep interest at its highest.So, the early chapters are very far from explanations of DD’s theory, and instead he spends a lot of time on every other thinker’s approach to free will. He seems to be trying to cover the whole subject, including its historic dead ends.
On a completely different perspective about Dennett’s brand of FW, is my guess that he may offer no actual model of how his brand of FW (DenFW) works. Instead of proposing a model that incorporates his brand of DenFW, Dennett seems to merely be discussing the POSSIBILITY of such a model existing. If that’s the case, then I could be coming up with the model.
The key to remember with this item is that a reader can’t expect Dennett to QUICKLY lay out a blueprint for making his version of FW happen. On that point I tried my best to differ from him, and bring as early as possible the strange timing aspects of minFW.
*/*/*/**/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #7 - Robotic Performance Denial
What is shocking about Dennett’s FW is that there is ZERO freedom happening at the time of any performance or choice. The thought that some freedom can occur later has never occurred to most readers of Dennett.
That all of our performances are 100% determined by the synapses just prior to the performance is a tough idea for anyone who is reading a book on free will to swallow. I think a lot of readers of Dennett simply overlook that this is what Dennett is saying. When they read it, they say to themselves, “I must have heard that wrong,” and they plow on with reading.
I think this very thing happened to me in the 1990s with with Dennett’s “Elbow Room.”
It’s common in conversation for us to hear someone say something SO OUTLANDISH that we figure we MUST have heard it wrong. This is especially so with someone we normally hear many clear and lucid statements from, like Dennett.
Once this “zero freedom at time of performance” is finally communicated to someone, their next thought often is “So, what’s the point of bothering any more to talk of free will, if there is none?”
Once this “zero freedom at time of performance” is finally communicated to someone, their next thought often is “So, what’s the point of bothering any more to talk of free will, if there is none?”
Be patient. There’s plenty of time for freedom as we prepare for the NEXT performance, and make it better.
Remember Item #3 was “Timing is Everything,” and Item #1 was “Determinism Dominates.” Accepting these things is not what most readers are primed for.
Dennett’s free will is not the glamorous, instantaneous, effortless, and magical “Free Will” that philosophers have classically desired. His is a new form of freedom. It’s shockingly off-the-beaten-path, and so bland that it’s hidden from sight, even when Dennett points to it.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #8 - Label Confusion
The reason I invented different names (minFW, LibFW, BioFW, DenFW) for different free will ideas or theories is simple:I absolutely NEEDED to do it!
Why other writers don’t do this I have no idea. There’s no way to keep track of all these things without demarcation, yet authors try and imply, and expect their readers to try and guess what type of specific FW is on the table.
As you read Dennett or any other author, try make a note each time the phrase “free will” comes up as to which type it is.Sometimes that phrase is used in a very general sense, and then no prefixes are needed. But as soon as a technical discussion is underway, leaving off identifying prefixes (or other demarcations) is just asking for trouble.This very trouble came up in a well-known debate between Dennett and Sam Harris. (more on this later)
There are SO MANY confusing things about FW that I have resorted to descriptive prefixes to keep track of all the different brands of FW that I need to juggle.
*/*/*
As LibFW was losing its way with me about 5 years ago, I stumbled upon this radically NEW type of “free will” and a new model to go with it. It took a while for me to adjust to this completely new orientation, but just these recent years I have started developing it more.
I urge patience with this new minFW because I know how difficult it is to change a life-long definition.There have been many times I have gotten confused as I work this new theory, because I accidentally drift over to my old (dead and buried) friend, LibFW.
It’s really easy for me to be tracking on my new theory’s definition, and something challenges or distracts me. Then, when I return to what I was working on, it’s replaced with that pesky LibFW (or its ghost) hidden in my thinking, and quickly I go off the rails.
It is VERY, VERY easy to accidentally slide the LibFW definition (or mind picture) in whenever “free will” is mentioned. So, I ask readers to be aware of this as I present my new theory, and as they attempt to “crack the Dennett code” and read his books on this.
Penciling in my suggested prefixes will help untangle some of Dennett’s text. It will force you to pay closer attention to that key phrase “free will” and figuring out from the context which prefix (if any) is implied will help a lot.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #9 - Dennett’s Bait and Switch
Neither Dennett nor Sam Harris use identifying demarcations (like Item #8 demands) for the type of free will they have in mind in their writings, nor when they debate. In this fog of nomenclature, I think Harris is correct in calling Dennett’s arguments a “bait and switch.”
After much detective work, I figured out that Dennett’s free will (DenFW) is NOT the same as LibFW, and is deterministic. Harris, on the other hand is a little more up front in declaring that HIS use of the phrase IS very much LibFW.Harris argues against LibFW. They are both in agreement on this, but not very explicitly.
So DenFW is completely different from LibFW and Harris is right about the switch. Harris starts out in his booklet titled “Free Will” taking aim at LibFW, and does a pretty good job refuting it.But when they debate, Harris senses that Dennett is arguing not for LibFW at all, but for a strange new “something” that bears no resemblance to classical free will.
Though LibFW is crazy, it seems that’s what the phrase FW has come to mean to most intellectuals for centuries. Harris accuses Dennett of bait and switch. Harris charges that Dennett changed the definition of the FW they were debating on. Harris had been practicing on beating to a pulp any LibFW that Dennett would defend, but Dennett had his own DenFW that he was defending. Harris is RIGHT!Dennett pulled a bait-and-switch on him.
Harris isn’t looking at the right time in Dennett’s theory, and Dennett hasn’t made that very clear yet, especially in writing, that Harris needs to look later on the timeline (Item #3) for the freedom, the diminished and delayed freedom.
*/*/*
I advise Dennett to plead guilty to the “bait and switch” charge, in order to be more clear, and he should do it by saying SOMETHING like this:
“You’re right, Sam. I had a wildly different form of
free will up my sleeve that I was debating in favor of,
all along. You’re right about the classical form of FW
being utterly negated by determinism. Nobody can
seriously believe in Libertarian Free Will, so let’s give
up on it. Sorry, that I did BAIT you. … Now can we SWITCH
to my new form of DenFW? It’s really different! You probably won’t
be able to recognize its freedom... at first. …but … Oh!… Just wondering, would you be into sailing?…by any chance?”
*/*/*
In addition to vaguely picking up on Dennett’s ideas from difficult reading expeditions in ER and FE and then videos, Dennett’s debate with Sam Harris was pivotal in many ways for me. So much so, it constitutes my Item #10.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #10 - Dennett-Harris Debate
Harris and Dennett THINK they disagree, but they are merely mis-communicating, and emphasizing different things.Both believe in determinism, and both think Libertarian FW is a complete fiction.
Harris, in his book “Free Will”, fully accepts regular scientific determinism and vividly demonstrates that determinism leaves no room for Libertarian Free Will.He makes no detailed mention of any other forms of FW, though. Hence, the need would appear to be low, within his book, to demarcate differing brands of FW. But that need arises quickly when he debates Dennett, and at least two varieties are on the table.
Harris’ book argument is pretty tight, but he puts a lot of energy into shocking his younger readers with the harshness of determinism on classical FW. I get the impression that many in his intended audience were not Physics majors, but leaning more to Philosophy and Psychology.
*/*/*
I see Sam Harris as too preoccupied with immediate, instantaneous, Real-Time FW to even hear Dennett’s call to browse the timeline. To Harris, anything happening outside that tight time window at the performance is not any kind of valid free will.
So, Harris hammers away with the worst-case scenario for those new to determinism, then later on he eases up and says there’s room for some ability to change (with determinism) our repetitive actions by changing the determining factors.His words to this effect are scant. I think he uses the word ability rather than free.
*/*/*
Dennett shows quite murkily that his DenFW is completely different from Libertarian and is an extremely weakened kind of DETERMINISTIC freedom.
But Dennett’s style of freedom is SO WEAK that Harris says he is playing bait and switch, that DenFW is not any kind of freedom at all. Harris thinks Dennett’s pre-debate claim is that Libertarian FW is the True Free Will, then protests “bait and switch” when Dennett goes on to describe a worthlessly weak and late form of FW. What I claim is that Harris is right, that DenFW is weak, and late, but Harris is wrong about it being worthless.
*/*/*
Harris is accurate in his refutation of LibFW in his book, but he constantly leaves little loopholes in the text for how a DIFFERENT kind of free will might work. This is how Dennett debates him. I think I imitated Dennett and anti-imitated Harris in building this minFW theory.
Harris occasionally throws in, what I consider, mitigation phrases of partial freedom that may be available. But he does not follow up on them. Harris has a pretty tight argument, but so does anyone who can adequately describe determinism. What I noticed while reading his book was a constant occurrence of small items that looked like him maybe making wiggle room for himself. I thought later in the book he was going to come up with some kind of a minimalist free will, like Dennett’s. But that didn’t happen.
Then I also saw a couple of points that where I had minor disagreements with him as to how they should be written. As Harris described the determinism dilemma and it’s robbing free will in an example scenario, I kept on thinking that the next time that scenario comes up we’re going to have a little bit of free will.
So, I just kept on seeing how I could add on to his refutation. The net result of it all is I believe minFW is totally compatible with Sam Harris and his denial of Libertarian Free Will. I just filled in the holes that he left behind.
I’m saying that Dennett and Sam Harris are not contradictory, but complimentary, with a few minor tweaks.
I built my minFW as a systematic add-on to Sam Harris book. I was careful to limit my disagreements with him to a few minor sentences, while most of my add-on completely respected what Harris said.PLUS, what I was adding was in keeping with Dennett’s multi-decade influence over me. So, you can call me a Dennett-Harris Compatiblist, maybe.
I saw that Harris was very right in refuting the semi-magical definition of FW that pretty well has dominated the thinking world for centuries. But OFTEN it was also obvious to me in certain passages, that he was exaggerating a tiny bit for the drama, and that in many more places I kept noticing a little bit of “wiggle room” in what he was saying.
I noted these passages in the margins of my paper copy of his book until I had finished reading, and in that way, Sam Harris handed me a couple dozen tiny platforms on which I could beef up my new and primitive theory of deterministic FW. It was within the “wiggle room” that Harris showed me that I built my theory.
So, I significantly beefed up my minFW theory by retrieving all my Sam Harris margin notes. My theory BY DESIGN, is supposed to be a smooth hybrid of BOTH Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris.
*/*/*
Here are some of the notes that I extracted from the Harris book to construct minFW.
page 33
“And we know that the brain systems that allow
us to reflect upon our experience are different
from those involved when we automatically react
to stimuli.”
Harris here is saying that we can observe our robotic behavior; the two systems are independent. One system performs (robotically) and the other watches the performance (robotically). This is one of the main themes in how I built minFW.
*/*/*
p. 34
“And the fact that our choices depend on prior
causes does not mean that they don’t matter. If
I had not decided to write this book it wouldn’t
have written itself.”
Here he is saying choices “matter,”meaning it is important that we NOT STOP TRYING to make better choices the next time, just because our current performance is robotic.
*/*/*
p. 34
“Human choice, therefore is as important as fanciers
of free will believe. But the next choice you make
will come out of the darkness of prior causes that you,
the conscious witness of experience, did not bring
into being.”
Here I would partially disagree.My take: the next choice you make will come out of TWO sources: the ones you did not bring into being AND the ones you instigated by adjusting your own synapses between PAST performances.
*/*/*
p. 37, 38
“You are not in control of your mind - because
you, as a conscious agent, are only part of your
mind, living at the mercy of the other parts.
You can do what you decide to do - but you
cannot decide what you will decide to do. Of
course, you can create a framework which
certain decisions are more likely than others
- you can, for instance, purge your house of
all sweets, making it very unlikely you will
eat dessert… You can change your life, and
yourself, through effort and discipline – but
you have whatever capacity for effort you
have AT THIS MOMENT…”
And then I would YELL at Sam (and write in the margin): “FINISH the story, Sam!”
At the NEXT moment, the next performance, you can have a partial say in its outcome if, “through
effort and
discipline,”you actually succeed to “create a framework which certain decisions are more likely than others.”
There Sam Harris almost spells out my whole minFW theory!!!
The thing is, his emphasis is WAY off of this tiny freedom, and onto the harshness of determinism. I get the feeling the whole Harris book is written to those undergraduates who are slightly less than Physics 101 savvy.
He focuses well and is hard hitting on determinism for those who are less familiar with its rule and authority. He focuses far less on these little loopholes, or this very large loophole on pages, 37, 38. Tricky use of determinism never comes up.
*/*/*
p. 38
“Many people believe that human freedom
consists of our ability to do what, upon
reflection, we believe we should do - which
often means overcoming our short-term
desires and following our long-term goals or
better judgment. This is certainly an ability
that people possess to a greater or lesser degree…”
This “ability”that Harris is sure we have is almost word-for-word something that made minFW happen for me. I simply saw the power in this weak ability, if it were allowed to add up via repetitions.
*/*/*
p. 40
“What I will do next, and why, remains, at bottom,
a mystery - one that is fully determined by
the prior state of the universe and the laws of
nature (including the contributions of chance).”
I would correct Harris slightly here. What I do next is indeed fully determined by “…the prior state of the universe and the laws of nature…” but let’s not forget that my past operation of minFW is ALSO included in that “state of the universe.”That may be a tiny portion of said state, or it may be a lot. It depends on how successful I've been in my past minFW operations.
*/*/*
p. 40
“We can pursue any line of thought we
want - but our choice is the product of prior
events that we did not bring into being.”
Again! Holy Mackerel! Again, he forgot the tiny feedback we can add to the mix in between performances. Maybe he didn’t include it because many times people fail to apply themselves at this. I included it in minFW, so that we might remember more often to try it.
*/*/*
p. 62
“We need only acknowledge that efforts
matter and that people can change. We
do not change ourselves, precisely - because
we have only ourselves with which to do the
changing - but we continually influence, and
are influenced by, the world around us and
the world within us.”
Here Harris gives here the main key in how minFW works:“…but we continually influence…”but he glosses over it. It would be so easy to note here that we can become more and more a dominant influence on ourselves as time goes by, IF we engage in the process with vigor and repetition.
*/*/*
p. 63
“Where people can change, we can demand
that they do so.”
This is the unfulfilled vacuum of the Harris book: “Where people can change…,”and where minFW rushed in to fill.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
Looking back, I want to tabulate these items that help crack the Dennett code on free will.
Item #1-Pro Determinism, Anti LibFW
Item #2- New Edition to “Elbow Room”
Item #3- Timing is Everything
Item #4- Videos Help
Item #5- Third Party Help
Item #6-Dennett Teases
Item #7-Robotic Performance Denial
Item #8- Label Confusion
Item #9- Dennett’s Bait and Switch
Item #10 - Dennett-Harris Debate
*/*/*
end of Chapter 4
addendum:
####################
Dennett in the 1970s
Realizing this is one thing; learning how to gently explain it to others is another.
We need to learn how to accept our roboticity, just like we need to accept our mortality. Both are difficult, but possible.
I think this is what Dennett was seeing in the years before he wrote "Elbow Room" (1970s), and he had to be very circuitous about it. The mood of the world at that time was very much opposed to accepting our roboticity.
The Moody Blues released their album "On the Threshold of a Dream" at that time(1969) and it opens up with a strong declaration that we are better than robots.
If I read Dennett correctly (that we ARE wet robots) he probably had to pull his punches a lot in the 1970s, when he was formulating what eventually became Elbow Room in 1984.
The mood of the world at that time was strongly resisting the notion of computers being a part of normal living perspectives. HAL from the 2001 movie was on a LOT OF MINDS. Corbin Project etc All notions of human mechanical-ness were anathema then. I was in my early 20s and remember it well.
I remember in 1966 when my HS social studies teacher came in flush red with anger that the electric company sent him a bill that was not typed by humans but by a computer! Many people refused to pay that year! Dennett was formulating his mere mechanistic free will theory during this time. He had to he subtle about how he was going 180 degrees against all cultural wishes.
The Moody Blues start their 1969 album “On the Threshold of a Dream” with a poetic protest that humans are NOT robots!
First Man:
I think... I think I am.
Therefore, I am! I think...
Establishment:
Of course you are,
my bright little star...
I've miles and miles of files
Pretty files
of your forefather's fruit
And now to suit
our great computer
*You’re magnetic ink!
First Man:
I'm more than that I know I am...
At least, I think I must be
Inner Man:
There you go, man
Keep as cool as you can
Face piles of trials with smiles
It riles them to believe
That you perceive
The web they weave...
And keep on thinking free
/*/*/*/
*your magnetic ink VERSUS you’re magnetic ink ???
BTW, when that song was written, magnetic ink was a brand-new thing being put on bank checks, and the fonts were shaped oddly to help the crude computers of the day read the numbers. It was an early encroachment of machines into human life, WHICH MANY PEOPLE FELT, and that is why the song lyric above was written that way. It was common then to hate the computer-shaped magnetic ink on personal checkbooks.
Dennett was formulating his minimal theory when this song was the mood of the intellectual world: we are not mechanical.
So, he had to keep it discreet.
This is all 40 and 50 years ago!
LONG before home computers and facial recognition were imaginable, and A.I. and machine learning and, and, ...
but the biological truth, the harsh truth, is that we ARE mechanisms. Pretty cool ones, at times.
*/*/*
Next question is can we build some determinism respecting freedoms into our robot pals?
*******************
another loose end:
What Dennett argues for, theoretically, is the tricky use of determinism in the brain to produce some type (or brand) of weakened freedom. But he doesn’t seem to come up with a “working model” of this brand of free will. Along these lines, I am producing a “working model” of Dennett’s brand of freedom (best I understand it) that uses tricky determinism manipulations. If my model works for the human brain, great! If not, I think it will still work for A.I. and robots. With the two tricky uses of determinism in sailing, each produce a type or brand of freedom. One is partial freedom from wind direction, the other is partial freedom from wind speed. We use determinism in all of science and technology to do all kinds of things for us. Sailing used determinism to produce wind direction freedom 22 centuries ago. Biology ought to be able to use determinism to produce the kinds of freedoms we need for survival… the most worthy-of-wanting brands of free will, that is.
NT Canon than I saw 50 years ago in the "God is Dead" age. When I sampled your links they were much better than I thought and I changed my position on Top-Down canon approaches. I hope you learned something new, that the Bottom-Up approach can have some surprises in it. If not, we can continue over on that thread sometime soon.
Do you think making concessions will get people to buy your baloney?
there’s nothing new to learn in your posts - it’s the same old baloney in different packaging.
your “bottom up approach” is a vacuous concept…there’s nothing to it …ababababababababa… banana fana foe
Mike - thank you for posting some substance. I will give it a read.
Thanks again for your encouragement.
Since it is Sunday I wanted you to get this notification, for later reading, that I have now posted a few more chapters. I have 4 done now, and only 2 short ones to go.
No, once I have had my say, and defended a few times, I move on.
It's time to move on now.
I'm sure more than one person here has experience with Daniel Dennett, and this next chapter focuses a lot on him.
1 hour ago, T-Bone said:
Since what you have to say on a topic usually changes and gets contradictory leads me to think I’m right on what your # 1 goal really is - simply because if the actual content was so important and you actually KNEW what you were talking about . So to reiterate what I said your #1 goal appears to be convince others…con others…fool others…I don’t care what you call it - I just want to see you throw out the dirty bath water. It appears once you’re stymied by the pushback of others not buying your baloney - you move on
Just wanted to a few things you may have overlooked in your “book”.
I find your treatment of this topic so odd because I’m somewhat familiar with your morphing positions on other stuff - I say that in all seriousness though I must add the mutations do not stray too far from what’s been said in PFAL and by wierwille on other occasions.
That being said – I’ve noticed your Minimalistic Free Will thesis has not addressed the philosophy of religion angle. I thought that was a huge odd omissiongiven your penchant for the past 20 years here in trying to make correlations to stuff you’ve gleaned from wierwille/PFAL stuff.
~ ~ ~ ~
Since this is an open forum – I wanted to add my two penniesto take up the slack for what’s missing in this discussion…I’ve reposted something I’ve shared on another thread What does God knowand after that I posted a couple of excerpts from other sites where free will / determinism / God are discussed…enjoy
My repost:
I’ve been reading Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, 7th Edition and in a chapter that gets into divine knowledge and God’s sovereignty, this thread came to mind several times. A theory I never really considered when trying to understand God’s knowledge and sovereignty is that God could have voluntarily placed limits on Himself – to allow freedom for His created beings...
Some points from the book that I like mulling over – and a lot of this gets into open theism and maybe some things one poster touched upon much earlier on this thread…anyway from the book:
Classical theism has made a strong claim that God is timeless, in the sense of existing outside of time and sequence. Yet we praise God not because He is beyond time and change but because He works redemptively in time for our salvation. We may tend to think omnipotence as the power to determine everything - being coercive like a puppeteer. A monopoly on power is easy to manage.
What’s much more difficult to govern is a universe with created beings that have the option – the freedom – to disobey. Omnipotence does not mean that nothing can go contrary to God’s will (like our sins do) but that God is able to deal with any circumstances that may arise. Though by nature God is omnipotent – in a sense, God can be vulnerable because of His decision to make a world filled with beings who have free will. The Creator of the universe has chosen to limit his power by delegating some to the created beings.
American theologian, pastor and author Greg Boyd said “It takes far more self-confidence, far more wisdom, far more love and sensitivity to govern that which is personal and free than it does to govern that over which one has absolute control.”
Just wanted to add this stuff as food for thought.
Edited April 26 by T-Bone I knew ahead of time I would probably have to make a revision for clarity
Nonetheless, free will is taken as a form of truth in modern society. By making the right decisions, we can further ourselves. A wrong decision leads to consequences, most literally in the case of the judicial system, where crimes (except in the case of insanity) are considered as an exercise of free will, as it was a person who was able to choose either to commit or not to commit the crime.
Is free will predetermined then?
Yet, if we are so consciously sure of our ability to exercise free will, how can determinism override this idea? In some ways, determinism is problematic for us to consciously understand, and presents us with another problem: even if we make choices consciously using free will, what is to say that our free will itself is not predetermined?
Let’s get a religious take
From a religious point of view, there are many different variables that must be taken into account referring to determinism and free will. Any given person may show different beliefs whether it is monotheism, polytheism, atheism, or agnosticism. Beyond this, if a person believes in God, each person has different interpretations, such as: Who is God? What is God about? What is his role in humanity? We all have different responses to these questions and these responses will determine whether we believe in determinism or free will.
Atheists use theological determinism to state that free will and God’s omniscience are at odds with one another, saying that God cannot be omniscient if we have free will. Yet their view conflates God’s omniscience with His control over us. He knows what we’ll do to respond to the pathway He set before us, but He does not control our actions and responses.
We are free to make our own decisions as to how we carry out our lives and whether we choose to love and serve our Lord. Just as a parent plans aspects of his child’s life to foster success and excellence, the Lord plans for triumphs through tribulations in our lives to enhance, shape and cultivate our spiritual strengths. He knows what we could, would, and will do in various circumstances and He plans for the optimal pathway. This is known in the theological literature as Molinism.
How does the Lord know what we will do in our lives? Revelation 1:8 tells us that He is concurrently in our past, present, and future. He is unbounded by linear time.
“‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty’” Revelation 1:8.
He therefore sees and has seen all of the choices we will make over our lifetimes and has written the names of those who have finished strong and will finish strong in His Lamb’s Book of Life.
One might posit that those who endorse beliefs in biological or theological determination may be influenced by some desire to absolve themselves from responsibility for their own decisions. That is a pity, because God holds us accountable. And the fact that we know we are externally held accountable should be a source of comfort as such knowledge likely leads to more moral decisions.
Just wanted to a few things you may have overlooked in your “book”.
I find your treatment of this topic so odd because I’m somewhat familiar with your morphing positions on other stuff - I say that in all seriousness though I must add the mutations do not stray too far from what’s been said in PFAL and by wierwille on other occasions.
That being said – I’ve noticed your Minimalistic Free Will thesis has not addressed the philosophy of religion angle. I thought that was a huge odd omissiongiven your penchant for the past 20 years here in trying to make correlations to stuff you’ve gleaned from wierwille/PFAL stuff.
I appreciate this, and find it useful.
Yes there is a lot I do not cover in my book. I am trying to forge an entirely new approach to free will here. Dennett only went so far with his ideas, and I am trying to add on to them.
I am limiting myself to the science oriented community so far in all this. You may nave noticed that on several occasions I come right up to the edge of talking religion, but then halt. Science oriented people, especially the young ones, are not at all interested in the religion angle to free will. I do mention that religion screwed up the definition of free will a thousand years ago by making it too spiritual, but not much else.
I am not trying to convert scientist types to PFAL, though that might happen on the side in private with some. In my writing I am showing that there is a new way to think about free will that is rid of the religious trappings and that can be studied in the laboratory.
Yeah - I imagine a cult-mindset definition of like-mindedness is everyone in lockstep – no thinking allowed
I too saw the formation of culty things like you describe. I'm sure lots of people learned lots of good things in the Corps, and are doing fine now. But I remember in the mid 1980s, how within the Corps was a culty subset. ...those aggressive ones moving their way up the leadership chain. Yeah, that kind of no thinking allowed may have happened too much.
But it didn't happen with me. These chapters on free will have only 3 tiny items I listed at the beginning that I got from VPW. All the rest of these chapters I did my own non-TWI thinking, and/or piggybacked on a few others in places, and heavily on Dennett. The Bottom-Up approach to the canon was my own* thinking, outside the TWI box.
*remembering no really new ideas;
just pieces fitting mostly;
all really new good ideas are from God.
Yes there is a lot I do not cover in my book. I am trying to forge an entirely new approach to free will here. Dennett only went so far with his ideas, and I am trying to add on to them.
I am limiting myself to the science oriented community so far in all this. You may nave noticed that on several occasions I come right up to the edge of talking religion, but then halt. Science oriented people, especially the young ones, are not at all interested in the religion angle to free will. I do mention that religion screwed up the definition of free will a thousand years ago by making it too spiritual, but not much else.
I am not trying to convert scientist types to PFAL, though that might happen on the side in private with some. In my writing I am showing that there is a new way to think about free will that is rid of the religious trappings and that can be studied in the laboratory.
Here’s the thing - there’s stuff in your thesis that are antithetical to PFAL / wierwille’s or Christian systematic theology - whether it’s your ideas or the authors you refer to.
If I didn’t know better I’d say this thesis is from someone other than Mike of Grease Spot .
However if indeed that is from you, Mike - it would validate my “thesis” that you really don’t ever know what you’re talking about - since your response here leads me to think you don’t really understand PFAL , the basic tenets of Christianity or free will and determinism since you - your mish-mash reflects an inability to see major differences among all 3 ideologies.
I too saw the formation of culty things like you describe. I'm sure lots of people learned lots of good things in the Corps, and are doing fine now. But I remember in the mid 1980s, how within the Corps was a culty subset. ...those aggressive ones moving their way up the leadership chain. Yeah, that kind of no thinking allowed may have happened too much.
But it didn't happen with me. These chapters on free will have only 3 tiny items I listed at the beginning that I got from VPW. All the rest of these chapters I did my own non-TWI thinking, and/or piggybacked on a few others in places, and heavily on Dennett. The Bottom-Up approach to the canon was my own* thinking, outside the TWI box.
*remembering no really new ideas;
just pieces fitting mostly;
all really new good ideas are from God.
I find it hilarious that when I note the cult-mindset we all adopted in TWI - you do that I-was-better-smarter-more spiritual than all you fools song. That’s pretty lame.
And I wouldn’t brag about your screwy reinterpretations of wierwille dogma or nonsensical “bottom up” approach since it reveals what a goofy ever-morphing ideology you have. It’s not a good look - it definitely has impacted your “sales”.
And you can store that “all really new ideas come from God “ idea where you’ve been saving your other pennies….What a really really really absolutely really asinine thing to say
change is okay - I’m just wary where that change has been
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
330
267
271
186
Popular Days
Nov 12
118
Nov 13
107
Nov 20
105
Nov 9
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 330 posts
T-Bone 267 posts
OldSkool 271 posts
Nathan_Jr 186 posts
Popular Days
Nov 12 2022
118 posts
Nov 13 2022
107 posts
Nov 20 2022
105 posts
Nov 9 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I do want to address this Mike. You constantly come at me like I have forgotten, or have been talked out of the truth of wierwille, or that I just don't understand where you are coming from. Personall
waysider
This right here. If you're unable to define and regulate your control factors and variables, your research is worthless. The best you could hope for would be an observational analysis of your collecte
Charity
I agree with So_Crates when he said "Here's a wild idea: why don't YOU become meek and I'll tell you about all the fruit in my life since I stopped making PLAF the center of my life." There have
Posted Images
Mike
Guilty as charged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Good sit-com style joke. I appreciate non-pun jokes, although puns also have their place. Especially when you realize that a P.U.N. is a Play Uh Nwords.
As for my expertise in sailing, did you miss the part where I revealed my complete ignorance of sailing, and how I ignored how sail boats worked all my Physics oriented life?
It wasn't until about 4 years ago that I first heard that sailboats could go faster than wind speed, and it never dawned on me how "magical" it is that they can go INTO the wind until recent years. I was TOTALLY ignorant on sailboats until just 3 or 4 years ago, when I started learning from those 2 friends.
I checked out all my Chapter 2 wording with my friend who writes sailing books and was in the Americas Cup. I don't believe any mistakes slipped through my text with such expert proofreading by my friend, but I could have added something in error after he proofread it.
I did not hide my lack of expertise in sailing. I was up front and honest that I was brand new to it. It shouldn't surprise you (it doesn't me) that my wording and my style of describing sailing is juvenile or less than sophisitcated. I actually FEEL like a 10 year old boy who just got a Lionell Train Set for Christmas when I see sailboats now, or hear talk about them. I am AMAZED at sailboat technology and love learning such new things.
If you spot any technical sailing errors, please flag them for me, and if you see any very poorly written section, flagging that would also help this poor sailing novice, me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Relax I’m not your stock boy to check on your inventory- your warehouse must be overstocked cuz you’re giving the dodgy stuff away
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
My investigative motto is always “overlook nothing”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Since what you have to say on a topic usually changes and gets contradictory leads me to think I’m right on what your # 1 goal really is - simply because if the actual content was so important and you actually KNEW what you were talking about . So to reiterate what I said your #1 goal appears to be convince others…con others…fool others…I don’t care what you call it - I just want to see you throw out the dirty bath water.
It appears once you’re stymied by the pushback of others not buying your baloney - you move on
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, once I have had my say, and defended a few times, I move on.
It's time to move on now.
I'm sure more than one person here has experience with Daniel Dennett, and this next chapter focuses a lot on him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
One con artist’s squalor of lies could be another con artist’s lap of luxury
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I overlook nothing !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Who cares
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
What nerve!
it’s gotta be a lazy con artist who asks for help on editing his con
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Minimalistic Free Will
Chapter 4 - Origins of minFW
##########################
I did my very best to steal as many of Daniel Dennett’s ideas as I possibly could, in formulating this theory on minFW. This was NOT an easy heist, because Dennett, who is world renown for clear explanations, is unusually difficult to understand when it comes to the topic of free will. I have found others with this same complaint. This is an odd and complex story; hence it needs its own chapter.
But seriously, I really do want to plead guilty to Attempted Plagiarism of Dennett’s ideas on “free will.” It would actually be a happy day for me, to see page numbers and proof that I succeeded in this attempted piggy-back, in building my theory.
What I wrote earlier, in previous chapters about minFW was RICHLY lifted from Daniel Dennett, to the best of my knowledge. I mixed in plenty of tiny pieces from other scientists as well, but not nearly enough to be charged with plagiarism. If I understand him right, then what I wrote I got largely from Dennett, as I’ll explain.
I’m pretty sure I succeeded in this theft. I say “pretty” sure because this is an ongoing work. I’m still studying his two books on this, “Elbow Room” and “Freedom Evolves.”
Dennett needs to be decoded, IMO, because for decades NO ONE I know has been able to explain in any detail (to me) how his theory on free will works. Just the opposite has often occured: many good thinkers have told me they are baffled by his free will theories.
There are various reasons that his FW texts are a bit indecipherable, and I have been documenting their workarounds as I discover them. I want to help, because I’ve slowly seen many points of light in his work.
Let me tell you more about this long story with Dennett.
*/*/*
My history with DD’s FW theory goes way back to the mid-1990s when I attempted to read his first edition (1984) of “Elbow Room.” Looking back on that, I see my path with his FW theory over the decades as confused and strewn with misunderstandings and miscommunications. …mostly my fault
Nonetheless, Dennett has also guided and helped me along that path as I produced my theory on FW. I did glean many items from his writings, but have not yet fully seen the “big picture” of what he has in print. It is only in recent years that I have found in Dennett’s videos a much clearer presentation on some of the ideas, compared to his books.
*/*/*
I saw Dennett speak at UCSD around 1995 when he was a guest speaker at at the Philosophy Department. He had a bestselling book out at the time, “Consciousness Explained” and everyone had been avidly reading it.
The topic of free will did not come up much in that book, but he was so good in explaining things that I wanted to see him and find out more. I wondered if he had worked on free will much. The grad students in attendance that I asked this question of said, “Yeah, he has a book called ‘Elbow Room,’ but nobody understands it.”
I got a copy right away. I probably did a much better job of not understanding Elbow Room (ER) than those grad students. …LoL… I did get one thing, though, that totally stuck with me. It’s the subtitle of the book, and some of the references DD made to it in the bewildering text within:
“The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting”
It had not occurred to me then, that there were alternate varieties of free will (FW) out there to compare. Slowly, after that, over the decades I have come to realize that most ideas on free will are tainted by old religion, and then glamorized with modern secular and metaphysical terms, only to be something far removed from actual real life.
So, I first started my attempt to “crack the Dennett code” in the mid-1990s, but with minimal success. But quickly, I also did savor the wonderful notion that we should pursue the types of free will in our theorizing that are “worth wanting.”
Optimization is a concept that saturates science and math.
In more recent years, I learned that people have long sought to describe FW as grand, easy, effortless, democratically distributed to all, and metaphysically glorious. But this isn’t how biology works. Biology makes do brilliantly with less.
It occurred to me, finally, to seriously explore the other end and deliberately pursue schemes that don’t have much freedom. I thought this might be a way to avoid the problems with determinism. I briefly explored this bare minimum about 5 years ago, let it incubate, and then went full steam on it more recently.
This is pretty much what Dennett has been advocating: ask for less and we might find it. How much FW do we really need?
*/*/*
I thought a simple tweak, as per this hint from Dennett, in the definition of free will, could do wonders. The problems that emerge from classical Libertarian Free Will (LibFW) are not due to the main idea of freedom, but to the extreme nature of the definition’s demands. The tweak would not disrupt the main idea, only eliminate the extravagant expectations of LibFW.
The main idea in the everyday YEARNING for free is to possess the ability to steer one’s life better, and to be able to make better decisions.
By asking for less freedom than what the old LibFW promises, I thought a new definition of theoretical FW could be useful and robust. I decided to go all the way and look for a crazy bare minimum. It promised to be unexplored territory, almost by its reckless and unglamorous initial look.
*/*/*
How to Understand Dennett
Cracking the Dennett code has gone better this past year, in that others have joined me in discussion and research on this. Breakthroughs have occurred. One thing that I started picking up on is that Dennett teases the reader by not letting on where he stands on determinism and on free will in the early chapters of “Elbow Room.” He, instead, catalogs and details just about every OTHER major position philosophers of the past have taken, on all the fundamental ideas involved in free will studies.
Just as I was catching on to this, he actually admits to it around Chapter 4 or so. I’ll find the pages sometime soon.
In the early chapters of “Elbow Room” Dennett paints intricate and broad pictures of ideas, detail by detail, and it can be overwhelming. Dennett’s ideas display extreme precision and detail, and are roughly similar to the same ideas that I slopped together very quickly in my construction of minFW.
I see now why DD slowly and painstakingly paints these pictures. He keeps talking about putting them together later. Meanwhile I am quite humbled at how thorough Dennett is in all this. I’m learning a lot more than I bargained for in this book.
But in the mid-1990s, when first exposed to “Elbow Room,” my main pursuit for decades had been finding a way to nullify determinism in order to rescue Libertarian Free Will (LibFW). At that time Roger Penrose was making a big pitch for the same thing. I thought maybe DD had found another way to nullify determinism, which was the WORST possible angle to look at ER from!
I’d probably NEVER have gotten wise to the fact that Dennett is solidly in the camp of determinism and solidly against LibFW, from my early readings of ER. He very much avoids landing solidly on any side, except when he quotes or explains others’ explanations for being there.
But Dennett’s videos and his clear, frank admissions in them that he is a determinist got me to finally enjoy reading “Elbow Room” and to spot his veiled allegiance to determinism in it. He just doesn’t seem to be up-front and open about this in print.
So, if I read him right, in Dennett’s preferred and most worthily wanted FW, each and every performance is robotic, or deterministic, and ZERO free will can be found at the performance’s point on the timeline. I copied this idea, as I perceived it being hinted or suggested, from ER as well as from his other book, “Freedom Evolves.” I’m not finished studying that one yet, either.
It took me years to get to this. That Dennett agrees to this about determinism is a very hard thing to discern in the text of Elbow Room. He is clear as mud on this in writing, but I have to make room for the fact that I am not at all trained in Philosophy. But then also, I remember how professors and grad students I know, STILL to this day, after 25 years, tell me that they don’t understand his writings on FW.
HOWEVER, in videos he is clear as a bell on it.
So, in Cracking the Dennett Code this determinism base of Dennett’s is Item #1. Dennett’s most-worth-wanting FW theory is 100% deterministic, it does not try to elude or nullify determinism in any way, and it actually USES determinism in order for its mechanisms to function. It is a deterministic mechanism. He says this clearly in videos.
Dennett, in his writing, will discuss and describe in great detail ALL that is contrary to this, but there still is NO evasion of determinism up his sleeve. Dennett’s FW (DenFW) is definitely not the same as Libertarian Free Will, but on this point, also, he is hard to pin down. Just ask Sam Harris.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #1 - Pro Determinism, Anti LibFW
*/*/*
Dennett is totally a determinist, and eschews Libertarian FW. His model USES determinism to function; it DEPENDS on determinism. He does not believe LibFW is accurate with our biology. Ditto for me and minFW.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #2 - New Edition to “Elbow Room”
This is pretty important. Make sure you have the New Edition of “Elbow Room” from 2015! The first edition of ER from 1984 is almost hopeless, from my dim memories of a few attempted reads in the 1990s.
It was from 1991 to 1998 that I hung out with a several grad students focusing on brain studies, and they all said they could not understand Elbow Room. I tried to read it back then a few times, and would always give up half-way through.
Sam Harris also can’t understand Dennett. Others in the field are baffled at Dennett’s approach to free will, and I suspect POSSIBLY some of them may have been exposed to only the first edition of Elbow Room. I suspect that SO many of Dennett’s colleagues had difficulty with this book, that after 30 years they finally convinced him to revamp it. (my guess)
Making SURE that you have the New Edition (2015) is a primary step to understanding Elbow Room. The New Edition has two prefaces, and the new paperback has an ancient statue with an exposed elbow, the old paperback has a light two-tone gray cover and the image is an abstract background.
It’s really easy to order this book on Amazon and get the WRONG edition, because the used book market is flooded with first editions. The first edition was so notoriously dense and hard to understand, that I suspect many people sold or gave away their copies over the decades.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #3 - Timing is Everything
The actual TIMING of Dennett’s free will (DenFW) is not when people usually expect it, when they think of “free will.” This unexpected timing was built into the motorcycle analogy in Chapter 2.
Dennett seems to argue that DenFW happens in the future. Future considerations happen in his writing often. I have several times seen large sprinklings of future references occur on a series of pages. One such example is pages 4, 5, 6 in ER.
In most people’s mind picture of free will they see it “happening” right at the time of performance or choice. But this is contrary to how determinism works, and hence the big debate/paradox.
But in Dennett’s model the free will “happens” not at the same point in time as the performance or choice. This is quite baffling, IMO. I can’t say this is clearly stated in the texts, or I’d have the page numbers and quotes right here. This is something I picked up slowly over many years and many chapters of reading.
The strange timing that I built into minFW is a primary example of my copying Dennett, AS I perceive him. I can’t yet pinpoint a page or two where he says these things explicitly, but little pieces of it are abundant. I may get down to documenting this someday. (remember: work in progress)
In the minFW model, free will “happens” after a failed performance, and before the NEXT successful performance. All the performances in my minFW theory are robotic. I think, Dennett also regards each and every human performance as robotic, and that free will shows up when these robotic performances are “steered” or modified in a desired direction.
Dennett strictly avoids calling us humans “robots” like I am doing!
But I think he is shielding his audience from this shock. In 1984, when he first published ER, I can see reasons for this.
It is now time, IMO, to confront and accept our “roboticity” just like we accept our mortality.
It’s hard to accept this for our own lives, and it’s hard to for a reader to accept that Dennett is actually even writing such a thing, that the timing of the freedom comes later, in the future. …and that we are deterministic robots. He is very careful NOT to say that, but to imply it profusely.
*/*/*
THE future is something we have no access to. But predictions of the future are possible, and if accurate, can be very valuable to living life. This short 10-minute video below of Dennett shows his orientation to the future. Agents are skilled at avoiding (predicted) future harm and finding (predicted) future benefits.
You-Tube title:
“Dennett on free will and determinism”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Utai74HjPJE
*/*/*
I’m pretty sure this timing thing is big. I’ve not seen anyone talk about it, but many complain of confusion. Dennett’s perspective on timing is odd and unexpected. Everyone is stuck on the idea that Free Will means they can launch into a performance, and NOT be 100% driven by their prior synapse settings. That’s the mind picture everyone has of FW, that we can “rise above” the prior synapse settings RIGHT AWAY, IMMEDIATELY, NOW!
Dennett (and I) say you can rise above them, but not immediately. You have to wait on that freedom to show up (maybe) in the NEXT performance.
This is harsh. Maybe Dennett softens it too much, and thus camouflages it in the text? I am taking the opposite, the blunt approach.
*/*/*
To Dennett, it’s not the freedom we have NOW to do anything that is important. It’s the freedom to steer a better course into the FUTURE. It’s like “sailboat freedom.” It takes brains and effort, and is NOT magical freedom like “I Dream of Jeannie” nose twitching.
This unexpected location of freedom on the timeline, after the performance, I copied into minFW.
*/*/*
So far in my Dennett text travels, page 184 in ER is the clearest expression of Dennett’s vision on FW:
“What we want when we want free will is the power to decide our courses of action, and to decide them wisely, in the light of our expectations and desires. We want to be in control of ourselves, and not under the control of others. We want to be agents, capable of initiating, and taking responsibility for, projects and deeds. All this is ours, I have tried to show, as a natural product of our biological endowment, extended and enhanced by our initiation into society. We want, moreover, to have enough elbow room in the world so that when we exercise these powers, it is not always a matter of settling for the only desperate course of action that has a chance of fulfilling our desires.”
Does that sound familiar to you?
Gulp! It sounds familiar to ME! And I can hear sirens off in the distance. The Plagiarism Police are coming to get me! I used nearly every idea in that paragraph in building minFW. Surely, I’m busted NOW!
No one, especially me, suspected that DD had all that in mind when he wrote this (following) brief hint of the above, way earlier on page 60 of ER:
“…we can plan in the light of our expectations, and take steps to prevent, avoid, preempt, avert, harness, exploit, or accommodate ourselves to those circumstances.”
Dennett’s focus is on the future conforming to expectations or desires, and not the immediate performance that Libertarian FW focuses on.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #4 - Videos Help
Though videos were mentioned several times already, there’s still more detail to this Item.
The many, many videos of Dennett contain clues as to what he means in his FW books, even if they may not be directly on the topic of FW. These videos have helped me MUCH! There DD can give a much clearer presentation on some of the ideas, compared to his books.
He tends to simplify in his vocal mode, while he tends to be detailed in his written mode.
In writing he seems to have the goal of being ultra-thorough. I guess that’s one reason he’s a real professional Philosopher. He has rescued me though, via the lighter videos, to a better understanding of the heavier of his writings.
The biggest breakthrough from these videos, for me, is his simple admission that he favors a FW mechanism that is 100% deterministic, that it respects determinism. In video format Dennett clearly says that whatever biological mechanism is actually installed in human brains, that mechanism USES determinism to accomplish whatever freedom it enjoys.
I wish I had known he was saying this in 1995.
I was thinking then, and for decades afterwards, that Dennett had found some clever scheme to elude or avoid determinism. As I read ER back then, I was looking for points he was NOT making, hence some of my massive confusion.
So, this is a big key to Dennett: whatever kind of freedom he sees as possible, he ALSO totally embraces regular old, vanilla, scientific determinism, and therefore totally rejects Libertarian Free Will (LibFW). I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating here as I really learned this first in the videos, and THEN I was able to see it (with difficulty) in the texts.
I’ve also seen Dennett say in video that consciousness is good and wonderful, but that it is ALSO hyped way beyond what it actually is. He says it’s a large collection of TRICKS that make it look magical.
Let’s watch a couple of SHORT videos together:
You-Tube title:
“Daniel Dennett - What is Free Will?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joCOWaaTj4A
This video is only 6 minutes long. …But says a lot! It’s a great summary of many of his ideas.
Notice in it that Dennett often refers to the FUTURE to find some freedom. Dennett and I are looking for free will in how humans handle the future. This time element is crucial.
Earlier here in Chapter 2, as I explained the mechanics of minFW, you can see frequent mention of performing the “next time.” I wish my past experiences with his “Elbow Room” were this clear, but armed with videos like this, the book is getting clearer all the time.
*/*/*
This next video, below, is also a short six and a half minutes, and also says a lot about determinism being our friend.
You-Tube title:
“Daniel Dennett Explains Consciousness and Free Will”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Nj_rEqkyQ&list=RDCMUCvQECJukTDE2i6aCoMnS-Vg&start_radio=1&t=67
The notion of minimalization comes out loud and clear in this video. This central theme in my minFW comes straight from Dennett. Maybe, if I say this just the right way, I could cut a plea bargain on my “borrowing” of his ideas?
Dennett says that consciousness is good and wonderful, AND REAL, but that it is ALSO hyped way beyond what it actually is. He says it’s a large collection of tricks that make it look magical. Then there’s centuries of literature and song that culturally embed the idea. Consciousness is real, but our descriptions of it for centuries have been over awed by the bag of tricks.
*/*/*
One last video, and this one is longer, so I’ve pinpointed a couple passages’ time stamps.
You-Tube title:
“Dr. Daniel Dennett - Freedom Evolves: Free Will, Determinism, and Evolution”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg-9k1uAHCo
This was a big key for me, at 30:20 timestamp:
“Don’t underestimate the power of a simple deterministic world to support innovative, surprising, flexible phenomena.”
This corresponds to minFW (and sailboats) using tricky (innovative) determinism to find surprising freedom (flexibility). Then another clear half sentence can be heard at 40:05 timestamp:
“…so determinism is your friend not your foe.”
This is spoken after a section detailing how determinism can HELP us in our predicting the future, so we are more FREE to navigate the future.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #5 - Third Party Help
The Wikipedia article on Elbow Room was detailed and very helpful. I’ll soon look at the wiki on “Freedom Evolves.” Unfortunately, Cliff Notes don’t do Dennett. Are there are others?
Facebook groups have been a good place to discuss Dennett’s books. From them I have several friends who are researching with me.
Because he is so well known, many other writers have reviewed and critiqued Dennett’s ideas. Many kinds of pooling of efforts on cracking this code have been helpful to me.
You can help me here if you know of any good expositors of Dennett.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #6 - Dennett Teases
In other contexts, I mention earlier that Dennett teases by not revealing his hand very clearly until late in ER. (This seems less the case in FE.)
There seem to be several reasons for this, and some of them have already come up. But after seeing his strategy and his admissions, another piece fell into place from a clue in the Preface to ER. The chapters of that book originally were individual lectures held at Oxford University, famously called the John Locke Lectures.
As a guest speaker he surely wanted his audience to attend every lecture. Planning his lectures must have included a strong element of wanting to keep the audience coming back after the first lecture. The best way to do that is to not tell the whole story that first night, but dangle some bait, a teaser to keep interest at its highest. So, the early chapters are very far from explanations of DD’s theory, and instead he spends a lot of time on every other thinker’s approach to free will. He seems to be trying to cover the whole subject, including its historic dead ends.
On a completely different perspective about Dennett’s brand of FW, is my guess that he may offer no actual model of how his brand of FW (DenFW) works. Instead of proposing a model that incorporates his brand of DenFW, Dennett seems to merely be discussing the POSSIBILITY of such a model existing. If that’s the case, then I could be coming up with the model.
The key to remember with this item is that a reader can’t expect Dennett to QUICKLY lay out a blueprint for making his version of FW happen. On that point I tried my best to differ from him, and bring as early as possible the strange timing aspects of minFW.
*/*/*/**/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #7 - Robotic Performance Denial
What is shocking about Dennett’s FW is that there is ZERO freedom happening at the time of any performance or choice. The thought that some freedom can occur later has never occurred to most readers of Dennett.
That all of our performances are 100% determined by the synapses just prior to the performance is a tough idea for anyone who is reading a book on free will to swallow. I think a lot of readers of Dennett simply overlook that this is what Dennett is saying. When they read it, they say to themselves, “I must have heard that wrong,” and they plow on with reading.
I think this very thing happened to me in the 1990s with with Dennett’s “Elbow Room.”
It’s common in conversation for us to hear someone say something SO OUTLANDISH that we figure we MUST have heard it wrong. This is especially so with someone we normally hear many clear and lucid statements from, like Dennett.
Once this “zero freedom at time of performance” is finally communicated to someone, their next thought often is “So, what’s the point of bothering any more to talk of free will, if there is none?”
Once this “zero freedom at time of performance” is finally communicated to someone, their next thought often is “So, what’s the point of bothering any more to talk of free will, if there is none?”
Be patient. There’s plenty of time for freedom as we prepare for the NEXT performance, and make it better.
Remember Item #3 was “Timing is Everything,” and Item #1 was “Determinism Dominates.” Accepting these things is not what most readers are primed for.
Dennett’s free will is not the glamorous, instantaneous, effortless, and magical “Free Will” that philosophers have classically desired. His is a new form of freedom. It’s shockingly off-the-beaten-path, and so bland that it’s hidden from sight, even when Dennett points to it.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #8 - Label Confusion
The reason I invented different names (minFW, LibFW, BioFW, DenFW) for different free will ideas or theories is simple: I absolutely NEEDED to do it!
Why other writers don’t do this I have no idea. There’s no way to keep track of all these things without demarcation, yet authors try and imply, and expect their readers to try and guess what type of specific FW is on the table.
As you read Dennett or any other author, try make a note each time the phrase “free will” comes up as to which type it is. Sometimes that phrase is used in a very general sense, and then no prefixes are needed. But as soon as a technical discussion is underway, leaving off identifying prefixes (or other demarcations) is just asking for trouble. This very trouble came up in a well-known debate between Dennett and Sam Harris. (more on this later)
There are SO MANY confusing things about FW that I have resorted to descriptive prefixes to keep track of all the different brands of FW that I need to juggle.
*/*/*
As LibFW was losing its way with me about 5 years ago, I stumbled upon this radically NEW type of “free will” and a new model to go with it. It took a while for me to adjust to this completely new orientation, but just these recent years I have started developing it more.
I urge patience with this new minFW because I know how difficult it is to change a life-long definition. There have been many times I have gotten confused as I work this new theory, because I accidentally drift over to my old (dead and buried) friend, LibFW.
It’s really easy for me to be tracking on my new theory’s definition, and something challenges or distracts me. Then, when I return to what I was working on, it’s replaced with that pesky LibFW (or its ghost) hidden in my thinking, and quickly I go off the rails.
It is VERY, VERY easy to accidentally slide the LibFW definition (or mind picture) in whenever “free will” is mentioned. So, I ask readers to be aware of this as I present my new theory, and as they attempt to “crack the Dennett code” and read his books on this.
Penciling in my suggested prefixes will help untangle some of Dennett’s text. It will force you to pay closer attention to that key phrase “free will” and figuring out from the context which prefix (if any) is implied will help a lot.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #9 - Dennett’s Bait and Switch
Neither Dennett nor Sam Harris use identifying demarcations (like Item #8 demands) for the type of free will they have in mind in their writings, nor when they debate. In this fog of nomenclature, I think Harris is correct in calling Dennett’s arguments a “bait and switch.”
After much detective work, I figured out that Dennett’s free will (DenFW) is NOT the same as LibFW, and is deterministic. Harris, on the other hand is a little more up front in declaring that HIS use of the phrase IS very much LibFW. Harris argues against LibFW. They are both in agreement on this, but not very explicitly.
So DenFW is completely different from LibFW and Harris is right about the switch. Harris starts out in his booklet titled “Free Will” taking aim at LibFW, and does a pretty good job refuting it. But when they debate, Harris senses that Dennett is arguing not for LibFW at all, but for a strange new “something” that bears no resemblance to classical free will.
Though LibFW is crazy, it seems that’s what the phrase FW has come to mean to most intellectuals for centuries. Harris accuses Dennett of bait and switch. Harris charges that Dennett changed the definition of the FW they were debating on. Harris had been practicing on beating to a pulp any LibFW that Dennett would defend, but Dennett had his own DenFW that he was defending. Harris is RIGHT! Dennett pulled a bait-and-switch on him.
Harris isn’t looking at the right time in Dennett’s theory, and Dennett hasn’t made that very clear yet, especially in writing, that Harris needs to look later on the timeline (Item #3) for the freedom, the diminished and delayed freedom.
*/*/*
I advise Dennett to plead guilty to the “bait and switch” charge, in order to be more clear, and he should do it by saying SOMETHING like this:
“You’re right, Sam. I had a wildly different form of
free will up my sleeve that I was debating in favor of,
all along. You’re right about the classical form of FW
being utterly negated by determinism. Nobody can
seriously believe in Libertarian Free Will, so let’s give
up on it. Sorry, that I did BAIT you. … Now can we SWITCH
to my new form of DenFW? It’s really different! You probably won’t
be able to recognize its freedom... at first. …but … Oh! … Just wondering, would you be into sailing? …by any chance?”
*/*/*
In addition to vaguely picking up on Dennett’s ideas from difficult reading expeditions in ER and FE and then videos, Dennett’s debate with Sam Harris was pivotal in many ways for me. So much so, it constitutes my Item #10.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Cracking the Dennett Code
Item #10 - Dennett-Harris Debate
Harris and Dennett THINK they disagree, but they are merely mis-communicating, and emphasizing different things. Both believe in determinism, and both think Libertarian FW is a complete fiction.
Harris, in his book “Free Will”, fully accepts regular scientific determinism and vividly demonstrates that determinism leaves no room for Libertarian Free Will. He makes no detailed mention of any other forms of FW, though. Hence, the need would appear to be low, within his book, to demarcate differing brands of FW. But that need arises quickly when he debates Dennett, and at least two varieties are on the table.
Harris’ book argument is pretty tight, but he puts a lot of energy into shocking his younger readers with the harshness of determinism on classical FW. I get the impression that many in his intended audience were not Physics majors, but leaning more to Philosophy and Psychology.
*/*/*
I see Sam Harris as too preoccupied with immediate, instantaneous, Real-Time FW to even hear Dennett’s call to browse the timeline. To Harris, anything happening outside that tight time window at the performance is not any kind of valid free will.
So, Harris hammers away with the worst-case scenario for those new to determinism, then later on he eases up and says there’s room for some ability to change (with determinism) our repetitive actions by changing the determining factors. His words to this effect are scant. I think he uses the word ability rather than free.
*/*/*
Dennett shows quite murkily that his DenFW is completely different from Libertarian and is an extremely weakened kind of DETERMINISTIC freedom.
But Dennett’s style of freedom is SO WEAK that Harris says he is playing bait and switch, that DenFW is not any kind of freedom at all. Harris thinks Dennett’s pre-debate claim is that Libertarian FW is the True Free Will, then protests “bait and switch” when Dennett goes on to describe a worthlessly weak and late form of FW. What I claim is that Harris is right, that DenFW is weak, and late, but Harris is wrong about it being worthless.
*/*/*
Harris is accurate in his refutation of LibFW in his book, but he constantly leaves little loopholes in the text for how a DIFFERENT kind of free will might work. This is how Dennett debates him. I think I imitated Dennett and anti-imitated Harris in building this minFW theory.
Harris occasionally throws in, what I consider, mitigation phrases of partial freedom that may be available. But he does not follow up on them. Harris has a pretty tight argument, but so does anyone who can adequately describe determinism. What I noticed while reading his book was a constant occurrence of small items that looked like him maybe making wiggle room for himself. I thought later in the book he was going to come up with some kind of a minimalist free will, like Dennett’s. But that didn’t happen.
Then I also saw a couple of points that where I had minor disagreements with him as to how they should be written. As Harris described the determinism dilemma and it’s robbing free will in an example scenario, I kept on thinking that the next time that scenario comes up we’re going to have a little bit of free will.
So, I just kept on seeing how I could add on to his refutation. The net result of it all is I believe minFW is totally compatible with Sam Harris and his denial of Libertarian Free Will. I just filled in the holes that he left behind.
I’m saying that Dennett and Sam Harris are not contradictory, but complimentary, with a few minor tweaks.
I built my minFW as a systematic add-on to Sam Harris book. I was careful to limit my disagreements with him to a few minor sentences, while most of my add-on completely respected what Harris said. PLUS, what I was adding was in keeping with Dennett’s multi-decade influence over me. So, you can call me a Dennett-Harris Compatiblist, maybe.
I saw that Harris was very right in refuting the semi-magical definition of FW that pretty well has dominated the thinking world for centuries. But OFTEN it was also obvious to me in certain passages, that he was exaggerating a tiny bit for the drama, and that in many more places I kept noticing a little bit of “wiggle room” in what he was saying.
I noted these passages in the margins of my paper copy of his book until I had finished reading, and in that way, Sam Harris handed me a couple dozen tiny platforms on which I could beef up my new and primitive theory of deterministic FW. It was within the “wiggle room” that Harris showed me that I built my theory.
So, I significantly beefed up my minFW theory by retrieving all my Sam Harris margin notes. My theory BY DESIGN, is supposed to be a smooth hybrid of BOTH Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris.
*/*/*
Here are some of the notes that I extracted from the Harris book to construct minFW.
page 33
“And we know that the brain systems that allow
us to reflect upon our experience are different
from those involved when we automatically react
to stimuli.”
Harris here is saying that we can observe our robotic behavior; the two systems are independent. One system performs (robotically) and the other watches the performance (robotically). This is one of the main themes in how I built minFW.
*/*/*
p. 34
“And the fact that our choices depend on prior
causes does not mean that they don’t matter. If
I had not decided to write this book it wouldn’t
have written itself.”
Here he is saying choices “matter,” meaning it is important that we NOT STOP TRYING to make better choices the next time, just because our current performance is robotic.
*/*/*
p. 34
“Human choice, therefore is as important as fanciers
of free will believe. But the next choice you make
will come out of the darkness of prior causes that you,
the conscious witness of experience, did not bring
into being.”
Here I would partially disagree. My take: the next choice you make will come out of TWO sources: the ones you did not bring into being AND the ones you instigated by adjusting your own synapses between PAST performances.
*/*/*
p. 37, 38
“You are not in control of your mind - because
you, as a conscious agent, are only part of your
mind, living at the mercy of the other parts.
You can do what you decide to do - but you
cannot decide what you will decide to do. Of
course, you can create a framework which
certain decisions are more likely than others
- you can, for instance, purge your house of
all sweets, making it very unlikely you will
eat dessert… You can change your life, and
yourself, through effort and discipline – but
you have whatever capacity for effort you
have AT THIS MOMENT…”
And then I would YELL at Sam (and write in the margin): “FINISH the story, Sam!”
At the NEXT moment, the next performance, you can have a partial say in its outcome if, “through
effort and
discipline,” you actually succeed to “create a framework which certain decisions are more likely than others.”
There Sam Harris almost spells out my whole minFW theory!!!
The thing is, his emphasis is WAY off of this tiny freedom, and onto the harshness of determinism. I get the feeling the whole Harris book is written to those undergraduates who are slightly less than Physics 101 savvy.
He focuses well and is hard hitting on determinism for those who are less familiar with its rule and authority. He focuses far less on these little loopholes, or this very large loophole on pages, 37, 38. Tricky use of determinism never comes up.
*/*/*
p. 38
“Many people believe that human freedom
consists of our ability to do what, upon
reflection, we believe we should do - which
often means overcoming our short-term
desires and following our long-term goals or
better judgment. This is certainly an ability
that people possess to a greater or lesser degree…”
This “ability” that Harris is sure we have is almost word-for-word something that made minFW happen for me. I simply saw the power in this weak ability, if it were allowed to add up via repetitions.
*/*/*
p. 40
“What I will do next, and why, remains, at bottom,
a mystery - one that is fully determined by
the prior state of the universe and the laws of
nature (including the contributions of chance).”
I would correct Harris slightly here. What I do next is indeed fully determined by “…the prior state of the universe and the laws of nature…” but let’s not forget that my past operation of minFW is ALSO included in that “state of the universe.” That may be a tiny portion of said state, or it may be a lot. It depends on how successful I've been in my past minFW operations.
*/*/*
p. 40
“We can pursue any line of thought we
want - but our choice is the product of prior
events that we did not bring into being.”
Again! Holy Mackerel! Again, he forgot the tiny feedback we can add to the mix in between performances. Maybe he didn’t include it because many times people fail to apply themselves at this. I included it in minFW, so that we might remember more often to try it.
*/*/*
p. 62
“We need only acknowledge that efforts
matter and that people can change. We
do not change ourselves, precisely - because
we have only ourselves with which to do the
changing - but we continually influence, and
are influenced by, the world around us and
the world within us.”
Here Harris gives here the main key in how minFW works: “…but we continually influence…” but he glosses over it. It would be so easy to note here that we can become more and more a dominant influence on ourselves as time goes by, IF we engage in the process with vigor and repetition.
*/*/*
p. 63
“Where people can change, we can demand
that they do so.”
This is the unfulfilled vacuum of the Harris book: “Where people can change…,” and where minFW rushed in to fill.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
Looking back, I want to tabulate these items that help crack the Dennett code on free will.
Item #1 - Pro Determinism, Anti LibFW
Item #2 - New Edition to “Elbow Room”
Item #3 - Timing is Everything
Item #4 - Videos Help
Item #5 - Third Party Help
Item #6 - Dennett Teases
Item #7 - Robotic Performance Denial
Item #8 - Label Confusion
Item #9 - Dennett’s Bait and Switch
Item #10 - Dennett-Harris Debate
*/*/*
end of Chapter 4
addendum:
####################
Dennett in the 1970s
Realizing this is one thing; learning how to gently explain it to others is another.
We need to learn how to accept our roboticity, just like we need to accept our mortality. Both are difficult, but possible.
I think this is what Dennett was seeing in the years before he wrote "Elbow Room" (1970s), and he had to be very circuitous about it. The mood of the world at that time was very much opposed to accepting our roboticity.
The Moody Blues released their album "On the Threshold of a Dream" at that time (1969) and it opens up with a strong declaration that we are better than robots.
If I read Dennett correctly (that we ARE wet robots) he probably had to pull his punches a lot in the 1970s, when he was formulating what eventually became Elbow Room in 1984.
The mood of the world at that time was strongly resisting the notion of computers being a part of normal living perspectives. HAL from the 2001 movie was on a LOT OF MINDS. Corbin Project etc All notions of human mechanical-ness were anathema then. I was in my early 20s and remember it well.
I remember in 1966 when my HS social studies teacher came in flush red with anger that the electric company sent him a bill that was not typed by humans but by a computer! Many people refused to pay that year! Dennett was formulating his mere mechanistic free will theory during this time. He had to he subtle about how he was going 180 degrees against all cultural wishes.
The Moody Blues start their 1969 album “On the Threshold of a Dream” with a poetic protest that humans are NOT robots!
First Man:
I think... I think I am.
Therefore, I am! I think...
Establishment:
Of course you are,
my bright little star...
I've miles and miles of files
Pretty files
of your forefather's fruit
And now to suit
our great computer
*You’re magnetic ink!
First Man:
I'm more than that I know I am...
At least, I think I must be
Inner Man:
There you go, man
Keep as cool as you can
Face piles of trials with smiles
It riles them to believe
That you perceive
The web they weave...
And keep on thinking free
/*/*/*/
*your magnetic ink VERSUS you’re magnetic ink ???
BTW, when that song was written, magnetic ink was a brand-new thing being put on bank checks, and the fonts were shaped oddly to help the crude computers of the day read the numbers. It was an early encroachment of machines into human life, WHICH MANY PEOPLE FELT, and that is why the song lyric above was written that way. It was common then to hate the computer-shaped magnetic ink on personal checkbooks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy20Jo0VVbs&list=PLDE449F761295774B&index=1
Dennett was formulating his minimal theory when this song was the mood of the intellectual world: we are not mechanical.
So, he had to keep it discreet.
This is all 40 and 50 years ago!
LONG before home computers and facial recognition were imaginable, and A.I. and machine learning and, and, ...
but the biological truth, the harsh truth, is that we ARE mechanisms. Pretty cool ones, at times.
*/*/*
Next question is can we build some determinism respecting freedoms into our robot pals?
*******************
another loose end:
What Dennett argues for, theoretically, is the tricky use of determinism in the brain to produce some type (or brand) of weakened freedom. But he doesn’t seem to come up with a “working model” of this brand of free will. Along these lines, I am producing a “working model” of Dennett’s brand of freedom (best I understand it) that uses tricky determinism manipulations. If my model works for the human brain, great! If not, I think it will still work for A.I. and robots. With the two tricky uses of determinism in sailing, each produce a type or brand of freedom. One is partial freedom from wind direction, the other is partial freedom from wind speed. We use determinism in all of science and technology to do all kinds of things for us. Sailing used determinism to produce wind direction freedom 22 centuries ago. Biology ought to be able to use determinism to produce the kinds of freedoms we need for survival… the most worthy-of-wanting brands of free will, that is.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Do you think making concessions will get people to buy your baloney?
there’s nothing new to learn in your posts - it’s the same old baloney in different packaging.
your “bottom up approach” is a vacuous concept…there’s nothing to it …ababababababababa… banana fana foe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Formatting got a little screwy at the end of this chapter.
I will try to fix it.
ALL FIXED
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, it is man INNOCENT of all con artist activity that would ask that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks again for your encouragement.
Since it is Sunday I wanted you to get this notification, for later reading, that I have now posted a few more chapters. I have 4 done now, and only 2 short ones to go.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
see what I mean
Edited by T-Boneyoo hoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Just wanted to a few things you may have overlooked in your “book”.
I find your treatment of this topic so odd because I’m somewhat familiar with your morphing positions on other stuff -
I say that in all seriousness though I must add the mutations do not stray too far from what’s been said in PFAL and by wierwille on other occasions.
That being said – I’ve noticed your Minimalistic Free Will thesis has not addressed the philosophy of religion angle. I thought that was a huge odd omission given your penchant for the past 20 years here in trying to make correlations to stuff you’ve gleaned from wierwille/PFAL stuff.
~ ~ ~ ~
Since this is an open forum – I wanted to add my two pennies
to take up the slack for what’s missing in this discussion…I’ve reposted something I’ve shared on another thread What does God know and after that I posted a couple of excerpts from other sites where free will / determinism / God are discussed…enjoy 
My repost:
I’ve been reading Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, 7th Edition and in a chapter that gets into divine knowledge and God’s sovereignty, this thread came to mind several times. A theory I never really considered when trying to understand God’s knowledge and sovereignty is that God could have voluntarily placed limits on Himself – to allow freedom for His created beings...
Some points from the book that I like mulling over – and a lot of this gets into open theism and maybe some things one poster touched upon much earlier on this thread…anyway from the book:
Classical theism has made a strong claim that God is timeless, in the sense of existing outside of time and sequence. Yet we praise God not because He is beyond time and change but because He works redemptively in time for our salvation. We may tend to think omnipotence as the power to determine everything - being coercive like a puppeteer. A monopoly on power is easy to manage.
What’s much more difficult to govern is a universe with created beings that have the option – the freedom – to disobey. Omnipotence does not mean that nothing can go contrary to God’s will (like our sins do) but that God is able to deal with any circumstances that may arise. Though by nature God is omnipotent – in a sense, God can be vulnerable because of His decision to make a world filled with beings who have free will. The Creator of the universe has chosen to limit his power by delegating some to the created beings.
American theologian, pastor and author Greg Boyd said “It takes far more self-confidence, far more wisdom, far more love and sensitivity to govern that which is personal and free than it does to govern that over which one has absolute control.”
Just wanted to add this stuff as food for thought.
Edited April 26 by T-Bone
I knew ahead of time I would probably have to make a revision for clarity
https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/15282-what-does-god-know/?do=findComment&comment=614117
end of my comment on What does God know thread
~ ~ ~ ~
Nonetheless, free will is taken as a form of truth in modern society. By making the right decisions, we can further ourselves. A wrong decision leads to consequences, most literally in the case of the judicial system, where crimes (except in the case of insanity) are considered as an exercise of free will, as it was a person who was able to choose either to commit or not to commit the crime.
Is free will predetermined then?
Yet, if we are so consciously sure of our ability to exercise free will, how can determinism override this idea? In some ways, determinism is problematic for us to consciously understand, and presents us with another problem: even if we make choices consciously using free will, what is to say that our free will itself is not predetermined?
Let’s get a religious take
From a religious point of view, there are many different variables that must be taken into account referring to determinism and free will. Any given person may show different beliefs whether it is monotheism, polytheism, atheism, or agnosticism. Beyond this, if a person believes in God, each person has different interpretations, such as: Who is God? What is God about? What is his role in humanity? We all have different responses to these questions and these responses will determine whether we believe in determinism or free will.
End of excerpt
From: https://www.psychreg.org/free-will-determinism/
~ ~ ~ ~
Atheists use theological determinism to state that free will and God’s omniscience are at odds with one another, saying that God cannot be omniscient if we have free will. Yet their view conflates God’s omniscience with His control over us. He knows what we’ll do to respond to the pathway He set before us, but He does not control our actions and responses.
We are free to make our own decisions as to how we carry out our lives and whether we choose to love and serve our Lord. Just as a parent plans aspects of his child’s life to foster success and excellence, the Lord plans for triumphs through tribulations in our lives to enhance, shape and cultivate our spiritual strengths. He knows what we could, would, and will do in various circumstances and He plans for the optimal pathway. This is known in the theological literature as Molinism.
How does the Lord know what we will do in our lives? Revelation 1:8 tells us that He is concurrently in our past, present, and future. He is unbounded by linear time.
“‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty’” Revelation 1:8.
He therefore sees and has seen all of the choices we will make over our lifetimes and has written the names of those who have finished strong and will finish strong in His Lamb’s Book of Life.
One might posit that those who endorse beliefs in biological or theological determination may be influenced by some desire to absolve themselves from responsibility for their own decisions. That is a pity, because God holds us accountable. And the fact that we know we are externally held accountable should be a source of comfort as such knowledge likely leads to more moral decisions.
End of excerpt
From: https://christian-apologist.com/2020/02/23/free-will-vs-determinism/
Edited by T-BoneWhat does the editor know and when does he know it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I appreciate this, and find it useful.
Yes there is a lot I do not cover in my book. I am trying to forge an entirely new approach to free will here. Dennett only went so far with his ideas, and I am trying to add on to them.
I am limiting myself to the science oriented community so far in all this. You may nave noticed that on several occasions I come right up to the edge of talking religion, but then halt. Science oriented people, especially the young ones, are not at all interested in the religion angle to free will. I do mention that religion screwed up the definition of free will a thousand years ago by making it too spiritual, but not much else.
I am not trying to convert scientist types to PFAL, though that might happen on the side in private with some. In my writing I am showing that there is a new way to think about free will that is rid of the religious trappings and that can be studied in the laboratory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yeah - I imagine a cult-mindset definition of like-mindedness is everyone in lockstep – no thinking allowed
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I too saw the formation of culty things like you describe. I'm sure lots of people learned lots of good things in the Corps, and are doing fine now. But I remember in the mid 1980s, how within the Corps was a culty subset. ...those aggressive ones moving their way up the leadership chain. Yeah, that kind of no thinking allowed may have happened too much.
But it didn't happen with me. These chapters on free will have only 3 tiny items I listed at the beginning that I got from VPW. All the rest of these chapters I did my own non-TWI thinking, and/or piggybacked on a few others in places, and heavily on Dennett. The Bottom-Up approach to the canon was my own* thinking, outside the TWI box.
*remembering no really new ideas;
just pieces fitting mostly;
all really new good ideas are from God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Source: Advanced Class on Power For Abundant Living (1971)
Just in case anyone was wondering
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Here’s the thing - there’s stuff in your thesis that are antithetical to PFAL / wierwille’s or Christian systematic theology - whether it’s your ideas or the authors you refer to.
If I didn’t know better I’d say this thesis is from someone other than Mike of Grease Spot .
However if indeed that is from you, Mike - it would validate my “thesis” that you really don’t ever know what you’re talking about - since your response here leads me to think you don’t really understand PFAL , the basic tenets of Christianity or free will and determinism since you - your mish-mash reflects an inability to see major differences among all 3 ideologies.
Check quality control at the propaganda factory
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I find it hilarious that when I note the cult-mindset we all adopted in TWI - you do that I-was-better-smarter-more spiritual than all you fools song. That’s pretty lame.
And I wouldn’t brag about your screwy reinterpretations of wierwille dogma or nonsensical “bottom up” approach since it reveals what a goofy ever-morphing ideology you have. It’s not a good look - it definitely has impacted your “sales”.
And you can store that “all really new ideas come from God “ idea where you’ve been saving your other pennies….What a really really really absolutely really asinine thing to say
Edited by T-Bonechange is okay - I’m just wary where that change has been
Revision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.