Up@dawn 2.0

Friday, February 21, 2020

Quizzes Feb 25, 27

T 25 - MP13-14 (Scroll down for *Th 27)
LISTEN
Reports: Cooper, On Humanism; Ben, Identifying parallels between social oppression and control by religious institutions with "Woke Culture". [To be rescheduled: Crystal, Nietzsche]
1. The idea of justice without retribution evokes what pressing questions? 236

2. According to Waller we can use scientific understanding of human behavior to do what? 238

3. Changing an agent's future behavior can focus on what? 241

4. What approach to crime "can meet our highest moral standards"? 247

5. What is the thesis of neuronaturalism? 252

6. The picture of the brain as a nexus of neural activity helps explain why each of us is what? 255

7. What kinds of causes typically have a "strong causal invariance relation with their effects"? 261

8. A "limited free-will view" has what advantages over pessimism? 266

DQ

  •  COMMENT: "Free will skepticism cannot deny the reality of our experiences: we feel in charge..." 236
  • Who's right, Dennett or Waller?
  • Are some individuals "destined to a life of crime"? 242
  • Should individuals ever "receive a psychiatric label"? 246
  • Is there anything "mindblowing" to you about neuronaturalism?
  • Should mental deliberations viewed (somehow) objectively resemble "clockwork"? 257
  • Are most people "theory-lite" and thus less committed to (for instance) metaphysical dualism than we might have predicted? 258




(Alva Noë, former student of Hilary Putnam, educated at Harvard and Oxford, is Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. The focus of his work is the theory of perception and consciousness. In addition to several books on consciousness and perception, he wrote Infinite Baseball: Notes from a Philosopher at the Ballpark. I met him last year at my annual Baseball in Literature and Culture Conference in Kansas.)








NOTE: This is an excerpt from the two-part, 60-minute DVD. http://www.thinkingallowed.com/2fcric... A noted scientist discusses free will, consciousness, attention and memory and their relationship to the human nervous system. In a wide ranging discussion, Crick points out that the hypothesis that the brain is the seat of consciousness has not yet been proven. Francis Crick, Ph.D., received the Nobel Prize in 1962 for the discovery of DNA's central role in the process of genetic reproduction. He is author of Life Itself, What Mad Pursuit and The Astonishing Hypothesis.
==
*Th 27 - No class, but read & post comments on MP 15-16
LISTEN

Image result for under construction

1. Nadelhoffer and Wright are focused on the potential ramifications of free will skepticism from what standpoint? 270

2. Francis Crick says "who you are is nothing but" what? 287

3. Do the authors of ch 15 think most people's attitudes towards free will are likely to change anytime soon? 294

4. The "clockwork" aspect of the classical Newtonian universe seems to imply what about life? 300

5. What is "weak emergence" and what can it underwrite? 304

6. What conclusion about absurdity and freedom would be hasty, and what existentialist theme seems refuted by modern physics and cosmology? 306

DQ

  • Could free will be a "positive illusion"? In general, do you think there can be good reasons for affirming beliefs that aren't strongly supported by evidence and research?
  • COMMENT on one or more of the survey studies in ch 15.
  • What do you think of Crick's argument in The Astonishing Hypothesis?
  • Do Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Camus, or Sartre induce "existential anxiety" in you? 293
  • Do you predict a widespread loss of belief in free will among yourself and/or your peers in the future?
  • Is emergent free will at the macroscopic level of the human scale enough to vindicate ideas like purpose and choice, even if there's no use for such concepts at the microscopic level of fundamental physics?
  • What do you think of Sean Carroll's "poetic naturalism"? (see below)




How can we explain consciousness? Pioneering physicist and humanist, Sean Carroll describes how Physics can explain what it is to be conscious. How do life and meaning emerge from physical stuff? Sean Carroll argues that the universe is made of stories, not atoms. Watch the full talk https://iai.tv/video/the-poetry-of-th...

Sean Carroll's Mindscape podcast: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/

26150770
“The strategy I'm advocating here can be called poetic naturalism. The poet Mureil Rukeyser once wrote, 'The universe is made of stories, not of atoms.' The world is what exists and what happens, but we gain enormous insight by talking about it -- telling its story -- in different ways."

Poetic naturalism is a philosophy of freedom and responsibility. The raw materials of life are given to us by the natural world, and we must work to understand them and accept the consequences. The move from description to prescription, from saying what happens to passing judgment on what should happen, is a creative one, a fundamentally human act. The world is just the world, unfolding according to the patterns of nature, free of any judgmental attributes. The world exists; beauty and goodness are things that we bring to it.” 

“Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don’t ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting.” 

“At each moment, who we are and how we behave is a choice that we individually make. The challenges are real; the opportunities are incredible.” 

The trick is to think of life as a process rather than a substance. When a candle is burning, there is a flame that clearly carries energy. When we put the candle out, the energy doesn’t “go” anywhere. The candle still contains energy in its atoms and molecules. What happens, instead, is that the process of combustion has ceased. Life is like that: it’s not “stuff”; it’s a set of things happening. When that process stops, life ends.” 

"Poetic naturalism accept[s] that values are human constructs, but den[ies] that they are therefore illusory or meaningless... The meaning we find in life is not transcendent, but it's no less meaningful for that.” 
― Sean Carroll, The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself
g'r

13 comments:

  1. QQs, Chap 14:
    A neuronaturalistic understanding of human nature does not take away the grounding that supports what? (253)

    People who are amenable to whatever metaphysics makes sense of what matters to them are said to be what? (254)

    ReplyDelete
  2. DQ: Is there anything "mindblowing" to you about neuronaturalism?

    I go with banal. It seems obvious, and comforting. There is this great struggle to justify the existence or non-existence of this thing called “free will,” but no consensus on what it is. Various writers refer to “this type of free will.” If I say my type the ability to make a rational choice, and that the choice I make is the result of activity in my brain, is that not sufficient for me to regard myself as a responsible agent without the metaphysical angst introduced by dualism and determinism? I’m going with the “theory-lite” approach offered here. Neuronaturalism just makes sense; that’s why there is a “natural reaction” to it. I’ll look to Dr. Oliver here, but didn’t Descartes make the mind-body distinction so as to not have to address the immortality of the soul in his argument to the Church for natural science? Have we gone down this metaphysical rabbit hole because of a feint by Descartes?

    ReplyDelete
  3. DQ: "Are some individuals "destined to a life of crime"?

    Simple answer is no, because we have free will. Although I know some people who grow up in violent environments are more likely to commit crime, they still have the choice to not commit a crime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess it brings up the question more of if destiny even exists in the first place. If free will is all we need to escape the fate of destiny then it wouldn't seem to have the power that is implied in our minds when we use the word.

      Delete
  4. DQ: "Do you predict a widespread loss of belief in free will among yourself and/or your peers in the future"

    Ummm no because my peers are well aware that we are in charge of our actions and we control our fate because life doesn't live us we live it. However we say that but we live as if life is living us its a cognitive dissonace that we are stuck in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not among my peers, who are mostly committed Christians. Belief in free will is a necessary component of their belief system, and no neuroscience will shake their conviction. Nor do I believe it should. Some concept of free will is necessary for social responsibility. My peers would hold to the theory-lite position of neuronaturalism.

      Delete
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7Yst8l51GY

    ReplyDelete
  6. I saw a link on the side of the site someone had posted about a quiz on the religion that suits you best. I wonder if anyone shares a little bit of awe at the notion like I do. All throughout my life I was told by my parents that there is one true religion, and regardless of weather I believed them or not if their religion was the ONE, It seems strange to me that there would be a consumerism form of religion, where you find the one that 'fits you best'. If there is one true religion there should be no 'best fit"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Do you predict a widespread loss of belief in free will among yourself and/or your peers in the future?

    I don't predict that there will be a complete loss of belief in free will, and nor do I think there should be. However, I do think that as we begin to unravel more information about genetics and psychology/neuroscience, the idea that people are heavily influenced by their biological makeup when it comes to decision-making will become even more widely accepted. This of course will change how we look at free will, but I don't necessarily think that it will make it obsolete.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Are some individuals "destined to a life of crime"?

    I don't think some people are destined in the sense that there is no possible way that an individual can avoid committing crimes. If so, I think it would probably be in very rare cases. Of course, I think some individuals may be more likely to for a variety of factors. There are a lot of social influences that correlate with criminal activity, such as economic struggles, family instability, drug use, etc. Likewise, there are certain hormonal and genetic influences that correlate as well. Unfortunately, it isn't easy to determine what exactly causes criminal activity, because not everyone in these situations turn to crime, and others who don't fit the stereotype commit crimes too. I tend to think that there is a combination of factors, so I don't think that just because someone has a certain genetic makeup or social upbringing, they are automatically destined to live one kind of life. That kind of certainty about human behavior seems a bit drastic to me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There is an interesting (long) article in The Guardian today regarding the use of metaphors in understanding brain activity, including a discussion of weak and strong emergence.

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/feb/27/why-your-brain-is-not-a-computer-neuroscience-neural-networks-consciousness

    “Descartes was impressed by the hydraulic figures in the royal gardens, and developed a hydraulic theory of the action of the brain,” Lashley wrote. “We have since had telephone theories, electrical field theories and now theories based on computing machines and automatic rudders. I suggest we are more likely to find out about how the brain works by studying the brain itself, and the phenomena of behaviour, than by indulging in far-fetched physical analogies.”

    ReplyDelete
  11. QQs for chap 15

    1. Empirical studies suggest that even if the skeptics are right and we don’t have free will, believing in free will could nevertheless be what? (271)

    2. How can a humble person become grounded in a way that staves off the existential angst that could otherwise lead to nihilism or egoism rather than well-being? (275)

    ReplyDelete