Freewill and Culture: The Prism for Perception.

[PAUL MARKHAM]

To make this meaningful you will have to define Free Will and the degree of Free Will that meets your criteria.

There is not evidence of complete mechanical 'No Free Will,' and the evidence determines Libertarian Free Will is not true.

Free will is the ability to break away from people who tell us this or that isn't allowed.

It does hold dangers though.

 

[shunyadragon]

Free will is the ability to break away from people who tell us this or that isn't allowed.

It does hold dangers though.

This is somewhat ambiguous. What degree of Free Will do you believe meets your criteria?

 

[John D. Brey]

OK, but no citation from Popper that 'science evolved from theology.'

Myth: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events [i.e., theo-logy: logic centered around a theos].

Google Dictionary.

My thesis is that what we call “science” is differentiated from the older myths not by being something distinct from myth, but by being accompanied by a second-order tradition---that of critically discussing the myth. . . In critical discussions which now arose there also arose, for the first time, something like systematic observation. . . Thus it is the myth or the theory which leads to, and guides, our systematic observations----observations undertaken with the intention of probing into the truth of the theory or myth. From this point of view the growth of the theories of science should not be considered as the result of the collection, or accumulation, of observations; on the contrary, the observations and their accumulation should be considered as the result of the growth of the scientific theories.

Conjectures and Refutations.

I realize that such myths may be developed, and become testable; that historically speaking all----or very nearly all----scientific theories originate from myths . . ..

Conjectures and Refutations, p. 38.

A critical [scientific] attitude needs for its raw material, as it were, theories or beliefs which are held more or less dogmatically. Thus, science must start with myths [of say Zeus and Poseidon], and with the criticism of [these] myths . . ..

Conjectures and Refutations.
​

John

 

[shunyadragon]

Myth: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events [i.e., theo-logy: logic centered around a theos].

Google Dictionary.

My thesis is that what we call “science” is differentiated from the older myths not by being something distinct from myth, but by being accompanied by a second-order tradition---that of critically discussing the myth. . . In critical discussions which now arose there also arose, for the first time, something like systematic observation. . . Thus it is the myth or the theory which leads to, and guides, our systematic observations----observations undertaken with the intention of probing into the truth of the theory or myth. From this point of view the growth of the theories of science should not be considered as the result of the collection, or accumulation, of observations; on the contrary, the observations and their accumulation should be considered as the result of the growth of the scientific theories.

Conjectures and Refutations.

I realize that such myths may be developed, and become testable; that historically speaking all----or very nearly all----scientific theories originate from myths . . ..

Conjectures and Refutations, p. 38.

A critical [scientific] attitude needs for its raw material, as it were, theories or beliefs which are held more or less dogmatically. Thus, science must start with myths [of say Zeus and Poseidon], and with the criticism of [these] myths . . ..

Conjectures and Refutations.
​

OK, this is your thesis and interpretation, and we can discuss that as long as you do not continue to misrepresent Popper.

I do believe you need to put the use of 'myth' in the context of analogy.​

 

[John D. Brey]

OK, this is your thesis and interpretation, and we can discuss that as long as you do not continue to misrepresent Popper.

I do believe you need to put the use of 'myth' in the context of analogy.​

The original idea I wanted to discuss concerns two ways of interpreting raw observations come to us through our empirical means of discerning the world. For instance, when we see the sun rising in the East and setting in the West it appears, at first, and second glance, as though the sun is revolving around the earth rather than vice versa.

Add to that that the moon appears pretty much like the sun in its revolutions around the earth; and that during a solar eclipse we see that the moon and the sun appear to be the same size. These natural observations could be said to be lying to us. And in the most egregious manner since the design of the sun and the moon, and the way they look to the naked eye, make anyone speaking the truth of the matter (concerning for instance the size of the sun versus the moon) look perfectly demonic; or like a lunatic. Which is how many of the early scientists were looked at and treated. Many were burned at the stake.

What's important to what I wanted to discuss is the fact that both the scientist and the religious priest (the latter being the guardian of the communal myth) share the same basic empirical observations such that understanding how the scientist comes to a deeper perception of the truth of the matter is something of legitimate value.

What Popper reveals that's of immense value in all this is the fact that the pre-existing myth is itself a form of science. The ancient myth doesn't just accept observations at face-value (like a mere animal might). The ancient myth tries to make sense of the observations by, for instance, claiming the thunderstorm implies Zeus is angry.

Now it may seem childish to us to imagine equating a thunderstorm with an angry Zeus, and it might seem outrageous to call it "science," but what I wanted to discuss early on was the fact that even this seemingly childish equating of a thunderstorm with Zeus possesses the germ of modern science since the thunderstorm is being judged, evaluated, as a sign of anger, not happiness. The ancients could have seemingly said a thunderstorm means Zeus is happy. But that wouldn't fit into the archetypes of say "darkness" being bad, "coldness" being bad, "light" being good, "warmth" being good.

Ancient myths uses stories of an angry Zeus to say, for instance, that dark clouds, and cold rain, are archetypal synonyms for "anger" which, "anger," is thus itself being thrown into a particular bag of archetypes. By saying a thunderstorm represents anger, anger is being defined as a synonym for darkness, and coldness, even disorder, like the stormy sea during a thunderstorm.

Once we define light as good, cold as bad, disorder as bad, order as good, we're beginning to attempt to order our observations in a manner that will allow us to take some control over our world precisely by ordering it.

For instance, we can see the difference between downtown Manhattan, versus an aboriginal town built of mud and straw bricks. We can see the difference between a space shuttle shuttling men around the planet, versus an aboriginal witch-doctor with birds wings flapping as he runs from one shanty-town to the next to deliver his snake oil.

The differences above are related to a belief that the world can be ordered and understood using human logic and insight versus a belief that there isn't really any pre-existing design or order such that we should just take things as they are. The aboriginal witch-doctor doesn't know or care really if the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa. This lack of care is exponentially more natural, than the unique idea that the cosmos is "designed," and "ordered," in a manner requiring a God.

Which segues into why theology, and religious myth, are the seminal beginning of modern science in that they posit a design and order of such magnitude that not only does it require a super-intellect, a god, but because this god is a designer of great and profound order, we need but search out that order in order to order our lives in a manner that leads to say Manhattan versus bum fuch abo-land.

Agnostic thinkers often think science is virgin born. They don't accept it as a form of theology. And yet most good historians of science, to include Popper and Einstein, are clear as day that not only does modern science grow as a branch of mythological theology, but it is itself a form of what it grows out of. It is not virgin born. And thus it cannot redeem itself from the flaws of the mythological thinking that is part and parcel of what it is.



John

 

[shunyadragon]

Agnostic thinkers often think science is virgin born. They don't accept it as a form of theology. And yet most good historians of science, to include Popper and Einstein, are clear as day that not only does modern science grow as a branch of mythological theology, but it is itself a form of what it grows out of. It is not virgin born. And thus it cannot redeem itself from the flaws of the mythological thinking that is part and parcel of what it is.

Neither Einstein nor Popper proposed 'that not only does modern science grow as a branch of mythological theology, but it is itself a form of what it grows out of,' nor most good historians. These are your proposals we can discuss not theirs.

Again . . . I do believe you need to put the contemporary use of 'myth' from the references you cite in the context of analogy.

 

[John D. Brey]

Again . . . I do believe you need to put the contemporary use of 'myth' from the references you cite in the context of analogy.

. . . Can you phrase this differently? I'm not sure what you're proposing.



John

 

[shunyadragon]

. . . Can you phrase this differently? I'm not sure what you're proposing.

Your equating the use of term myth as used by Popper with ancient mythology. He used it in terms of an analogy in a contemporary philosophical context.

Popper and Einstein do not consider contemporary science to be evolved from ancient myth nor theology.

 

[John D. Brey]

Popper and Einstein do not consider contemporary science to be evolved from ancient myth nor theology.

I think we've covered this. Have a nice day.



John

 

[amorphous_constellation]

If every perception is theory impregnated, then no perception can be true

That doesn't give perception a lot of credit , or power. Picture instead that perception might have a role as a molder , instead of merely a faulty receiver. If it might be said to have an outward force, perhaps there are energies there that exert creation. As they say, nothing happens without observation . And then there is perception , which might decorate and motivate an observation, for if it is merely observed, it is merely a piece of information. If it is perceived, it gets meaning, it gets a name , it is doing something for a reason, and becoming something with a goal

 

[John D. Brey]

That doesn't give perception a lot of credit , or power. Picture instead that perception might have a role as a molder , instead of merely a faulty receiver. If it might be said to have an outward force, perhaps there are energies there that exert creation. As they say, nothing happens without observation . And then there is perception , which might decorate and motivate an observation, for if it is merely observed, it is merely a piece of information. If it is perceived, it gets meaning, it gets a name , it is doing something for a reason, and becoming something with a goal

I agree with you completely. And your statement gets the thread back onto to its original trajectory. The primary point of the argumentation is not that perception is invaluable, or utterly faulty, but that it does indeed present the world to us in a manner that based only on the nature of the natural observation produces erroneous conclusions.

Furthermore, the nature of natural observation appears, or seems, almost designed to fool the foolish. ------Take the sun and the moon for instance. We know from observing solar eclipses that ironically, almost unbelievably, the sun and the moon appear, through natural perception, to be almost the identical size. And beyond the strangeness of their near equal size (to natural perceptions), they appear to revolve around the earth in almost an identical fashion.

Isn't it obvious that based on these two peculiar similarities, size, and nearly identical revolutions around the earth, the untrained-eye of the ancient man, unassisted by modern devices, would assume that both the sun and the moon revolve around the earth? And since the answer is clearly "yes," we can know why a particular kind of aboriginal thinking might be fatally flawed from the get-go by assuming the obvious is not just obvious, but factual and true (natural observations aren't flawed).

The important question then becomes, what kind of thinking, what kind of apparatus for thought, what kind of thinker, would question what the natural observations seemed to make undeniably true? Who, so to say, would question their own lyin eyes? And why?

Answering those two questions was the intent of this thread. And the first step necessary in the development of the answer shows the brilliance of Karl Popper (who's quoted throughout this thread) since Popper said that the primary evolutionary difference between the thoughts of the ancient high priests of mytho-theology versus the modern scientific endeavor is merely that the modern scientist attempts a logical, knowing, critical, understanding and unveiling of the mysteries of the ancient myths.

Once Popper's important contribution to the topic is accepted, the obvious question, a question so obvious no one seems to have asked it even to this day, is, how, why, did the ancient mythologists, the ancient high priests of religion, posit truisms, intuitions, and perceptions, which clashed with, or with some work could be made parallel to, their natural observations and perceptions? What is the perceptive apparatus of those men who posited theo-mythological truism that, when they clashed with natural observations, created the impetus for the "critical" evaluation of theory versus natural observation that Popper posits as the true life-blood of modern science?



John

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The important question then becomes, what kind of thinking, what kind of apparatus for thought, what kind of thinker, would question what the natural observations seemed to make undeniably true? Who, so to say, would question their own lyin eyes? And why?

Intrinsically, I think I know what feels good, at least, or what being a contented human should feel like. Motivation to act in this form, also seems to come naturally, if one allows. In other words I don't have to try to get these things, though with a little thought, I will not know why 'I' really am, or what my aims really should be. For this reason, early people may have seen that the sun and moon seem to aid the earth, and hence they spin round it, so why arrange them otherwise? But now we know better, and it cannot be undone what we know. However, does questioning the senses eventually lead to fault? We may risk journeying the whole spectrum from being supremely important to being incredibly unimportant. Are there things that maybe you shouldn't know, or should know better than to have to study? If you can observe it and your senses tell you it is so, are there things they detect where they should be allowed to lie somewhat, for one's own good

 

[John D. Brey]

Intrinsically, I think I know what feels good, at least, or what being a contented human should feel like. Motivation to act in this form, also seems to come naturally, if one allows.

In biblical myth, freewill requires a medium to function in. So the first humans are given a commandment that goes against their natural inclinations. Will they say, if it feels good (naturally speaking) you should, or will they say, whoever put us here must know more about us than we know about ourselves such that we should probably obey a commandment coming from his vicinity?

For the most part, modern Western science is a Judeo/Christian phenomenon (as is Western Civilization). And the Jews and Christians who are the pillars of Western Civilization were reared in an ideology and worldview that told them their natural inclinations were their enemies: keep your willy in your pants; fight your natural passions, anger, revenge, etc. . . . pursue unnatural frames of mind, like love your enemies, do good to those who use you.

Modern Western Civilization seems to have made some tremendous leaps and bounds ---- to the moon, Mars, heart-transplantation, Internet, I-phone, Siri, etc., that aboriginal peoples consider witchcraft.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

However, does questioning the senses eventually lead to fault? We may risk journeying the whole spectrum from being supremely important to being incredibly unimportant. Are there things that maybe you shouldn't know, or should know better than to have to study? If you can observe it and your senses tell you it is so, are there things they detect where they should be allowed to lie somewhat, for one's own good

Great question. And it's fundamental to the discussion. Are our natural illusions illusory for our own good? How we answer that will determine so much about us and our ideology, culture, religion, even political orientation.

Sigmund Freud claimed that when he had zeroed in on the fundamental problem hiding deep in a person's psyche (the problem causing them stress and faulty adaptation to their environment), they often stopped coming to see him. According to Freud, it seems their disorders gave their life order that they weren't wont to writhe free from in the end.

Are the genetic dispositions that cause our way of perceiving the world like that? Would we rather live a comfortable lie than have to question the disposition of our genes, and why, like an unfaithful lover, they just can't seem to remain faithful and true?



John

 

[amorphous_constellation]

In biblical myth, freewill requires a medium to function in. So the first humans are given a commandment that goes against their natural inclinations. Will they say, if it feels good (naturally speaking) you should, or will they say, whoever put us here must know more about us than we know about ourselves such that we should probably obey a commandment coming from his vicinity?

I think maybe a medium is the most reliable description of what we are, no matter what system it flies under. Consider seneca, where in the 16th letter to Lucilius, he remarks that we could be in hands of one of three things - either god, fate, or chance. No matter which of these it is, you are the medium who reacts and forms a defense against this information. Seneca's argument, I think, would be to try and fortify yourself philosophically, if you could.. whatever the hand that is molding you. So I guess that means, try and know as much about yourself as you can, try to learn

Modern Western Civilization seems to have made some tremendous leaps and bounds ---- to the moon, Mars, heart-transplantation, Internet, I-phone, Siri, etc., that aboriginal peoples consider witchcraft.

As well, western civilization seeks to escape certain things it may want to consider untrue. 'Primitive' people, if you might notice, are awfully more close to this earth that you and I tread

Great question. And it's fundamental to the discussion. Are our natural illusions illusory for our own good? How we answer that will determine so much about us and our ideology, culture, religion, even political orientation.

As a human, we might consider that some of the perceptions we have are oriented toward being a functional human. If you are sensing it, science might call this an 'anecdote.' Does your body agree?

 

[John D. Brey]

As a human, we might consider that some of the perceptions we have are oriented toward being a functional human. If you are sensing it, science might call this an 'anecdote.' Does your body agree?

I like your statement.

As humans, our genes serve us just fine; as a spider web serves a spider just fine. But as mammals endowed with divinity, we can look at our genes, and our body, and find them unacceptable in their unfaithfulness to the truth of divinity.

It's a glorious thing when human divines take a blade to the mammal-maker between their legs. God bless father Abraham. It's a glorious thing when thousands, or millions, of Catholic priests place a cognitive chastity belt on what Abraham left of the mammal-maker between our legs.

It's a glorious thing to say no to the flesh, and appeal to God for something higher, something greater, something closer to him.



John

 

[amorphous_constellation]

It's a glorious thing when human divines take a blade to the mammal-maker between their legs. God bless father Abraham. It's a glorious thing when thousands, or millions, of Catholic priests place a cognitive chastity belt on what Abraham left of the mammal-maker between our legs.

I am concerned with overpopulation if that's what your getting at.. but I think it's just a matter of trying to create effective birth control. We can leave it there, you probably don't want to veer off topic

It's a glorious thing to say no to the flesh, and appeal to God for something higher, something greater, something closer to him.

I'm not sure.. I think my view might be more about confronting the flesh, strengthening it, and possibly building a ladder with it to get to the greater thing. If the flesh is telling you to do something wrong, it should be re calibrated to tell you to do things that are right

 

[John D. Brey]

I'm not sure.. I think my view might be more about confronting the flesh, strengthening it, and possibly building a ladder with it to get to the greater thing. If the flesh is telling you to do something wrong, it should be re calibrated to tell you to do things that are right

. . . What if it's stubborn, and rebellious, lustful, and proud? How do we bring it into the divine fold when we're enfolded into its rebellion?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

We can leave it there, you probably don't want to veer off topic

. . . I don't know about that? We're more likely to encounter multifarious life-forms and fascinating living things by veering off the beaten path down a dark dirt road than we are by remaining on the bright lights of the superhighway to hell.

All we're likely to find there is roadkill recycled and pawned off as fresh meat.<g>



John

 

[amorphous_constellation]

. . . What if it's stubborn, and rebellious, lustful, and proud? How do we bring it into the divine fold when we're enfolded into its rebellion?



John

You know what.. if what I said doesn't work for some people, maybe it is better to handle it like you said. This is one of those things that people are going to handle differently , solutions are probably as myriad as are personality types