Posts Tagged ‘free will’

The Final Chapter? No Free Will: The End of Guilt and Pride

Wednesday, March 5th, 2008

Originally posted on 05-29-07:

 

I finally finished nibbling away at Po Bronson‘s book, What Should I Do With My Life? and I think this post may finish my comments on it.

 

There is a story near the end about a guy whose brother committed suicide, his feeling of guilt as a result, and Po’s sharing with him his own feelings of guilt. When I mentioned it to Eve, she said, “I remember it—don’t remind me.” It’s residue had not been particularly positive for her.

 

I have written so much about guilt in The Journal, and in more condensed form in the essay on Free Will, and talked about it in the podcast series, Bare Brains, that I fear I may have flogged it to death, but in case you haven’t been exposed to any of that, here’s a short version:

 

First I should mention the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous, which have a long record of effectively dealing with guilt, particularly the 8th and 9th steps: “8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all. 9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.” The previous steps are a necessary preparation for these, otherwise you’re likely to do more harm than good.

 

Toward the end of my nine-year sojourn in AA, I began to have a somewhat idiosyncratic approach to the idea of apologizing for wrong behavior, based on the realization that no one is really in control of their thoughts or actions. While it is true that the things I do and say are attributable to me as agent—as the body/mind that performs the action—it is also true that those behaviors are the unavoidable outcome of the interaction of my particular physiology with the events that have shaped me. My brain is constantly calculating its next action, given its history, but I have very little awareness of how those calculations are done or what their outcome will be until I find myself thinking, saying, or doing something.

 

There has been a long and continuing debate about whether there is any entity in the brain that can act independently of anything that has ever happened to it, and I come down on the side that says the idea is nonsensical, along with Albert Einstein, Marvin Minsky, Douglas Hofstadter, Michael Gazzaniga, most neurophysiologists, and a host of other clear thinkers.

 

This lack of free will does not eliminate the assigning of responsibility to persons for their actions—the functioning of society requires this assignation—and if learning to accept it has not been part of our training, we will be retrained, or failing that, restrained.

 

Given all that, making amends to people in the tradition of AA, and apologizing, takes on a different light. If I find that my actions have caused someone harm, I make it right if it involves property damage or some such, in the sense of an obligation for the privilege of participating in society. If it is appropriate, I say to the individual involved, “The person I was at the time had no choice but to do what he did, and I regret the occurrence of that event. I have become a different person, one who would make every effort to avoid such an event, if possible, and I hope I am never associated with a recurrence.” Hopefully I am capable of expressing this with sincerity and humility—I generally don’t try unless I honestly feel that way.

 

The more such an interpretation of human behavior becomes a habit, the more general its application. I don’t see anyone else as being in control of their behavior, any more than I see myself in control. Consciousness allows us to watch the events of our lives unfold, without giving us any control over them.

 

With this approach, guilt and pride don’t make much sense. While I don’t feel guilt, I still feel regret over my misdeeds, and while I don’t feel pride, I still am made happy by my successes. I think there is a substantial difference between this and traditional interpretations.

 

When I got to the last two lines of this book, the point of view that has evolved in me gave them a little twist. Po wrote, “I used to want to change the world. Now I’m open to letting it change me.”(p. 365)

 

It is possible for the actions of individuals to change the world—Po gives many examples of this—but in my view, all change is part of a much larger process. The world changes all of us, and as a result, our actions produce other changes, and those changes produce changes in us, and on and on. While discrete individuals can be associated with specific events, their is no real beginning to the story, and no end.

 

I cannot “let” the world change me—it changes me will I or nil I—but I can recognize that being changed is the nature of my existence, and that recognition is a gift from the world that I greatly appreciate.

 

bridalveil-and-friend-4.jpg

This Water Falls of Its Own Free Will

Google  

But What Is Real? The Limits of Perception/Conception

Tuesday, March 4th, 2008

Originally posted on 05-19-07:

 

I ended yesterday’s post mentioning the importance of distinguishing fantasy from reality, which brings up a really big question: What is reality?

 

Which reminds me of the current installment of Visual Dharma on Tricycle’s web site, a video of a talk by Nyogen Yeo Roshi called “Seeing Through the Illusion.” He talks specifically about the kinds of illusion that are unavoidably built into language. A favorite subject of mine, so I’ll quote myself from an essay on free will:

 

Another benefit of language is that it allows us to unite groups of things with one term rather than having to refer to them by naming all their constituent parts. This benefit has a shortcoming in that it simulates a kind of unity that may not do justice to the true complexity of that to which it refers. It leads to our thinking that words refer to objects when no true object exists. The classic example of this objectification, this blurring of complexity, is the case of the visitor being given a tour of a “university” who complained that he had only seen a bunch of buildings. In fact, you cannot see a university, which might properly be considered to include not only the campus, but the instructors and staff, the students, the curriculum, and the history.

 

So one kind of illusion that arises, almost constantly, is in seeing “things” when what we are looking at or thinking about is a process or a summary of phenomena that is much more complex than language can describe. Language necessarily simplifies, and a more rigorous view of reality requires keeping that in mind.

 

The Roshi also makes a sweeping gesture to encompass his field of view and says that “all this” is illusory. Although it may not be what he intended, what that suggests to me is the limits of our perceptual apparatus.

 

Which brings to mind a book I read for the first time a few months ago by Robert Anton Wilson, called Quantum Psychology: How Brain Software Programs You & Your World. (In getting that link I saw that he died in January, and strangely, I felt a sense of loss I didn’t feel when my own father died.) He says, “…we see that most animals perceive as accurate a reality-tunnel of their local habitat as will statistically allow most members of that species to survive long enough to reproduce. No animal, including the domesticated primate, can smugly assume the world revealed/created by its senses and brain equals in all respects the real world or the ‘only real world.’”(p. 92)

 

So part of “seeing through the illusion” is to recognize that our perceptual apparatus is limited in its abilities. Even though our perceptual realm has been vastly expanded by technology, our initial capabilities limit the kinds of things we can even imagine looking for.

 

Not only are we limited in this way, but the limits of our sensory systems limit the kind of reality we can conceive of. For example, our technology allows us to measure certain behaviors of light that are particle-like, and others that are wave-like, but our brains have no way of conceiving a “thing” that would have both those kinds of behaviors. If this is true of light, a phenomenon we are capable of seeing, it suggests that there may be other phenomena whose very existence we can’t conceive.

 

Given all these considerations, it becomes clear that the totality of reality is likely to be much more than the limited realm we can perceive and think about, and to think otherwise is illusory.

 

This doesn’t mean that our reality is, in fact, unreal, or altogether illusory. Our perceptual reality is close enough to “the real thing” to give us what we need to know to survive on this planet for a few billion years—in one form or another. If you put your hand in the fire it will probably hurt.

 

But our perceptual/conceptual reality has its limits—visual illusions being one of the most fun examples—and appreciating those limits can improve our sense of humor. It can also help us to deal with our suffering more effectively, and eliminate much of it.

arches-detail-smaller.jpg

How Real Is This

Google