Sartre views our freedom as essentially unlimited. To the point that he characterizes "vertigo" as the sensation, not that we are going to fall off a high place, but the fear that we might throw ourselves off....

It is when I think 2 + 2 equals 4. — Arne

I was initially thinking this too. But by this reasoning, when I am looking at an apple, is my thought therefore "coloured"?

If I hold a gun to your head and threaten to shot you if you do not hand over your cash, whose choice is being exercised when you hand it over? Whose brain makes your hand move?

Mine or yours?

Yours.

It is my threat, but you chose to live instead of die and have your hand give your cash.

It is never my choice as I cannot make your hand move. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Per Sartre, even under torture, the victim determines the exact moment at which he chooses to submit to the torture....

Free will is a phenomenon, like gravity. So it isn't any more circular or tautological to describe free will in terms of its own evident operations than it is to describe gravity in terms of (in our environment) falling objects.

The notion that free will is problematic is one that gained credence mostly with modern science (particularly Newton) in the form of the Laplacian demon. This type of determinism has serious flaws, the uncertainty principle, being the most obvious. Karl Popper wrote a whole book on it (The Open Universe).

In any case, free will seems pretty self-evident to me, and not in the least bit complicated. Granted, it is possible to act in such a way that you abrogate your own free will (this is what Plato thought, evil actions by definition are not free, since they are inherently self-harmful). But for the most part, if you are paying attention and using your inherent powers of self-control instead of letting the universe provoke you into action, I think you probably are free. In my opinion, some people embrace the idea of free will as being problematic as an excuse for evading responsibility....

FB systems theory group I belong to just posted a link to what looks like a fascinating short article on self-organizing systems.
"I shall now prove the non-existence of self-organizing systems by reductio ad absurdum of the assumption that there is such a thing as a self-organizing system"

Nineteen pages, looks like a fun read. Sharing if anyone else is interested.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2384/d37ee804cfed6b56cc286d407ffec3bcc3b3.pdf?_ga=2.225389854.548608583.1579960117-2042921225.1568038417

I was looking for some interesting conversation on the conundrum rather than disdain for the idea itself — schopenhauer1

Well, speaking only from personal experience here, I have entertained this question seriously at several points in my life. At those time it was certainly what I would call an existential crisis of the highest degree...that's putting it mildly. So I don't really think it is fair for you to characterize my response as disdainful. Speaking as someone who has lived through it, that is my answer.

My experience further, is that the answers you like least are often the ones you need to think about most.

I do believe that there is an actual sense of "legitimacy" of authority, relating to the fact that every action we do ultimately results in an overall set of feedbacks from the universse (cybernetics). So if one is acting with corrupt authority, then those feedbacks will be corrective in nature, either destabilizing the system that enables corrupt authority or directly impacting the corrupt agent, undermining the extent to which his intentions are accurately accomplished.

The kind of "authority" you are talking about seems to me no more than the radical freedom to do whatever one wishes. Sure, we do have that freedom, but of what use is it? The scope and scale of our abilities ultimately depends on our embracing and adopting external systems, which are rule-governed. In so doing, we necessarily accept the laws of those systems, or suffer the negative effects of attempting to "bend the rules".

Insisting on being one's own highest authority is not the same as accepting responsibility for all one does. The world is full of the highest authority rejecting responsibility for the negative consequences of exercising authority. For many, the more authority they claim, the quicker they are to blame. — Arne

I would have to argue that what you are describing is an abuse of, rather than legitimate authority. Insofar as authority is legitimate, in my view it embraces full responsibility.

So barring cliched suicide responses and an appeal to therapy, is there any philosophical insights for people who simply dont like the premises of life? — schopenhauer1

I have found this attitude generally boils down to wanting things to be different than they are. And when it comes to changing the universe, versus changing yourself, the latter is far easier and more effective.

I am my highest authority, judge and guide. Who is yours? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I am ultimately responsible for everything I say and do and think. So I find myself pragmatically in the same category as you I think.

I just started Popper's "Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics" last night. His introduction concerning the relationship between the direction and characterization of physics research and physical concepts, and the historic and prevailing ontological and epistemological "trends", vis a vis. subjectivism in physics is just brilliant. A very clear read.

nd to date, every Cartesian answer is ultimately reducible to some form of parallelism, magic (transcendence) or “They just do. Isn’t it wonderful?” — Arne

Yes. It kind of reminds me how physics can be accused of introducing "occult forces" when it discovers counter-intuitive phenomena, such as action at a distance, in its now many forms (gravity, spooky action, quantum entanglement, etc.)

What is the sense of "self-sufficient" I know Plato considers the soul to be independent of the body, so in that sense, it is "self-sufficient". How is the physical body not self-sufficient for Plato? Also, his approach is that the soul must somehow free itself from the body's influences. Doesn't this imply they are distinct, and that the body is not merely an illusion?

Right, in that book on Fichte, the comment was specifically about the ancient greek concept of the nous...

If you are interested, the essay I am highly recommending, Indeterminism is not enough, may be found here.

There is a history of pre-Cartesian dualism here which talks about Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas.

In a book on Fichte (one of my all time favourite philosophers) Scott Scribner writes that "the mind/body split is the legacy of nous, the intellectualization of spirit". If you are interested, the evolution of the concept of "nous" and all the related descendant terms would be a fascinating project I'm sure.

Shelved the Systemic Thinking book as it is basically a short handbook for experimental design and methodology. Interesting, but just too tedious - I like to read about the experimental results but designing them is a ways off. lol.

So Popper's Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, volume three of his Postscript. They've been getting progressively more engaging....

edit: added The Portable Karl Marx into the mix. Ever since reading the thread suggesting a group read of Das Kapital I have been keen to really dig into Marx. This edition has an excellent preface/biography/chronology, so important to contextualize someone like Marx, I think.

So, I'll just reiterate, you are hijacking the thread, and not in a nice way. I've studied lots of information theory, neurocomputation, neural networks, cybernetics, I've worked as a systems engineer, am quite familiar with data mining, data cubes, and I'm pretty clear on what AI is and what it isn't. So forgive me if I don't accede to your stubborn, if myopic, fixation.

Saying that no serious discussion of the mind-body problem can begin without discussing AI is inane. I'm sorry to be blunt, but it is. Frankly, AI has no bearing at all on the mind-body question. Mind-body is about the interaction of thought and matter. AI is about simulating thought. You can "make" it about that if you want, but you're just shoving an ancient issue into a modern procrustean bed.

The mind-body problem is a feature of the universe and has been debated since time immemorial. Why, because man is suddenly capable of computational mimicry, does that suddenly become inseparable from the mind-body question? Simulacra have likewise been around for a long time. Do you also require that we must discuss the automata and simulacra of the ancient and medieval worlds?

that way also applies to current, man-made AI systems, — Sir Philo Sophia

Nonsense. Neural nets, for example are architected at a conceptual level, whereas neurons actually fire based on chemical potentials. You can model neural nets using chemical potentials which then code for concepts, but it is far more inefficient. In any case, talking about a natural phenomenon most certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that human beings also happen to create a model for that phenomenon. You are begging your own question.

What you said is a complete non-sequitur to the content of the post. Nothing whatsoever to do with simulations, or AI. It was a reading recommendation for people interested in the mind-body problem, in general, and this novel approach to it.

Is the world/cosmos/all absolutely whole and always moving towards wholeness/fullness? If it is, would it need to be infinite, because infinity is more complete than the finite? — DanielP

Actually current cosmology points to the various regions of the universe retreating out of causal contact with each other (cosmological horizon).

No argument from me. All I am pointing out is that the extension of the concept of the ego-cogito is far more complex now than it was in the 17th century.

Prove me wrong. — Wallows

If the claim "This is the best of all possible worlds" were true, then you would not be questioning it. i.e. No one disputes the claim "Liquid water is wet". So the fact that you have raised the possibility itself indicates the dubitability of the claim.

Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum is the product of his approach of methodological skepticism which, in my opinion, is the more important piece. Rene's conclusions about the status of the Cogito are the product of a mind limited to a seventeenth-century perspective. As such, it is hardly fair to criticize him from our standpoint of much deeper understanding of psychophysical processes (Popper would be more of a fair fight). I suggest recreating his approach of metaphysical doubt yourself and see where that leads you.

"Systemic Thinking - Vol. 1: Aspects of the Philosophy of Mario Bunge"
I wanted to read Bunge himself, but his books are way too pricey.

You have nothing to say on that point?! — TheMadFool

Well I'm not a solipsist. In fact, I believe that mind is a community phenomenon, and being an adherent of Systems Philosophy I embrace the maxim, unity through diversity. It seems evident to me that consciousness functions through concepts that are fundamentally inter-subjective. The ends or objectives of thought become trivial unless they involve a community of minds I think.

What's the difference between the I and the thinker? — TheMadFool

Well, yes, that is the question.

I extrapolated the possibility that the I is illusory from the general modification of CES.

It is a standard objection or caveat to "Cogito Ergo Sum" which you can investigate by looking at the Wikipedia entry. Personally, I formulated the modification independently.
"The objection, as presented by Georg Lichtenberg, is that rather than supposing an entity that is thinking, Descartes should have said: "thinking is occurring." That is, whatever the force of the cogito, Descartes draws too much from it; the existence of a thinking thing, the reference of the "I," is more than the cogito can justify. "

So if Cogito Ergo Sum does not implicate an "I" it has no direct ramifications for Solipsism, and could be conformant along the lines I suggest.

How is solipsism, specifically the part where you deny the existence of other minds, tenable when cogito ergo sum can be used to confirm the existence of all thinking beings? — TheMadFool

Cogito ergo sum does establish that "Thought" exists now: There is thought now, is how I like to generalize that aphorism. However the "I" seems like an add-on. Maybe the "I" is illusory, erroneous, or doubtful (to use the Cartesian language). So possible Cogito Ergo Sum applies to some kind of "universal mind" of which egos are illusory sub-units. This would be a consistent solipsism. I don't really think this is true, myself, but it is at least arguable.

Chances are the man would stand up to his oppressive regime because he does not fancy living in an oppressive regime. God has nothing to do with hating oppressive regimes. In fact, god will teach him (the scriptures, that is), that all authority derives from god. The person in the oppressed status in the other country will first obey the teachings of his scriptures or his inner voice that demands a fairer treatment. If he obeys the scriptures, he obeys god. But the scriptures say "obey your authority, for all authority derives from god." But the guy does not obey authority; hence, therefore, he is not obeying god.

Your entire simile failed. People don't rebel because of god. They rebel because they figure their lives sould be better. — god must be atheist

My example (it wasn't a simile) didn't fail, you disputed the premise, which is a long way from invalidating it. Cheers.

The manifestation of an illusion. — A Seagull

Interesting. Have you ever read Freud's "Future of an Illusion"?

I omitted your option on purpose. Nothing is good enough to replace god. God does nothing. It has no purpose, no action, no visible effect on the universe. So if you took nothing, and put it in god's place, you'd get the same world, absolutely unchanged — god must be atheist

If a man in a third world nation somewhere stood up to an oppressive military regime because of his belief in God, inspiring a revolution and freedom, would that be nothing? Things like this have happened. Granted, it is the "idea of God" but, really anything that anyone does is because of "the idea of" something, not because of the thing itself.

You omitted my option. Surely no one would deny the role of the unknown in stimulating discovery.

Why is it so much better to explain an experience as hallucinations or wishful thinking than to accept it as an experience of God? If you’re a physicalist, then you would call it a hallucination. If you believe that consciousness is an essential part of existence, then you are probably more open to God — Noah Te Stroete

Unfortunately the term God invokes strong prejudices on both sides. So replace god with ? and I'd agree. The cosmic unknown maybe?

As far as the ongoing pissing match, appeal to authority is generally a poor argument and can itself be a fallacy. Experts validate their credentials through the inherent strength of their actions or arguments, they don't rely on them for validation.

Speculation can be valued but it's not authoritative. How could it be? I'd ask Bartricks but he's become infatuated with coloring books. — praxis

I think by definition speculation is not authoritative, otherwise it becomes dogma?

I wonder how many metaphysical ideas have been off the mark. I guess that's the beauty of being a metaphysician, no one really cares when a theory is wrong. — praxis

Safe to say that much of what passes as definitive scientific truth today is wrong. What I love about Popper is that he is so...balanced. The most important thing to remember about science is it is only ever approximate. Otherwise you end up with Scientism.

For it is a fact that purely metaphysical ideas—and therefore philosophical ideas—have been of the greatest importance for cosmology. From Thales to Einstein, from ancient atomism to Descartes’s speculation about matter, from the speculations of Gilbert and Newton and Leibniz and Boscovic about forces to those of Faraday and Einstein about fields of forces, metaphysical ideas have shown the way.
~ Karl Popper