[Ailist] PsyBlog: Do You Believe in Free Will?

Stephanie West Allen stephanie at brainhygiene.com
Sat Jan 24 07:57:41 MST 2009


I agree with you, Ken. And would love to see your paper. Here is more  
re that last piece of research I sent along yesterday:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/abs/nature07664.html

Stephanie

On Jan 24, 2009, at 6:58 AM, kgergen1 wrote:

> I, for one, am very pleased that the brain is finally coming under  
> scrutiny as "the" explanation of human behavior. There has been so  
> much popularization of brain studies, entirely misleading in most  
> cases, and as this view becomes dominant, so is the significance of  
> human meaning, and our capacities to shape our future through  
> relationship, diminished. I am just completing a draft of a paper  
> that argues for our viewing the brain not as a determinant of our  
> actions, but as a carrier of cultural meaning...not our master, but  
> our servant. If anyone would like a copy, let me know...Ken
>
> On Jan 23, 2009, at 10:43 PM, Stephanie West Allen wrote:
>
>> The way we see the brain seems to be getting some shocks to it  
>> recently. A couple of clues . . .
>>
>> Another shock for brain imaging research - the signal isn't always  
>> linked to neuronal activity
>>
>> http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2009/01/another-shock-for- 
>> brain-imaging.html
>>
>> Stephanie
>>
>> On Jan 23, 2009, at 8:35 PM, kgergen1 wrote:
>>
>>> From a constructionist standpoint, you can also see that all  
>>> forms of opposition are what you might call rhetorical or  
>>> literary devices. The rhetoric of opposites doesn't reflect the  
>>> world so much as create what we take to be the world. Thus, we  
>>> are free to jettison the traditional determinism/voluntarism  
>>> opposition, and to ask if there are other, more useful (given our  
>>> values) ways to construct the brain, and what we take to be free  
>>> choice. Whether the construction of a "higher level" serves this  
>>> purpose seems an open question. Ken
>>>
>>> On Jan 23, 2009, at 7:21 PM, Stephanie West Allen wrote:
>>>
>>>> If we are in our reflective mind, we have free will. If we are  
>>>> in our reactive brain, we likely don't, except that most of us  
>>>> can choose to move into the reflective mind.  The free will/free  
>>>> won't debate as seen through the neuroscience lens is laid out  
>>>> quite well in THE MIND AND THE BRAIN by Schwartz and Begley. As  
>>>> you probably know this is a topic of much disagreement among the  
>>>> neuroscientists.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a good book, Bruce.
>>>>
>>>> Stephanie
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 23, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Bruce Elkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/01/do-you-believe-in-free-will.php
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting article, Stephanie. I like the “compatabilism”  
>>>>> approach, toward the end.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the underlying question poses a false dichotomy, what EF  
>>>>> Schumacher called a “divergent challenge.”
>>>>> The more you frame the question and try to solve it, the more  
>>>>> the “solutions” diverge from each other. Ultimately you end up  
>>>>> with polar opposites, such as free will vs. determinism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Schumacher said that you have to transcend the question by  
>>>>> going to a higher level value.  He gave the example of the  
>>>>> French revolutionary slogan, “Liberté, Egalité, et Fraternité”  
>>>>> as an example. If you have unlimited freedom, society won’t be  
>>>>> very equal. To get it completely equal, you have to regulate  
>>>>> freedom too much. So the French went to the higher order value  
>>>>> of compassion (brotherlineness/ fraternite), to help reconcile  
>>>>> the dichotomy between freedom and equality.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my new (soon to be finished) ebook Staying Up In Down Times:  
>>>>> Resilience, Results, and Rewards, I discuss this issue and  
>>>>> Schumacher’s approach to it.  In it, I say:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Schumacher’s pairs of opposites “cease to be opposites,” he  
>>>>>> says, “at the higher level, the really human level, where self- 
>>>>>> awareness plays its proper role.” At the level of the whole  
>>>>>> person, higher, more senior forces such as love, compassion,  
>>>>>> truth, understanding, and creativity enable us to embrace and  
>>>>>> transcend these polar opposites.
>>>>>
>>>>> As usual, I’m trying to make a case for a shift from a  
>>>>> predominantly “problem” focused approach to the higher-level  
>>>>> “creating” approach (which I suggest is very compatible with  
>>>>> the AI approach).  I add:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Creating is more powerful—and simpler—than problem solving  
>>>>>> because it mobilizes such forces as caring, and love. Working  
>>>>>> within creative tension, we can transcend problems, and create  
>>>>>> what truly matters to us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Urge to Create
>>>>>> The great psychologist Carl Jung recognized the wisdom in  
>>>>>> transcending divergent challenges when he said that life’s  
>>>>>> messy problems are not solved, only outgrown. As we saw  
>>>>>> earlier, they fade away when confronted with a new and  
>>>>>> stronger life urge such as the urge to create.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Creating is driven by the power of love—the desire to bring an  
>>>>>> envisioned result into being. It is rooted in the truth the  
>>>>>> current state of the result. It expresses our creative spirit  
>>>>>> through choices and action. It is the place, where the hands,  
>>>>>> the head, and the heart come together.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, to come back to the free will vs. determinism dichotomy, I  
>>>>> think it, too, can be transcended by creating.
>>>>> Our choices are not merely determined, only partially. Much  
>>>>> choice is freely chosen, in support of higher order values and  
>>>>> visions. It’s not so much a “both/and” balance, but more a  
>>>>> hierarchy of choice in which we acknowledge the degree to which  
>>>>> our past and our biology determine us, and we transcend that  
>>>>> determinism through higher order choices and actions in support  
>>>>> of what we want to create.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, unless we understand and master the “creating”  
>>>>> approach and it’s structure, we’re doomed (determined) to flail  
>>>>> away at things with our problem solving hammers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>> ****************************************************************** 
>>>>> ***
>>>>> BRUCE ELKIN: Helping You Create What Matters Most!
>>>>> 20+ Years   -   Clients on 6 Continents   -   Author of 3 Books &
>>>>>  The Forthcoming Simplicity, Success & Sustainability
>>>>>
>>>>>    Tell me, what will you do
>>>>>               with your one wild and precious life?
>>>>>                                                   - Mary Oliver
>>>>> Get My Fr.ee e-Newsletter at
>>>>>     http://www.bruceelkin.com/newsletter.html
>>>>> Phone: 250.388.7210  Web: http://www.BruceElkin.com
>>>>> Blog: http://createwhatmattersmost.blogspot.com
>>>>> ****************************************************************** 
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> The Appreciative Inquiry Discussion List is hosted by the David  
>>>> Eccles School of Business at the University of Utah. Jack  
>>>> Brittain is the list administrator. For subscription  
>>>> information, go to:
>>>> http://mailman.business.utah.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/ailist
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> The Appreciative Inquiry Discussion List is hosted by the David  
>> Eccles School of Business at the University of Utah. Jack Brittain  
>> is the list administrator. For subscription information, go to:
>> http://mailman.business.utah.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/ailist
>



More information about the Ailist mailing list