Dear Shahrooz
True, there is no free will IN THE CLASSIC SENSE. But Zarathushtra never claimed there was.
In Zarathushtra's ethics, thought, words, and actions are all part of ONE AND THE SAME LOOP.
But the concept of "free will" as addressed by the Greeks and Christianity and later exploited in most of western philosophy (with the exception of Spinoza and Nietzsche) argues that there is a SEPARATION between thought and action. It is as if thought can contemplate on its own without being one with action. A soul separate from the body.
However, Zarathushtra saw no such separation (he was indeed a monist).
So what we have is a BODY (we are the bodies) which we identify with FULLY (body has no separate soul, the soul is rather the attribute of the body - the other side of a unified coin so to speak - and not a separate entity anywhere in The Gathas). And this body has DRIVES and DESIRES, no "will".
Ethics is therefore about connecting Drive with Desire as to make the two work in unison. The drive (hunger, thirst, sexuality) to unify with desire (love, fullfilment, hopes, dreams etc). This we do through REFLECTION (through meditation) as if to program ourselves in advance. To think constructively as to speak constructively as to act constructively in sync with our drives and desires to do so.
There is no element of FREEDOM as such in all of this. Rather just a division between wisdom (to see to our long-term interests) versus stupidity (to act merely on impulse). This is the CHOICE we make, and as such it is free (asha vs druj), but there is no will to meet the choice. It is a choice of wisdom and not of will.
When confronted with an ACTION there is no immediate choice (you act as you are programmed to act, and brain science proves this too) but if you have REFLECTED on the possibility in advance you will act according to your reflections. This is to do asha. You and The Act you commit ar one because they were one IN ADVANCE.
The problems with dualism are many many many. But they are not mine. I'm not a dualist. Those problems are for dualists to deal with. ;-)
Ushta
Alexander/wwo has stopped discussing "The Wise Creator" with Mehran since the discussion makes no sense, absolutely no sense at all...
2009/11/7 SHAHROOZ ASH
Dear Friends,
Hope all is well and good.
1. Every physical event must have a physical cause; therefore, if we are Monists (Materialism), then Freewill does not exist. Only brain, means, no freewill. There is no way out of this; it is the consequence of the choice.
2. Dualism has a problem also, if we are a dualist; then we have freewill, however, this means we are breaking the rules of physics; it is the consequence of the choice.
In metaphysics, this is an unresolved issue in the study of philosophy. We do not have the answer to this problem when we couple the two issues together. Neither choice is satisfying or without a hole. The better choice might be agnostic, just claim you do not know. This might be the most satisfying position. I suggest those of you who are seriously interest in this single issue to take upper level courses in philosophy, in an academic surrounding, such as, freewill and determinism, philosophy of mind and personal identity. They cover these two issues and the conflict.
If a person thinks they have the answer to the unresolved problem above, then send me your easy and I will submit your paper to premier scientific philosophy journals for credited persons to read. And, if you have found the solution to an old age problem, then the person will be rewarded a noble trophy in this subject.
Generally speaking, the beauty of philosophy is the things we do not have an answer for yet. And, things that we find answers to, we stop discussing. So, this means we can discuss this issue, However, you must have a basic understanding of the issues surrounding this topic.
Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: jbagli@rogers.com
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:22:19 -0500
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Mehran's super-conscious father figure and Dewey's sociological take on The Mind
Dear Zaneta and Mehran:
I am at loss to understand the ever-ending argument of a Wise Creator for every little thing in Nature.
i think we all recognize the fact that Nature has an Order. That this Order of Nature is an embodiment of the Greater concept of Law of ASHA.
Asha like the God of Zarathushtra - Mazda - pervades through the entire creation. Mazda is therefore Omnipresent and here some may disagree, but I have to say that Mazda is present in ALL - animate and inanimate. For if we consider matter at its atomic and subatomic level the distinction between the living or thinking matter as against the rock or particle of sand totally disappears. At that level the Wisdom o Nature permeates ALL MATTER.
Based on this concept, the entire argument of going into creation of every little particle in the universe is redundant. That way one can argue that the very creation of a human being, even assuming their evolution, is a miracle in itself. No amount of science can and will be able to do that. Yes, i am fully aware of robots and artificial intelligence. but that is just what they is ARTIFICIAL as against Natural.
I hope this is of some help
Peace and Light
Jehan
On 7-Nov-09, at 5:19 AM, Zaneta Garratt wrote:
Hi Alexander and Mehran,
in your conversatins about the possibility of a Wise Creator-what about the perfect organisation of the Chemical Periodic table at-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table
To me anyway this perfect organisation speaks of the possibility of an Organiser of Wisdom-
-and also what about the light spectrum-the light we see is just a small part of the light spectrum-yet we know that the light we cannot see exists also-in the same way why cannot the spiritual side of life be real too-it is just we do not have the tools to measure its existence as well-
on the light spectrum-see-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum
-this is just what I think-and I am not a person who must rely on scientific proof for everything as to me faith is something which goes beyond beyond scientific proof -but some will think these arguments a bit lame,
Best wishes from zaneta
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: mehran_gheibi@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:20:07 -0800
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Mehran's super-conscious father figure and Dewey's sociological take on The Mind
Dear Alexander
You simply jump the matter. What is a neuron, except for a very well ordered/planned/ designed set of various components to do the duty?
Well, there is nothing but to possibilities: a the components know how to take place in their proper place and time or b- some wise maker has done this puting proper components in their proper places and so on.
In a case, which part of the component has done the duty of recognition?
Dear Alexander I need scientific explanatiom, for not accepting blindly.
Nik-o shAd bAshid
KhodA negahdAr,
MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.
Kerman_Iran
--- On Thu, 11/5/09, Alexander Bard wrote:
From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Mehran's super-conscious father figure and Dewey's sociological take on The Mind
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009, 4:56 PM
Dear Mehran
The answer is the neurons in your brain.
Or at least the neurons in my brain. Which are utterly material indeed (all their activities show up on brain scanners).
Whether your brain's neurons manage to produce intelligence, wisdom, mind, and consciousness I leave to you to decide.
Maybe your neurons need help from some spooky spirits, my neurons seem to be doing OK on their own.
Ushta
Alexander
2009/11/5 MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi
Dear Alexander
dorood
I can not believe that you did not understand my words. Thus I concluded that you are playing tricky play with words to overcome your inability of answering my questions. Please read my letter once again, however, fairly. I wrote weight for example. In physics there some material attributes, one of them is weight, another is radiation, magentic field, color ........ and many many of them. Color is called a material attribute becuase that every material with a proper set of electrones in outer orbitals causes such radiation that is called red color for example. If the density of the matter is low it cause pale red, and if the densty is high, it would cause a dark red.
Well which material cause does produce intelligence, wisdom, mind, consciousness?
Nik-o shAd bAshid
KhodA negahdAr,
MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.
Kerman_Iran
--- On Tue, 11/3/09, Alexander Bard wrote:
From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Mehran's super-conscious father figure and Dewey's sociological take on The Mind
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 12:03 PM
Light exists. But light has no weight. Space exists. Space has no weight. Time exists but time has no weight.
Weight is not needed for something to exist materially. Have you never studied physics at all?
But you totally miss the point here: Wisdom, mind, consciousness are ATTRIBUTES of material things and not things in themselves. Just like the color red for example. Red is an attribute of RED THINGS but it is not a thing in itself. Red has no weight. Red is what we perceive when we observe the lightwaves radiating from a red thing.
I learned these things in ground school when I was eight years old, Mehran!
What did you do? Skip class? It is actually quite embarrassing that you don't understand such basic things as the difference between an object and its attributes.
Cosnciousness is therefore the attribute of the activity of the human brain. Do you want to know what consciousness exists of? Well, look into your own brain.
Ushta
Alexander
2009/11/3 MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi
Dear Alexander
dorood
You also jump over the matter simply.
Does wisdom, mind, intelligence, consciousness exist or not?
There is a matrial attribute that is called weight, for example. It is the summation of a material attribute of atomic and sub-atomic particles? Well, from what /which attribute of atomic and sub-atomic particles such attribute of mind is made?
Nik-o shAd bAshid
KhodA negahdAr,
MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.
Kerman_Iran
--- On Tue, 11/3/09, Alexander Bard wrote:
From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Mehran's super-conscious father figure and Dewey's sociological take on The Mind
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 1:44 AM
Dear Mehran
Dino's very intelligent point is that MIND can not exist as a SOLITARY unit.
In other words: God can not be intelligent unless God has other gods to be intelligent with first.
This is how consciousness comes into existence.
So Dino is merely pointing out another flaw in your logic. You should listen carefully to what he has to say.
Again, I don't see your creator as very intelligent. Ahura Mazda creates all the time, without planning in advance, like a true artist and not as as an architect. This is obvious when you study how things actually work (science).
Ushta
Alexander
2009/11/2 MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi
Dear Dino
dorood
Why you jump the matter so easily? Are there wisdom, consciousness, intelligence or not?
Are they spiritual or material? If the are spiritual well my view point would be proved and if they are material, well which atomic, sub-atomic, quantum, process does have such attirbutes?
Is any brick intelligent enough to recognize its best place or a wise constructor upon a paln does make a house?
Nik-o shAd bAshid
KhodA negahdAr,
MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.
Kerman_Iran
--- On Sun, 11/1/09, Special Kain wrote:
From: Special Kain
Subject: [Ushta] Mehran's super-conscious father figure and Dewey's sociological take on The Mind
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, November 1, 2009, 2:50 PM
(1) Don't confuse consciousness with The Almighty Creator as planner and architect. What you ceaselessly want to prove is that anything in our universe - from dark matter to bees and their hives - presupposes a conscious being as managing and creative director.
But the mind is something different altogether: The mind arises from collective human activity and, specifically, the development of socially shared meanings that govern this activity. The mind as an emerging aspect of cooperative activity is mediated by linguistic communication (see John Dewey). You can't have subjectivity without intersubjectivity. And this leads to the expansion of meaning as an ethical obligation: the enrichment of the conscious individual's apprecation of their circumstances within human culture and the world-at-large, the fact that satisfaction and achievement can be realized only within the context of social habits and institutions that promote it. So ideals and values must be evaluated with respect to their social consequences, either as inhibitors or as valuable instruments for social progress.
(2) Another thing you're talking about is parapsychological research as the means to discover and repeatedly test the spiritual (or spooky) nature of existence. Parapsychology hasn't discovered your dear Almighty Creator. Most beliefs - whether Christian monotheism or New Age esotericism - have been falsified, not only by parapsychology, but also by the established natural and social sciences.
In other words, there's no Almighty Creator sitting above the clouds and outside of his or her beautiful (and sometimes disturbing) creation. Creation as a process is the only process there is. Still no engineer required, since the subject-object- relationship is nothing but grammar. And it's language itself which creates the subject! Before communication there were no premordial subjects thinking about what to do next and how to compose larger entities.
Ushta, Dino
