From: fuchs@michaelfuchs.org
Subject: Re: rooting for the determinism underdog...
To: ryan_canolty@yahoo.com (Ryan Canolty)
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 04:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: fuchs@michaelfuchs.org, cpoplawski@yahoo.com (Chad Poplawski), sc@ewav.com,
        alex@heublein.net (Alexander Heublein),
        jfk@stanfordalumni.org (Jeremy Kassis),
        jlaltrel@us.ibm.com (Joe Laltrello),
        ali.henry@talk21.com (Alison Henry), theman@followryan.com (Ryan Fife)

Wow! That was a brilliant forumulation--and very, very pretty.

I should probably properly introduce Ryan. We met at my sister
Danielle's recent graduation, in North Carolina. Ryan's partner, Sheila,
is a girlhood chum of Danielle's. The two of them live in Charleston,
SC, where Ryan teaches physics for the U.S. Navy. (Hope I remembered
that right . . .) I found out his real interest is in cognitive science,
and we spent most of the rest of the afternoon swapping philosophy,
science--and reading recommendations. A few comments:


Ryan Canolty intrepidly averred:
> 
> The concept or felt-sense of “I/me/mine” is
> what ties these two questions together.  In
> free will / determinism: I am that which
> chooses and decides and acts.  I am not that
> which merely happens.

With self-hood--and "agency"--being one of the great unsolved problems.
Lately, I've been getting to the point of wondering [and I here I use
Ryan's words, lamentably, as a mere springboard to go off on my own
direction] if the self is, in a word, highly ilusory . Let's look at
self-hood (or "consciousness" or "sentience") through our old warhorse
evo-psycho lens. If you take a couple of steps back on the evolutionary
path, you can check out our nearest relations--pygmy chimps and great
apes (I should say "other great apes," as we are, taxonomically, great
apes). These spunky little fellows have rudimentary self-awareness:
they recognize themselves in mirrors, have egos that can be offended,
worry about their status within the tribe, etc. Where would something
like this come from?  

Well, as we evolved up from the green muck, we grew some mental tools
for perceiving the world around us. Being able to avoid falling off
cliffs, and dodge predators, and make sticks into spears, and whatnot,
conferred survival and reproductive advantages. But, after a long time
of just noticing trees, and bears, and wood--all of a sudden one of
these early primates noticed . . . itself. That is, the self joined the
category of things that life was aware of. And it pretty much spiraled
out of control from there--we got social climbing, and hair styles, and
careers, and hurt feelings, and shit. But, at the end of the day, all
"we" are, is a bunch of sensory apparatuses checking themselves out in
the mirror. "So, if consciousness, or sentience," you might ask, "is
really just an elaborate set of self-observations . . . then this notion
of the self, of me--a notion to which we are deeply, deeply
attached--doesn't actually exist? It's just an elaborate illusion?
Mirrors facing each other?" To which I would reply, "yes."

Importantly, so would Lao Tzu. (This is more germane, in regard to
Ryan's beautiful marriage of particle physics and eastern mysticism, to
which I'll return in a minute.) From the _Tao Te Ching_:

	"Hope and fear are both phantoms
	 that arise from thinking of the self.
	 When we don't see the self as self,
	 what do we have to fear?"


> We, as humans, are a
> function and action of the universe.  But not
> in some special, anthropomorphic way.
. . . <snip> . . .
> Thus it is true, as Michael says, that Darwin
> found God -- although I might say that he
> found the Tao since evolution “...flows
> everywhere, to the left and to the right. 
> All things depend upon it to exist, and it
> does not abandon them.  To its
> accomplishments it lays no claim.  It loves
> and nourishes all things, but does not lord
> it over them...” Evolution, like the Tao, is
> most definitely not omniscient but rather
> operates via blind, unknowing action, in the
> dark.

Mein Gott! If evolution and the Tao are connected in some important way,
I may just fall over. This would be a stupendous connection. But, you
know what--I've always felt there was something Lao Tzu wasn't telling
us. He would talk about "the source" a great deal; but he never told
us what it was.  

	"If you don't realize the source,
	 you stumble in confusion and sorrow.
	 When you realize where you come from,
	 you naturally become tolerant,
	 disinterested, amused,
	 kindhearted as a grandmother,
	 dignified as a king."

You don't suppose Lao Tzu scooped Darwin by 2200 years . . . ?!

	"There was something formless and perfect
	 before the universe was born.
	 It is serene. Empty.
	 Solitary. Unchanging.
	 Infinite. Eternally present.
	 It is the mother of the universe.
	 For lack of a better name,
	 I call it the Tao.
	 It flows through all things,
	 inside and outside, and returns
	 to the origin of all things."


> The idea that I am
> this physical organism, this bodymind, rather
> than that organism, or even the environment
> in which they find themselves no longer has
> as much support.
. . . <snip> . . .
> Imagine playing the prisoner’s dilemma now. 
> Your mind-brain is working with a different
> representation of self than before -- you see
> yourself as both prisoners, even though you
> only experience the perspective of one.  You
> realize that the two organisms are like the
> left and right hands of a larger body, and
> seek to maximize the net benefit.  You have
> expanded your circle of concern to include
> everyone and everything

Brilliant! At the risk of turning this into a L.T. lovefest:

	"See the world as your self.
	 Have faith in the way things are.
	 Love the world as your self;
	 then you can care for all things."


> Check it out -- use
> determinism to show that the organism or
> bodymind has no free will.  But by negating
> free will, you have negated the idea of a
> separate self to be constrained or
> determined.  Thus determinism is negated as
> well, for what is it that is being determined
> if there is no other option?  What is left is
> reality as such, doing its thing, and its
> actions, properly speaking, are neither free
> nor determined.   
> 
> Far out?  Yes.

But it also solves the problem very nicely.


> These are all
> tricks, actions you can take to disengage the
> differential sense of self, the sense that
> you are this and not that.  After practicing
> long enough, you feel yourself to be all of
> reality.

And that's how so-called "satori" is usually described: a sudden
understanding that there is no barrier between the "self" and the rest
of the universe.

	Q: What did the mystic say to the hot dog vendor?
	A: "Make me one with everything."


> This is the logical conclusion to
> the expansion of moral span that is the basis
> of ethical development from egocentric to
> sociocentric to worldcentric.
> 
> Personally, I like this vision of reality. 

Me, too.  8^)  I think you've made genuine progress.

Michael

-- 
              Michael Fuchs     "He's one who has no use for millions;
     fuchs@michaelfuchs.org      all he wants is to find an answer to
http://www.michaelfuchs.org      the problem."  -  Dostoevsky