Tag: morality

Debunking the “Free Will Illusion” Part 2: Three Levels of Self-Governance

Britton William Frost1 Comment

To continue from my previous post, self-governance is not as common as we’d like to think, but I intend to hold that it is still possible for everyone in certain cases and following a degree of conscious effort to understand the self. That said, it seems plausible that it is not a function of most of us, most of the time.

Although there are many, I want to focus on three sources of self-governance from which we can draw principles for living, as I mentioned at the end of the last section. They can be from morality (truth), from self-enforced boundaries (the self), or from external authority (others).

Appealing to external authority for the formulation of principles, regardless of how true they are or how good the results they produce, is a logical fallacy — i.e. an error in reasoning. Whether they are copy and pasted from your father, mentor, religion, or boss, nothing is true or good because of the person’s position of authority, and you give up your own inner authority by blindly following that of another. People have varying degrees of just authority, and such a degree may represent their ability to guide someone toward the truth if it is indeed the truth for which they live — this means that they have good intentions. Good intention is unconditional and does not seek money or control, and it is only from those with good intention that we can truly learn anything. Still, lead us they need not. Their wisdom should merely help us to guide ourselves. It could, on the other hand, be that the authority is merely self-serving (as is the case for leaders for whom pride is the driving force of their reign), and one’s ability or inability to distinguish between others’ true or ill intentions means that one is vulnerable to selling their soul’s autonomy to the ones who seek it. External authority is never the answer for principle-setting.

Self-enforced boundaries come merely from the self. They are often overcorrective, flight response limits to external stimuli and events. So, although one is the sole, conscious arbiter of these rules, they are at the willing hand of the world, and so boundaries are not set with clear consciousness. They draw a line in the sand and say “I will do that and not do this”, regardless of the circumstances, thereby, paradoxically, letting circumstances control their rigid minds. They shortcut the work one must do in order to adapt to external circumstances as to “do right” under any conditions, which requires cultivating a filter for what one will allow oneself to be influenced by. Boundaries, rather, build a wall against facing circumstances as they are. They mistake defensiveness for genuine protection, and they only delay the cultivation of character.

The human mind, much like the body, is anti-fragile. The more one is exposed to and observant of something, the more one understands its patterns, and the less one fears it. Boundaries do not seek to understand things in themselves, but rather, avoid those things from fear. However, this type of self-governance is a step in the right direction for someone who was previously guided more directly by external authority.

Genuine moral principles, in contrast, constantly, voluntarily take on the challenge of being tested. It is as if one’s belief system is in a constant state of exposure therapy. With every test, a principle gets stronger because it is both being exposed to its foe and making use of the wisdom gained from facing all of the tests from the past. Expose yourself to nothing, and you will go weak. Principle must come from self-awareness, but not arrogance, and understand that the external world is not within one’s control. Therefore, minor improvements occur in one’s principles over time. A principle-forming person knows that the only thing he can control is his responses to externals, based on his patterned understanding of those externals and how he is both a keen observer and a dutiful participant in all of reality. This type of person is a spiritual person who has gratitude for life and all of its struggles and joys, and they relish the duties of observation and self-improvement. This path implies a belief in some universal conception of truth and goodness, and self-improvement equates to the process of sharpening one’s perception as to orient them closer to that universal state with every thought, word, and action.

Self-governance from the cultivation of moral principles is a path rooted in unconditional acceptance — unlike boundaries which are seen as good under the condition that they don’t cause one pain, or external authority which has no intrinsic right to speak on others’ behalves to begin with — and they are the only governance pattern whose origin really is in truth and goodness for one and for all. “Truth and goodness for one and for all” is perhaps the core value from which any sustainable principles originate, for it is universal and non-polar in nature, which relinquishes the ego’s need to believe and prove things…

As it turns out, the ego rules most, and those people would rather take the easy path of outsourcing their own moral authority anyway.

Debunking the “Free Will Illusion”

Britton William Frost1 Comment

The other day, I read this PsyBlog article that attempts to explain a psychological study which, according to the author, seems to imply that humans are mechanical robots merely controlled by neuronal impulses in our brains, and that free will is an illusory conception that humans have constructed to cope with death. There have been numerous studies, including the one described in that article, which show that neurons in the brain begin to fire before the person can report being conscious of their decision to pick up a pencil or before they can predict exactly which one of five circles on a computer screen changes color, for examples (the latter example is the experiment referred to in the article). The article also mentions the term ‘unconscious’ several times, and the usages imply that ‘unconscious’ should be defined merely as ‘the mechanical workings of the brain’. My aims in this post are to explain why that is an oversimplified and unsophisticated definition of ‘unconscious’, and also to suggest, partly on that basis, why these studies not only do not imply that free will is an illusion, but that they have virtually no bearing on what constitutes free will to begin with.

A Less Trivial Definition of ‘Unconscious’

There is one thing that the article (and anyone who would agree with it) gets right: we are not in total control of what we see, understand, and believe. However, this truth cannot be maintained to every degree of analysis imaginable (the highest degree being the ontology of free will and morals, arguably). This raises a semantic problem. Everyone has their own definition of what constitutes “unconscious” and even “free will”. The level of analysis that the article attempts to operate on is one of moral ontology, but it fails. Instead, it maintains the assumption that all that exists in us are mechanistic processes, and those processes are “unconscious”. We are our brains, and our brains are computer processors that take in data and organize that data for output, and when we are faced with stimuli relevant to our experiences, we merely react in accordance with our pre-organized data. Eh, well, partially correct! We are more nature than nurture after all. But, how does this imply that we don’t have free will? Let’s step back first. What can we infer from this article’s usage of ‘unconscious’?

“Neural activity is unconscious”, materialists will hold. Yes, we know that to the same extent that we know that digestion in the intestines is unconscious, and it need not be overstated. It is merely a biological process per se. However, biological processes tell us very little about our conscious world — the reality that we actually experience. They presuppose that the origins of our behaviors and decisions are pre-programmed inside our brains, and the neuronal activity is the first step in activating those programs (which we call decisions). This is an assumption, albeit a rather interesting one. Those who believe that this process is the causal origin of our behavior commit the most basic fallacy in science: correlation without causation. Why do they assume that the brain is the beginning when the brain requires the world to gather information to begin with, and why would anyone assume that we are disconnected from objective reality to the extent that we are separate and not intimately connected to it in a way that our actions most likely have ancient origins. What is left over when we commit to this materialist view of perception?

A lot, I would say. In fact, one can control some aspects of even these biological processes. If I am lactose-intolerant, I can consciously avoid dairy so my digestion maintains a regular track. In the same way, I can somewhat control what my brain “processes”. If I am at a music festival, for example, and I have to decide whether I want to attend the concert of a band I have already seen or that of a new band I haven’t yet seen, my decision will affect what my brain processes. If I choose the familiar option, I will go into the show having certain expectations based on what I have already processed from previous shows of theirs. If I choose the unfamiliar band, (which is statistically less likely), then I am choosing a new path. My experience will not be dictated by any biases, and, in a way, the show will present a challenge — a challenge to what I already know and expect in music generally. It is not only those biological processes that are necessarily unconscious, but so are some of the decisions we make which come prior to those processes. We can, however, take control of those decisions if we think about learning and decision-making in the right way. So, let’s think about it like this: perhaps the origins of our behavior and decisions are in the world, but not in the minute-by-minute, stimuli-centric world that neuro-materialists would like to believe. If it were that way, then we would not even be able to inquire about how our minds work as we’re doing now (which requires temporarily stepping outside of them), much less to overcome social pressure to leave our friend group at a music festival to see the band we want to see, alone.

What I am dancing around now is the more nuanced meaning of ‘unconscious’ that we find in fringe psychology and spiritual circles.

“To know oneself is to make the unconscious conscious.” — C.G. Jung

We can observe, in my field of birth chart astrology, that people live out their charts until they seek knowledge about them. The birth chart represents one’s innate set of perceptions and predispositions for responding to different aspects of reality. Someone is likely even living out their transits when they come to me for consultation — i.e. there is something external compelling them to learn about themselves at a particular time — but free will is clearly expressed in how they make use of the information I give them. The better one knows oneself, the more opportunities they will have to express their free will. There is still no guarantee, however, that they will. As I always say, I don’t tell people what to do; I help them own what they choose to do.

There is a strong case that it is not when someone is acting from their proclivities, but rather only when someone acts against what is normal and comfortable for them, that they are expressing free will. This “opposition to the self” kind of behavior must be founded on moral principles, boundaries, or in the very least, external rules. These represent three different degrees of self-governance and the spectrum of our human relationship to that concept, and only one fully shows that free will can be expressed in any case. In the next post, I will describe these three levels and show the connection from free will to that one of them, perhaps revealing something about the origins of autonomous decision-making that evaded us in the beginning of this article.

Tinder Fun With a Feminist

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

I’m Britton, as you should know, and below you’ll find the bio I wrote for my Tinder profile. If you don’t know what Tinder is, then get your head out of the sand, and read about it here.

2017-05-22 16.49.15

I was in New Orleans the other day, getting my swipe on, and then I came across this fine, older lady.

2017-05-22 12.40.00

The first things, ‘politically progressive’ and “the f-word”, I admit, probably should have raised red flags before even her shitty taste in music did. Those terms on their own hint at far-left political views, but the two of them together scream ‘SJW‘. However, she was hot, and that’s very rare of feminists, so I read into her words and saw deeper possibilities. I was hoping that maybe we could talk some philosophy, giving her the benefit of the doubt that her knowledge on that subject wasn’t confined to new-wave feminist crap. Hey, maybe she was even a feminist of the second-wave, non-radical kind, and ‘progressive’ just meant that she was kind of liberal and open to reasonable and necessary change. Maybe she’d even have a cat named Elvira. With this optimistic attitude, I swiped right and immediately tested her humor to see how “open” she really was.

2017-05-22 12.24.23

BOOM! No fun or games with this one. Did I “proudly proclaim” that I am politically incorrect? Reread my bio, and let me know. I think I’m just straightforward about what I want out of my Tinder experience. She could have easily swiped me left if my intentions didn’t line up with hers. Looking back, though, maybe I should have ended my first message with a winky face. 😉

2017-05-22 12.26.28

Do you value truth, Jessica? DO YOU? We’ll find out. Also, Jessica, I’ll be addressing you directly from here on. Wait, is it ok that I call you by your name, or would you prefer something else? I don’t want to be too incorrect and risk “invalidating your existence“.

2017-05-22 14.12.41

Yeah, let’s define a term together! That sounds like a fun philosophical exercise. Maybe you’ll even return the favor by asking me how I would define the term, and then we’ll find some common ground, bettering both of our conceptions of the world. Learning stuff is fun! You read philosophy, so you agree, right?

2017-05-22 12.29.22

Annnnnd there it is. You pretty much nailed it, Jessica. I’m guilty of whiteness, so there’s no need to ask me what I think ‘political correctness’ means. Your understanding of how language works, on the other hand, seems a bit strange, and the philosophy you read may be of questionable quality. My validity on that topic comes from my education in linguistics and philosophy of language. But, you’re attempting to “invalidate” me because I’m… white? Hmmm.

I don’t think that speech is an activity so consciously aimed toward respect, nor do I think it’s a good idea to blindly respect people at all. In fact, it’s dangerous. I’ll spare you the technical linguistic part of the argument because I’m starting to sense that you have a screw or two loose, but I still must address the respect-issue.

Also, how are you so sure that I’m not black or transgender? If you respected me, then you would have asked about my preferred identity because race and gender are determined whimsically and have no biological basis, correct? No, you should have simply requested a dick pic, Jessica. Truth requires evidence, and I have plenty of it.

2017-05-22 12.31.40

So, maybe there’s more to political correctness than your definition, Jessica, and maybe I know some stuff that you don’t. Maybe you’d be interested in hearing it. Maybe if you weren’t so keen on blindly respecting others, then you wouldn’t be so liable to get mugged and raped in a dark alley in New Orleans. Or, maybe you’d like that because you’d become a martyr for your ideology. At this point, you’re not giving me any reason at all to respect you, but I do fear for your safety. After all, you’re right that the world isn’t a very kind place.

2017-05-22 14.39.072017-05-22 14.40.34

I figured I’d play the “patriarchy” card since you already accused me of being part of it by virtue of my straightness, whiteness, and maleness. What did you expect? Why did you swipe me right if you hate me by default, unless you wanted to hate-fuck me (shit, I may have missed my shot)? I mean, you’ve seen my pictures. Chances are that I’m not black under my clothes. In fact, I’m even WHITER there. Well, actually, there is a very small part of me that is kind of tan.

2017-05-22 12.35.42

2017-05-22 15.00.48

*ignores grammatical errors and moves on*

I know I’m an asshole, Jessica. There is no need to repeat yourself. But, does being an asshole make me wrong? No, Jessica, you’re the meanie who committed ad hominem. I also didn’t appeal to emotion to argue my point. You just took it that way. Taking offense and giving it are NOT the same thing. That’s Philosophy 101.

But…do save me! Please save me from my problematic ways so I can be more compassionate like you and make the world a more progressive place! Or, do I need a degree in women’s studies to be infected with your profound wisdom? If it’s LSU that infected you, then you’re right that there is no hope for me because I dropped out of that poor excuse for a higher-education institution after just one semester of grad school.

On the other hand, I could help you by revealing your greatest contradiction, and maybe even give you one more chance to get laid by me, knowing well that so few men would have gotten even this far with you. I mean, this is Tinder. Why else would you be here? Yeah, that’s what I’ll do because I want some too. I’ve learned to accept that liking sex makes women delicate flowers and men oppressive misogynists. It’s cool, really, I don’t need to be reeducated. I’ll even let you play the role of misogynist, and I’ll be the victim, and you can oppress deez nuts all you want.

2017-05-22 15.11.27

That’s where it ended. So…

What the hell is going on here?

I don’t think that I need to go into detail about what is going on here. There are plenty people who have done that very well already. For example, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson in this brilliant snippet from the most popular podcast in the world. The general point I want to make is that we are in a strange place where people like Jessica are multiplying exponentially by the semester, thanks to politically correct ideology infecting universities, business administrations, legislature, and now even Tinder (as if Tinder doesn’t already have enough spam)! This is the time for talented and capable people, mostly men, to stop ceding power to the people who live in those boxes; they’re wrong, and they’ve snuck their way into power without truly earning it. To stand up for truth is to stand up for yourself. However painful that may be now, it is absolutely necessary for the survival of our species. After all, if we were all angry, 35-year-old feminist virgins, of course humanity would end.

Since we aren’t all like Jessica, one day we will be without these people completely. Let’s give them what they want: spare their feelings, thus depriving them of the open, truth-seeking dialogue that would mold them into stronger moral beings and free them from the narrow and suffocating constraints of the feminist ideology. Since they aren’t open to that sort of thing, they will eventually self-extinguish under their childless philosophy and rot in the miserable hell that they’ve created for themselves.

Collective Subjectivity = Reality :: The Utility of Phenomenological Thought

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

In my last post, I explained the differences between and the proper uses of the terms ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’. To recap, these terms do not describe the positions from which one perceives. Of course, everyone perceives subjectively, and objects don’t perceive at all. Therefore, the subject/object spectrum is not a spectrum on which one may judge a matter’s truth-value. The spectrum simply describes the nature of the matter at hand — subjective means “of a subject” and objective means “of an object”. Having said that, how can we define truth more broadly? What determines it?

I think that we can, in many conceivable instances, equate truth with reality. This is based on one of two popular definitions of reality. The first, more popular definition in which we cannot equate truth and reality, and the one I reject, is that of objective, Newtonian-scientific reality. This holds that there are mathematical laws and principles out there in the universe, already discovered or waiting to be discovered, which the forces of nature can be reduced to. Proponents of this view hold “rationality”, in all of its vagueness, as the singular Platonic ideal which dictates what is true, real, and meaningful. It follows from this that mechanistic science holds the key to all knowledge. The problem here is that mechanistic science (not all science) is founded in the metaphysical belief in materialism. Materialism suggests that all reality is comprised of quantifiable matter and energy. Humans, and all living things, are “lumbering robots”, as Richard Dawkins claims. Consciousness, ethics, morality, spirituality, and anything else without a known material basis is subjective in nature and thus superstitious, irrational, and not real. As I have already explained, this worldview rests on a straw-man distinction between what constitutes subjective and objective, for it assumes that this distinction creates a spectrum on which to judge a matter’s truth-value (the more objective, the more true).

Remaining consistent with how I have distinguished subjective and objective is the second, less popular, and in my view, much more useful way of defining truth and reality: what is real is what affords us action and drives us toward a goal. The definition is as simple as that, but its implications have a tremendous amount of depth rooted in the unknown. Instead of holding one Platonic ideal (like rationality) as the key to all truth, there are an infinite number of ideals that humans conceptualize, both individually and collectively, in order to achieve their ends. Therefore, this view affords relevance to a wide range of perspectives even if the nature of the objects being perceived is unknown. The rationalist view, by contrast, is limited to the assumption that the nature of everything has already been determined to fit into one of two metaphysical categories: objective reality or subjective delusion. (This Newtonian theory of reality I have just explained, by the way, is a long-winded way of defining ‘scientism’, a term I often use in my posts.)

Nature doesn’t obey laws; humans do, so we tend to compartmentalize everything else in that way because that makes it easier for us to explain what we want to know and explain-away anything we don’t want to know. What we don’t want to know is what we are afraid of, and as it turns out, what we are afraid of is the unknown. So, when anomalies, whether personal or scientific, that don’t fit the already-established laws arise, a Newtonian thinker will categorize it as illusory in order to explain it away. This doesn’t work because even we humans have a propensity to break the laws that we create for ourselves, and this can be a very productive thing. The degrees to which this is the case depends on our individual psychological makeups. People who are high in the Big-5 personality trait conscientiousness, for example, tend to obey rules because of their innate need for outward structure and order. Those who are low in that trait are more likely to break rules, especially if they are also low in agreeableness which measures one’s tendency to compromise and achieve harmony in social situations. Openness, on the other hand, the trait correlated with intellect and creativity, allows one to see beyond the rules and break them for the right reasons — when they are holding one back from progress, for example. These are just three of five broad personality traits that have an abundance of scientific research to potentially confirm their realness and usefulness, even as a rationalist/Newtonian might perceive them. However, the tendency of someone to break rules as a result of their psychological makeup does not only apply to political laws. We also create collective social rules among groups of friends and unconscious conceptual rules for ourselves in order to more easily understand our environment, and those systems satisfy the same basic human needs and take the same hierarchical forms as political order does, and they serve purposes that contrast only in terms of their widespread-ness.

Regardless of our individual psychologies, there are commonalities that all humans share in terms of which types of goals we have and which types of things drive us toward or away from action. Those things are, therefore, collectively subjective across humanity and are what I would like to propose the most universally real and true things (insofar as anything can be universally real or true at all). This leads me to elaborate further on this goal-oriented view of reality.

Since I used Newton as a scientific lens through which to understand the rationalist theory of reality, I will do the same thing to explain the goal-based theory that I am proposing, but this time using Darwin. Philosophically speaking, Darwin did not commit himself to his theories in the same law-sense that Newton did his. In fact, many of Darwin’s ideas have recently been found to be rooted in psychology rather than in hard mechanistic biology. His main principle can be summed up with this: nature selects, and we make choices, based on what we judge to be most likely to allow us to survive and reproduce. That is all. Everything else is just detailed justification which may or may not be true or relevant. In fact, Darwin left open the possibility that the details of his evolutionary theory not only could be wrong, but that they probably were, and he was very serious about that. To take all of those details literally leads one into the same logical trap that the “skeptics/ new atheists” fall into when they obsess over the details of the Bible — they oversimplify and misrepresent its meaning, and therefore overlook the broader, most important points that exist. These are straw-man arguments, and they demonstrate a persistent, juvenile lack and rejection of intellect.

The reason Darwin’s main evolutionary principle is psychological is because it is consistent with Carl Jung’s idea of the archetype. An archetype is any ancient, unconscious pattern of behavior common among groups or the entirety of the human population and their ancestors. The need for all living beings, not only humans, to survive and reproduce, is undoubtedly real. It is something we understand so little, yet it drives an inconceivably wide range of behaviors, most of which are taken for granted to the extent that they are unconscious (e.g. sex-drive is causally related to the desire to reproduce). It is not only in the natural world that humans would have to desperately fight for their life against other species, but even among ourselves in the civilized world have there been instances of radical attempts to wipe out masses of people because one group saw another group’s ideologies as threatening to their own survival and prosperity (e.g. both Hitler and Stalin led such endeavors in the 20th century).

Perhaps, instead, if we equate truth with this archetypal, goal-oriented conception of reality, then we can come to a reasonable conclusion about what constitutes truth: that which affords and drives us to action. That is to say that (capital-T) Truth, in the idealistic, rationalist sense, probably does not exist, and if it does, our five senses will never have the capacity to understand it. The best we can achieve and conceive is that which is true-enough. For what? For us to achieve our goals: survive, reproduce, and make ends meet, and if we are very sophisticated and open, to also introspect, to be honest with ourselves and others, and to live a moral and just life.