Fate and Free Will (Schopenhauer & Libet)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Deniis and all.

 

As I pointed out before, Libet's findings were discussed on this list

some time back (Ref: Posts 13196, 13201, 13208, 13212 of Shri

Atagrasin, Sadaji. Gregji and Ramji respectively).

 

I also contributed my opinion in post # 13211 as quoted below:

 

"This refers to the posts of Shri Atagarsinji, Shri Sadanandji and

Shri Gregji.

 

I have been lapping up their discussion with great interest.

 

Isn't there a hitch in Benjamin Libet's conclusions? The EEG "spurt"

occurred first followed by awareness of intention to act and then the

motor act itself at 0, 350-400, and 550-600 microseconds

respectively. I am not aware of the actual conditions of Libet's

experiments. As such, Libet's premises for concluding that the

EEG "spurt" was necessarily related to the awareness of intention to

act and the actual action that followed are not known. Can't what

the EEG recorded be an independent occurrence unrelated to the

subsequent volition and action? Couldn't the experimenter have an

influence on the outcome?

 

Libet was the observer in whose "awareness" the whole experiment was

occurring. What certainty Libet had about the electrical impulses on

his own brain? Was there a spurt of activity 300 ms or so before he

became actually aware of his findings? He has to necessarily accept

such an inferential scenario if his findings on another brain are

valid. Hasn't he? If my argument is correct, then his "findings"

were already there before he "found them out". His experiment was

not his experiment. He was made to do it. It was planted for him.

 

I know that my questions do not take us anywhere. However, I am

asking them to point out the futility of the whole exercise. I

don't need answers!

 

I think Shri Sadanandaji had Sankara's "karthum sakyam, akarthum

sakyam, anyathawa kartum sakyam" (Can do, can avoid doing, can do

differently) in mind when he talked about volition in vyavaharika.

That is not the point that Shri Atagrasinji is trying to make. So,

both are, in effect, talking at cross-purposes. If I have made a

mistake in concluding so, kindly correct me.

 

Let us take an example. Some one is offering me a bribe. My

vyavaharika reaction can be in three ways as Sankara pointed out. I

can gladly accept the bribe straightaway, I can reject it or I can

demand that the "briber" give me only half and give the rest to a

cause of charity so that I can put my conscience at rest. We do have

some freedom of action here as pointed out by Shri Sadanandaji. He

is quite right.

 

But according to Shri Atagrasinji the course that I would pick out of

the three mentioned above was already decided for me. I just do it.

I cannot say he is wrong either.

 

So, where does all this lead us? My understanding and conclusion:

Our volition has a seeming existence and, since we are aware of such

volition, from the vyavaharika point of view, it exists.

 

I have a choice – pick either "A" or "B". I am picking "B" by

exercising my seeming "volition". However, that I pick "B" had

already been decided for me as per Shri Atagrasinji. It is

this "prior decision" that is materializing through my present

action. This whole understanding is where? In my awareness. It is a

thought in my awareness. Who is thinking this thought? Me. Where

is Me? Everywhere. Where is everywhere? It is in Me. Where are

Skinner and Libet? In Me. Where are their findings as presented

by Shri Atagrasinji? In Me again. When I "look" I see them all,

their apparent occurrences in a time-scale very accurate to

microseconds. We call all this vyavaharika. When I don't "look",

they cease to exist. And only "I "remain – the paramarthika. We

cannot do without that clinching "I". The thought of infinite

regression cannot sustain itself without that final "I". Even the

following "thought" thought by Shri Atagrasinji cannot sustain itself

without that final "I":

 

Shri Atagrasin said:

 

QUOTE

"Thought is self-thinking. In other words, it just happens. It does

not grow out of a prior thought to think. The prior thought does not

cause the present one. The past one thinks itself and the present one

thinks itself and the two are unrelated and independent."

UNQUOTE

 

Shri Atagrasin need not accept a prior thought. No one wants him to.

But, he cannot certainly do away with that prior "I" – the Thinker of

All Thoughts. The timing of an electrical spurt on a mass of mortal

cells cannot change that truth!"

 

By the way, Schopenhauer hasn't said anything more than what we

already have expressed and know. However, his inimitable, cascading

style of expression is enough to keep the topic "bubbling".

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

_______