Rhizome 4/14/16 in which I randomly thread my way through the ongoing discourse (and may the wrath of Strunk rest in its grave (between me, Christopher, and Chris on the issue of free will:
“Can you elaborate on “participation” as simply as possible, please! Also I understand that the deductive regress argument relies on causality but what is looped causality? Is it a reflexive model, a-temporal in effect?” –Chris
To approach it from a different angle, Chris, and to better explain why I consider it a kind of synthesis between your MORE (not pure (materialist take and Christopher’s MORE (once again: not pure (dualistic approach to the issue, you have to look at Participation as a component (as compared to “Captain of the ship” in the system that, via its interaction with the various determined systems it interacts with, and through the kind transcendent resonances (emergent properties (that results from their interactions, creates a composite effect that is a conditional form of free will.
And you have to look at it in the context of evolution in order to understand the role the feedback loops have played in it. Having evolved from simple organisms that evolved simple nervous systems that coalesced into central nervous systems that budded (step by step (into the brains that allow us to do what we are doing here. And what has driven this process is the body’s effort to negotiate its environment in ways that will optimize the success of its given gene pool -much as Dawkins describes it. Hence: the non-linear feedback loops described by chaotics: that between the body, its brain, and the environment it is attempting to negotiate.
And to answer your question about a-temporal effects: yes. What evolved along the way was an ability to imagine the future and to anticipate which made the already non-linear feedback loop (that is between body, brain, and environment (even more non-linear –especially given the fact that the body and brain have always been and will always be prone to misguided anticipations of what their environment will bring.
And I would add here that the mathematics of chaotic have presented the possibility of attractors and strange attractors which, by definition, imply a role for the future in the feedback loops I am describing.
“Edward, just to correct one point you make, in which you say that I am defending dualism. By criticising Ryle, I am merely revealing the flaws in his supposed analysis of dualism, which is not the same thing as defending dualism. “–Christopher
In my defense, Christopher, I would refer to a point I made in rhizome 4/13/16:
“Not to brag or pat myself on the back here, Chris, or claim that I have some kind of final take on this, but I’m starting to feel like the synthesis here in that while I wouldn’t go as far as Christopher does in arguing for dualism (that is to the extent he does while LIMITING HIMSELF….”
That said, I kind of get what you are saying. At the same time, I would caution you that it will be taken as dualism and argued against as such. I get it in that you are working from a univocal concept of being in the same sense that Berkeley came to a univocal concept of being later reinforced by quantum physics and Deleuze. But you are looking for proof of a soul, bro, that will continue to exist after we die. And that is a hard product to sell in these jaded times. But, at least, you are in the good company of David Chalmers.
Godspeed! I really do hope you succeed.