Your Meditation Guide Blog

* The American Museum of Natural History displays a collection cabinet that belonged to Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discoverer of the principle of natural selection.

A couple of months ago I attended a lecture by Saul Kripke at CUNY’s Graduate Center. Kripke is one of the most influential philosophers of the late 20th century, someone who you simply have to go see give a talk if you have the chance, on the sole basis of his legendary status. As in many such cases, it is not unlikely that one is going to be disappointed, given the extremely high expectations. Sure enough, Kripke was not at his best that day, and his legendary extemporaneous style of lecturing fell short of the mark, resulting in an interesting, but somewhat chaotic and hard to follow talk. Still, I’ve seen the genius at work. Which reminded me of the problem of inverted qualia, about which Kripke has an ongoing disagreement with other philosophers of mind, chiefly Colin McGinn.

What on earth are “qualia,” and what’s so problematic about having them inverted? Daniel Dennett famously said that qualia is “an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us” (think of colors, or sounds, or taste). He also added that qualia is “one of philosophy's most virulent memes,” and although I don’t buy into the whole memetics spiel, I must admit that he has a point.

The problem of inverted qualia goes back to John Locke, who asked us to imagine a situation in which we wake up one day and — without any physical change having occurred in the world or in our brain — we suddenly perceive colors in a different way: what used to be red now gives the sensation formerly known as green (and vice versa). Ok, one might say, cute little thought experiment, but who cares? We are supposed to care because the inverted qualia argument allegedly shows that secondary qualities (like colors), and particularly first person “phenomenological” experiences of said qualities, do not depend on a particular physical substrate in the brain, i.e. they have no physical basis.

What? Well, here is the actual formal argument, as far as it goes:

Premise 1: If X is possibly false, then X is not necessary.

P2: It is conceivable that the relationship between qualia and physical states of the brain be different from what it actually is.

P3: What is conceivable is possible.

Conclusion 1: Qualia are therefore not identical with brain states.

C2: Also, qualia are not physical.

Got that? That’s the beauty of analytic philosophy: its arguments can be expressed in a formal fashion, which is meant to make as clear as possible what one’s premises and conclusions are, so that others can fairly examine them and either accept them or knock them down one by one. (For comparison, try doing the same with anything by Derrida or Foucault, good luck.)

With the case in question, we could of course attack any or all premises. I am going to let P1 stand, because it does actually tell us that if something is logically possible then it is physically possible, and I do believe that the set of physical possibilities is nested within the set of logical ones (though one could of course argue that that depends on which type of logic one is using, etc.).

P2 is tricky: yes, it is conceivable that the relationship between qualia and physical states of the brain be different from what it actually is, all one has to imagine is different physical properties of light, or different chemicals perceiving light falling on our retinas, or a different type of signal transduction in the brain. But the crucial part of the inverted qualia argument is not just that the relationship between qualia and physical states could be different, it is that qualia could be inverted with no physical change at all with respect to the way things are at the moment. That, I maintain, is impossible. In other words, we certainly could have brains wired in a way so that what to other animals looks red would look green to us, but that can only be accomplished by a physical change in the way the brain works (indeed, we do have empirical examples of something like this: the bewildering phenomenon of synesthesia).

P3, as appealing as it superficially is, is also highly debatable. I can conceive, for instance, of a universe with different physical laws, like a different gravitational constant. But that doesn’t guarantee that such a universe is possible: there may be very good reasons, unknown to modern physicists, why such a universe could actually not come into existence. This is a fascinating area of inquiry, concerned with the relationship between logical and physical possibility. But it’s treacherous territory, and if I were a non-physicalist, I wouldn’t stake too much on it. (This is, of course, why I don’t buy David Chalmers’ silly arguments about zombies and the hard problem of consciousness.)

What about the conclusions, then? Obviously, all we need to do is to refute one of the three premises and we are done, the conclusions no longer follow. Still, I’ll probably buy into C1, if we modify it thus: qualia are not necessarily identical with the particular brain states we happen to have. Different brain states could generate the same qualia, depending on the complex pathways connecting the physical objects in the external world, their perceivable properties, and the evolutionary history and physical makeup of our own perceptual systems.

C2, on the other hand, I think is simply daft: qualia are not physical? Really? So why do we need physical objects, physical eyes, physical neurons, and so on, to perceive them? Alter any of the above, and our perception of qualia changes, a really strong reason to believe that qualia are in fact physical. (Similarly, the minimally reasonable position about consciousness is what some philosophers refer to as the “no ectoplasm clause”: however consciousness works, it’s grounded in a functional physical brain; take the brain away, you’ve got no more consciousness.)

So, whatever disagreement Kripke and McGinn are still having about inverted qualia, I doubt it matters in the long run: secondary qualities are better and better explained by neurobiology and cognitive science, and philosophers should make use of such explanations to inform the many interesting debates still open in philosophy of mind.

PTI, November 24, 2009

Kathmandu, Nepal -- Despite appeals to halt the centuries-old custom of animal sacrifice, Gadhimai festival on Tuesday started in southern Nepal with millions of devotees flocking from various parts of the country and India. Thousands of buffaloes are waiting to be sacrificed at the Gadhimai Mela, the largest "animal slaughter" in the world.

It is estimated that some 35,000 to 40,000 buffaloes, which are brought mostly from India, for the world's largest ritual sacrifice at the temple. French actress and animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot has sent a letter to President Dr Ram Baran Yadav, asking him to stop animal sacrifice at the festival. "I personally find it hard to imagine that your heart can withstand such cruelty, knowing that you, being the head of the country, are ultimately responsible," she wrote. Tibetan Buddhist master Lama Zopa Rinpoche had requested all Buddhist centres and students to read the Golden Sutra and pray for halting the killing.

James: Nepal!! You're breaking my heart!! This story makes my stomach churn with sickness to think of 35,000 to 40,000 innocent animals being slaughtered in the name of spirituality??? I try to be very open minded about religious customs but this is one that I can't be silent over. To be sure this is mass genocide. I see these animals as no different than human beings so this ritual killing horrifies me to the point of nausea. It surprises me that Hindus would engage in such carnage especially given how sacred cows are to them--both cows and water buffaloes are of the bovine family. This "festival" seems in total contradiction to that as well as the teaching of Ahimsa (do no harm, practice non-violence). It is said that to kill a cow in Hinduism is like killing a Brahman so how do they reconcile this festival with that teaching?

It's not my place to tell Hindus what to do in their religion but I beg of them to contemplate how this festival could be in keeping with ahimsa and the sacred veneration of cows. I'm trying not to let anger slip into my heart over this so I will follow the advice of Lama Zopa to read and contemplate the Golden Sutra today (also known as the Golden Light Sutra). It is a sutra that is often coupled with a vow to domestic animals killed that they might be reborn in the human realm. It is usually done by those who have killed animals and wish to atone. I will also be reading and contemplating the Lankavatara Sutra and especially Chapter 8, which speaks of animals and eating meat. I dedicate any merit or good will cultivated from this to all the animals slaughtered during the festival and to the participants that they might realize the suffering they are causing and end it. This is interesting timing with the coming of Thanksgiving here in America. Another holiday where people slaughter animals and come together as friends and family. I don't understand why animals have to be killed in order to celebrate family togetherness. Below I have put together some of the main points of Chapter 8:

Thereby I and other Bodhisattva-Mah?sattvas of the present and future may teach the Dharma to make those beings abandon their greed for meat, who, under the influence of the habit-energy belonging to the carnivorous existence, strongly crave meat-food. These meat-eaters thus abandoning their desire for [its] taste will seek the Dharma for their food and enjoyment, and, regarding all beings with love as if they were an only child, will cherish great compassion towards them. Cherishing [great compassion], they will discipline themselves at the stages of Bodhisattvahood and will quickly be awakened in supreme enlightenment; or staying a while at the stage of ?r?vakahood and Pratyekabuddhahood, they will finally reach the highest stage of Tathagatahood. Indeed, let the Blessed One who at heart is filled with pity for the entire world, who regards all beings as his only child, and who possesses great compassion in compliance with his sympathetic feelings, teach us as to the merit and vice of meat-eating, so that I and other Bodhisattva-Mah?sattvas may teach the Dharma.

Mah?mati, in this long course of transmigration here, there is not one living being that, having assumed the form of a living being, has not been your mother, or father, or brother, or sister, or son, or daughter, or the one or the other, in various degrees of kinship; and when acquiring another form of life may live as a beast, as a domestic animal, as a bird, or as a womb-born, or as something standing in some relationship to you; [this being so] how can the Bodhisattva-Mah?sattva who desires to approach all living beings as if they were himself and to practise the Buddha-truths, eat the flesh of any living being that is of the same nature as himself? There is no logic in exempting the meat of some animals on customary grounds while not exempting all meat.

James: In other words, you wouldn't eat your dog or cat so why eat any other animals? I have read the sutras that speak of Buddha saying eating meat is o.k. for monks because they can't be picking and choose what food to accept and not accept. I also know that in some countries the climate does not permit much vegetable growing and some people need meat for the diet though that is being questioned by modern science. So I do not believe Buddhism requires vegetarianism but I do think it is a helpful practice to help cultivate compassion and non-violent attitudes. I try not to be judgmental and forceful when it comes to vegetarianism because that doesn't help convince people of vegetarianism but instead drives them away and causes more suffering. I just let the sutras speak, give my own opinion (it is my blog after all) and as is just in my view -- let people decide for themselves. I do think, however, that we can all agree (or at least most of us) that is "festival" in Nepal is barbaric and excessive. I hope that one day soon it will be abolished.

James: When you think of the awesome power of the Chinese Communist Party and the relative weakness of Tibet one would think that Tibetan culture would have been extinguished like a butter lamp being blown out by a cold, Himalayan wind. Countless Tibetans have fled Chinese occupied Tibet for decades upon decades but the most important aspect to the exodus was the knowledge carried out with these hearty folks -- especially the monks and elders. They have carried with them the sacred and historic traditions of Tibetan Buddhism and the greater Tibetan culture. So while Tibet itself is still under siege the Tibetan heart is alive and beating strong. Tibetans have been adopted and taken in by the world and all have benefited. Tibetans are given sanctuary to ride out the storm of religious intolerance and militant occupation of their homeland and the world has been given access to the precious jewel of Tibet -- Tibetan Buddhism.

To be sure Tibetans must long for home and be greatly pained to see their homeland changed so much. As well as obviously worrying for their friends, family and fellow Tibetans still living in that stunningly beautiful country. However, if any peoples are prepared to outlast and actually thrive due to such change and upheaval it would be the Tibetan people. That is because most of them are Buddhist and as we fellow Buddhists know the core of the Buddha's teachings are on how to deal with suffering and change. Surely some Tibetans wanted to stand and fight--and some did but the majority knew it was better to push that ego aside and move on toward India and the greater Tibetan diaspora so that their culture could survive. If they would have stayed to fight then they would have probably been nearly completely wiped out as a people and as a culture. Their traditions would have been lost under the dusty, dirty boot of oppression but as it is their culture is alive and well in dozens of countries keeping the flame burning.

Thich Nhat Hanh has often spoke of what it means to have a home and what is our true home. He like the Dalai Lama is an exile from his homeland. In Nhat Hanh's case, Vietnam:

Who amongst us has a true home? Who feels comfortable in their country? After posing this question to the retreatants for contemplation, I responded. I said: “I have a home, and I feel very comfortable in my home.” Some people were surprised at my response, because they know that for the last thirty-eight years I have not been allowed to return to Vietnam to visit, to teach, or to meet my old friends and disciples. But although I have not been able to go back to Vietnam , I am not in pain. I do not suffer, because I have found my true home.

My true home is not in France where Plum Village practice center is located. My true home is not in the United States . My true home cannot be described in terms of geographic location or in terms of culture. It is too simplistic to say I am Vietnamese. In terms of nationality and culture, I can see very clearly a number of national and cultural elements in me –– Indonesian, Malaysian, Mongolian, and others. There is no separate nationality called Vietnamese; the Vietnamese culture is made up of other cultural elements. I have a home that no one can take away, and I feel very comfortable in that home. In my true home there is no discrimination, no hatred, because I have the desire and the capacity to embrace everyone of every race, and I have the aspiration, the dream to love and help all peoples and all species. I do not feel anyone is my enemy. Even if they are pirates, terrorists, Communists, or anti-Communists, they are not my enemies. That is why I feel very comfortable.

Every time we listen to the sound of the bell in Deer Park or in Plum Village , we silently recite this poem: “I listen, I listen, this wonderful sound brings me back to my true home.” Where is our true home that we come back to? Our true home is life, our true home is the present moment, whatever is happening right here and right now. Our true home is the place without discrimination, the place without hatred. Our true home is the place where we no longer seek, no longer wish, no longer regret. Our true home is not the past; it is not the object of our regrets, our yearning, our longing, or remorse. Our true home is not the future; it is not the object of our worries or fear. Our true home lies right in the present moment. If we can practice according to the teaching of the Buddha and return to the here and now, then the energy of mindfulness will help us to establish our true home in the present moment.

James: The Dalai Lama and many, many Tibetans understand this concept and thus where ever they are, they are home. We should all do this regardless of what country we live in. We could be living in our home country yet still feel disconnected from it, which can make us feel isolated and maybe even ignored. If, however, we follow the advice of The Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh then we will never feel alone where ever we go because home is not a place but rather a state of being/mind. Our true home travels with us and can be accessed at any time. It can not be taken away regardless of how many foreign soldiers might occupy our country. So, In recognition of the survival of Tibetans and Tibetan culture, 2010 will be a year to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Tibetan resilience. An organization called, Thank You Tibet! is setting up a community online to find creative ways to honor Tibetan culture and people. If you have some time and the inclination do check it out because who amongst us hasn't benefited in someway by Tibetan culture?

* MSNBC, the liberal-leaning news channel, criticizes President Obama's performance so far, for pretty goot reasons.

In Buddhism, we distinguish between spiritual experiences and spiritual realizations. Spiritual experiences are usually more vivid and intense than realizations because they are generally accompanied by physiological and psychological changes. Realizations, on the other hand, may be felt, but the experience is less pronounced. Realization is about acquiring insight. Therefore, while realizations arise out of our spiritual experiences, they are not identical to them. Spiritual realizations are considered vastly more important because they cannot fluctuate.

The distinction between spiritual experiences and realizations is continually emphasized in Buddhist thought. If we avoid excessively fixating on our experiences, we will be under less stress in our practice. Without that stress, we will be better able to cope with whatever arises, the possibility of suffering from psychic disturbances will be greatly reduced, and we will notice a significant shift in the fundamental texture of our experience.

- Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche, “Letting Go of Spiritual Experience,” Tricycle, Fall 2004. Special thanks to Phil for the quote.

James: When I first started practicing the Dharma and meditation in particular I would have these spiritual experiences such as a feeling as though I was floating while meditating. I have had amazingly vivid and seemingly real dreams of being visited by great Buddhist teachers during deep contemplation while sitting. However, in my opinion they are like empty calories in the long run of my practice. It's like eating a gooey, sugary treat while hiking, which gives me an explosion of tasty pleasure but in the long run it is empty of the kind of energy needed for sustained progress along the path. If I indulge in these sugary treats too much then I get a stomach ache and realize that the special treats if indulged in too much can cause more suffering than benefit.

Spiritual experiences like moments where visions of enlightenment break through my ego-mind barriers and tempt me to obsess over them like a sugary but empty food. They are shiny objects for the ego-mind to latch onto and use to claim some sort of exceptionalism, which (I have found in my personal experience) is a result of placing too much importance to these experiences

When I have had spiritual experiences they are quick bursts of exciting phenomena experienced while meditating that explode into my mind like a bright comet, which enthrall me but burn out quickly. I find, however, that realizations are rare but that they, unlike a comet are like earthquakes that shift, shatter and altar my life forever. For example, it was nice, entertaining and tantalizing to feel so at one with things while meditating that it felt like my body was blurred and blended into the surroundings like I was the subject of an artist's painting. Whenever I feel this, it always makes me happy but is nothing like actually realizing (and thus seeing) emptiness in all things and places without having to induce it through deep meditation.

~Peace to all beings~

Lately there has been a lot of tension between Buddhist magazines and the online Buddhist community. These magazines sadly are missing the point behind the rise of the Buddhoblogosphere. It being a representation of how popular Buddhism is becoming in America but more importantly with how it's becoming popular with others besides the traditional American Buddhist core -- rich, white academics on the two coasts.

And it's popular not because we proselytize but because people investigate it and find it helps them. They are missing this bigger picture that America is quite well suited for the reason and rationality of Buddhism. Americans are trained in the scientific method. So it is refreshing to many of us to find a way of life (Buddhism) that is not only o.k. with questioning authority and the truthfulness of things -- It encourages it (as is seen in the Kalama Sutra), which I see becoming one of the root sutras/suttas for many American Buddhists. However, many (not all) in the American Buddhist establishment do NOT like the spirit of the Kalama Sutra when it involves them. They do NOT like to be questioned, debated or challenged.

A lot of times the articles printed in these magazines are deeply cerebral dissections of esoteric sutras and discussions around issues that rarely touch the average Buddhist practitioner. And while I actually do like digging through sutras/suttas, I'm using it as an example to show that many of these magazines aren't getting the average man's point of view on Buddhist practice. I'm not saying one way of learning is better than another but I just wish that the elitists didn't look down their nose at those of us who respond well to online interactions. It has helped a lot of people and broadened Buddhism a great deal. Is it perfect? Of course not but it deserves more respect than it is sometimes given.

Buddhist blogs tend to be (not always) more approachable and easier to relate to as we discuss how the Dharma affects our direct, day-to-day lives. We might not always have the glossy pictures, so-called experts and titles before and after our names but we live in the real world where we don't have time on our hands to spend hours and hours at the temple or sangha (if we so lucky as to have one near-by in the first place). We are just average people like most people in this world including those looking into Buddhism for the first time. A recent article wrote that seeing the Buddhist community discuss their disagreements isn't flattering and might turn away practitioners. I think that's disingenuous at best but at worse betrays a desire to scrub Buddhism of the "dirty peasants" that are apart of Buddhism as much as peaceful, smiling monks.

I was recently mentioned in Tricycle magazine in not the best light and since I wasn't given a chance to respond to these charges in the article, I'll do so here. I was criticized for defending myself when attacked by commenters -- especially when they level that criticism with rudeness. I can listen to advise and criticism but not when it is done with rudeness and anger. Here is the article, Dharma Wars. Below is my response to the article:

I am the author of "The Buddhist Blog" mentioned in the article and I would have hoped for the author to have contacted me before using my words. As well as ask me for a comment on his article. Anyway, I have never claimed to be a teacher, master, monk, rinpoche, ordained or enlightened. If you read in my profile it states that I'm just an average practitioner trying to travel the path on the middle way.

The reason I reacted to Twisted Branch was because of the aggressive manner in which he leveled his criticism. I don't mind criticism but since I'm not a Buddha or Bodhisattva I still get hurt when people I don't know attack me for being something that I am not. So of course I'd do what any red blooded person still struggling with samsara would do -- defend themselves and their blog. I have worked hard to establish my blog as one of the top blogs addressing Buddhism today. That said this doesn't make me an expert but a kind of "Buddhist columnist." I don't appreciate being attacked and my integrity as a Buddhist questioned just like you probably wouldn't like it either.

We Buddhist bloggers are often attacked by mainstream columnists for Buddhist magazines but what makes our columns any more controversial and misinformed that some of the ones I've read in these magazines? I've read editorials and articles in your magazine and in other places that are debatable. So this isn't just a blogosphere thing.

I titled my blog, "The Buddhist Blog" not because I think it is the last word on Buddhism but frankly because I couldn't think of anything else as a title!! I didn't realize that it was causing such a stir amongst people. I guess I should change it to "A Buddhist Blog" so as not to offend anyone but I have had that title since the beginning and changing it would only confuse my readers. I honestly didn't think it would be that big of a deal to people. Maybe I should put it to a vote on the blog. I try really hard to be a fair minded but passionate blogger and I try hard to write posts that show the peaceful side of Buddhism but I will defend myself when attacked. And being still human I will say some controversial things from time to time.

I feel as though you misrepresented my blog is adding this quote after the exchange between Twisted Branch and myself:

“People who purportedly are teachers—whether they’ve been given transmission or not—are seen as Zen authorities online,” she says. “Sometimes students get swept into currents of basically malevolent speech. How can that be what the Buddha taught? I’m very concerned about it.”

Again, I'm not purported to be a teacher. I go to great lengths to say this in many of my posts as people who regularly read my blog know. I can't be responsible if people consider me an authority because I don't claim such a title. I simply put forth what I'm thinking about on issues involving Buddhism. As well as how my practice is going, etc. "If ego is wrapped in opinion" which it might be to a degree then aren't you just as guilty as you claim some of us bloggers are? We're not Bodhisattvas in the Buddhosblogosphere -- we're just average folks trying to figure out the Dharma in our day to day lives. We don't always represent the Dharma best but then again neither do many who write in your magazine and other Buddhist magazines. We all just try to do our best.

Post Script: But hey!! At least my blog is being advertised!! They say that bad press is good press so let them say what they'll say. It just seems like this author wasn't familiar with my blog as they took one exchange with a rude reader and made it appear as if I argue with every commenter on my blog. They also make it sound like debate is bad in Buddhism. One can debate and still do it with love and respect. It doesn't always mean people hate each other. However, that said I'm about to vent a bit since the author of this article cited didn't give me the common courtesy to tell me I was being featured in a major publication.

I'm a bit tired of what I see as, "Marsh mellow Buddhists" who think the Buddhist community should always just smile and agree on everything. They are practitioners who seem to believe that "true Buddhists" don't still struggle with samsara. These people sometimes give off an air in my opinion of fake peace and tranquility. They wear these pseudo smiles thinking that you have to just force yourself to be happy, o.k with everything and everyone. In other words, "fake it until you make" it -- make it meaning Buddhahood. I don't get that logic but these fakers make all the right postures, say all the right things but look like cult members with their artificial smiles, textbook answers and elitist posturing that they are better Buddhists because they supposedly never get angry or say a bad word. That's at least what it appears they are trying to portray to me and Zen history isn't devoid of some serious debates within monasteries even.

This is the real world -- my practice isn't all gumdrops, unicorns and rainbows. It's often tough, ugly, gritty and a bit messy but that's the real world isn't it? If we don't get down in the mud of our lives then how are we ever going to find the lotus seed of enlightenment to water and experience unfold? It's easy to put on a show that makes you look like some Hollywood version of a Buddhist practitioner who rises above the fray of the messiness of samsara but rare is the being who truly encompasses such a state. I'd rather be a bit rough around the edges at times, on the fringes of accepted, elitist Buddhism but real and true to who I am then use Buddhism as a costume to try on once a week to wear about other costume clad wannabes. I'm not enlightened, I'm not perfect and I do get pissy sometimes but so do you -- even if you don't show it in the social circles you frequent. So spare us the "holier-than-thou" lectures Zenshin Michael Haederle. I find it sad and hypocritical that you misrepresent me as claiming to be an ordained teacher and then insinuate that I'm leading people astray but then you go on to tell us all how to behave in the Buddhoblogosphere!!!

---End of Transmission---

I recently re-read a classic piece by J.L. Mackie (April 1955), entitled “Evil and Omnipotence,” a stupendous philosophical essay about why theologians like Richard Swinburne are forced by their belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevelont and omnipowerful god into incredible and rather painful feats of mental gymnastics. One of Mackie’s minor points in the essay is that the so-called “free will defense” for the existence of evil in the world is problematic because the concept of free will itself is incoherent. Although, sometimes accusations of incoherence are thrown around a bit too easily in philosophy, I think this one has the potential to stick. (Mackie goes on with a devastating critique of the free will defense, a critique that remains effective even if the core concept should in fact prove to be coherent.)

Philosophically speaking, I still think that the best treatment of free will is the one given by Dan Dennett in his Elbow Room, which is a delightful book to read in its own right. Nonetheless, one may wonder whether the concept that emerges from Dennett’s analysis is in fact what most people would recognize as “free will.”

Of course, both words making up the term have the potential to be problematic, since it is not necessarily clear what we might mean by “will.” However, for the purposes of this discussion I will simply say that the will — insofar as human beings are concerned — is whatever set of motivations (and underlying neurological mechanisms) are behind the fact that we do certain things rather than others or, indeed, that we do anything at all. (Indeed, patients affected by severe damage to their amygdalas, for instance, seem to loose the will to do anything, likely because they've lost any emotional attachment to themselves and to things in the world: just like David Hume famously predicted, without emotions “It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.”)

Moreover, I do not see a problem in, for instance, the Aristotelian concept of “akrasia,” or weakness of the will. Some people find it contradictory, because if I end up doing something out of my own volition — like eating a piece of chocolate cake — I cannot simultaneously claim that I did this “against my will,” because I knew that eating chocolate cake isn’t healthy. However, any human being who has struggled with food, sex, and other desires can make perfect sense of the idea of a weak will that makes you act against your own best interest even when you know perfectly well where such interest lies.

Anyway, back to the “free” part of free will. The obvious question is: free from what? That’s where coherence quickly becomes a problem. Unless you are a dualist — a thankfully dying breed among philosophers — you can’t possibly mean free from causal interactions with matter/energy, i.e. independent of the laws and materials of the universe. The will, whatever it is and however we like to conceptualize it, is grounded in the biological activity of our neurons. And last time I checked our neurons are made of matter, exchange energy (in the form of electrical currents and chemical reactions), and are subject to the laws of physics. So if that’s what you mean by “free,” it’s a no starter.

The next popular argument for a truly free will invokes quantum mechanics (the last refuge of those who prefer to keep things as mysterious as possible). Quantum events, it is argued, may have some effects that “bubble up” to the semi-macroscopic level of chemical interactions and electrical pulses in the brain. Since quantum mechanics is the only realm within which it does appear to make sense to talk about truly uncaused events, voilà!, we have (quantistic) free will. But even assuming that quantum events do “bubble up” in that way (it is far from a certain thing), what we gain under that scenario is random will, which seems to be an oxymoron (after all, “willing” something means to wish or direct events in a particular — most certainly not random — way). So that’s out as well.

It now begins to look like our prospects for a coherent sense of free will are dim indeed. If it ain’t random-quantistic or independent from causal interactions with the rest of the world, in what sense is it “free”? But if the will is not free, are we then not simply lumbering robots at the mercy of a mechanical, uncaring universe? (Or, worse yet, puppets in some god’s hands?) This conclusion strikes most people as intuitively deeply unsatisfactory. Moreover, wouldn’t that mean that human behavior would be predictable, at least in principle, if reductionist/mechanistic science became sufficiently advanced? That also strikes many as clearly off the mark.

One possible response is that, frankly, if the conclusions of a rational analysis go against your deepest held intuitions, so much the worse for your deepest held intuitions. But of course we also know that there are in fact non-deterministic physical systems (the time of decay of an individual atom, for instance), and we even know of perfectly deterministic systems whose behavior is for all effective purposes impossible to predict (chaotic, i.e. highly non-linear systems whose status at any given point in time is highly sensitive to initial conditions). So having a will that is causally connected to the rest of the physical world does not imply that our behavior is rigid or predictable.

Still, does that mean that we are in fact lumbering robots, whose illusion of being free is a combination of our ignorance of the causal web within which we are embedded and of our limited ability to compute our own future status? I think the best answer here comes from research in the cognitive sciences, which increasingly points to (at least) two levels of decision making in the brain: on the one hand, we now know that our subconscious makes a lot of decisions before we are consciously aware of them (think of those experiments showing the time-delay in electrical potential between when a muscle is being activated to perform a given action and when the subject becomes aware of having made the decision to perform that action, for instance). On the other hand, consciousness still seems to be a bit more than just a “rationalizing” process, taking on instead the role of high-level filter, or moderator, of unconscious brain processing (e.g., we can still stop an ongoing action if our conscious attention becomes focused on it).

What all of this seems to suggest is that the undeniable feeling of “free will” that we have is actually the result of our conscious awareness of the fact that we make decisions, and that we could have — given other internal (i.e., genetic, developmental) and external (i.e., environmental, cultural) circumstances — decided otherwise in any given instance. That’s what Dennett called a type of free will that is “worth having,” and I consider it good enough for this particular non-dualist, non-mystically inclined human being.

By VIJAY JOSHI, Associated Press Writer Vijay Joshi, Associated Press Writer – Sun Nov 15, 9:11 am ET

SINGAPORE – President Barack Obama on Sunday told Myanmar's junta to free pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi during an unusual face-to-face interaction with a top leader of the ruling military. Obama delivered the strong message during his summit with leaders of 10 Southeast Asian nations, which included Myanmar Prime Minister Gen. Thein Sein. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that Obama called on Myanmar to free his fellow Nobel Peace laureate Suu Kyi and other political prisoners, and end oppression of minorities.

A joint statement issued after the summit — the first ever between a U.S. president and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations — devoted a paragraph on Myanmar, a major irritant in relations between the two sides. But the statement did not call for the release of political prisoners, including Suu Kyi, who has spent 14 of the last 20 years under detention by the military regime. It only urged Myanmar to ensure that the elections it intends to hold in 2010 are "conducted in a free, fair, inclusive and transparent manner."

However, a direct appeal from Obama carries more weight as he is the most powerful leader to have conveyed the message directly to a top Myanmar official.

James: It's easy to feel compassion for the Burmese when we know that we are an extension of them, however, we must all be careful not to have pity toward them. Compassion is selfless in that it places the needs of others at the same level as our own and motivates us to give freely of our time, talents and resources to help ease that suffering a bit. Pity is feeling sorrow for someone's situation but then doing nothing about it. Or helping someone out of a feeling of obligation, which is based on your needs rather than those suffering. You're helping them to make yourself feel better because you silently judge them for being in the position that they are in. And when I say "you" I mean me as well. It is empty compassion. Pity comes from a place of believing that if the object of our pity were only like us then they wouldn't be suffering. As if we don't have a lot of suffering to deal with in our own regard!! Money and freedom aren't necessarily recipes for happiness and freedom from suffering.

True compassion should be extended toward the junta as well because true compassion is unbiased regardless of a person's actions. It's easy to pity the generals but not have genuine compassion because we've made the judgment that they are undeserving of relief from suffering. Yet who amongst us is free from delusion and unskilllful actions? We all have a lot of karmic rocks in our samsara backpack to carry around. We know that using violence, oppression and fear does not bring those leaders happiness. They are clearly suffering and true compassion seeks to ease suffering -- period. It has no prerequisites, no qualifiers, no judgments and no selectivity. There is a saying in America, "You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar." Another saying goes, "A rising tide lifts all boats." In other words when we show compassion to all sides out of motivation to help all beings be free from suffering we realize that it helps all sides.

~Peace to all beings~