Freewill

I've a few questions for anyone who might be interested in thinking about "freewill".

1.) What is freewill?

(Assuming you take the most accepted definition of freewill being the ability of agents to freely choose among multiple possibilities of action...)
2.) As human beings, our actions are driven by impulses or desires developed by evolution. We all experience conflicting desires from time to time and experience a state of limbo, but even our end decision was motivated by a foresighted desire (maybe choosing the desire to eat healthy and having better energy for the day over the desire to eat what you think tastes good was only swayed by avoiding medical problems when you get older). There was no amorphous spirit agent called "you" other than that foresighted desire that decided between them. As animals of evolution seen in a naturalistic view, desire (whether impulsive or more complex) seems to be all there is leading to meaningful action. So my question is how can you define yourself as a single "agent" that chooses between actions that isn't just the natural play of turbulent desires?

3.) Whether you think freewill is compatible or incompatible with determinism, how is this view any different when it comes to indeterminism? If a definite fate makes "freewill" impossible, then how could being controlled by quantum randomness make you any more free?

4.) Considering the above questions, how is the age old inquiry of freewill not complete and utter bullshit? Care to make an attempt?

1, and by extension 3; I don't understand the question. A given definition should contain everything that free will is.

I have never had a discussion about free will that wasn't in my opinion simply semantics. What precisely do you mean to imply, by mentioning evolution? How, incidentally, do actions like suicide fit?

2) Why would you think an action controlled by a desire is not an act of freewill?

Or I'm interpreting it wrongly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

1, and by extension 3; I don't understand the question. A given definition should contain everything that free will is.

I have never had a discussion about free will that wasn't in my opinion simply semantics. What precisely do you mean to imply, by mentioning evolution? How, incidentally, do actions like suicide fit?

---

For the first question I'm asking you to define what you think freewill is. The definition I (and what most people) take is the ability of an agent to freely choose a course of action among alternatives. I mention evolution because it is the process of which we are a part of that has developed the desires which drive us to action, I'm just implying that it is completely relevant to the discussion of said freewill. I'm not sure what the significance of suicide would be compared to any other action driven by desire, I suppose it would just be the desire for permanent rest, or the relief from certain feelings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carrot

2) Why would you think an action controlled by a desire is not an act of freewill?

Or I'm interpreting it wrongly.

---

Because I'm having a hard time seeing how we could choose the desires that lead us to our actions. Sure we could choose what desires we want or don't want, but it would only be in the light of another desire. The main point for me is that desires are a product of evolution, a matter we never had a choice in, so how are we free to choose between actions when the desires that drive them are just natural phenomena beyond our control?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Because I'm having a hard time seeing how we could choose the desires that lead us to our actions. Sure we could choose what desires we want or don't want, but it would only be in the light of another desire. The main point for me is that desires are a product of evolution, a matter we never had a choice in, so how are we free to choose between actions when the desires that drive them are just natural phenomena beyond our control?

---

I still don't quite get it. Using your example, if I choose not to eat what I want, I'm motivated by my desire to be healthy. If I choose to eat what I want regardless of the outcome, I believe I am giving in to a greedy desire or getting whatever you want desire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carrot

I still don't quite get it. Using your example, if I choose not to eat what I want, I'm motivated by my desire to be healthy. If I choose to eat what I want regardless of the outcome, I believe I am giving in to a greedy desire or getting whatever you want desire.

---

Right, and what other than their relative strengths and consideration of other desires decides which desire you give into? Is there really a separate middle-man that's free? What reason would it have to choose anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Right, and what other than their relative strengths and consideration of other desires decides which desire you give into? Is there really a separate middle-man that's free? What reason would it have to choose anything?

---

Every decision we made all boils down to what we want. Making an action for ourselves and not having it benefit us in any way is impossible. But linking every decision made to desires are a little overwhelming, it might not be desires all the time.

Will is the reduction of dissonance in the brain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

For the first question I'm asking you to define what you think freewill is. The definition I (and what most people) take is the ability of an agent to freely choose a course of action among alternatives.

---

That's what I thought you probably meant... so I guess you meant to say "assuming you don't take the most accepted definition"..? I don't really habitually take any definition of course, I just take the definition of my interlocutor. If you want to talk about the ability of an agent to freely choose a course of action from a set of alternatives then let's talk about that, although there's probably quite a bit of potentially important ambiguity hidden in subdefinitions there, the concepts of 'agent', 'choice' and 'freely' being some particularly suspect parts... in fact thinking about it, I'd say without defining 'free' the definition is meaningless.

So, to your questions... I'm not clear on what you're trying to say by 2 and 3. In 2, are you saying the fact that everything we do is a consequence of previous external events contradicts agenthood? If so, why? And in 3... well I suppose I'll see what you mean by 'freedom' first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carrot

Every decision we made all boils down to what we want. Making an action for ourselves and not having it benefit us in any way is impossible. But linking every decision made to desires are a little overwhelming, it might not be desires all the time.

---

I suppose it might seem like that, I am using desire as a very broad term here. Besides physically involuntary action, I'm guessing all action could be classified as being a product of either automatic desires (mental states that we experience automatically that have been 'programmed' by evolution to react to certain immediate stimuli: hunger, fear, aggression, sexual arousal, curiosity, etc.) and desires that are formed through reflection of the past and future (future goals or certain lifestyles that prefer or suppress certain automatic states for whatever desired reason). What else do you think could drive us to action?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

That's what I thought you probably meant... so I guess you meant to say "assuming you don't take the most accepted definition"..? I don't really habitually take any definition of course, I just take the definition of my interlocutor. If you want to talk about the ability of an agent to freely choose a course of action from a set of alternatives then let's talk about that, although there's probably quite a bit of potentially important ambiguity hidden in subdefinitions there, the concepts of 'agent', 'choice' and 'freely' being some particularly suspect parts... in fact thinking about it, I'd say without defining 'free' the definition is meaningless.

So, to your questions... I'm not clear on what you're trying to say by 2 and 3. In 2, are you saying the fact that everything we do is a consequence of previous external events contradicts agenthood? If so, why? And in 3... well I suppose I'll see what you mean by 'freedom' first.

---

I guess I'm saying that an 'agent' with conflicting parts contradicts agenthood, at least regarding its ability to identify with one course of action that makes its will "free". As for the definition of "free", I suppose it would be the ability for the agent to choose what it wants unrestrained by other influences, but when the human being is a multitude of "wants" its agency seems kind of silly, let alone its freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

What else do you think could drive us to action?

---

There's a lot. Acceptance, habitual, love, esteem, calmness, etc. Every tiny thing could be a reason. For example I'm awake at 4:30am now because I'm used to it, because my hair hasn't dry, because I love the night air, because I know I can't fall asleep too early and I don't like having a hard time to fall asleep, because it's not too late yet, because I'm waiting for certain replies on DV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carrot

There's a lot. Acceptance, habitual, love, esteem, calmness, etc. Every tiny thing could be a reason. For example I'm awake at 4:30am now because I'm used to it, because my hair hasn't dry, because I love the night air, because I know I can't fall asleep too early and I don't like having a hard time to fall asleep, because it's not too late yet, because I'm waiting for certain replies on DV.

---

So your action right now is browsing DV and your drive for that is to see certain replies on it. Your drive for that could be something else and it could go on but it would eventually reach a desire developed by evolution wouldn't it? Or the action of staying up late would be motivated by the feeling of the night air, or avoiding the feeling of going to sleep with wet hair wouldn't it? Though "being awake" doesn't seem like it would be an action if it is habitual and there's no opposing influences on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

So your action right now is browsing DV and your drive for that is to see certain replies on it. Your drive for that could be something else and it could go on but it would eventually reach a desire developed by evolution wouldn't it?

---

Desire developed by evolution meaning? Sorry still didn't get that part.

What's not to get? All desires come down to genetic and environmental conditioning causing the release of either serotonin or dopamine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carrot

Desire developed by evolution meaning? Sorry still didn't get that part.

---

I meant certain states of mind that the process of biological evolution has developed for survival that makes certain actions or events like eating, drinking, finding shelter, and bonding attractive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I meant certain states of mind that the process of biological evolution has developed for survival that makes certain actions or events like eating, drinking, finding shelter, and bonding attractive.

---

Then what would you consider an action of finding eternal peace?

That's easy. We are motivated to reduce suffering in the mind and body. We have a cognition capable of processing information and churning out the conclusion that such peace is possible. We naturally desire it.

(Of course that also brings into the game the paradoxical obstacle of desiring peace utilizing the very attitude that causes suffering in the first place)

The desire for comfort? You could also speculate about the Freudian concept of "Thanatos".

But why would the desires from a biological evolution not be anything we truly want? What about the action of not thinking too much into matters? You know there are a lot of happy go lucky people in this world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carrot

But why would the desires from a biological evolution not be anything we truly want? What about the action of not thinking too much into matters? You know there are a lot of happy go lucky people in this world.

---

A major factor of evolution is variation. We can't all act the same way, it's not feasible. In some way or another we're all experiments being tested for viability. Some people are more easy going, or ignorantly blissful, others churn over ideas over and over again. This is not because they willed to be that way, they are blooming into the creation they were encoded to become.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carrot

But why would the desires from a biological evolution not be anything we truly want?

---

This is my point exactly, there's nothing between us and what biological evolution did/does, so there's no need for a "chooser" that isn't just the mechanical-like interactions of biological drives and psychological drives that stem from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carrot

what about the action of not thinking too much into matters?

---

This is kind of my point also, more so why think too much about matters that make no sense? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

This is my point exactly, there's nothing between us and what biological evolution did/does, so there's no need for a "chooser" that isn't just the mechanical-like interactions of biological drives and psychological drives that stem from them.



This is kind of my point also, more so why think too much about matters that make no sense? lol

---

If you're putting it that way, then I don't think it's entirely desires from our biological evolution. You don't need to make sense of things to survive, you're doing it purely for yourself.

I think it's important to note that there are many things which we do are not in themselves selected for by natural selection. A good although partly hypothetical example is music, something which Stephen Pinker describes as 'auditory cheesecake'; there's something special about it which resonates in some way with the specific implementation of something which is selected for, namely our auditory system. The same is likely true of many of our cognitive faculties, such as our rationality. There are various epiphenomena do not emerge out of selective pressures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I guess I'm saying that an 'agent' with conflicting parts contradicts agenthood, at least regarding its ability to identify with one course of action that makes its will "free".

---

I don't really know... is that really the human experience, of discrete and separate entities? Isn't our experience of choice making rather as a single something which sits above these desires (I guess Freud would call it a super id), weighing each?

What would it mean to make a choice if there were not conflicting benefits? Surely by definition there must be conflicting parts for a choice to be made.

Quote:

---

As for the definition of "free", I suppose it would be the ability for the agent to choose what it wants unrestrained by other influences, but when the human being is a multitude of "wants" its agency seems kind of silly, let alone its freedom.

---

So by freedom you essentially seem to mean a dualistic conception of the soul; a bundle of uncaused actions. I don't find it very concerning that such a thing doesn't seem to exist... of course, everything we do is the result of what went before. Action wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I think it's important to note that there are many things which we do are not in themselves selected for by natural selection. A good although partly hypothetical example is music, something which Stephen Pinker describes as 'auditory cheesecake'; there's something special about it which resonates in some way with the specific implementation of something which is selected for, namely our auditory system. The same is likely true of many of our cognitive faculties, such as our rationality. There are various epiphenomena do not emerge out of selective pressures.

---

Interesting example, and I agree. Though, the important thing really is that all those emergent activities stem from and appease those physical processes that were naturally selected for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't really know... is that really the human experience, of discrete and separate entities? Isn't our experience of choice making rather as a single something which sits above these desires (I guess Freud would call it a super id), weighing each?

---

Maybe it seems that way, but is it? Where would this single something come from? Identity and 'moral' code might act like this, Freud's super-ego, but would this not be a naturalistic phenomenon ultimately made of desirable outcomes? Do our morals and identities not change and conflict drastically from one day to the next? It may not be very comfortable to admit but it seems like the things we care about that drive us to action are easily dynamical, maybe not exactly like separate entities taking over but certainly certain focal points of what matters that create distinct modes of behavior. Do you think it's more likely that there is some kind of mysterious entity that chooses between conflicting choices or that our choices are just products of which focal point happens to win out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

What would it mean to make a choice if there were not conflicting benefits? Surely by definition there must be conflicting parts for a choice to be made.

---

Well there must be alternative potentials of action for a choice to be made, but how do you know which one of the conflicting desires, if there are any, is "your" desire?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

So by freedom you essentially seem to mean a dualistic conception of the soul; a bundle of uncaused actions. I don't find it very concerning that such a thing doesn't seem to exist... of course, everything we do is the result of what went before. Action wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

---

I'm not sure what I mean by freedom. It would make more sense to me if the agent who we defined as us had one, decisive course of action in mind to be free from the influence of conflicting desires, but this doesn't seem to be the case considering the whole picture of a person who is undecided.

Freewill

I invoke the power of the wiki....

Quote:

---

Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. The existence of free will and its exact nature and definition have long been debated in philosophy. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been the metaphysical constraint of determinism.

---

The question seems to me to be, does choice still stand against the inevitable control of nature. All things are made from the inherent chaos of nature and yet there is majestic order produced from that chaos. Like Tron; when the variables which compose reality's description reaches a tipping point, the reality begins to create itself. The reality in a sense becomes self aware. That is us by the way. By becoming aware, we can actual self determine our actions because we can understand how the choice is being made.

Everyone has a sort of way of making a choice. The person usually believes this is the best course of action they can take. It isnt necessarily just action that produces freewill but the understanding any associated parties might have of the nature of that action. In doing this, they are acting in a way that separates themselves from others' actions. Perhaps they will make the same choice, but the way in which they choose will be different.


Freewill as a human is about listening to the voices and making your own.

But that awareness developed as an umbrella consciousness, and is not something different from the various conditions it is aware of.

So it goes back to what I first said. Will is the reduction of dissonance in the brain. Our gestalt mind can weigh two conflicting impulses that could not previously be compared. But does a process of reducing dissonance really imply choice, on any level?

The awareness develops difference because of its ability to choose. The ability to choose arises from the awareness. :)

Will must have a point of focus. The resolution of dissonance precedes any conclusion or force of will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chimpertainment

The awareness develops difference because of its ability to choose. The ability to choose arises from the awareness. :)

Will must have a point of focus. The resolution of dissonance precedes any conclusion or force of will.

---

I don't understand. Could you elaborate?

Choice implies will. We want to go somewhere and we choose to act in order to fulfill that desire. The choice is a specific portion of the exertion of will. Choice is the conclusion of will. Will is produced by what you refer to as resolution of dissonance.
I would say this resolution is the process by which we identify the properties of reality. This fundamental function precedes any force of will or active choice/conclusion.
Of course, past choices influence this resolution of dissonance yet future choice can be unfettered by previously held assumptions.

This is the process by which awareness is formed.

Awareness is formed through interaction with the environment, and requires no concept of "will." A plant does not will to face the sun, it follows through with its design.

When we make a "choice" we're comparing the options available and making the best one from our vantage point. Let's explore something like addiction. I have to choose not to smoke cigarettes because I'm addicted to them. I have to plan for the future, resolve dissonance between what I desire for my life vs what I desire for the moment. Either way, I give into desire. I am merely giving into the desire to invest in my health rather than make an impulsive choice. But there's no freewill in that, either. I was led to make the choice I did because one desire appeared more appetizing than the other, even if it appetizes something else in me besides my body's impulsive struggle for satisfaction.

I'm not claiming determinism, however, as I believe the Complexity of mental activity makes results ultimately unpredictable. But that does not imply freewill. I am a machine, but I am engineered like a cloud rather than a clock. Even if my behavior is gestalt based and unpredictable, that doesn't mean I do anything more or less than follow my naturally emergent design. Even when someone does something outrageously irrational and against any possible concept of a design, that's because random, limitless variation is nature's greatest tool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

3.) Whether you think freewill is compatible or incompatible with determinism, how is this view any different when it comes to indeterminism? If a definite fate makes "freewill" impossible, then how could being controlled by quantum randomness make you any more free?

---

If determinism involves the inevitable, irrefutable, and being set in stone, it can be compatible with freewill.

If one strongly believes in an aspect of determinism, they are inviting those thoughts to bring assurance to their subjective mind, and then transfer it to their objective reality.

The more they believe something is inevitable, the more they are aligning themselves to that possibility. If you think of a "thought" as a vessel of energy, and applying abstract reasoning to this, this might help with understanding how to take "quantum randomness."

Let's say you believe there are demons, and the more you think about demons, the more you associate things with immorality, corruption, whatever negative term you can come up with, the more your focus of them will grow.

This is why when people are usually in a depressive state, they are allowing themselves to invite negative thoughts to fuel that negativity, because this is what they feel is compatible to their current state of mind.

They are inviting what seems like "quantum randomness," because they are allowing the thought that was possible to be strengthened.

So if a person doesn't want to focus on demons, what they can do is shift their focus towards something else. But most of the time, they might be trying to cover up their denial of the existence of demons because they are so focused in eradicating them out of their reality.

So one way to accept quantum randomness, and not let it be a factor that constrains the feelings of freedom, is by acknowledging that all thoughts that have been thought of in this dimension, and giving yourself space to allow positive thoughts of more stabilization of your reality.

By this, I mean that if one knows there are demons, but doesn't allow their focus to be geared towards them, they will gradually find that because they are shifting towards a different frequency, or a different alignment, they will see something else.

You'll find that the very same "quantum randomness" is just a variable for you to experiment with, for you to enjoy and use as a medium for self-expansion and knowledge instead of something that limits the feeling that you can do anything if you put your mind to it.

As for in-determinism, it's just the same as believing solely on determinism. The only "difference" is accepting chance rather than irrefutable and "set-in-stone" fate.

By allowing chance, a window of opportunity, to be invited into your reality more rather than weakening its potential, you are accepting those possibilities from chance, based on the mental alignment you're focused on.

Quantum randomness can only make you feel like you're controlled by it if you
invite thoughts to be manifested for you to augment your belief that it will.

Quote:

---

how can you define yourself as a single "agent" that chooses between actions that isn't just the natural play of turbulent desires?

---

If you allow the possibility of connecting with your true self, the eternal self, or to put it in a less spiritual term, the part of you that is conscious and aware of all that you are experiencing is for expansion and knowledge.

Then you can consider the mortal embodiment (the agent or vessel) you are in now as the "amorphous" entity's way of understanding oneness in a different perspective. To understand oneness, seeing it from a different perspective is the practical way of reaching that state of enlightenment.

And again, to believe both in an "amorphous" entity and what we see and define now (evolution, etc) as factors that can be fused and not categorized, that would mean you have to accept the possibility that these are extensions for your own expansion and understanding.

Quote:

---

There was no amorphous spirit agent called "you" other than that foresighted desire that decided between them

---

I don't understand what you mean by declaring that an amorphous spirit agent labeled as you didn't/doesn't exist.

To say that the

Quote:

---

foresighted desire that decided between them

---

introduces the possibility of said amorphous/eternal/true/*insert whatever extension of the superconscious you want here* spirit agent's intent.....doesn't it? Because it had to be planned in order to be foresighted, at least when you take the core definition of "foresight" as planning for the future in a practical manner.

Good stuff, Link. I really liked what you said. It's just the problem with the concept of freewill for me lies in the very structure of our psychology. I think it's safe to say (I'd be interested to have a further discussion if someone doesn't agree) that all our action, besides uncontrollable reflexes and things like that, is the product of a desire or goal. Taking a naturalistic approach, we can say that all of our desires and goals are the product of evolutionary drives developed for survival of the species, a case we as individuals never had a choice in. So if all meaningful action is based on a process we never had a say in, how can our actions be our individual choice? I think the illusion of this may stem from identifying yourself with a certain goal and choosing actions towards that over others, though the goal is really just the process of evolution working beyond your individual choice. Better yet, how we define ourselves as individuals and individual choice should be indistinguishable from the process of evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

If you allow the possibility of connecting with your true self, the eternal self, or to put it in a less spiritual term, the part of you that is conscious and aware of all that you are experiencing is for expansion and knowledge.

---

Looking from a naturalistic view and considering only observation, it seems that we need nothing more than biological/neurological evolution to account for all of our actions. Anything beyond that seems a bit too much of a leap of faith for me. Say we did have an over-looking self that governed our desires and goals, where would it's desires and goals for it's choices come from? The desire for awe and understanding is crucial to survival, we're all born with it, it's what drove us to learn how to survive and explore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

? I think the illusion of this may stem from identifying yourself with a certain goal and choosing actions towards that over others, though the goal is really just the process of evolution working beyond your individual choice. Better yet, how we define ourselves as individuals and individual choice should be indistinguishable from the process of evolution

---

This means you are open to the possibility that while you are seeking happiness through expansion and knowledge, and sustaining your perspective (the observations that you will make that will become part of your schemata), another person is doing the same.

This also introduces to the concept of the potential of transcended immortality, and I don't mean this as trying to challenge that there may not be an afterlife at all. To me, in the most fundamental and generic way I can put this, we simply lost sight of our higher self's ever-growing knowledge.

Which may be why we have some (not all, rarely) aspects of Solipsism as we grow in life, which may make us more egotistical of this reality because of constraints.

But those constraints are fueled by the reality/ies we continue to make static in our observations, so when you try to seek things in a naturalistic point of view, it does have its limits.

To go beyond that perspective (and to actually understand this view that you are taking in life), going back to the possibility of there being a source energy (one's own version of God/Jesus/Buddha/Yahweh/etc.), and that you are an extension of your higher self, the perception of what several religions and non-religion deem as a source for one's enlightenment can be seen in different perspectives.

And I know this leads that accepting that there is truth in all beliefs, but this is going beyond that. It's like seeing things through equanimity rather than equality (like seeing all religions just as equal in understanding enlightenment and purpose, but not distinguishing them too much).

To actually reach that state, if involves seeing other spaces of our bodies, and visualizing beyond those spaces (Such as understanding the intentions of your heart that are based on intuition, which is not the same as blind faith, to correlate with your topic on it).

We often associate the mind, the brain, as the most practical space in our body for rationalization and logic, and never focus too much through the integrity the heart can provide for expansion and knowledge as well (because again, intuition vs. blind faith may actually be perceived to be the same by some, which would not be favorable to those seeking objective and physical truths).

Quote:

---

Looking from a naturalistic view and considering only observation, it seems that we need nothing more than biological/neurological evolution to account for all of our actions. Anything beyond that seems a bit too much of a leap of faith for me.

---

I strongly agree that concepts such as this that are pushed more into being spiritual endeavors mixed with practical observations is quite tedious to grasp. And like you said with looking at this at a naturalistic view and based on what we observe, it does correlate to basic spiritual concepts that our existence serves as sustaining our perspective.

Sustaining our perspective, in my opinion, is one the most important footprints to leave behind in this life, whether or not one believes in the afterlife.

The reason being is that when our "legacy" has the potential to be diluted and misinterpreted through history, and that itself can be detrimental in the biological desire to preserve our genetic history.

And from this desire, it somewhat validates another desire to spread love throughout the universe as much as we can, which is why I talked about true self/eternal self in my previous post.

I know it may sound idealistic, and I'm not presuming that you may think that I am, but to me, it seems logical that spreading one's love and perspective (and also intent), reaching a state of oneness is a rational desire when factors like quantum randomness, determinism, in-determinism challenge our existence.

Quote:

---

Say we did have an over-looking self that governed our desires and goals, where would it's desires and goals for it's choices come from? The desire for awe and understanding is crucial to survival, we're all born with it, it's what drove us to learn how to survive and explore.

---

Alright, based from this assumption, I would presume that this over-looking self (eternal/true/higher self) would only "govern" an extension of itself for the sake of making sure that self go through the whole experience.

But I would say that through governing an extension of self, it would have to be limited. I'm going to go a little deeper, and this may sound a bit of a visionary's mentality here, but to understand self, we have to be able to see self in a different light.

And based on my beliefs, and I do not seek to preach this to anyone, we are so accustomed to this reality, that we are separated from having the feeling of oneness. This may explain why when we are in this mental conflict in rationalizing whether or not we have the power to change our fate (even if our mortality does limit us from accomplishing radical goals) or if our fate is defined.

To me, if there is an over-looking self that governed our desires and goals, again, it would have to be limited.

And it wouldn't make sense for an over-looking self to have us by the strings like puppets all the time, because that would allow forced encroachment rather than invited encroachment. This ties in to sustaining the concept of freewill (not letting it govern our actions unless we invite it to do so), whether or not one believes it is a necessary factor in spreading expansion, knowledge, and sustaining perspective.

But again, I find myself realizing that through separation for the sake of understanding, it gets tempting to find myself contradicting the concept of oneness.

I guess another important thing for expansion and knowledge is being able to bring it back together, picking the pieces and making sure they aren't misaligned to manifest misinterpretation of one's desire, intent, and purpose in this reality and others.

I apologize that I completely went into metaphysical reasoning there, but this is just a small grasp of what I believe relating to higher self and freewill.

as wayfarer was leaning towards in the beginning, the entire argument becomes meaningless when proper semantics and explanations are used

and yet, I still enter my roommates' living room to find the philosophy major running the same argument into the ground, reaching the same conclusion from different viewpoints, which in my mind amounts to beating a dead horse with a mallet, a baseball bat, then a sledgehammer, slicing its guts open with a machete, and then snuggling inside the carcass for the warmth, just like Han Solo and that tauntaun on Hoth, only with an added layer of smugness, and a subtracted layer of necessity.

fuck it.

I think there's a profound error in the way we view our psychology as well as ourselves. Free will is just the gate of the rabbit hole to seeing how baseless most of our assumptions are about the world.

i have been thinking about free will lately and i have decided that as far as i can understand there is no way for free will to exist in an ony phisical world, but there is if there is something else or something spiritual.

here is an example to help explain why:
imagine dominoes are set up, they are in certain positions, certain size, weight temperature and everything is a certain way. there is a rock flying through the air and it is a certain position, size, weight e.c.t. and so it can only go one way from here. i see it as the same with the brain, only the brain is more complicated. phisicaly the brain and all outside things aswell are a certain way, and so can only go in one direction from there, unless there is something spiritual or something more. maybe this is consciousness

This transcendentalist cop-out inhibits your ability to be mindful. Not only are you separating yourself from the reality you participate in, you are reinforcing this separation with some dualistic interpretation of reality.

Freewill, as we understand it, emerged from a flaw in our language itself. We have nouns followed by verbs, so we think the noun performs the verb, and chooses to do so. "I dance," as a phrase is an incorrect interpretation of reality. In reality what exists is a dance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

This transcendentalist cop-out inhibits your ability to be mindful.

---

So transcending into other possible aspects of consciousness (this so called cop-out) inhibits our ability to be mindful.....so you're saying that attempting to be aware, conscious of, mindful of, of states of consciousness (superconscious/higher self/ whatever term people want to use) is constraining that competence.

So being mindful of these things (even if they are purely metaphysical) is essentially inhibiting yourself from being mindful, makes perfect sense!

Quote:

---

Freewill, as we understand it, emerged from a flaw in our language itself.

---

It's how people interpret it through the language of beliefs (Christianity, Judaism, etc.) is the flaw. It's because religions and even non-religions allow their believers to place the believe of whatever entity (or conceptual lesson of one's own enlightenment) to make them feel that have a sense of freedom.

They are sublimating their thoughts into believing that this will provide the decision making for them, because if they cannot find some medium to place their own beliefs in, this means they have trust in their own decision-making (which I doubt any competent person would believe to be something to rely on when they are seeking answers to their questions).

Quote:

---

We have nouns followed by verbs, so we think the noun performs the verb, and chooses to do so. "I dance," as a phrase is an incorrect interpretation of reality. In reality what exists is a dance.

---

So by taking what you perceive and assume as a reality, and relying solely on empirical and materialistic data, you are making this reality objective.

And everyone's objective reality will have some kind of flaw (mental filters, schemata, etc.). So while you are avoiding the transcendentalist cop-out from interfering on how you interpret what is actually an objective and subjective reality, you are essentially using your ideology as a cop-out as well.

You are choosing to do so, you are allowing those thoughts based on your schemata that formulates this objective reality that spiritual and intuition is essentially a fairy tale in decision making.

That's where the flaw lies, the empirical and materialistic mindset that the ego is responsible for (just rationalizing what it experiences) does to make intuition seem like BS, which is a whole separate realm in truly understanding equanimity.

The ego cannot understand equanimity, it tries to rationalize, categorize, uses vertical thinking.

Equanimity involves horizontal thinking and intuition (which is far different than seeing what's equal or not that is apparent in vertical thinking).

So while the transcendentalism is considered a cop-out to you, it doesn't mean that flaws are impossible to encroach into your ideology as well.

Quote:

---

Not only are you separating yourself from the reality you participate in, you are reinforcing this separation with some dualistic interpretation of reality.

---

In other words, being a living paradox does not make sense at all? So light and dark, two opposing forces, do not correlate to some extent? So dualism, breaking down the separation of self to understand self is flawed?


If determinism is reality, we are not free.
If in-determinism is reality, it means we believe in random probability, but we still don't feel free. (Random probability is what constrains the thought of feeling free to have will).

But it's the probability that introduces will, it's our perception that we cannot will ourselves into random probability to mold into the reality we want is what inhibits us from being mindful.

The more one indulges in in-determinism as though as one is merely trying to find meaning in random, and what would seem to be unrelated (apophenia). (And the search itself may be an aspect of freewill)

So those who believe in-determinism, random probability itself (from their point of view), cannot be utilized for creating meaningful interpretations are essentially believing that random probability is the constraint itself, the inhibition.

That itself is taking determinism back into play, because we would still not feel free.

So how can one eradicate that thought? Simply by going beyond having an empirical and materialistic mentality that is limited to just the physical reality here.

How one interprets what is beyond that (be it through spiritualism/salvation/or whatever term one uses for the paranormal and unknown) is the challenge. Transcendentalism is just one way, but not the only way, to experiment and go on a scavenger hunt to find the answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

You are choosing to do so, you are allowing those thoughts based on your schemata that formulates this objective reality that spiritual and intuition is essentially a fairy tale in decision making.

That's where the flaw lies, the empirical and materialistic mindset that the ego is responsible for (just rationalizing what it experiences) does to make intuition seem like BS, which is a whole separate realm in truly understanding equanimity.

---

This is really an off-topic discussion about how we would extract accurate descriptions of reality. This thread assumes a scientific and naturalistic approach. There's no need to dismiss your theories about there being psychological structures ("super consciousness") only accessible through intuition, but they would still be a part of the unifying naturalistic view that would make them possible subjects of empirical consistency and scientific description.

Alright, sorry about that, you are right, these are merely theories, I took it too far there. :P I guess I should just use "open-mindedness" instead of thinking physical evidence is flawed in itself.

It's just that with anything scientific and naturalistic, if one can understand what it is they are rejecting (but are still opened to it as possible subjects), they will have a better grasp on what they believe, if not, a more stronger connection with it.

Yeah, I guess the imagination is a very useful tool for good awareness when considering all possibilities.

Link, even if there was some transcendental aspect to ourselves, how could it possibly escape causality?

It also feels like you've gone off into a tangent. I'm not trying to say that a transactional version of reality is more objectively true, simply that it makes a better signpost than the version of reality where "I" "act." The world makes more sense to me when I realize that our language doesn't accurately describe it, but puts up false parameters. The language I use to write the signpost toward this flaw is also necessarily flawed. That's why I say it points out the truth better, not that it's true.

Even with a reality where the manifestation is selected at random with probabilities acting more like influences than determinations (Which I believe it is), that doesn't imply choice. Choice is an egotistical attempt to escape the transactional reality. Transaction implies you have an influence on reality, just as reality has on an influence on you. But what are you, other than a system? Even if a soul exists, it is another system of information in some form or other. It is still a causal emergence.

I would also humbly beg you do not break up this post, or if you do break it up, when you're done replying try to sew your reply back up together into something more cohesive and penetrable.

It was full of metaphysical silliness in the first place, don't need to sew up something that was a mess anyway. :D

Was fun while it lasted though. I give up, you win. :(

Actually, I'll break that up for you.

Quote:

---

cohesive and penetrable.

---

Wait wait....is this foreplay?

It's just going to be something that's fallacious to you anyway. If what you perceive points out the truth better, then I guess it works for you, it's a conceptual thing. Transactional reality...that sounds like something that was just pulled out of nowhere, think cause and effect is a more applicable term.

If you have influence on reality, than that means what you do affects it, meaning you can choose what you do to give it a different outcome...

So having the power to change something is not something you can choose at all? Of course reality is going to have influence on you, but I'm not saying anything about controlling it completely.




But okay. :P

Quote:

---

Even if a soul exists, it is another system of information in some form or other.

---

Okay, there's not really much to argue on that, it's just common sense that it's information contained in some way. It can even be a collection of thought energy if you want, it's like choosing ice cream toppings!

There's no point in making it penetrable for you when I'm just stating theories.... Whether or not they are far fetched is up to you.

That's no fun. I want to have a deep discussion about it, I just want to keep it simple enough that we don't entangle ourselves with semantics. I mean, you may think my whole argument about the connotations of consciousness/intelligence being based on circular logic is semantics, but I don't. I think we assume we are something separate from reality, and that without this separation, the idea of freewill becomes irrelevant.

I edited it, go for it baby, there's nothing wrong with idea behind on what you said, but I just think that how you tried to explain it was a little confusing. Anyway, it took a while, but it makes sense now. *cops out*

I think cause and effect emerged out of our flawed system of language. The cause is the effect. This separation creates the idea that life happens in some sort of turn based strategy game. You pull a move on nature, it pulls a move on you, and so forth. It seems as though observable reality presents a rather different flow of change, where there is no separation, no line to draw where something becomes different from its surroundings, and further more no line where something stops being affected and starts affecting. At least no line that can be justified without circular logic. A leaf grows from a tree, not choosing to interrupt the wind but interrupting it because its there, being the leaf it was designed to be. The wind hits the leaf and in turn the leaf, in its way, changes the wind. And so the accumulative wind keeps the leaf's influence, and without that leaf the wind would have been shaped quite differently. This change, or influence from the leaf, happened instantly through the interaction between the wind and the leaf. There was no cause and effect, where the wind hit the leaf and then changed afterwards. The moment the two met they interacted and changed each other, and became one another from the changes they received from the interaction.

I'm curious if you believe there is something like choice, and if you can substantiate this claim. I mean sure, it feels as though I chose to respond to this thread, because as far as I can perceive I could have easily chosen not to. But I did. What made the choice? Does this system have freewill, or did the choice emerge from within its processes?

Well, think about it this way. If you presume that it's mostly just a system, then let's say a part of the system had the intent for giving love.

For example, (this is slightly out of the norm), let's say one part of the system had that intent for love right? In its life, how it gave out that love could be dependent on how reality was established to set out that intent (not all of reality, just a part of it). Let's say the person, a female in this case, resorted to prostitution, it may not sound like a plausible way to define giving out love, but...

Even though the female may not be cognizant of her original intent, a part of the system that created an experience where she would find the intent expressed in some way (providing men who are deprived of love through the means of some transaction). So let's say the intent was so strong, that it carried over to another part of the system, but at the same time, there's a new intent or desire. Usually, it wouldn't cause an interference (interference with intents that is), but it would go through the same process as before, having the playing field set out (like a sandbox) for the person to find out their intent for the life, or for that reality they're in.

This may seem like it's determined, since there was an intent set out, but the person being "blinded" if you will of that intent, has to search for it themselves. And maybe there might be a few anomalies that might make it hard to seem that the person had freedom of choice (if they died for instance from someone's intention to kill someone).

When something like that happens, people will usually slap a "oh, it happened for a reason" tag on it. So by the system you're using in this case, maybe it wanted to add an anomaly to that intent that might affect it. So in a way, this could be an example of the transactional reality you described of. The intent of the person influences the reality they are in, while reality still has an influence on them with the intents of other people placed in that dimension of reality.


Another thing you could talk about is suicide. It's deemed as taboo (maybe not in all beliefs), but taking it in a scientific and naturalistic approach, it would seem appropriate that for the sake of observing the reality for experience, and other factors (biological intentions to preserve genetic history) it's not a practical thing to do.

But the concept of suicide, which is essentially when a person feels so helpless, a state of powerlessness, that they would make the decision to just end their life. So with the casual emergence, and how it implies there are other parts of the system ready to be expressed when necessary (if push comes to shove, a choice has to be made), the question you have to ask is if it's a possible choice to take for that person from the byproduct of the sum of the system?

Should the system that set out the intention for love give that part of the system as an option? (because they were not able to acknowledge that reality will have influence on them)

Because with casual emergence, it means you're introducing some property from the sum of the system to make it independent in a way (so that there isn't too much a cloned simulation I guess).

So when a part of the system decides that since it cannot handle the influence of the reality it's in, should the system condone it or condemn it (the option for suicide)? Obviously not, in my opinion.

Because if it did, it would be just as flawed as our own language that makes suicide taboo, or just not a useful way to find resolve.

If suicide is wrong in this reality, does that mean death is wrong? If a person is responsible for their own death (they have the choice to do it or not), shouldn't suicide be considered as a reset button for that part of the system? Something there just in case the person did not have enough "will" or perseverance to express the intent?

It's certainly an interesting idea, and I'm not claiming I'm right and have the notion figured out. Perhaps suicide does prove freewill because it separates us from animals. Perhaps its the only thing that really substantially separates us from animals. They are incapable of committing suicide, and incapable of seeing that something like suicide is even possible. They're also missing the sense of identity we have. They don't see the person they are 5 years ago as the same person they are now, they simply perceive and react. THere was an exception observed when a gorilla's child died and she stopped eating until she starved, but it's hard to say she made a choice to end it and more likely that she was so ruined she was incapable of taking care of herself.

And perhaps that's part of our problem. You have to realize I'm a pretty diehard non-dualist. I try to break apart dualism whenever I see one, so intrinsically I want to argue against any sort of idea that insubstantially separates us from other animals. That doesn't mean we're not different in certain ways, I simply think we should examine more deeply what this difference is, exactly. And I don't think the difference is that we have choice and they don't (or that we can act while they only react). But I do think there's a difference in the way we perceive what we are. We bundle everything up into one identity, and they don't. And I think it's this conception of a singular and separate identity that both causes us to believe we have freewill and also causes some of us to occasionally commit suicide.

One more thing that's interesting.

Quote:

---

Let's explore something like addiction. I have to choose not to smoke cigarettes because I'm addicted to them. I have to plan for the future, resolve dissonance between what I desire for my life vs what I desire for the moment. Either way, I give into desire. I am merely giving into the desire to invest in my health rather than make an impulsive choice. But there's no freewill in that, either. I was led to make the choice I did because one desire appeared more appetizing than the other, even if it appetizes something else in me besides my body's impulsive struggle for satisfaction.

---

You are exactly right, one desire appeared more enticing than the other. However, when you declared that..

Quote:

---

even if it appetizes something else in me besides my body's impulsive struggle for satisfaction.

---

You have to realize what is underneath the desire for you and/or your body to conform to the addictive substance or activity.

The addiction is not sustained through the addictive substance and/or activity, it is the wounds, fears, and anything that prevents happiness that one is trying to mask. That is what is underneath the desire, the motivation, for one to enable themselves to use the addictive substance and/or behavior.

The addictive behavior is a method of controlling stress, and as long as it can give them the sense of feeling happy, they will continue to do so.

They are basically using that substance that creates the behavior to continue doing so as an excuse for controlling stress. And I don't mean this in an negative way, it is their choice to use this to control something, to alleviate themselves from the wounds/fears/etc. that would prevent them from sustaining happiness.

Some addicts do not consider fast-forwarding the situation should they choose to use the substance/activity. If they can see the outcome, ponder on the consequences, it helps with them understanding that the detriments are greater than the temporary benefits.

But here's a situation that can imply that there can be freewill in one's own path of overcoming an addiction.

When a person knows someone has an addiction, the first response, the instinct if you will, is to rescue them, to save them....this leads to controlling them, lecturing them, showering them with negativity that does not help the situation at all.

In fact, it's avoiding the problem, because the person who cares for this person with the addiction is trying to save that person as a means to make themselves feel good.

There cannot be true freedom if one uses others as sources of happiness. They have to be responsible of their own happiness.

Then they can feel freedom, because basing happiness from others is like an addiction itself, because you rely on others to exhibit your addictive behavior of using them to feel good.

They can let the desire be their excuse to continue this, but they have to make the decision, the choice, the will, to actually become aware that they have the problem.

It's this same awareness that distinguishes us from animals.

So how can a person who uses others for their happiness overcome this addictive habit of doing so? They align themselves to the solution without denying the problem they have.


Here's another situation that can imply freewill.

If there's a support center, or a rehab center that focuses on what's underneath the desire that causes the addictive behavior in the first place, and the addict is aware of this, but chooses not to...it's because if they wanted to change, they have to take full responsibility of their actions.

So if they knock on the door at the center, here's where they have to make the decision:

Once they person opens the door, they wait for the person to make an action...they wait for them to demonstrate that they are willing to take full responsibility into finding a behavior that is of benefit to them rather than a detriment.

Because if the support group "pulls them in" and says "Come on in, come in!" the addict is falling for their suggestion. If the addict relies on their suggestion, rather than taking full responsibility of themselves, they will continue to use that person's support to fuel themselves to continue with the addictive behavior.

The support itself sustains how they can control stress, and they not only take advantage of that, it doesn't stop them from gradually moving away from the addictive behavior.

The support (people are specialized in seeing addicts go through this) have to realize that they make sure that the addict has to take the initiative to make a change to themselves, instead of being spoon fed with "you can't do this!" "This is bad for you!"

If the support can show that they themselves are responsible for their own happiness and health, then the addict may feel compelled to reflect that nature.

And the point where it seems they won't have freewill (to an extent) is the breaking point. By the breaking point, it means there is no way for the addict to continue with their addictive behavior. So they have NO choice (temporarily) than to either find ways to get back to the addiction, OR take full responsibility into changing that behavior to something of positive nature.

It's the through their demonstration, not words, that shows they are making the choice, that they are not using the desire, or the urge the body needs to reach equilibrium as an excuse to continue the addictive behavior.

As I see it, we follow programming that has been coded basically at random from the circumstances of our biology and our experiences. Anyone following their automatic programming, meaning the programming they acquired randomly, is a robot who has no free will. They are only engaging repeating clockwork thought processes. Free will, then, is the ability of the "I", the "me", the presence you feel that people call your "soul," which is the entity that is a slave to the programming, it's the ability of that entity to recognize that it is the slave of programs it did not choose, and through work and effort, achieve a DIFFERENT set of programs, ones that you CHOOSE. Free will means recognizing we are conditioned, programmed beings, and working to change that programming to fall in line with what you truly want yourself to be.

As an example, I grew up a closed-minded, misanthropic, socially crippled, militant atheist who was generally a complete asshole. My programming pushed me towards this. It was easy for me to be this. Through a lot of years of work, I have changed that programming in increments towards what I actually want to be. I am still ultimately following programs, but they are programs I have chosen, not ones chosen for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

Spoiler for long post:

One more thing that's interesting.

You are exactly right, one desire appeared more enticing than the other. However, when you declared that..

You have to realize what is underneath the desire for you and/or your body to conform to the addictive substance or activity.

The addiction is not sustained through the addictive substance and/or activity, it is the wounds, fears, and anything that prevents happiness that one is trying to mask. That is what is underneath the desire, the motivation, for one to enable themselves to use the addictive substance and/or behavior.

The addictive behavior is a method of controlling stress, and as long as it can give them the sense of feeling happy, they will continue to do so.

They are basically using that substance that creates the behavior to continue doing so as an excuse for controlling stress. And I don't mean this in an negative way, it is their choice to use this to control something, to alleviate themselves from the wounds/fears/etc. that would prevent them from sustaining happiness.

Some addicts do not consider fast-forwarding the situation should they choose to use the substance/activity. If they can see the outcome, ponder on the consequences, it helps with them understanding that the detriments are greater than the temporary benefits.

But here's a situation that can imply that there can be freewill in one's own path of overcoming an addiction.

When a person knows someone has an addiction, the first response, the instinct if you will, is to rescue them, to save them....this leads to controlling them, lecturing them, showering them with negativity that does not help the situation at all.

In fact, it's avoiding the problem, because the person who cares for this person with the addiction is trying to save that person as a means to make themselves feel good.

There cannot be true freedom if one uses others as sources of happiness. They have to be responsible of their own happiness.

Then they can feel freedom, because basing happiness from others is like an addiction itself, because you rely on others to exhibit your addictive behavior of using them to feel good.

They can let the desire be their excuse to continue this, but they have to make the decision, the choice, the will, to actually become aware that they have the problem.

It's this same awareness that distinguishes us from animals.

So how can a person who uses others for their happiness overcome this addictive habit of doing so? They align themselves to the solution without denying the problem they have.


Here's another situation that can imply freewill.

If there's a support center, or a rehab center that focuses on what's underneath the desire that causes the addictive behavior in the first place, and the addict is aware of this, but chooses not to...it's because if they wanted to change, they have to take full responsibility of their actions.

So if they knock on the door at the center, here's where they have to make the decision:

Once they person opens the door, they wait for the person to make an action...they wait for them to demonstrate that they are willing to take full responsibility into finding a behavior that is of benefit to them rather than a detriment.

Because if the support group "pulls them in" and says "Come on in, come in!" the addict is falling for their suggestion. If the addict relies on their suggestion, rather than taking full responsibility of themselves, they will continue to use that person's support to fuel themselves to continue with the addictive behavior.

The support itself sustains how they can control stress, and they not only take advantage of that, it doesn't stop them from gradually moving away from the addictive behavior.

The support (people are specialized in seeing addicts go through this) have to realize that they make sure that the addict has to take the initiative to make a change to themselves, instead of being spoon fed with "you can't do this!" "This is bad for you!"

If the support can show that they themselves are responsible for their own happiness and health, then the addict may feel compelled to reflect that nature.

And the point where it seems they won't have freewill (to an extent) is the breaking point. By the breaking point, it means there is no way for the addict to continue with their addictive behavior. So they have NO choice (temporarily) than to either find ways to get back to the addiction, OR take full responsibility into changing that behavior to something of positive nature.

It's the through their demonstration, not words, that shows they are making the choice, that they are not using the desire, or the urge the body needs to reach equilibrium as an excuse to continue the addictive behavior.

---

It does feel as though choice exists on multiple levels, as well as control. But the choice is whether or not to cling to control, and the control appears to be over what we focus our attention on, and for how long can we face our softer/injured parts before we turn away and begin the running/chasing again that is addiction. Freedom comes when you stop running/chasing and start facing. Freedom comes when you give up trying to control things through your reactions and when you begin controlling your awareness instead. Freedom is not the ability to choose how you react, but simply if you react. If you react to stimuli, you don't really control the process that occurs. It feels as though there's some element of control, because we have this gestalt function to reduce dissonance known as the ego, but it's going to go with whatever decision appears best and it doesn't necessarily control which decision appears best.

So there's a sort of false sense of control we have, which animals do not, and that is that they do not imprison themselves the same way we do. Latched onto our attempt to control ourselves and the world, we gain this thing called an identity which we compare all our planned actions to. We wonder "Would I do this, being me?" and then we are often forced to justify our character, often through role-models and other examples. This need to synchronize our actions based on who we think we're supposed to be and act like causes less freedom, even though it's used to be in control. Animals do not suffer from this, so even though from our perspective they're just machines reacting to stimuli based on pre-conditioned processes, they are more free. They are not imprisoned by identity nor by a sense of lack (except perhaps hunger, thirst and illness). We are able to recognize ourselves and other and so we also imprison ourselves by comparing ourselves to others. Then we wonder why the world is treating us like such shit, and only because we aren't doing as well as others. At this moment we become like mystics or fatalists, thinking we have no control and it's the world that grants us fortune or not. We do that for several reasons, primarily because it's easier to give up responsibility. It doesn't take too much thought to realize even if it feels more difficult, life becomes more liberating when you take responsibility, but unfortunately just because every human has the ability to reduce dissonance that doesn't mean they all use it.

The question, at the end, that I cannot answer, is this: Is there a ghost in the machine? And I wondered if a bunch of robots existed without "souls" or whatever thing we think gives us choice, and they were programmed to pursue success and prosperity and evolve as time went on... would we be able to tell the difference between the choices they made and the choices we made? Would there be a difference?

Good stuff Omnis, I guess what could lead to the path of finding that answer is the same awareness you talked of. As the awareness grows and continues to evolve, then maybe we might find that difference through psychoanalysis or other means learned through this reality that relies on observation and interpreting from that, even though it may have flaws in how it interprets it.

Does free will exist? Am I literally typing this because of the fact that, only I chose to do this? Or is it because everything that has ever happened to me would lead me to typing a topic like this on DreamViews?

I met a guy who didn't believe in free will. He believes that anything that happens to you will determine the outcome of future events that you part-take in. So in essence, everything that has happened, from the beginning of time, has made you who you are and determines what you are doing right now.

This got me thinking even more. If free will doesn't exist and the future events are just a result of past events, then is it a gigantic equation? Do we as people even really have a say? If there were a being that was highly intelligent, would it have figured out how to see into the future because it knows how everything works, thus predicting the future accurately? (haha it would know what it'll be doing in 50 years. Literally.)

Or, to get your brain to turn to jello even more, is there something more? Is there something missing from the equation that we will never be able to figure out? I'm hurting my brain just thinking about it.

Give me some feedback. I'd like to see all of the vast opinions out there!

I'm sorry for any typos, I'm really tired right now and don't feel like checking. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisWitheredMan

As I see it, we follow programming that has been coded basically at random from the circumstances of our biology and our experiences. Anyone following their automatic programming, meaning the programming they acquired randomly, is a robot who has no free will. They are only engaging repeating clockwork thought processes. Free will, then, is the ability of the "I", the "me", the presence you feel that people call your "soul," which is the entity that is a slave to the programming, it's the ability of that entity to recognize that it is the slave of programs it did not choose, and through work and effort, achieve a DIFFERENT set of programs, ones that you CHOOSE. Free will means recognizing we are conditioned, programmed beings, and working to change that programming to fall in line with what you truly want yourself to be.

As an example, I grew up a closed-minded, misanthropic, socially crippled, militant atheist who was generally a complete asshole. My programming pushed me towards this. It was easy for me to be this. Through a lot of years of work, I have changed that programming in increments towards what I actually want to be. I am still ultimately following programs, but they are programs I have chosen, not ones chosen for me.

---

To elaborate a little: decisions you make are determined by you judging your past experiences and weighing them and deciding on which answer seems best. Which answer seems best is a matter of perspective and experience. You rarely if ever control your past experiences or your perspective, so your decisions are most often made based on things that are outside of your control. Hence, no free will, unless you have willfully changed sculpted your perception and experience with the intent of changing your decision-making processes.

Dude. Fuck the government. Fuck religion. And fuck destiny. I make my own choices

Didn't we already go through this?

Who's free will? Who are "you?" What exactly do you define as the thing which can act freely?

Free will isn't a person, so asking who's seems a bit inappropriate. Your soul man, your soul is in question. Pretend that you aren't human, you are an eternal being of pure energy. So you have the choice to make your own decisions or not? No need to make this more complicated than it is.

It depends on whether physics is deterministic or not. Quantum mechanics suggests it is probabilistic rather than deterministic, but then again, there's still a lot we don't know about physics.

If it's deterministic, everything could in theory be calculated and you could in theory know what you'll be doing at an exact moment in 50 years. If it's not deterministic, then it can't be calculated, you can only make guesses, which will shortly diverge far from what actually happens.

If we knew the exact location of all the particles in the universe, we could predict the weather with a kickass supercomputer pretty well. But the problem is, even if we knew the location of all the atoms in the universe, subatomic particles pop into and out of existence without warning.

And then there's the idea that on a short-term things may look pretty chaotic, but on a long-run things have patterns. Take, for example: weather, stock market, politics, and so on. We may not know exactly what the weather will be in a year, but we know that, on average, the weather is cooler in the winter than it is in the summer, and this is a predictable pattern.

You can still only generalize about these things. Even if you see clouds in the distance, theres no guarantee it will rain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PlanesWalker

You can still only generalize about these things. Even if you see clouds in the distance, theres no guarantee it will rain.

---

True, but for some reason, why is it that when we look at the past, things always seem so clear, but we never see them coming from the future?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phasemancer

It depends on whether physics is deterministic or not. Quantum mechanics suggests it is probabilistic rather than deterministic, but then again, there's still a lot we don't know about physics.

If it's deterministic, everything could in theory be calculated and you could in theory know what you'll be doing at an exact moment in 50 years. If it's not deterministic, then it can't be calculated, you can only make guesses, which will shortly diverge far from what actually happens.

---

I believe that the universe is probabilistic. But that doesn't imply freewill. I think determinism is ridiculous because it depends on impossible hypotheticals to even converse about. I don't agree that the hypothetical deterministic scenarios are even possible in this universe.

But that still doesn't imply any sort of freewill. Freewill is based upon false assumptions about identity. We are a colony with a cognitive factor evolved in order to reduce dissonance. What you call your "will" or "soul" is merely a program we developed to work out inconsistencies in our conditioning. We are still going to make the best decision possible.

I do believe in choice to some extent, but when I talk about choice, I talk about the choice to stop, or to continue. When I talk about choice, I am not trying to imply any sort of control, only resistance. True control comes from surrender. You have the choice to face things or hide from things. To be attentive on the present or to run and chase.

There are certain things that are outside of our control. For example: If you are born into family in Congo, you will never be elected president in the United States, no matter how much you want to be, due to legal laws in the United States.
If your mother has an abortion while pregnant with you, you will die, end of story. Life sucks.
If your Dad was bald, chances are you will be bald, too. Life sucks.
If your parents both had blue eyes, then you won't have red eyes, no matter how much you want to be a vampire. Life sucks.
Some things are just out of your control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I believe that the universe is probabilistic. But that doesn't imply freewill. I think determinism is ridiculous because it depends on impossible hypotheticals to even converse about. I don't agree that the hypothetical deterministic scenarios are even possible in this universe.

But that still doesn't imply any sort of freewill. Freewill is based upon false assumptions about identity. We are a colony with a cognitive factor evolved in order to reduce dissonance. What you call your "will" or "soul" is merely a program we developed to work out inconsistencies in our conditioning. We are still going to make the best decision possible.

I do believe in choice to some extent, but when I talk about choice, I talk about the choice to stop, or to continue. When I talk about choice, I am not trying to imply any sort of control, only resistance. True control comes from surrender. You have the choice to face things or hide from things. To be attentive on the present or to run and chase.

---

I guess it depends on how you define free will.

If I get a choice, to move my left arm or my right arm, then what are the conditions required that the decision was made by free will?

In my opinion what would happen is that a neural signal would start and it has two stable states it can reach, one leading to the left arm being moved and the other leading to the right arm being moved. Which state it would stabilize in would essentially be random, if there was no bias caused by any input, memories etc.

Is this free will? It has a certain degree of freedom since the action may have a 50/50 chance of going either way, and if you had made the decision again, another decision could have been made. But, one could argue that the decision was caused by the random movement atoms, acting pretty much as a random number generator, ultimately causing either your left or right hand to move.

I think maybe the concept of free will (or not free will) doesn't even make sense to begin with.

We make decisions based on our desires, memories, sensory input etc. Our brain is pretty much a kind of computer which tries to figure out how to satisfy our desires, and it makes the decisions we want, in some way, and I'm not sure it makes that much sense to label these decisions as free or non-free.

I think freewill as we understand it comes from our erroneous view of identity. We think we are the same person now that we were 5 years ago even though the way we respond to data has changed completely. As I have argued before, this comes from a struggle to feel in control. If we invent something called me and identify with it, we can feel as though the me controls the actions I also wish to identify with. But control on this level does not actually exist.

Granted it's important not to let this thought lead you toward negating responsibility over your actions. And that's where things begin to feel contradictory, what is the difference between being responsible for your actions and being in control of your actions? I want to say identity, the concept that bundles the person we are now with the actions we remember from our past and plan for our future. You are responsible for your actions right now, but "you" were not in control of yourself in the past, that "you" is dead. The you that exists now was just born.

Another important factor in being responsible is realizing the purpose of the ego. It reduces dissonance in the brain, this essentially means the ego is a process which allows us to compare different possibilities for compatibility. Once you understand the ego is just another process, evolved into place because it proved itself to be a sustainable feature, you can then take a perspective on control where you retain responsibility by continuing to reduce dissonance without struggling for control by understanding your process is just doing the best it can and your actions are always just the best possible actions you can conceive. Sometimes this may mean a random action, or a testing action. So we'll move the right arm rather than the left, due to the requirement for an outcome despite reality's probabilistic nature.