Quoting: Jesse Sovoda Quoting: Chaol Quoting: Jesse Sovoda
... Quoting: Chaol
It's your ancient secret ("deep, dark", as it would be said).
It's one of those things that we don't want to think about. As it implies that we would not exist. Indeed, it is the thing we don't want to consider. Only in an abstract way, perhaps.
It's something I've covered at length so the basics are no secret for me. Only the practical applications.
If you cannot perceive of something directly then what are you actually perceiving?
You'd be perceiving an inferential experience?
I think that that inference is made by our intent and is subject to the logic in the system by which we perceive. We are basically choosing what we experience at all times. It's just that on the most basic level we (as we currently can perceive our sense of self) do not exist. Am I off?
No intent is needed.
If we experience what is most relative (or seem to) then what choice is there?
You'd be choosing something that not only all ready exists but does not really exist.
This is a longer discussion, as it gets into questions like "what about decisions?" and such.
If you're up for it, let me know.
Thank you. I am up for it.
I had perceived decisions to be the execution of "choice". I had also assumed that choices are based on the information we have "acquired" on the current experience within the decision space that the logic allows.
In that way I assumed that the ability to "choose" anything defined "free will" and I also assumed all this was fundamental to our "ability" to perceive (at the level we do "perceive").
"Free will" is an illusion.
Unfortunately, there is no free will because of the dependent nature of values in perspective.
We can say that you choose to go out and get a cheeseburger as an example of how you have control over what you decide to do.
Yet we ignore so much about the supposed choice, focusing only on what seems like the end result (a tasty cheeseburger).
We don't think about not being able to materialize a cheeseburger without going outside, or going out to get a cantaloupe burger, or having to put on clothes and pay for it. The cheeseburger is entirely dependent on a myriad of other interdependent systems working together in unison to bring you the appearance of free will.
That's the say nothing of the reality that the cheeseburger is not real.
Free will presumes that we can be, at times, able to not experience the most relative perspective next.
The most relative perspective is what we experience, not free will. But this is also not a choice. You are not forced into experiencing anything, of course. This is the only way it could possibly be done because there is no actual energy.
The energy of the universe is an illusion. It would be impossible to 'jump' over to the 2nd least-wasteful perspective just for the fun of it. The reason that we experience that which takes the least amount of energy (or interactions) is because the energy is not really there to begin with.
If choices are "...based on the information we have "acquired" on the current experience within the decision space that the logic allows" would that also include the 99.999% of all information regarding our experience that our senses is not aware of? [Scientists would provide that number. I would say 100%]
So would this be a conscious choice based on a very infinitesimally small amount of total information? That's to say nothing of the contradicting or misleading information that our brains don't know what to do with.
It is not that we are free to choose from a selected variety of perspectives. It is that free will is meaningless when everything depends on everything else. It's one system, you could say.
So are you free to go get yourself a cheeseburger? Yes. As long as it is realized that the concept of freedom of choice is irrelevant.