Free Will is a Delusion

I'm curious.

Is your position on freew will a tenet of atheism?

Also, what do you think happens after physical death? Do we continue to live in some form or fashion?

I don't think atheism has any "tenets" other than a rejection of God beliefs. My position on free will is a philosophical one. I couldn't really say how common my "deterministic" viewpoint is amongst atheists. As to life after death, I don't ultimately believe in the notion that life has a true beginning or end. There is only change. I don't believe in such a thing as a soul that survives physical death if that helps any.

My atheism has a Buddhist/Taoist flavour in case you're wondering.


Dan Rowden

OK.

So if you don't believe the soul "survives", do you believe there is a soul to begin with?

What are "we" in essence? Do we have an essence?

If you believe life changes form - do you also suggest that it just ends at death? That seems incongruent.

It's curious that you portray life and the universe as connected in some inter-exchanging dynamic in symbiotic relationship yet reject the notion of a maser intelligence behind it all.


Were you ever of a different mind?


I appreciate the more analytical and even philosophical queries/forays into seeminly eternal questions as perhaps you do.


I am as far from being religious as one might be. I have no beliefs. I am a student of and an exponent of reality.


There are greater and greater realities that are revealtory and attained in relationship to the expansion of consciousness - which I have aggressively pursued this entire lifetime.


There is a state of master being to be realized that is a very high form of realization/actualization and necessarily precludes all belief systems and dogmas.


This state of being cannot be desribed nor explained nor taught to another being. You can only BE a master being. The outer signs of such a being might be the mastery of natural laws and the concommitant quiver of super normal abilities - of which I have first hand experience.

I'll respond to your questions when I work out a coherent way (using the quote tags) to address them point by point.

No.



Nothing has a true essence. One cannot point to a foundational reality of any particular thing. For example, if anyone can show you where any thing begins and ends in an absolute sense I'd love to know about it, because it frankly can't be done. Things are merely appearances whipped up by Nature (causation). Things do not exist inherently - including ourselves.



Things change into different forms. Thus, in one sense things end and in another they just change. e.g. steam becomes water when cooled. When a person dies they simply evolve into something else according to the physics of the moment(s). Whether consciousness, per se, ends at death is an unanswerable question as we cannot say with any certainty that consciousness is nothing more than an emergent property of our physical selves. There may be a source of some aspect of our consciousness that lies elsewhere and that we're not aware of.



Because I don't see any necessary or coherent connection between those ideas. How can the Universe itself have any intelligence behind it? The universe is, by definition, all that is. It's possible, of course, that what we call the "observable universe" (this finite bubble of space/time) might be a creation of some powerful alien lifeform designed for the amusement and/or education of their young, but that doesn't have any broader philosophical bearing on the connectvity of all things through the principle of causation and what it means for things to exist.



Not as an adult, no.



Well, they are my very life, so you're saying quite a lot there.



Well, that's good because that is what any genuine thinker ought to be. You can't philosophise well with preconceived baggage in tow...



So, with respect to that what is your position on free will, exactly?



Sure, I just call that enlightenment.



I only partially agree with that. You can certainly point a person in the right direction, at which time it is up to them and their karma.



Ok, well, you substantially lost me there. Enlightenment does not confer upon one the power to suspend natural laws. Buddhas do not defy gravity.


Dan Rowden

If you are going to assume your comprehension is so much greater than mine perhaps you should dismiss me. I have about as much respect for your thought processes as well.
You insist on labelling thought according to the guidelines of your ridiculous assumption yet you admit that you don't in fact know WHAT causes it. KNOW ONE KNOWS WHAT THOUGHT IS GENIUS.
To label it as an "event" according to your flawed cosmological theory is a tremendous assumption on your part unless you can indeed explain through verifiable or falsifiable criteria what caused or random factors are in fact responsible for it.
Simple physical responses in the brain do not satisfactorily explain how thought occurs. Processes of similar properties are found in nature and are artificially induced in industry but they are not thought.
In your original supposition you describe all human action as an event. Is pure thought an action? Oh really? PROVE IT.
Without a subsequent action that results from a thought it is in fact a non event.
And your first premise is a huge assumption, all events are either caused or random? What if that premise is incomplete? What if there is a third or fourth criteria beyond your understanding?
Arrogance in thinking your knowledge is complete is not a virtue. Hence my questioning of your level of wisdom.

The deeper one explores these topics from a philosophical bent, then more indefinite/subjective/sematically confused the discussion becomes - to the point where a full retreat ensues to the very meaning of the words being employed.



People can debate these subjects from apparently opposite postions yet actually agree without knowing it.



I think the most solid footing is found in agreeing on that which is not real at all - such as the mythological mindset and incredible belief systems of religion - with their allegorical cosmologies and mind bending theologies that defy logic and common sense.



The "truth" of ultimate reality can only be grasped in metaphor at best - at least in discussion - but as I say - the ultimate truth resides in pure being - in purely being - and displaying/expressing that being through the vehicle of a body and the instrument of a mind.


All knowing resides in being.


All possibilites are expressed through infinite being.



We ARE infinite beings.



We have the capability to transform our minds and bodies into instruments of pure being and thus create as master creators/beings.



I know this because I am this.




When you say that people cannot fly or levitate because it defies gravity - I say that physical laws can be obviated/manipulated/bypassed through mastery in being.




Again, I know this from experience.

You wrote...
Really?

me... yes, and really... in fact, and for me anyways, it is almost beyond amazing that this kind of dinorsaur mentality you speak, can even find any application within these here time of ours... downright amazin' it is, I tell ya, lol.

you...
I suspect you say this merely because you don't understand it.

me...
Why go for any of them pre-sumptive like suspicious-ness-es at all?? Sooooo like, rather than them conjurings and construings o'yours, wouldn't it just be a whole simpler for to ask? Or.. are you somehow suspect-fully 'caused' upon those kind of self-deliberating inclinations? And if so... how so?... and then too... what causes your causings then?

you...
I'll try and explain, even though it is actually rather straightforward.

me...
Yes it is... that's why I wrote what I wrote.... yes?

you...
My analogy was that of a "sudden" event. This is a name we give to a particular appearance - which is all fair enough.

me...
Well, that's not entirely true, and ya know???? And like I mean, and by it's very defining qualities, an epiphany could be considered to be quite an event, and don't ya think... and you know, like when that light bulb goes off in your head, lol... and yet "it is" without any physicality a'tall. Falling in love is also quite an event, and for many... and yet falling in love also has no physicality/time-context, and so to speak... and like... ya know what I mean?

you...
Things "appear" to happen suddenly.

me...
No, they don't... just look at the light bulb, and for example, lol... from idea to fruition took quite a long time indeed... or... it sure sounds like you've never done much gardening either.

you...
However, if it were the case that we could actually see the causal circimstances of any such event we would no longer experience it as or give it the label "sudden".

me...
We can... the light bulb, lol.
or...
and as for my garden... that acorn that I planted 5 years ago, and it is just now about a 3' tall Oak Tree... and the 'sudden' event you speak of... is when that sucker will be a full fledged shade tree, and thank ya very much, lol... get it?
(and, I am also an actively participating part of its 'causal circumstances' too.)

So, evidently your idea of 'ex-periencing' sudden and my idea of 'ex-periencing' sudden may just very different indeed... yes?

However, what I would call a 'sudden event', and for me anyways... would be more like within the realms of being a real 'eye opener' kinda thingie... and believe you me, that one can be very very sudden in-deed.
(what is that ol' saying... 'the word is mightier than the sword')

you...
Surely that is within your intellectual capabilities to understand?

me... aw gee, ya think.... maybe?????
(this is what I meant when I said you are funny, lol)

you...
Now, think of any individual aspect of "will" for a moment i.e. any individual thought. If we could see the causal circumstances that gives rise to any individual thought, choice or whatever, we would not experience them as "free" and would not label them such. This again is pretty obvious.

me...
Hell-o... no, it is not at all... are you nuts of what? Do you like have some sort of automatic pilot 'in there' at the helm... or what? And... duh!... do ya maybe, just maybe. allow any room at all, for maybe all of those so called causal circumstances were all freely, and unabashedly so, I might just add, lol, willed/chosen, and all along their ways.... and you know, sorta like currents of energy, in a 'matter' of speaking.

or... as a very very very old sea-farer
ditty goes...
"Ships sail east,
and ships sail west,
by the same breezes that blow.
It's not the gales,
but the set of the sails,
that determine which way they go."

or... just give me one time, and in your whole life too... just one time when you did not have a choice?

you...
Does it mean anything to suggest that certain mental phenomena might arise outside any causal circumstance? No, it is breathtakingly stupid to suggest that since it would logically mean that said mental phenomenon arose outside the universe itself.

me...
Well no, and not necessarily... I would have to say, and one... that your dream-state would be like more than hint-filled of the vast spaciousness of all of the known, and unknown, universes... which you, btw, seem so very cavalierly... to somehow manage to shrink all possible probabilities for to fit into your more than rather limited view of the diversity of all that is.

And too (two, lol)...please to tell me then... what "all" is within our universe? And cuz from what all I'm hearing, we are just dicovering all kinds of new stuff, and all of the time too (and doesn't that just naturally imply, reekingly so, lol, that there's a great deal more out there as well... yes?)...
and then three... have you never heard the expression, "there's more there than meets the eye"? Or, "ya can't tell a book by its cover." Hell-o?????

you...
So, like sudden events, freedom of will is merely a thing that "appears" due to the "shapshot" nature of consciousness.

me...
and just whose nature of consciousness is that snap shot nature you be speaking of there... and who owns it now?
And then, please tell me what your idea of "merely a thing" is? And I mean... like if all things have their causal circumstances... then what's that 'merely a thing' free will's causal circumstances?
And... does 'causal circumstances' come in 'merely-s' too?

And too... methinks/feels/knows that your "snapshot nature of consciousness" thingie there, is but one very and very (even merely so, lol) small aspect (or, focal point) of consciousness... very narrowed indeed, lol.
And I mean, surely you've noticed that there are other kinds of consciousness out there/in here... and haven't you?

And I am sorry but as far as any sudden events go, I have yet to see anything out there just all of a sudden 'pop in'... or 'pop out', and for them 'matterings'.... have you?

you...
It does not constitute an objectively real aspect of reality.

me...
see there's that dinosaur kinda stuff I mentioned up there, lol... and cuz I cain't even begin to believe that any subjective-ly beheld kinda critter focus (yet another of of them aspects of consciousness, and ya know ya know, lol) would have the noive for to call anything that "they are looking at", or focusing in on, as being in any way objecive.... how exactly is that done?
The noive, lol... quite creative however.

you...
However, due to the nature of our consciousness we are trapped within that illusion in an everday, practical sense.

me...
Again... simply not true... you can leave it anytime you may so wish to, and very practically speaking too? The only traps there are, are the ones we set for ourselves... get it?

And while I would agree that this here reality o'ours could be said to be an illusion... well, and then, all that is though, is still just another naming of something... well, and it "really" changes no-thing either... and save one's attempt for to add yet another label on top of one that's already there, lol.
(now there might be something there, though...lol)
And again too... I would think that your dream-state really ought to give you a sense that there's much more lee-way to consciousness than what you are attempting to parcel out for yourself here.... and really.
(and btw, dreams are also most practical, lol)

you...
The point is, however, we do not have to be philosophically delusional about it and pretend that it is indeed real in any ultimate or objective way.

me...
As I told you before (remember????) you don't 'have to' do anything a'tall, for after all... you are not a human do-er, right? Rather, and I do promise you this... you will be with yourself for quite the spell... for you are a hu-man be-ing... are you not?

And too... no, we don't have to, do we now... so what "will" 'we' do with it, eh?
And then... and since, of course... it takes us for to do some/any-thing with anything that we do... do we also then become like them ever diminishing qualities of 'merely a thing' kinda 'thang' as well?
(and ouch!)

You also might want to check out the qualities of them 'pre-tendings' o'ours/yours, and you may just discover some of what you choose to term them causal circumstancings... or not, lol... I don't know, but maybe just check it out.


you...
The other point I want to quickly address is the "will" part. The reason we experience certain phenomena as "will" is because we identify them with ourselves. That is, we link, by inference and nothing more than inference, these experiences to what we perceive as our inherently, objectively existing "self" or "I". But does this "self" really exist at all in the way we imagine?

me...
I'd have say pretty dang limited, and if that's the way you ex-pression your image-in-ings of, for, and about yourself... and ouch!
Sorry.... but dude... basic spirituality 101 even now teaches that we identify with "events" (is that fair to use that word there?) because they are ours for us... have you never heard of them universal laws of attraction... or as every gardener (and some carpenters too, lol) also knows full well... "what ye sow so shall ye reap".... what goes around comes around, and all that kinda gooder stuff, lol.... haven't ya?

And too... gee, let's see now... there's approximately 6 billion different kinds percievings a goin' on 'out there' as I am writing this... and that's just counting us human folk too... and cuz if ya bring 'into account' (fair is only fair ya know), all of them other consciousness-es out there.... then we also have ka-zillions upon ka-zillions upon ka-zillions of other kinds of percievings a'goin' on as well... yes?
Now, which one is the right one?

And I mean, your's is the right one for you... right? You identify with yours, yes? Now, please tell me, and please... honestly would ya.... that maybe, just maybe... you could possibly be 'more' (much and much more too, lol) than the sum of all of your parts? And... if so, or even if there's the slightest possiblity of it being so... why would ya ever seek out any limits to your explorations of yourself.... and like for what possible purpose?????? I mean wouldn't a/any rather limiting focus/viewpont(s) en-cline themselve for to hinder/hold back/damm up/restrict... and rather than enhance/give out/expand/allow//open up... and all that gooder stuff... ya think?

you...
Actuallly, I just realised that this part of the issue is probably a step too far. Better to attempt to understand what I said about "freedom" of will before we bother to get into the idea of "will" itself.

... lol, there's that funny stuff again... I love it!

Oh, I think I already have. I'm merely playing to the crowd now. But I may change my mind, you never know.



You made presumptions about my thought processes that you are not rationally entitled to make. That does indeed tell me a lot about yours.



What assumption are you referring to, exactly?



I admit and have admitted no such thing. I know exactly what causes any given thought.



Really? What utter pretense and arrogance. How can you possibly know this without knowing what it is that all minds are capable of knowing? It so happens I do know what thought is.



Is that a question? If so it isn't a very coherent one. "Event" simply means something that is experienced in time. Are you suggesting that thoughts are not experienced and done so within time? Every experience is an event. Thoughts are experienced therefore thoughts are events. That this experience and even the time frame is subjectively limited to the individual is true but also immaterial.



Duh. No kidding. However, that has exactly zero relevance to my argument.



Thought CANNOT be artificially replicated precisely because thought is by definition a subjective experience relative to the observer of said thought.



You're conflating terms that I never used in such a fashion. Thoughts are events because every experience is an event (by "event" I mean nothing more controversial than any expereince that can be differentiated from another one).



Your reasoning is certainly a non-event. And your thinking is too linear. I'm not arguing along such narrow lines. Nor am I arguing along purely empirical lines. It isn't necessary to know what actual events preceeded or follow any given thought to know that that thought is caused by the overall circumstances from which it sprang into being. It is only necerssary to know that no thing, empirical or abstract can exist of istelf, uncaused {"caused" in this sense meaning: that which is necessary for something to exist).



I never used the word random; I don't especially like it. I said things are either caused or uncaused. There's a difference.



That's not possible in the case of my premises. My premises are based on a simple logical duality that has no third possibility. But then, you may be one of those people that believe in the possibility of a square circle, in which case we really would have nothing to discuss.



The arrogance is yours in thinking that no-one could actually posssess a complete piece of thinking.



Well, your questioning is fine, but you might want to examine all the gratuitious assumptions you're making in the process. They make you look absurdly hypocritcal.


Dan Rowden

What causes thought then? Please enlighten me.

Hehehe... this is quite amusing. You guys who like to play intellectual and rather pathetically attempt to use big words are in a world of shit now, because Dan Rowden is a friend of mine who has spent his entire adult life pursuing truth and reality like most of you pursue money and self-satisfaction.

It may not be clear just yet, but GLP has been invaded by a a bunch of authentic, no-bullshit philosophers - namely Dan, Philosophaster, and myself, and quite a few people are going to have to face the music, like it or not.

We are here to bring the most hated and reviled of all things - the plain and honest truth. Read us at your own peril, because we enjoy yanking away all delusional security blankets. :)

[link to www.mindspring.com]



These guys think they know what thought is too. Fifty years from now they will still be failing.

Oh, that's easy. In the most complete sense the cause of any given thought is "not that thought". The cause of "thought" is "not thought". Any answer less than that is just contingent empirical modelling. Which is not say that such modelling might not provide us with very practical outcomes. Science's very importance lies in its practical outcomes and the utility of its models rather than in its explicatory power because science doesn't actually explains anything (not in any complete sense anyway).

See, and you thought it would be difficult!

Dan Rowden

Sorry, let me rephrase:
What is consciousness.

Everything extant represents a form of consciousness - an operative set of intelligent principles of motion/functioning that causes it to exist and to function.



When consciousness becomes conscious, then it becomes creatively intelligent - or alive - able to move, grow, adapt, evolve.



When consciousness become self-conscious, able to manipulate its environment, then it moves up the ladder of the creatively intelligent


And at the top of the ladder is mankind - a fully self-aware, ensouled being, able to refine/expand conscious awareness to incorporate all that is and to create without effort all that the mind can conjure without limitation.

That is a very pretty answer but what IS it? Where does it come from? Why does this one human attribute so elude AI researchers?
How does it function? Where does it originate from?

This is from Wikipedia:
Even at the dawn of Newtonian science, Leibniz and many others were suggesting physical theories of consciousness. Modern physical theories of consciousness can be divided into three types: theories to explain behaviour and access consciousness, theories to explain phenomenal consciousness and theories to explain the quantum mechanical (QM) Quantum mind. Theories that seek to explain behaviour are an everyday part of neuroscience, some of these theories of access consciousness, such as Edelman's theory, contentiously identify phenomenal consciousness with reflex events in the brain. Theories that seek to explain phenomenal consciousness directly, such as Space-time theories of consciousness and Electromagnetic theories of consciousness, have been available for almost a century, but have not as yet been confirmed by experiment. Theories that attempt to explain the QM measurement problem include Pribram and Bohm's Holonomic brain theory, Hameroff and Penrose's Orch-OR theory, Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory and the Many-minds interpretation. Some of these QM theories offer descriptions of phenomenal consciousness, as well as QM interpretations of access consciousness. None of the quantum mechanical theories has been confirmed by experiment, and there are philosophers who argue that QM has no bearing on consciousness.

There is also a concerted effort in the field of Artificial Intelligence to create digital computer programs that can simulate consciousness.
-------------------------------------------------------------​----------------------
If you cannot define the actual origination of consciousness then you cannot define thoughts as pertaining to your "free will" theory. Free will lies at the root of our consciousness.
Your cause and effect cannot apply to attributes of consciousness unless you can adequately define consciousness in a way as to make it applicable.


On the day one of you geniuses actually produce a HAL9000 I will concede that you MAY have enough understanding of the human mind to make your ascertions.

And yet you, a hypocritical idiot of obviously limited intellect, feel totally confident in making your own assertions without hesitation. In addition, you clearly feel obliviously comfortable about invalidating other's views even while promoting your own. The irony of all this, of course, is entirely lost on you. That is why one could not reasonably expect anything other than an identically clueless sermon in response to this criticism, so please feel free to provide just that. I'd expect nothing less.

BTW, the above is the correct spelling of the term "assertions."

like a 12 page thread debating weather or not 2 + 2 = 4

let me quote....."When consciousness become self-conscious, able to manipulate its environment, then it moves up the ladder of the creatively intelligent"........wow.....talk about a web of assumptions......round and round the words go...where they lead.....even the spider does not know

I agree. 2 + 2 = 4, and cause & effect = lack of free will.

Very simple, and it is something that would be understood from age 5 onward in a rational world.

No, you do not know because you do not understand it. Grow up.

Do not attack others for your own lack of intellect. It's not our fault.

The reason it eludes AI researchers is that they are dependent on consciousness being thought of as an emergent property of a particular physical state, a state which they seek to replicate. And whilst this modelling might produce very worthwhile technology, and it may even in time produce what we might regard as a nominal empirical referent to consciousness, it won't be consciousness in any pure sense.

You can't "place" consciousness anywhere. Consciousness is really only a term we use to bundle together experiences, appearances. Consciousness is really just the *content* of those appearances. Consciousness is the content of what appears at any given time.

There is no soul or seat or basis or foundation or "source" of consciousness (other than Nature itself) because all such things make up part of the content of appearances which is the very body of consciousness. So, when we ask, "What is consciousness?", in my view we have to answer "the totality of appearances."

Some people just answer "awareness", but this leaves us with the subject-object problem and the fact that the elements of that problem are themselves appearances within consciousness. So, that answer isn't all that helpful.

Hope mine was, but I have this funny feeling....


Dan Rowden

Ya know something buddy? I've been listening to you spout off for a couple days now about how smart you are. You've shown me nothing but what an asshole you really are. Now that your in the position of having to admit your precious theory is wrong you instead turn to personal attack.
All you are is another intellectual wannabe dumbass whose parents probably had enough money to dump your annoying ass into college to get some peice of mind.
You can't apply your stupid fucking theory to something that has never been defined in the first place you fucking moron.
I haven't made any definitive ASSERTIONS other than the fact that you and the other guy are full of shit.

the idiots here dont understand what you are saying. they dont understand the fact that choice comes from thoughts and thoughts are not controlled. they dont get the concept and will continue posting irrelivant garbage, like a 9 page thread arguing weather or not 2 + 2 = 4. their brains are fried, forget it.

the delusion nature of human reality....2 plus 2 equals 4 only because everybody believes it does

In other words you don't know either.

There can be no such thing as free will except for in everyday terms such as i 'chose' to drink OJ vs 'my wife made me drink oj'.

free will cant exist. when you type a response to this, it will come from thoughts that are controlled by every experience you ever had + DNA + Random positioning of neurons. it cant exist. whatever you reply to this, youll think its a choice, but its not..

now:



and stop arguing weather 2 + 2 = 4 or weather the sky is blue or not. Shut Up. got it? youre retarded and dont understand. you have a fucking cognitive disorder. youre stupid. shut up.

tone...by what means are you able to determine that ...as you say...."thoughts are not controlled"? please attempt an explanation

Hello James.

Up to your same ol'shit again I see.

Later Mr. Quirk