Free Will is a Delusion

" BTW, the fact that you think we are wrong implies that you consider your own "intellectual acumen" to be be superior to ours. Incidentally, the same is true of everyone who disagrees with anyone else. There would be no reason to disagree with anyone unless you feel that you know better than they do. So guess what? "

... now for sure, that is one way of looking at it.
Can you maybe think of any others?

>>>So, let me get this straight. You bash us for asserting that others are wrong and then proceed to announce that WE are wrong. Okie-dokie...<<<


Very erudite of you bunky.


Hair of the dog.


How does it feel?


Not my nature of course to speak so bluntly - but what can I say?


Your karma made me do it.


I have no free will of my own.




Remember?



>>>BTW, the fact that you think we are wrong implies that you consider your own "intellectual acumen" to be be superior to ours. Incidentally, the same is true of everyone who disagrees with anyone else. There would be no reason to disagree with anyone unless you feel that you know better than they do. So guess what?<<<



Score another salvo for the philosopher savant!


Only, I make no claims about my relative academic/intellectual abilities - everyone's got a brain - you guys are just a bit more smitten by yours.

Apparently you are overwroght with glee that you plugged them in and they actually worked!


News Flash: I know what I know because I am that I know. All derives from being. The only way to know that you know is to be fully expanded in being.




Have you walked on water lately?????




You boys have constructed your personal models of reality which work for you, and isn't that special.

But it doesn't alter what is and how it functions.


So keep your skull and bones, codified, lexicon of sacred truth etched for all time on the altar of your pristinely polished egos and take them with you to the next life. After all, it far more important to die believing that you know what is real and true than actually knowing.


It makes you better fodder for hubris mill of the self deluded.

Hubris? You accuse us of hubris? You stupid person. All I see from you is hubris. Not a single argument. Please tell me you're just kidding....

Dan, I think he's one of these types that gets offended when anyone speaks of themselves positively in an intellectual sense. Probably one of those who automatically concludes that any such statements are the result of arrogance, thanks to the rampant anti-intellectualism that is prevalent today. "Nobody's any smarter than me, by God!"

Of course, the response of these types is invariably to assert the superiority of their own beliefs and character. The irony and/or hypocrisy, of course, is never noticed...

And by the way, 2+2=4 by definition. There is no alternative because we define the content of that equation. This is the same reasoning by which we know that a square circle cannot exist.

... and yet another tsk and tsk for ya, lol... or is that tit for tat? And again sir, you are no seeker of truth.
(and again too, that's an ouch for us all as well)

... lol, I love it... and yeah... you just keep right on a'tellin' yourself that.

Agreed, but it's awfully disheartening. I remember when I first began my philosophical journey that I would immediately be fascinated by anyone who seemed to hold a strong position on an issue. It didn't mean I believed them or turned over my intellectual independence to them, it simply meant that I saw the potential for insight.

But today people are 100% certain that they know nothing (and that everyone else is in the same boat).

Well, let them know nothing then, I suppose. It seems to suit them well enough.

Probably not worthwhile to try to engage in too much serious discourse here, if all they are going to do is heckle us and insist that nobody else is allowed to know more than they do.

Zaphod said of my explanation of consciousness:



Can't you see how ridiculous this attitude is? So, you want a "definition" that is true but you also want it to be falsifiable? How the fuck can the truth be falsifiable? Isn't that part of the definition of truth, that is can't be falsified, that it can't be refuted without that refutation falling into contradiction? Instead of coming out with these glib responses, how about thinking about what has been said for a day or two.

Dan Rowden

You're probably right; still, one or two people seem to be interested in a meaningful discourse so I'll give that ol' horse a kick or two more...

... oops, lol, and oh dear oh dear... a couple o'more tsk and tsks I see. One... I don't believe, and for even one second, that you are disheartened at all. And two, any kind of 'philosopher' full well knows that ya just cannot speak for any other save yourself. And yet again you seem somehow able to generalized yourself upon everyone else.... or is it maybe really you?

How do you do that... and for what possible purpose?

... aw, and speaking of kickin' old horses... which and btw I sure wouldn't put past you two, lol... but now, let's see here... and on a Sirius note... besides your inferiority complex/trip/etc., and so on... and your 'money' trip... what else ya got goin' on for ya?

You guys do know, and don't ya now, that 'more' does not mean superior. If you don't, and maybe you really don't... then may I suggest any English dictionary may be used for to look up the word 'more'... and check it out.

However, since you both seem to incline yourselves upon that particular 'slanting' of the word 'more'... may I also suggest then, that you take a gooder look at your own personal definitions... and then maybe just up date them a bit.

Still trying to insist that we think we are superior to other people while explaining why you are superior to us, eh? Still can't see the hypocrisy in that?

... lol, you betcha, and accordingly so, 10 fold even... and too... just maybe something for ya to remember as well, "Fat may be where it's at, but thin's in"... get it?

For the record, intellect has nothing to do with value as a person, in my opinion. What matters most in people of any IQ is honesty, integrity, courage, and other moral virtues. There are people of limited intelligence who have all of these positive qualities, and geniuses that have none.

The purpose of mentioning one's intellectual qualifications is not to establish one's "superiority as a person." That is simply an anti-intellectual lie. The actual purpose of it is to build credibility, so that *reasonable* people can have some confidence that what is being said is not total BS.

Unreasonable people, of course, only believe what they want to believe anyway, so anything they don't want to believe is automatically BS regardless of anyone's qualifications.

That's a linear way of looking at the issue, yes, but my argument goes beyond that. In essence I'm saying that no thing has any true origin. No thing exists of itself, inherently. In other words, all things are caused. That which is dependent on what it is not for its very existence cannot be described as "free" in anything other than in a vernacular, practical sense. The argument for the illusory nature of free will doesn't rest in linear, empirical notions of causality.



Yeah, but that doesn't explain thought and it also smacks of solipsism. Am I merely a product of your mind? If so, why did you give me such a mediocre face? :)



That idea doesn't make sense unless we're supposd to believe that for some mysterious reason people like to live in hell.



I discount it because it doesn't mean anything, doesn't actually explain anything and is an incoherent concept.



No, that doesn't work because even a "soul" operates within a causal environment. If it didn't, we couldn't have any contact with it at all.



It's obvious that no such compass exists. Since reality is necessarily infinite there cannot be any purpose or meaning - other than that which is finitely expressed through OUR nature. Purpose and meaning are artifacts of human consciousness. They certainly exist in that sense but they are not a feature of existence per se. To believe they are is an obvious piece of folly.


Dan Rowden

Free Willy is a flicka

A porn flicka to be precise...

You dont control the origin of your thoughts.

It is good work that we look at these concepts in a dispassionate light while reducing them out of their familiar contexts to their simplest forms to discover their actual existences and operative properties as they relate to the whole.


It is not lost on me that this exercise, besides being intellectually honest, trains the mind to be objectively discerning, free of emotionalism and weary of predisposition.


It is evident that your mind is highly trained, perhaps through years of thinking and study.



As a writer, I can draw a parallel in the writing ability of others who may sound like they know what they are talking about, perhaps because of their use of language and phrasing, but actually say nothing.


You have a keen sense/sensor of B.S. It suits you well. I would hope in all I've written that you might surmise that I too can discern well a valid argument from total b.s.



I would also hope that you might sense that there is an underlying reality to my words, as I do not speak lightly and am not prone to overstatement or embellishment.


Having said this, I must confess that unless and until one has developed their consciousness to a large degree, much of what I say may fall flat or sound hollow.



Perhaps the experience of sitting in full lotus above the ground as it relates to a unified state of being would be a starting point for our discussions going further.


As I've said, all derives from being. >Being< enlightened is not the goal, it is the starting point


It is unfamiliar territory for my mind to deal with these concepts within the context of your philosophical nomenclature.


Your terms have much meaning for you, but I am having to learn a new language of sorts.


But just to show that you and I are not necessarily far apart, I would agree that nothing means anything except what we ascribe to it. All meaning is subjective.


Also - I do not "believe" that everything happens for a reason. Most of it is simple causality.


But I do subscribe to the notion that there is purpose in life from the micro to the macro and it necessarily implies a source creator.


Oh well.


You guys stand up well to attack.



I like that.

you do nothing but paint yourself into a corner by spouting absolutes.


"there is no alternative" you were given an example...one that was meant to have you approach the problem from a spiral mind frame....not linear nor circular.

"don't believe everything you think"

Oh, so there are no absolutes?



What example? Are you referring to this piece of nonsense: "2 lemons plus 2 lemons can equal 5 ounces of lemon juice"?

You're kidding, right? You have to be kidding because no-one of sound mind would offer that kind of drivel as a counterexample to 2+2=4. You clearly don't even understand the argument.


Dan Rowden

It has also been my observation in life that the study of law and philosophy is actually training on how to think correctly and logically.

The pitfall however is that it places too much emphasis on intellectual discernment as the arbiter of what is true or real when much of what might be considered higher truth or knowing is by its nature ineffable and "knowable" soley through expanded being.

You guys have some peculiar notions. THIS is what falsifiable means.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Some circles are breaking from this concept but most still adhere.
for smart guys you're pretty fucking stupid.

Not when one of the values is mislabled. Writing 2+3=4 and SAYING it means 2+2=4 is either the mark of ignorance or willful misdirection.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-George Bernard Shaw

That... more than 2 + 2 = 4, describes this thread best, I'd say.

I have no problem admitting that you - Dan, Naturyl, and whatever other dedicated philosophers might be here - can make a much more cogent rational A+ college paper argument than I could, and if we were in a university-style debate with PhD judges, you'd probably win. I tried the logical approach, tried arguing by your premises and semantic interpretations, and of course, since you've got (for example) the dictionary definition of arrogance and a whole science of logic on your side, I have to stand corrected on those account, at least within *those* parameters of the discussion ;)

The reason that your argument on *that level* is more cogent and logical however, is because I *do* understand everything you are saying. Both of you, however, do not seem to understand - or even acknowledge the right to exist - of the slightly "unreasonable" position, upon which all progress depends.

You say 2 + 2 = 4, and I'm forced to say 2 + 2 MIGHT not always be 4 even though I agree that in 99.99% of the cases 2 + 2 is indeed 4. Then you predictably act all reasonable and say "no it MUST be so 100% of the time"... but therein lies your problem, and there is where I can't agree with you.

Your philosophy offers nothing new, nothing life-affirming, and no motivation to do anything, because it's all out of our hands anyways. It's cold and dead, like the equation 2 + 2 = 4 is cold and dead. I'm not going to bother pursuing this "emotional argument" with you since it'll no doubt be dismissed out of hand, and I'm not generally the emotional-argument type anyways, but it IS a critical aspect of it that can't be ignored - even if it's all cause & effect to you.

Feel free to spend the rest of your lives in a philosophical shell, safely insulated by your own parameters and definitions. Some of us are still *honestly* trying to figure it all out... and that means that in good conscience, we have to accept that there are some things which can't be figured out rationally... at least, not with the brainpower presently at our disposal, genius level IQ or not. Our "genius" standard is relative... it may be "borderline retarded" on a hypothetically more advanced alien scale ;)

This is not an attempt to "win the argument", I'm past that already, as you also seem to be. It's more of an "After Action Report", just a last attempt at clarifying *why* we have to agree to disagree... despite your many "reasonable" arguments :P

The flaw of over-educated people, just to beat that particular point to death, is that "reason" can easily become their new "God", just as easily as other people have reasons for their worshipping any other deity... you dare not defy reason, because your entire life and philosophy has been built around it!

Well I prefer to keep free from *all* systems and dogma... if you're right, I've got nothing to lose, since at least I *tried* to live fully in a cause & effect Universe, and when I'm dead, there's no afterlife to dwell on that mistake in.

If *I'm* right, however, you're both wasting your lives because you mistakenly convinced yourselves that trying to "live free" in a *pre-dominantly* cause & effect universe was not even an option, and you'll realize it at some point in your future existence as well :P

Logically any *reasonable* person would go with the "trying option" unless he needed the emotional comfort of not feeling responsible for his/her actions, or is that flawed logic as well?

Anyways, thanks again for a good discussion. Believe it or not, I actually *did* learn something from it.

Cause and Effect...

Basically, events have nothing to do with what you think of as cause and effect. This is perhaps apparent to some degree when you study dream events, for there the kind of continuity you are used to, connecting events, largely vanishes.

Instead events are built up, so to speak, from significances. But let us forget that term for a moment and consider association, with which you are already familiar, since your stream of consciousness operates in that fashion. By its very nature each consciousness is a particular, peculiar, and unique focus of awareness which will experience any possible realities through its own characteristics.

It also "stamps" or "impresses" the universe with its own imprint. No portion of the universe is inactive or passive, regardless of its seeming organization or its seeming lack of organization. Each consciousness, then, impresses the universe in its own fashion. Its very existence sets up a kind of significance, in whose light the rest of the universe will be interpreted. The universe knows itself through such significances. Each consciousness is endowed with creativity of a multidimensional nature, so that it will seek to create as many possible realities for itself as it can, using its own significance as a focus to draw into its experience whatever events are possible for it from the universe itself.

Put more simply from another viewpoint, each of you as you know yourself has certain abilities and characteristics of your own. You experience reality through the cast of those abilities and characteristics, but you also stamp the universe with that particular imprint of individuality that is your own, and you attract those events that are suited to your nature and no other.

Significances fall or happen in certain patterns, and when these become very obvious they appear as cause and effect. They are simply heavy-handed significances. Your associative processes and habits are perhaps the closest examples that can give clues of how significances operate. Even then, however, associations deal with the passage of time, and basically significances do not. You might think of your aunt Sarah, for example, and in a few moments the associative process might bring you images of periods in the past when you visited your aunt, of her friends and neighbors, the articles in her house, and episodes connected with your relationship.

At the same time Aunt Sarah, unbeknown to you, might pick up a blue vase, one that you had just seen in your mind as belonging on a shelf in her living room. Touching the vase, your aunt Sarah might think of the person who gave it to her, now on the other side of the continent. That person, perhaps thinking of buying a present for someone, might settle upon a vase in a flash of inspiration, or suddenly begin humming a song with the name "Sarah" in the title, or possibly even think of your aunt. If on the other hand any opposing associations existed anywhere along the line, the "chain" of associations could be broken. The last lady might consider a vase, for example, but reject the idea. Because of the time element, it seems to you that the first episode caused the others, and that your first association concerning your aunt brought about the "following" events.

The inner significances, however, the associations, existed all at once, to be tuned into at any time. They had their reality basically apart from time, even though they appeared within it.

Actually the three sets of events could easily occur to the three people at once, and if no normal communication happened no one would be the wiser. The inner tapestry of events deals with just this kind of association. Emotional intensities and significances compose the nature of events. In dreams you work with the kind of intensities involved, exploring multitudinous significances. These are like charged emotional patterns, formed of your own highly personal emotions and intents.

Using such significances as yardsticks, you accept or reject probable events. You imprint the universe with your own significance, and using that as a focus you draw from it, or attract, those events that fit your unique purposes and needs. In doing so, to some extent, you multiply the creative possibilities of the universe, forming from it a personal reality that would otherwise be absent, in those terms, and in doing so you also add in an immeasurable fashion to the reality of all other consciousness by increasing the bank of reality from which all consciousness draws.

There is no such thing, basically, as random motion. There is no such thing as chaos. The universe, by whatever name and in whatever manifestation, attains its reality through ordered sequences of significances.

These are kept separate in various systems of actuality, while still combining in an overall fashion. You understand the cause-and-effect kind of order, but this is built upon the non-causal aspect of significances. In a way the dreams that you recall are like numbered paintings, tailored to fit your own intents and purposes, fitting the contours of your mind so perfectly that you forget the larger experiences from which they are drawn.

Physically and psychically the dream itself is the result of the most precise kind of calculation and activity, in which complicated dramas and interactions occur, often highly charged and intense, and yet cut off from the body's full participation. These significances, then, involve from your end certain biological cues that regulate the intersection of psychological events with physical activity in time and space. Only when all conditions match your own highly specific requirements are the necessary cues activated to give you the physical experience. To that extent in dreams you are "on hold", involved with a range of action too wide to fit the contours of practical earth experience. These significances set up their own codes, then, so that physical events must be coded in a certain fashion, and dreams in another.

Your dream perceptions seem physical --- you walk, run, eat, and perform other physical functions. And in a way dreams are like variations of the theme of your life, though in reality your life is the theme you have chosen from those possible versions. You are steeped in that inner reality from which your dreams spring, and the farther away you go from the dream state into inner reality, the physical aspects of events largely vanish. It would seem to you that experience becomes broader but less specific, but such is not the case. Experience does become broader, but it changes in quality so that, for example, one moment in your terms of such experience would provide the working material for five years of dreams.

This larger experience from which your dreams are finally formed, involves you in a kind of journey. It is as if you joyfully leave the normal paraphernalia of usual life behind, and ride aboard your own greater psyche into vaster seas of experience.

You leave behind the physical nature of events and go into those areas in which events are formed. In a very real sense, you encounter the universe in a more direct fashion, using inner senses that are far more ranging. Using your own indestructible validity, or vitality, as "bait", you go forth to draw from the universe the raw material of experience. You are yourself, yet at that level you are also a part of that universe from which that self springs, and its power and vitality are your own, to be uniquely focused. In those terms you are aware of all of the activities of your own greater psyche as it participates in --- and contributes to --- the infinite existence of psychic consciousness as you understand it, and becomes aware of the psychological realities that form the framework of its own stability.

Events do not become physical, then, unless certain requirements are met, and certain codes activated.

Experiences of your inner self occur at their own intensities. The knowledge is translated into information that is broken down in the dream state into more specific data, highly symbolized, suiting individual requirements and then "run through the body" in a kind of ghostly trial fashion.

(at a cellular level there is a direct cognition involved in which each consciousness knows what each other one is doing, its "position", and the implications of its experience. The entire fabric and framework of time and reality at each point is ascertained, and the probabilities probed and understood. Your cells are aware of the motion of the planets, all of the probabilities concerned with its physicality, and of all circumstances regarding the body's equilibrium, stability, and survival. The body is then formed constantly as the result of these computations)

It is then further processed into individual significances, drives, or intents, which convert it into the required codes that will then determine the nature of actualized waking events. Data must be of particular kinds of intensity before they register as physical matter, or are experienced as physical events. Part of this processing occurs in the dream state, and creativity plays a large part in the preliminary process.

You are always immersed within your inner self whether you are waking or sleeping, or whether in your terms you are alive or dead, It involves conditions in which direct knowing primarily operates. It is your "natural" state of being.
(thanks ever S&J)