What if "free will" is only an illusion?

[Frans]

Disclaimer: I'm not talking about the LoA, only about the technique of Intention-Manifestation as a means to get what you want. So, remember that when you reply to this post.

---------------------------------------

I-M is based upon the principle that a person has a free will.
If there is no free will, it's obvious that applying I-M will produce random results: sometimes you'll get what you want, sometimes you wont.

The fact is that the results of I-M are various.

Could it be that I-M (partially) fails, because what we call "free will" is nothing more than a bunch of limited choices we have in order to follow our destiny?

I'll clarify this:

Consider a role-playing game.
You want to experience a particular adventure, so you choose an RPG that will allow you to experience that particular adventure.
The entire RPG, incl. all characters, plots, sceneries etc., is stored on a disk.
In order to play it, you must put it in a player and choose a particular avatar (a character in that RPG).
Each gamer knows that each RPG has its rules: though your avatar can run through a wall or fly in the sky, every avatar is limited by certain rules.
You cannot exceed these given boundaries.

What if life is like an RPG?

The program starts when I decide that I want to play the "life" game and when I choose an avatar (a physical body).
Like in an RPG, I must follow rules, I have to respect some boundaries.

Like in an RPG, "free will" doesn't exist, because though I can choose between an endless variety of pathways, each of these pathways are predefined patterns (stored somewhere outside the "game", but probably not on a disk )
If it is not part of my role that some intentions I have will be manifested, then there is no way that these intentions ever will manifest.

In summary, instead of "free will", we should talk about "free choice".

This could explain why I-M not always works.
What do you think?...

[Markus74]

Free will, like a lot of metaphysical concepts, cannot be proven nor be disproven. So isn't the exercise a bit futile?

But for society to work we HAVE to assume that free will exists. And even if it wouldn't exist we would still have to punish those who don't, or can't, accept our rules.

[Jill]

Originally Posted by Frans

Like in an RPG, "free will" doesn't exist, because though I can choose between an endless variety of pathways, each of these pathways are predefined patterns (stored somewhere outside the "game", but probably not on a disk )
If it is not part of my role that some intentions I have will be manifested, then there is no way that these intentions ever will manifest.

Well that makes sense in terms of why we have the laws of physics. And that's why no matter how much you intend to do something that falls outside of the laws of physics, it won't happen.

However, I think the subjective reality model would be completely different because as I understand it, we actually create our own laws of physics and everything else.

[maverickstruth]

There's an interesting article on "free will" from the Economist that might be of interest... http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ory_id=8453850

Although if we're going to use the terms used in the first post, it would seem like the article is talking more about "free choice" than "free will".... unless I'm misunderstanding?

For me personally, I'm not sure what I think of the issue. But it's a fun mind-bend to go through some different possibilities... what if we lived in The Matrix? What if we were characters programmed on a Star Trek Holodeck? What if we only exist in someone else's dream? What if we're avatars in an RPG? The possibilities are (almost) endless... and definitely brain-twisting.

[infinitethoughts]

Frans,

I think what you've posted makes a lot of sense. I've had the same ideas. Along the lines that this reality is actually some sort of cosmic RPG "game".

This could explain reincarnation....immortal beings playing with time.

This also explains why some I-M's work and others don't?

I think the important thing is to learn how to create efficiently, and this is done by taking into consideration is it part of your RPG character?

These are ideas that need to be explored further.
Like can one slowly "upgrade" your chosen RPG, so that one has more choices for example?

One way would be to do what Richard Bach suggests, IE: choosing a different past.

Say you made a decisive choice way back in the "past", go into your mind and take the other road, and see what effect that has on your present personality. I'm playing with that right now.

There's a lot to figure out.......

[Lucas]

And by that same token, how many times have you found a better way to do things that you didnt think of before, more efficient routes, better skill sets, and so on? How many games have things you didnt know were in there before? From finding a nook to using a cheat code?

Plus is this a Japanese RPG or a Western one? JRPGs tend to be linear and defined (Final Fantasy X) and Western ones expansive and open (Elder Scrols: Oblivion)

[ethereal]

This is a fascinating subject, and I wish I were more well-read before replying, but I want to get my thoughts in

My take on this is that in theory, we do have absolute free will, but it takes a certain level of consciousness to achieve it, and until then it may seem like we don't. so for example, due to the unconscious programs in our head we may make certain choices automatically without realizing it, and our free will is skipped altogether. If you think about it, at every single moment we can choose to do any one of an infinite number of actions, thoughts, feelings. As for using free will to break physical limitations, that's what Jesus did with his miracles, but it took a seriously advanced Christ consciousness to realize that reality is only an illusion and we can change it at will.

So I guess everything is intimately tied together; our consciousness work and personal development is the same as breaking free of social conditioning and limiting beliefs, and that expands our use of free will, and with our enlarged free will we allow our higher Self to direct us into serving the Universe in the most harmonious way possible

[magickmystik]

quotes from chopra

"The world is both deterministic and one of free will. If you are aware and beyond conditioning, then you have free will and live in freedom. But if you are unaware and conditioned, then you do not have free will and your world is deterministic."

"Intention can override destiny or a karmic legacy that no longer serves one’s purpose. The thing to remember is that what is now destiny was once a choice or intention. The long-term consequences of what we once desired in our past, are what we now experience as our present fate. In order for our present intentions to rewrite this programming it is not enough to intensely repeat our intentions , we need to be able to project our intentions from our core, silent awareness. Desires which are sent forth from this field of all possibilities have the basis for full manifestation."

" The events in our life are shaped by the momentum of our past actions. It’s not a matter of seeing things as “right” or “wrong.” There is a certain wisdom in not complaining and struggling against our present circumstances. At the same time, we should not be passive and resigned to our situation. Our present focus of attention is all-important in shaping the course of our life and we should not abandon that responsibility in the name of “surrendering” to the will of God. At our source, our will is the will of God. We can claim our divine power, and surrender to God at the same time, because both mean that we are simply living from our authentic Self."

"“There is a precise mechanism through which all desire can be manifested. These four steps are as follows:
Step one: You slip into the gap between thoughts. The gap is the window, the corridor, the transformational vortex through which the personal psyche communicates with the cosmic psyche.”

"Spirit based intention is so powerful. Once you know that, you'll realize that nothing is beyond you.

But the power instantly disappears if the ego is involved or if there is any straining or forcing. It's not going to work if the ego gets in the way. "

"“You can tell if you are in stage five by the way you get what you want. If you rely almost entirely on an internal process, then you are, with a minimum of effort, a co-creator of reality.
In stage five you don't have to master esoteric techniques; there are no magic tricks to making a thought come true, no secrets of miracle-working."

"I think the level of a person has reach, can be judged by the time it takes for them to create a thoughtform and for them to see it materialize in their life… And you will be amazed those things materialize in your life.” S.Wilde

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by magickmystik

quotes from chopra

"The world is both deterministic and one of free will. If you are aware and beyond conditioning, then you have free will and live in freedom. But if you are unaware and conditioned, then you do not have free will and your world is deterministic."

Ah, good old Chopra. He wants it both ways again. And he can't prove either way.

[moviestar]

There is free will. If free will would not exist then there would be no point in the award-punishment system designed in your brain. You choose something because you want pleasure or you want to avoid pain. When you do something good your brain awards you with feelings of pleasure and happiness. When you do something wrong it punishes you with feelings of depression. If there would be no free will then your life would be just a movie without emotions.

[annie]

I spent 2 years on a discussion board called Derek Webb. He's a musician/singer and very much a Calvinist.

Calvinists are a religious group that don't believe in Free Will. God chooses who makes it and who doesn't. BAsically, we are all puppets.

I personally don't believe in this theory....I believe in free choices, free agency and the law of cause and effect.

But I was highly educated and loved debating the Calvinists. Check out derek webb's discussion board and go to theology if you want a great time

[maverickstruth]

The thing with Calvinists is that for the most part (at least in my experience), when they talk about free will, they're talking about it in so far as it pertains to your ultimate destination after death... as a Christian denomination, this means that they believe that God has predestined whether someone will accept Jesus, etc, etc, and will therefore go to heaven or hell. The contrast drawn in Christian circles is between someone who is Calvinist (believing that God has predestined you to heaven or hell) and someone who is Armenian (believing that it is up to the individual), and is based on the Biblical letter to the Ephesians -- specifically dealing with free will and Christian salvation.

Neither the Calvin nor the Armenian conception of free will, however, touches on ideas of free choice -- humans still have free choice as to whether or not they do certain actions, making certian choices -- just not when it comes to matters of eternal destiny. That's my experience of Calvinist thought, at least -- and of course, there is variation amongst the particular beliefs of individuals in any group.

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by moviestar

There is free will. If free will would not exist then there would be no point in the award-punishment system designed in your brain. You choose something because you want pleasure or you want to avoid pain. When you do something good your brain awards you with feelings of pleasure and happiness. When you do something wrong it punishes you with feelings of depression. If there would be no free will then your life would be just a movie without emotions.

But (playing devil's advocate) aren't those responses basically chemical and electrical reactions? And they're wired into your brain a certain way ... that's why some people feel no remorse when they've killed someone, yet others can't even conceive of doings such a thing. If this is the case, then it's not so much free will as programmed will ... you are programmed to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli. That's not really free will, that's conditioned response.

Like I said, that's a devil's advocate response. But again, I'll mention the Economist's article (http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ory_id=8453850) which suggests that modern discoveries in neurology are challenging all of our preconcieved notions free will. I don't think it's as cut and dry as "there is reward-punishment, therefore there is free will."

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

But (playing devil's advocate) aren't those responses basically chemical and electrical reactions? And they're wired into your brain a certain way ....

Well to respond to the devils advocate viewpoint, knowing who I am, which is infinite, I'd have to disagree on that one.

[Eternal Wayfarer]

Fate And Free Will.

[thef0x]

I ultimately have a hard time grasping free will and limited will because I'm a hard (scientific) determinist.

But the illusion of freewill is more than apparent and I'll stick to that.

My answer--pragmatist.

[moviestar]

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

But (playing devil's advocate) aren't those responses basically chemical and electrical reactions? And they're wired into your brain a certain way ... that's why some people feel no remorse when they've killed someone, yet others can't even conceive of doings such a thing. If this is the case, then it's not so much free will as programmed will ... you are programmed to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli. That's not really free will, that's conditioned response.

Like I said, that's a devil's advocate response. But again, I'll mention the Economist's article (Liberalism and neurology | Free to choose? | Economist.com) which suggests that modern discoveries in neurology are challenging all of our preconcieved notions free will. I don't think it's as cut and dry as "there is reward-punishment, therefore there is free will."

I agree, we are all wired in a different way. Some people gain pleasure from molesting children and they chose to do it because it brings them pleasure. However you don't have to follow your pleasures but your life will be more painful. That is why human life can be a misery and it caused by free will.
I see it from a point of reason. What would be the reason for the illusion of free will?

[The Probabilist]

Is there even a way for fate not to exist? If fate didn't exist, then doesn't that mean that nothing is going to happen from this point onward? Everything that has happened until this point in time is fate as a most tangible proof. Or am I missing something?

As for free will, say that somebody proved to me that free will doesn't exist and I understand that it is so. How would that affect my life? Not the slightest. I'd still make the best of what time I have left. It's the same with the belief of incarnating or not. Whether we do or don't I still strive for the best I have the power to accomplish, regardless of what the answer is.

This is how I rationalize and I can see how Chopra also concludes that both free will and fate co-exist. I see no point in not caring about the best possible outcome a person can amount to. Therefore, since it is my primary force that drives me forward, I care most of all about things that work and how they are most optimally implemented in our lives.

Since you arrive at different conclusions to the question of fate and free will, you obviously have different purposes to your existence. It would certainly be a boring reality to live in where everyone thinks and acts the same.

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by moviestar

I see it from a point of reason. What would be the reason for the illusion of free will?

I think the issue from which this thread arose comes more out of the "base assumptions" one works on. If one assumes that this material world is what it is, and that one's reason and rationality is built upon that, then maybe there isn't a reason for the illusion of free will. If, however, one assumes (for example) a foundation of subjective reality, then reasonably and rationally it would follow that free will need not be any more real than the projection it is carried out in. If that makes any sense whatsoever...

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by The Probabilist

Is there even a way for fate not to exist? If fate didn't exist, then doesn't that mean that nothing is going to happen from this point onward? Everything that has happened until this point in time is fate as a most tangible proof. Or am I missing something?

I think maybe where the difficulty is coming in deciding what fate is. Is it something that is predetermined, or is it merely the outcome that has happened?

If fate is something predetermined, then I can see where one could argue that fate does exist (that is, that the outcomes of daily life have been predetermined in advance, either by some supernatural force/being, or by a cosmic "scriptwriter", or something like that), and one could also argue that fate does not exist (that choices are made as they are made, and that the outcome of one moment is not known in advance, but is only determined in the moment).

If fate is just the outcome of what happens, and is thus only really seen in hindsight, then sure, fate exists. Otherwise, as you say, there would be nothing beyond this point. If this is what one understands fate to be, then so long as there are outcomes, there is fate.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by The Probabilist

Everything that has happened until this point in time is fate as a most tangible proof.

When a certain event happens, and we can track it back in time to its roots, we can see that this event was inevitable, because "all things lead to it".
If you read a biography of a famous person, the conclusion is always the same: it was meant to be that way.

The question is: to what degree can we influence our fate?

I'll return to my RPG analogy:

The complete game, incl. all characters, plots, sceneries etc., is stored on a disk.
In other words, my adventures are already there. Those adventures are virtual, they are time-less.
Only when I put the disk in a player and start the game, time will unfold the adventures.

All choices I'll make in that game are predetermined by the game developer.
I can make a choice between different options, but I cannot add options (more choices).
If he has decided that my avatar will reach destination X, Y or Z, then, whatever I do, I will never get another destination.
My fate is in the hands of the game developer and instead of free will, I have only the choice between limited options.

We can go even further:

Suppose that our life adventures are "stored" virtually somewhere outside this material world (in God's brain?), and that the only function of time is to unfold these adventures (like in that RPG).
In that case, time is only illusion, so EVERYTHING is predetermined, not only the options we HAVE in life, but even the options we CHOOSE.

[Michael Chui]

I haven't seen determinism mentioned (I noticed Chopra, but if I'm reading that correctly, it's not determinism), which was my response to the free will versus predestination dilemma. Essentially, the argument is summarized as: choices made are inevitable, but are nevertheless made freely (ergo, free will); outcomes of choices are predictable and determinable; thus, future choices are predictable and determinable.

Fate (or Predestination or Predetermination or whatever you'd like to call it) is simply anticipating the final outcome of a chain of choices. ("Final" referring to "we don't care about stuff that happens afterwards".)

It doesn't answer the question of First Cause, but no one bothers answering that except by citing deity anyways.

[maverickstruth]

Another interesting article on free will, this time from the New York Times. Asks the question that's on all of our minds:

As a result, physicists, neuroscientists and computer scientists have joined the heirs of Plato and Aristotle in arguing about what free will is, whether we have it, and if not, why we ever thought we did in the first place.

“Is it an illusion? That’s the question,” said Michael Silberstein, a science philosopher at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania. Another question, he added, is whether talking about this in public will fan the culture wars.

Linky Linky: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/sc...083&ei=5087%0A

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Frans

When a certain event happens, and we can track it back in time to its roots, we can see that this event was inevitable, because "all things lead to it".
If you read a biography of a famous person, the conclusion is always the same: it was meant to be that way.

The question is: to what degree can we influence our fate?

I'll return to my RPG analogy:

The complete game, incl. all characters, plots, sceneries etc., is stored on a disk.
In other words, my adventures are already there. Those adventures are virtual, they are time-less.
Only when I put the disk in a player and start the game, time will unfold the adventures.

All choices I'll make in that game are predetermined by the game developer.
I can make a choice between different options, but I cannot add options (more choices).
If he has decided that my avatar will reach destination X, Y or Z, then, whatever I do, I will never get another destination.
My fate is in the hands of the game developer and instead of free will, I have only the choice between limited options.

We can go even further:

Suppose that our life adventures are "stored" virtually somewhere outside this material world (in God's brain?), and that the only function of time is to unfold these adventures (like in that RPG).
In that case, time is only illusion, so EVERYTHING is predetermined, not only the options we HAVE in life, but even the options we CHOOSE.

I'll add something to your analogy. What if we're not experiencing the game from only one avatar but from all the avatars within the game at the same time. Meaning if there is an avatar named Bobby in the game, and another named Billy, and Bobby decides to beat up Billy, you experience both Bobby beating up Billy and Billy being beaten up by Bobby. So instead of like one character, it's more like the game SIMS where each of the characters affect the others, so even though you can get one SIM to cheat on the other sim and have sex with the maid, the wife is now not happy so you have to take care of that Sim. So what if it's like that? Everyone experiencing everyone at the same time? And each avatar might have options X, Y , Z as you mentioned, but what if every avatars options O,P,Q affect another avatars option X,Y,Z thus creating the possibility of XP, YP, ZP and also XO, YO and ZO and ZQ, XQ, YQ etc.

Now multiply that by 6 Billion people and you have an almost infinite # of possibilities, but they aren't really infinite. There is only so many options.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by impaul99

What if we're not experiencing the game from only one avatar but from all the avatars within the game at the same time. Meaning if there is an avatar named Bobby in the game, and another named Billy, and Bobby decides to beat up Billy, you experience both Bobby beating up Billy and Billy being beaten up by Bobby.

These are the reasons why I reject this multi-avatar concept:

(1) Common sense. In our daily life we can only experience things through our own body (senses). Bobby can not experience things through Billy.

(2) If we talk about ourselves, we talk always about "I" (first-person singular), because we identify ourselves only with one physical person.

(3) Ockham's razor: if presented two equally valid explanations, use always the less complicated formulation.