Admit it, you really don't believe that you create your own reality...

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by iraro

I'll take a closer look at Libet and see if I can clarify my thinking. Whatever the explanation, I am not optimistic that I will agree free will does not exist. I feel absolutely certain I have free will. I know many people who feel the same way, that is, that people have free will. In fact, years ago, when I worked in advertising these people were spending hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising to affect the will of the consumer. Very few people in the U.S. over the age of 12-years have not drunk a Coke or a Pepsi, or do not know what a cola soda is. Yet, the advertising continues--not to inform people but to persuade them and gain "market share." There are numerous "special interests" from churches to governments to whatever, who see people as little more than sheep to be fleeced. They devise every trick they can to subvert the will of the people. They love to use fear. If people did not have free will or choice, this would not be necessary and would serve no purpose.

I'm not sure that because advertising can influence what people buy means they have free will. It might actually be ammo for the other side of the debate. That people have no free will such that what they end up choosing is based on how much advertising they have been exposed to. Not anything they consciously decided on their own.

For me, "free will" is the ability to do whatever I "feel" like doing--as long as it is legal and meets with my moral code. It is substantially emotional. I don't know how "reasoning" is worked into the mix but it is easy for me to rationalize that I am making a "reasoned decision" when my emotions are engaged. As for logic, as I said before, "I have not purchased a car yet based on logic."

What makes up what you feel like doing? Isn't that your conditioning? How you were raised and what society taught you? What advertising you have been exposed to?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by James81

No, I don't mean it in the way he meant it.

I mean it in the sense that you might not always get to choose your circumstances, but you can ALWAYS choose your perception/reaction to your circumstances.

I think that this is where most people get fouled up on free will. Free will was never about choosing your external reality. Free will is about how you create your internal world and respond to external reality.

I know it sounds empowering to say we get to choose our reactions. But mostly how we react is based on our conditioning. If you are not emotionally overwhelmed it may look like there are more possible reactions you can engage in - but eventually you only do what you think is the best thing to do. And what made you think a certain way of engaging was the best?

Like a psychologist will say everyone does the best they can, always. And the best that they can do is what they have learned so far.

[James81]

Its based on your conditioning until you become aware that you have a choice in how you perceive a situation, then it becomes a conscious choice. Reacting based on conditioning is really just an unconscious choice.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by James81

Its based on your conditioning until you become aware that you have a choice in how you perceive a situation, then it becomes a conscious choice. Reacting based on conditioning is really just an unconscious choice.

ok yes that is the standard way of looking at it.

still, hmmm... what would it be that makes you aware that there's a different way of looking at things, that you end up basically having a different response than your previous dominant behavior?

The "conscious choice" may just be that you gained awareness of something better and have started a new conditioned response. hahaha. A new dominant behavior.

How you perceive a situation is always going to involve the best response you will use, your dominant behavior. It may be unconscious reactions. Or it maybe paying attention such that what you always used to do doesn't make sense in the light of being aware, so then something else becomes the reaction or response. And usually this new reaction is modeled or suggested by someone else as the next best thing or way to deal with perceiving a situation. Is it really possible to make up some way to respond that isn't part of conditioning or learning how to do you best?

talkin' 'bout the midnight rambler...

[Acting Like Godot]

I will explain Benjamin Libet's experiment and free will, in terms which I feel that James81 will be able to relate to.

One day, I meet James81 and I say, "Hey James, would you like a cigarette?". I flick open my cigarette box, and proffer one of the poison sticks to James81.

"No thanks," says James. "I'm trying to quit."

"Are you sure?" I say. "I'll give you 10 seconds to think about it. 10 ... 9 ... 8 ...7 ....".

In those 10 seconds, a variety of different thoughts will pass through James81's head. For example, "I really shouldn't" ; "One stick won't hurt"; "I really could use a stick right now"; "But it's bad for health" etc etc.

On the 10th second, James may think to himself, "No, I won't" and walk away from me.

Or on the 10th second, James may think to himself, "Yes, I will" and stretch out his hand to take a cigarette.

What Libet's experiment shows (using advanced technology) is that either way, even BEFORE James consciously thinks "Yes I will" or "No I won't",

at 9 point something second

.... the relevant neurons are already firing in his brain, either to activate his hand to move towards the cigarette, or to activate his legs to walk away from me.

In other words, the decision has already been made. The thought "Yes I will" or "No I won't" arrives, AFTER the decision has been made.

Thus it will appear to you that you have free will - that you think, and decide, and then you execute. But always, your body is already moving to execute, before you have thought, and before you have decided.


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

Further developments on Libet's original experiment have been carried out. It is still a work-in-progress. Some experiments show that James81 may have decided to take the cigarette, about as much as seven seconds before he actually knew that he had decided to take the cigarette.


Just last month, the journal Nature carried an article about the latest investigations into Libet's discovery from the 1980s:

Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will : Nature News

[lycan]

Originally Posted by James81

Free will isn't about what decisions you make, or what situations you find yourself in....free will is about how you respond to the situations you are in. Effectively, every last bit of our lives may have been mapped out the moment we were born, but the one thing we will always have a choice in is how we respond to and perceive a situation.

It truly is the one freedom that nobody can take from you....not even YOU.

You'll have to provide a new definition to the word "respond" then. If every last bit of our lives was mapped out at birth, we do not have the "free will" to respond to situations, we just respond as we were mapped to respond. Also, your model, if we modified it to be conceivable, seems like a nightmare where learned helplesness is taken to the extreme.

[ButterflyWoman]

I'm familiar, although not intimately, with this research.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Thus it will appear to you that you have free will - that you think, and decide, and then you execute. But always, your body is already moving to execute, before you have thought, and before you have decided.

Correct.

However, I would argue that it's not that you aren't really deciding, but that you don't become aware that you've decided until after. Some part of you is making decisions, sending signals to your limbs to move or whatever it is you're deciding. You're not consciously aware of those nerve impulses, and you only form the concept "I have decided not to do this" (or decided to do it, etc.) once all of the sub-conscious calculation and computation has taken place.

But, I'm not a neuroscientist, so there are probably nuances of the research that I don't entirely grasp. From a philosophical point of view, though (specifically, in this case, metaphysics), I don't think that the conclusion that "there is no free will" is necessarily the best and certainly not the only explanation, based on what I understand of the research.

Just for the record, I don't know that I have a firm opinion on the existence of individual free will one way or the other. I have seen for myself from a metaphysical point of view that "free will" is an illusion, but so is everything else, so... *shrug*

I'm just saying that I don't see that the interpretation of the data necessarily means "no free will". It can also mean "conscious awareness of decision making is not what we think it is".

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I will explain Benjamin Libet's experiment and free will, in terms which I feel that James81 will be able to relate to.

One day, I meet James81 and I say, "Hey James, would you like a cigarette?". I flick open my cigarette box, and proffer one of the poison sticks to James81.

"No thanks," says James. "I'm trying to quit."

"Are you sure?" I say. "I'll give you 10 seconds to think about it. 10 ... 9 ... 8 ...7 ....".

In those 10 seconds, a variety of different thoughts will pass through James81's head. For example, "I really shouldn't" ; "One stick won't hurt"; "I really could use a stick right now"; "But it's bad for health" etc etc.

On the 10th second, James may think to himself, "No, I won't" and walk away from me.

Or on the 10th second, James may think to himself, "Yes, I will" and stretch out his hand to take a cigarette.

What Libet's experiment shows (using advanced technology) is that either way, even BEFORE James consciously thinks "Yes I will" or "No I won't",

at 9 point something second

.... the relevant neurons are already firing in his brain, either to activate his hand to move towards the cigarette, or to activate his legs to walk away from me.

In other words, the decision has already been made. The thought "Yes I will" or "No I won't" arrives, AFTER the decision has been made.

Thus it will appear to you that you have free will - that you think, and decide, and then you execute. But always, your body is already moving to execute, before you have thought, and before you have decided.

Doesn't conceptualizing take time as well?

[iraro]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

I just can't resist. I just can't.



Me, too!!!

I feel like having sex, too. I'm pretty sure that's the result of evolution, since people who do not have sex tend to not reproduce.

I'm guessing the need to feel like we have free will could possibly have some benefit to the continuation of that "selfish gene"...



If people DID have free will or choice, it would not be necessary or even possible for soda pop companies to compete with advertising for a person's money.

People would trust their inviolate feelings.

Wait, feelings are not inviolate??? Oh dear. That kind of blows a giant hole in the free will theory, then.




I won't even talk about bad guys and their feelings and their own moral codes.

Nor will I talk about the many, many people who on a daily basis absolutely cannot do what they feel like, due to poverty, or being children, or being aged, or being physically or intellectually handicapped.

However, if you define "free will" in this manner, then I agree, free will exists for many of us (the top experiencers of free will by your definition would have to be educated, Christian, white males). I don't think this is a standard definition of free will, though. (The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will - your feelings are not unconstrained; there are many many contributing factors that result in what each of us calls a particular feeling).

I hope I don't come across as too snarky. I don't feel snarky. I'm enjoying the way your mind thinks, and hope you will keep sharing your thoughts.

That "reproduction thing" from sex is just a a nasty trick of Mother Nature. She full of them. At least, unlike the female Black Widow spider, no female ever tried to literally eat me after sex. I hear homosexuals and lesbians have sex just for the fun of it, and do not intend to reproduce. There are methods to avoid pregnacy which I hear are widely used; there are many unwanted pregancies and abortions, so clearly "free will" is locked in a battle with Mother Nature and has been for some time.

I don't understand what you mean with your "soda pop" comment.


As for emotions, Abrabam says emotions are our "innner guidence" system. I like to think my "feelings" about a given choice sum up all of the information I have available, including from "source." My feelings are not inviolate, but I can't recall ever having found a better result by acting in opposition to them.

As for "my" moral code: I think the world would be a far, far better place if everyone had my moral code--particulary those "bad guys" you cite.

Finally, there are poor, disadvantaged, unhappy people. They may very well think they don't create their own reality and that they are powerless to change their circumstances. If I gave them everything I owed, it wouldn't be enought to make a difference. As Abraham says, "You can't get sick enought to make somebody well." In my book, the "top experiencers of free will" are those who beleive they create their own reality.

As for being a Christian male, I could "go with" being a Saudi prince owning an oil well in Saudi Arabia. Maybe I'll do that next trip. Let's see how things shape up in the Middle East. Money can be useful in a persons growth and development--not always, but when used judiciously. But, even Paris Hilton probably has a fuller life because of her family money.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by CaterpillarWoman

However, I would argue that it's not that you aren't really deciding, but that you don't become aware that you've decided until after. Some part of you is making decisions, sending signals to your limbs to move or whatever it is you're deciding. You're not consciously aware of those nerve impulses, and you only form the concept "I have decided not to do this" (or decided to do it, etc.) once all of the sub-conscious calculation and computation has taken place.

If this deciding is going on before you are aware of it, then how would you be able to know or change what the choice is. You say there may be some part of you that is making decisions - but what is that part? Because it is not in your awareness - how could you influence that?

But, I'm not a neuroscientist, so there are probably nuances of the research that I don't entirely grasp. From a philosophical point of view, though (specifically, in this case, metaphysics), I don't think that the conclusion that "there is no free will" is necessarily the best and certainly not the only explanation, based on what I understand of the research.

If free will is the ability to know what you are going to decided and change that before it happens, then based on this research the conclusion is you are not able to consciously change the decision because you have no awareness of the choice.

Just for the record, I don't know that I have a firm opinion on the existence of individual free will one way or the other. I have seen for myself from a metaphysical point of view that "free will" is an illusion, but so is everything else, so... *shrug*

me too. hahaha

I'm just saying that I don't see that the interpretation of the data necessarily means "no free will". It can also mean "conscious awareness of decision making is not what we think it is".

There is no conscious awareness of the decision - that's what the research is pointing to. Conscious awareness is after the decision is being executed.

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

If this deciding is going on before you are aware of it, then how would you be able to know or change what the choice is. You say there may be some part of you that is making decisions - but what is that part? Because it is not in your awareness - how could you influence that?

By changing your subconscious, presumably. Change the underlying programming.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

If free will is the ability to know what you are going to decided and change that before it happens, then based on this research the conclusion is you are not able to consciously change the decision because you have no awareness of the choice.

If that's what free will is, then, yes.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

There is no conscious awareness of the decision

There is once it has happened.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Conscious awareness is after the decision is being executed.

Yes. I got that.

[iraro]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

This preceding message system you are speculating about is not in conscious awareness. That is the point or conclusion that some make reading the Libet study.

The study showed what the timming is of nerons building up charge and the subjects awareness of the movement. The charge build up happened first w/out awareness, then the awareness of the choise to move and the then physical movment.

You are correct, I am pointing out that which is “not conscious.” Seth says whether or not you are “conscious” of a physical action it changes the interior environment of your body through these inner pathways; that before you see anything physically the interior perception activates the outside one. Thus Seth links the “conscious” and the “unconscious” saying the “unconscious” is the prime mover.

Libet on the other hand is measuring the “tail end” of the process; oblivious to the front end, not even speculating there’s more to the story, but suggests, in effect, that he has the whole story because he’s measuring what he thinks is “conscious.” And, from this somebody leaps to “there’s no free will.”

How does he define “conscious”? There was time when I had to consciously think about each twist when I tied my shoes. Now it is virtually “unconscious.” There was a time when I had to think about driving. Today, I sometimes get in my car; drive hour thinking about everything and anything but how to drive or how to get where I’m going. Am I consciously driving or not? Am I merely triggering a skill I’ve previously learned? I don’t see the “unconscious” as counter to my free will if I mentally express the intent to drive somewhere and it’s carried out by my unconscious, accessing previous training and knowledge.

I guess one has to “pick” his guru here, but I haven’t yet seen anything which I think disproves free will.

Seth, page 94, “The Nature of Personal Reality: There is always this translation of exterior stimuli. The perceived lapse noted by scientists is of course the physical one, caused by the ‘time’ it takes the message to leap the never endings. The interior translation however is simultaneous.

Now return in your mind to the situations of near accident. That event with the car, its driver, and your own precarious position, exists as another structure beside the one that you physically see. It also exists in the terms mentioned earlier, in a reality composed of invisible light, inaudible sound, and electromagnetic patterns.

Consciously you react to the physical data—the noise, the squeal f brakes perhaps, the visual shock of seeing the car so close, but the entire inner reality of the scene or event is instantly ‘recognized’ by what I refer to as your inner senses. These respond to the interior patterns I’ve told you about. The physical data is carried through the nerves with the necessary time lapses that must occur. These represent the temporal end of the spectrum of perception.

Because you are flesh and blood creatures, the interior aspects of perception must have their physical counterparts. But material awareness and bodily response to it would be impossible were it not for these internal networks.

Now before you see anything physically, you do so through these inner pathways. The interior perception activates the outside one. When you experience physical motion or activity, events or phenomena, you are becoming aware of the tail end of a long ‘series’ of interior comprehensions. I am saying that all exterior events, including your own bodies with their insides, all objects, all physical materializations, are the outside structures of inside ones that are composed of interior sound and invisible light, interwoven in electromagnetic patterns.

…On a physical level you seem to be separated from everything that is not yourself. This is not true…But whether or not you are consciously aware of such activity, it changes the interior environment of your body through these inner pathways.

[LisaDreams]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

.... the relevant neurons are already firing in his brain, either to activate his hand to move towards the cigarette, or to activate his legs to walk away from me.

In other words, the decision has already been made. The thought "Yes I will" or "No I won't" arrives, AFTER the decision has been made.

Perhaps there is an energy (spirit) that existed prior to your body and will continue after it wears out i.e., that can and does exist independent of your body. Maybe this spirit is you, your highest and complete consciousness. Maybe it has the ultimate control of your mind and body, and instructs your neurons to fire and maybe it is making your choices. Maybe when you have the awareness that neurons are firing, legs are moving, that a choice is made within you etc., the awareness is a type of communication between the spirit and the mind & body. Maybe the spirit observes the awareness.

Lisa

[James81]

Originally Posted by lycan

You'll have to provide a new definition to the word "respond" then. If every last bit of our lives was mapped out at birth, we do not have the "free will" to respond to situations, we just respond as we were mapped to respond. Also, your model, if we modified it to be conceivable, seems like a nightmare where learned helplesness is taken to the extreme.

You're still thinking of free will as an external state. What I am saying is that free will is an internal state if being. The choice exists internally, even if external circumstance is forced upon you (or mapped out in advance).

The example I use is the Nazi concentration camps. Those Jews didn't have much choice in their external circumstances, but internally there was a choice that no Nazi could've taken from them.

[lycan]

Originally Posted by James81

You're still thinking of free will as an external state. What I am saying is that free will is an internal state if being. The choice exists internally, even if external circumstance is forced upon you (or mapped out in advance).

What is an internal, as opposed to external, state?

The example I use is the Nazi concentration camps. Those Jews didn't have much choice in their external circumstances, but internally there was a choice that no Nazi could've taken from them.

What if said nazi put a bullet through their skull?

[James81]

Originally Posted by lycan

What is an internal, as opposed to external, state?

Internal would be your thoughts about a situation. You may not always get a choice in what your physical circumstances are, but you always have a choice in the way you think about that situation.

Originally Posted by lycan

What if said nazi put a bullet through their skull?

Then you become worm food and that's that.

[lycan]

Originally Posted by James81

Internal would be your thoughts about a situation. You may not always get a choice in what your physical circumstances are, but you always have a choice in the way you think about that situation.

Learned helplessness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Learned Helplessness

If the way you think has no effect on circumstances, the consequence is apathy. Why make the effort to think in any particular way if it makes no difference?

Then you become worm food and that's that.

Do you still have a choice in the way you think about being worm food, or do the worms eating away your brain prevent that? If you don't retain that choice, did the nazi not take that choice away from you?

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by iraro

That "reproduction thing" from sex is just a a nasty trick of Mother Nature. She full of them. At least, unlike the female Black Widow spider, no female ever tried to literally eat me after sex. I hear homosexuals and lesbians have sex just for the fun of it, and do not intend to reproduce. There are methods to avoid pregnacy which I hear are widely used; there are many unwanted pregancies and abortions, so clearly "free will" is locked in a battle with Mother Nature and has been for some time.

So if you allow that mother nature can make us feel things, how do you know that Mother Nature isn't making us feel that we have free will, for her own nefarious purposes?

Originally Posted by iraro

I don't understand what you mean with your "soda pop" comment.

Ah well I was just saying that your soda pop example was providing more evidence in opposition to the existence of free will, not for.

Originally Posted by iraro

As for emotions, Abrabam says emotions are our "innner guidence" system. I like to think my "feelings" about a given choice sum up all of the information I have available, including from "source." My feelings are not inviolate, but I can't recall ever having found a better result by acting in opposition to them.

As I understand Abraham, they are our inner guidance system in that feelings let us know when we are thinking something that Source does not agree with. They are important indicators of our alignment with Source. But as for being "sacred truth-" feelings suck at that. They don't tell us the truth about anything except for how well we are aligned with Source. Even Abraham talks about pulling back your fist when you really feel like punching someone out is a good thing.

I'll bet if you really thought about it, you could find numerous examples of when your feelings did not lead you to the best outcome. The time, for example, you ate too much cheesecake and spent the night in the bathroom, or got the speeding ticket cause you felt like doing 55 in a 35, or had sex with the young intern. I know I can think of many many times in my life where I'd have been better off listening to my brain than my feelings.

Originally Posted by iraro

As for "my" moral code: I think the world would be a far, far better place if everyone had my moral code--particulary those "bad guys" you cite.

Heh - everyone thinks this about their moral code, except for a few enlightened and humble individuals (of which I wish I was one) who really and truly don't believe they know what is right and wrong for everyone.

Originally Posted by iraro

Finally, there are poor, disadvantaged, unhappy people. They may very well think they don't create their own reality and that they are powerless to change their circumstances. If I gave them everything I owed, it wouldn't be enought to make a difference. As Abraham says, "You can't get sick enought to make somebody well."

I agree. I wasn't implying there was anything at all wrong with or that you should feel guilty about regarding your social or economic status (whatever it may be). I was only pointing out that as you have defined free will, not everyone experiences it equally.

Originally Posted by iraro

In my book, the "top experiencers of free will" are those who beleive they create their own reality.

As for being a Christian male, I could "go with" being a Saudi prince owning an oil well in Saudi Arabia. Maybe I'll do that next trip. Let's see how things shape up in the Middle East. Money can be useful in a persons growth and development--not always, but when used judiciously. But, even Paris Hilton probably has a fuller life because of her family money.

Well, I couldn't say for certain who is the most entitled. In my country, rightly or wrongly, people generally point to educated, christian, white males. The only reason I mentioned this was because you included in your definition of free will the ability to put your desires into action:

Originally Posted by iraro

For me, "free will" is the ability to do whatever I "feel" like doing--as long as it is legal and meets with my moral code

As long as a definition of free will includes a physical outcome, it is an unavoidable conclusion that some people must have more free will than others.

[James81]

Originally Posted by lycan

Learned helplessness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Learned Helplessness

Ok, that was random, but thanks.

Originally Posted by lycan

Do you still have a choice in the way you think about being worm food, or do the worms eating away your brain prevent that? If you don't retain that choice, did the nazi not take that choice away from you?

I have no idea what happens when you die. Are you saying that a bullet from a Nazi guard is less of a choice than dying of cancer? A death is a death is a death if you ask me. I don't think anybody CHOOSES to die (unless they commit suicide of course). Or maybe they do, I dunno.

[lycan]

Wait... as long as it's legal? If our free will was subject to the law, there wouldn't be prisons now would there?

[lycan]

Originally Posted by James81

Ok, that was random, but thanks.

If the way you think has no effect on circumstances, the consequence is apathy. Why make the effort to think in any particular way if it makes no difference?

Are you saying that a bullet from a Nazi guard is less of a choice than dying of cancer?

I'm saying if the nazi can kill you, then yes, he can take away your free will to look at things differently.

[James81]

Originally Posted by lycan

If the way you think has no effect on circumstances, the consequence is apathy. Why make the effort to think in any particular way if it makes no difference?

Are you responding to something I said? Because from my point of view I am completely lost with this statement. I'm not sure where you are seeing apathy or learned helplessness in my statements.

Originally Posted by lycan

I'm saying if the nazi can kill you, then yes, he can take away your free will to look at things differently.

No more than cancer or a heart attack can. Like I said, death is death is death. It can come for us at any time, and it can come in any form. The fact that it's another person shooting you does not make it any less choice than if your heart exploded.

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by James81

Internal would be your thoughts about a situation. You may not always get a choice in what your physical circumstances are, but you always have a choice in the way you think about that situation.

If the way you think has no effect on circumstances, the consequence is apathy. Why make the effort to think in any particular way if it makes no difference?

Lycan's links to learned helplessness make perfect sense in response to the post that you may not always get a choice in what your physical circumstances are.

If a thought has no effect on your circumstances, that is, it causes no physical change, then it is "mere epiphenomenon." (In philosophy of mind, epiphenomenalism, also known as Type-E Dualism, is a view that "mental" states do not have any influence on "physical" states).

If the only act of free will you have is to change your mental state (and not to change your physical state) you WILL eventually evolve into apathy, and free will becomes completely pointless. Meaningless. Since it causes no change.

Research studies indicate that when we cannot affect our environment, or believe we cannot affect our environment, we usually die. At least, spiritually and psychically. Babies who cry but no one comes eventually stop crying. They eventually lay in their cribs with blank dead eyes, asking for nothing, connecting with no one, dying. Even if someone comes and feeds them and attends to their physical needs on a schedule necessary to support human life.

It is not good enough to say free will involves changing your mental state. That is not enough for humans, or rats.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by iraro

You are correct, I am pointing out that which is “not conscious.” Seth says whether or not you are “conscious” of a physical action it changes the interior environment of your body through these inner pathways; that before you see anything physically the interior perception activates the outside one. Thus Seth links the “conscious” and the “unconscious” saying the “unconscious” is the prime mover.

If I follow this Seth is saying that which is unconscious is the prime mover. And unconscious is that which we don't have any awareness of. So then how could we influence this unconsciousness if there's no awareness of that prime mover?

Libet on the other hand is measuring the “tail end” of the process; oblivious to the front end, not even speculating there’s more to the story, but suggests, in effect, that he has the whole story because he’s measuring what he thinks is “conscious.” And, from this somebody leaps to “there’s no free will.”

What is measured is the brain charging up as the first evidence of something physcially happening. If that is the tail end of something that comes from a prime mover of unconsciousness, then this is still pointing to the individual not knowing where the decision started from.

How does he define “conscious”?

The experient was that the individual would look at a kind of clock, I think it was, and take note of the where the clock's hand is when they were conscious of deciding to make their arm move. So in these terms it is the individual being aware of deciding to move their arm and at what time they were aware of that.

There was time when I had to consciously think about each twist when I tied my shoes. Now it is virtually “unconscious.” There was a time when I had to think about driving. Today, I sometimes get in my car; drive hour thinking about everything and anything but how to drive or how to get where I’m going. Am I consciously driving or not? Am I merely triggering a skill I’ve previously learned? I don’t see the “unconscious” as counter to my free will if I mentally express the intent to drive somewhere and it’s carried out by my unconscious, accessing previous training and knowledge.

Do you think you have free will with these kinds of conditioned behaviours?

I guess one has to “pick” his guru here, but I haven’t yet seen anything which I think disproves free will.

me neither really...

Seth, page 94, “The Nature of Personal Reality: There is always this translation of exterior stimuli. The perceived lapse noted by scientists is of course the physical one, caused by the ‘time’ it takes the message to leap the never endings. The interior translation however is simultaneous.

Now return in your mind to the situations of near accident. That event with the car, its driver, and your own precarious position, exists as another structure beside the one that you physically see. It also exists in the terms mentioned earlier, in a reality composed of invisible light, inaudible sound, and electromagnetic patterns.

It seem you keep pointing to something that is outside of conscious awareness - which again would not be under our conscious awareness to be able to use in any way.

Consciously you react to the physical data—the noise, the squeal f brakes perhaps, the visual shock of seeing the car so close, but the entire inner reality of the scene or event is instantly ‘recognized’ by what I refer to as your inner senses. These respond to the interior patterns I’ve told you about. The physical data is carried through the nerves with the necessary time lapses that must occur. These represent the temporal end of the spectrum of perception.

The experiement noted a lag between the physical charging up of neurons and the individual noting when they said they thought they decided to make the action that the charging up of neurons was already under way to do. In terms of adverting a car running you over it would be pretty automatic almost hardwired survival actions and no free will contemplation of how to handle the event.

Because you are flesh and blood creatures, the interior aspects of perception must have their physical counterparts. But material awareness and bodily response to it would be impossible were it not for these internal networks.

Now before you see anything physically, you do so through these inner pathways. The interior perception activates the outside one. When you experience physical motion or activity, events or phenomena, you are becoming aware of the tail end of a long ‘series’ of interior comprehensions. I am saying that all exterior events, including your own bodies with their insides, all objects, all physical materializations, are the outside structures of inside ones that are composed of interior sound and invisible light, interwoven in electromagnetic patterns.

and these interior sound and invisiable lights patterns are not in our conscious awareness...

…On a physical level you seem to be separated from everything that is not yourself. This is not true…But whether or not you are consciously aware of such activity, it changes the interior environment of your body through these inner pathways.

I don't know really. hahahaha

[wolfgang]

Knowing there is no free will may not mean not thinking about what to have and falling into apathy.

How about this for a spin? It's kind of LOA-ish. While we think we can navigate reality and pick what to think and put our selves into positive state - and when we are convienced enough in one way or another that this is the way to go and build a habit out of going for what you want and how you like to feel, that all happens not because you decided to do all that but because you finally gave up trying to control everything and are more willing to do what it takes as best you can... hold on I haven't made my point clear here.

Let's say you do some sort of positive thinking that feels like you decided to do it. You go and do this exercise. Now, what is really happening is you are being graced with love and peace. However, it is you doing the things you think will make the world a better place for that you end up doing. perhaps.

umm.... like ok... the act of visializing a positive sense is really the grace of love touching you, even when you feel like you had to sit down and do it. hahaha!!!!!

[LisaDreams]

Changing your mental state can radically change how you perceive your environment, what you notice in your environment, etc. Something as simple as reading a sentence in this forum and noticing how differently it can be experienced by each person that reads it shows this. It's the same sentence. The words are the same for each person, yet many things internal to the mind of the reader can alter the perception of the sentence.

If we were all in the same place, and it started raining, and we were all getting wet, we would have the shared experience of getting wet. We would also have our own experiences of the rain. One person may get upset, because her hair is wet. One person may become worried he will get sick, because it feels cold. One person may think it's fun and laugh. How I view the rain won't change the cloud formation and start or stop the rain, but it does directly influence the reality of what I am experiencing in the rain.

I'm curious why some of you seem to believe that the only way to alter your experience is to change what is external to you?

Lisa

[iraro]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

So if you allow that mother nature can make us feel things, how do you know that Mother Nature isn't making us feel that we have free will, for her own nefarious purposes?



Ah well I was just saying that your soda pop example was providing more evidence in opposition to the existence of free will, not for.




As I understand Abraham, they are our inner guidance system in that feelings let us know when we are thinking something that Source does not agree with. They are important indicators of our alignment with Source. But as for being "sacred truth-" feelings suck at that. They don't tell us the truth about anything except for how well we are aligned with Source. Even Abraham talks about pulling back your fist when you really feel like punching someone out is a good thing.

I'll bet if you really thought about it, you could find numerous examples of when your feelings did not lead you to the best outcome. The time, for example, you ate too much cheesecake and spent the night in the bathroom, or got the speeding ticket cause you felt like doing 55 in a 35, or had sex with the young intern. I know I can think of many many times in my life where I'd have been better off listening to my brain than my feelings.



Heh - everyone thinks this about their moral code, except for a few enlightened and humble individuals (of which I wish I was one) who really and truly don't believe they know what is right and wrong for everyone.



I agree. I wasn't implying there was anything at all wrong with or that you should feel guilty about regarding your social or economic status (whatever it may be). I was only pointing out that as you have defined free will, not everyone experiences it equally.



Well, I couldn't say for certain who is the most entitled. In my country, rightly or wrongly, people generally point to educated, christian, white males. The only reason I mentioned this was because you included in your definition of free will the ability to put your desires into action:



As long as a definition of free will includes a physical outcome, it is an unavoidable conclusion that some people must have more free will than others.

I create my reality, and I respect what Mother Nature creates.

I still don't get the "soda-pop thing."

Emotions are communications to oneself, among other things. They are not particularly useful if you don't know what they mean or how to use them, or how to move up the emotional scale from depression to joy. Anyone who punches somebody in response to an emotion definitely needs some remedial Abrahamic work--unless of course, they are 2-years old.

Here's a passage from Jerry & Ester's book: "Ask and It is Given":

"There is nothing that you or anyone else has ever wanted that exists for any other reason than you think you will feel better in the achieving of it. Once you consciously identify your current state of emotion, it becomes easier for you to understand whether you are choosing thoughts that move you closer to your desired destination or further from your desired destination. If you will make the improved feeling emotion be your real destination, then anything and everything that you want will quickly follow.

The... basic list of emotions (found in Chapter 22), beginning with those that hold the least resistance, all the way down to those that hold the greatest resistance. These emotions range from the extremes of strongly allowing of your Source Energy to strongly disallowing of your Source Energy—and they are indicated by the words of Empowerment or Joy, on one end of the scale, all the way down to Depression or Powerlessness on the other end.

…Once you have found your place on the emotional scale, your work is to try to find thoughts that give you a slight feeling of relief from the emotion you are feeling... and you will be able to move up the vibrational scale to a place of feeling much better."

I have no emotional feeling about overeating cheescake, speeding or having sex with a young intern. These are not things that make me feel good. As for the intern, it's more likely that I would prefer her mother.

I don't think everyone thinks they have a good moral code. Some bad boys like to prove how bad they are. Many have a lot of excuses for their behavior; I'm in the gang MS-13, I have to sell drugs and kill people to get ahead. I work for the government, I have to sell drugs and kill people to get ahead.

I think people have different choices based upon their circumstances at the moment. They can change these circumstances but they all have "free will."

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by LisaDreams

I'm curious why some of you seem to believe that the only way to alter your experience is to change what is external to you?

Lisa

Who said that? I don't see anyone here saying that. I do see debates as to the definition of free will, and argument about how to define free will, and argument as to whether free will exists or not.

But I didn't see where people are claiming that the only way to alter your experience is externally? Of course its all about how you look at something. That is what psychoanalysis and counseling and AA and nearly all psychological therapies and religions are about.

[iraro]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

If I follow this Seth is saying that which is unconscious is the prime mover. And unconscious is that which we don't have any awareness of. So then how could we influence this unconsciousness if there's no awareness of that prime mover?

The best Sethian answer I have is that Seth would say the error is to "assume" that we are "unaware." Seth would say, "there is no past, present or future, time is simultaneous."

...Or, maybe it is another paradox like Schrodinger's cat.

I need new, additional information to get out of this rabbit hole.

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by iraro

I still don't get the "soda-pop thing."

If you are connected to Source, and thus your feelings and intuitions flow smoothly and truthfully to you, and they provide guidance when you make choices so that you choose that which is beneficial to you and others, then no amount of advertising should theoretically be able to sway you one way or the other.

If a person's choices are swayed by advertising, how is that evidence of free will? Isn't that evidence that a person's ability to choose is determined by the most effective advertising, and not their free will?