The Myth of Free Will

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Arz Sra

To know that there is no free will is indeed a deep transformation. Everything falls into a rhythm. But is it in ones hand? One will believe just the way one believes. We do what we do because we cannot do otherwise. Even to believe not believe seems to impy a CHOICE that leads to excitement/depression. .

NO-free will is the best depressant for LOAers who are so busy shaping their destinies. You wont see any excitement there

I essentially agree with all that you've said in this thread, Arz. There is a subtlety beneath all this that is important to see. Free will or no free will is an idea based on the belief in separation. Without this belief, the whole question becomes an irrelevant distraction.

What's actually happening is an impersonal movement of creation and experience, and while control and personal power never enter the picture, the infinite potential of intelligent presence never leaves it.

What cannot be conveyed is this: On the one hand there is the powerless victim of delusional personhood, and on the other is the undivided infinite creative potential of God fully present NOW, and you are THAT.

[raykilleen]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

No, it doesn't.

And if I accidentally hunt you down and kill you, I'm sorry btw. I couldn't stop myself.

Consider that control is simply the illusion “dualism” caused by the minds filter “ego” and please don’t hunt me down to kill me, I’m kinda easy to find, let me buy you a drink instead.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

No, it doesn't.

And if I accidentally hunt you down and kill you, I'm sorry btw. I couldn't stop myself.

No need to apologize, though I seriously doubt that it is in your nature to do that. Have you been waiting for permission to engage in such a rampage?

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I essentially agree with all that you've said in this thread, Arz. There is a subtlety beneath all this that is important to see. Free will or no free will is an idea based on the belief in separation. Without this belief, the whole question becomes an irrelevant distraction.

What's actually happening is an impersonal movement of creation and experience, and while control and personal power never enter the picture, the infinite potential of intelligent presence never leaves it.

What cannot be conveyed is this: On the one hand there is the powerless victim of delusional personhood, and on the other is the undivided infinite creative potential of God fully present NOW, and you are THAT.

Arcanum, how does this belief in separation arise from your perspective?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by raykilleen

Consider that control is simply the illusion “dualism” caused by the minds filter “ego” and please don’t hunt me down to kill me, I’m kinda easy to find, let me buy you a drink instead.

Well, sure, you would be easy to find. You're the only gray person on the planet. Hehe.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Arcanum, how does this belief in separation arise from your perspective?

Individuation is the formation of a unique perspective on creation, and such a perspective is necessary in order for experiencing to happen at all. 'An experience' implies an individuated perspective, though it does not imply a separated individual. I used to refer to the individuated perspective as a camera with feet. (I stopped because that analogy really seemed to irritate peeps)

A camera represents a perspective only, and not a separate person who is born and dies and moves through the world struggling with his personal desires and fears and imaginings. However, it's not hard to see how such a delusion could happen.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Individuation is the formation of a unique perspective on creation, and such a perspective is necessary in order for experiencing to happen at all. 'An experience' implies an individuated perspective, though it does not imply a separated individual. I used to refer to the individuated perspective as a camera with feet. (I stopped because that analogy really seemed to irritate peeps)

A camera represents a perspective only, and not a separate person who is born and dies and moves through the world struggling with his personal desires and fears and imaginings. However, it's not hard to see how such a delusion could happen.

So, from your point of view, would it be accurate to say that the universal consciousness imagines this individuated perspective?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

So, from your point of view, would it be accurate to say that the universal consciousness imagines this individuated perspective?

Yes, that would be accurate.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Yes, that would be accurate.

So then, what I'm curious about, is if this universal consciousness is infinite in nature, in essence, proceeding forth from a place of infinite strength of creative imagination, and it is creating the illusion of free will, why is this illusion any different from actual free will?

How is the perfect illusion of free will any different from actual free will anymore than the perfect illusion of an object, say a tree, is any different than an actual tree?

Do you see what I'm driving at here?

An infinite consciousness creates a perfect illusion. A virtual environment if you will. The parameters of this environment would operate as a perfect simulation, would they not?

So things in this virtual environment should, logically, behave just like a bunch of separated objects, even if at a deeper level of reality it is, in fact, an illusion. That is the program after all.

What are your thoughts on this? Is it an imperfect simulation of separation?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

So then, what I'm curious about, is if this universal consciousness is infinite in nature, in essence, proceeding forth from a place of infinite strength of creative imagination, and it is creating the illusion of free will, why is this illusion any different from actual free will?

How is the perfect illusion of free will any different from actual free will anymore than the perfect illusion of an object, say a tree, is any different than an actual tree?

Do you see what I'm driving at here?

An infinite consciousness creates a perfect illusion. A virtual environment if you will. The parameters of this environment would operate as a perfect simulation, would they not?

So things in this virtual environment should, logically, behave just like a bunch of separated objects, even if at a deeper level of reality it is, in fact, an illusion. That is the program after all.

What are your thoughts on this? Is it an imperfect simulation of separation?

An illusion is something that is not what it seems to be. The appearance of what we call 'tree' is not an illusion until mind imagines it is more than an appearance and concludes it is a separate object among objects, located in space and swaying in the breeze of time and is a good tree or a problem tree, etc. The appearance of treeness is not an illusion in the same way that the appearance of an individualized perspective is not an illusion until it is imagined that it is a separate object among objects and then identification with this particular object happens.

The illusion of separation can form, but it can never become an actuality. In the case of free will, it can be imagined that mind identification has volitional choice, but the actuality is that choice never becomes personal and remains as part of the unfolding of the totality of creation as a whole. These illusions are also part of this unfolding, but they result in suffering, and the direction of movement within this whole is clearly toward transcendence of this suffering by revealing the nature of these illusions.


A tree is not a simulation of something else. Of what would it be a simulation?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Arz Sra

I'll repeat. IF (emphasis) there is no free will, then this no way means that just a movie clip is playing - A movie that has already been made. The Movie-clip analogy is a different one and need not be confused with no-free-will view.

I would say they are related. For if you have free will, that would mean you could create the movie clips as desired.

If there is no free will, the movie clip runs how ever it does. It will run the coarse of inevitable spontaneous unfoldment.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Belief and free will are actually different animals. Belief comes from the experience of what seems to be true, while free will is the ability to make volitional choices about what seems to be.

yeah damn the belief word, manor of speaking.

As a thought experiment...

If you think you have free will the ultimate way to test this is to choose you do not have free will.

Either way you don't have free will.

If you can't choose this, then you don't have free will.

If you can choose this, you don't have free will.

To me, predetermined seems to imply a predeterminer; someone or something who plans the future. There is no such critter, and yet there is a spontaneous unfolding moment to moment.

Life runs it coarse regardless.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

So hypothetically, Arcanum, if I walk into a school right now and kill a bunch of kids that's not my fault right? Because I have no free will? I couldn't stop myself? It was just a spontaneous thing?

why would you do that?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

No, it doesn't.

And if I accidentally hunt you down and kill you, I'm sorry btw. I couldn't stop myself.

it wouldn't be an accident - there would have been a build up of conditioning that led you to that experience.

and you would be responsible for the actions. society is part of conditioning and trains the masses. so is nature. nature is basically harmony and the more nature you have in your conditioning the less prone you are to being anti life.

[truant]

As has been mentioned ad nauseam the free will/determinism conflict is purely conceptual. It doesn't exist anywhere except in thought. You can't be bound anywhere except in your own thinking. The concept is meaningless outside of relative awareness.

The canvas doesn't exist until you pick up the paint brush. As soon as you do, you're confronted with the canvas. As soon as you put down the brush the canvas disappears. There is no conflict.

The mind is a tool, like a paintbrush. It creates things like ego, time, conflict, etc. There is nothing wrong with using it as a tool as long as you don't get confused and start thinking that it is primary. It is purely secondary, a by-product.

Personally, I enjoy using mind to write the narrative of my ego. I don't see any conflict anywhere in that. The ego's drama is only meaningful in the context of thought, just as a painting can only be constructed by applying paint to a canvas. Freedom and determinism are simply two poles, like black and white, that serve to define the ego's narrative. Without both freedom and determinism there is no context and hence no drama or interest.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by truant

As has been mentioned ad nauseam the free will/determinism conflict is purely conceptual. It doesn't exist anywhere except in thought. You can't be bound anywhere except in your own thinking. The concept is meaningless outside of relative awareness.

That's right.

The canvas doesn't exist until you pick up the paint brush. As soon as you do, you're confronted with the canvas. As soon as you put down the brush the canvas disappears. There is no conflict.

The mind is a tool, like a paintbrush. It creates things like ego, time, conflict, etc. There is nothing wrong with using it as a tool as long as you don't get confused and start thinking that it is primary. It is purely secondary, a by-product.

Mind is a tool? Who uses it as a tool? Persons need tools. Which would mean mind uses mind as a tool.

Mind is a process. It's not an entity. Nothing to grasp or use.

Personally, I enjoy using mind to write the narrative of my ego. I don't see any conflict anywhere in that. The ego's drama is only meaningful in the context of thought, just as a painting can only be constructed by applying paint to a canvas. Freedom and determinism are simply two poles, like black and white, that serve to define the ego's narrative. Without both freedom and determinism there is no context and hence no drama or interest.

Who is that 'you' that is enjoying his ego? The super duper ego?

Mind enjoying mind?

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

An illusion is something that is not what it seems to be. The appearance of what we call 'tree' is not an illusion until mind imagines it is more than an appearance and concludes it is a separate object among objects, located in space and swaying in the breeze of time and is a good tree or a problem tree, etc. The appearance of treeness is not an illusion in the same way that the appearance of an individualized perspective is not an illusion until it is imagined that it is a separate object among objects and then identification with this particular object happens.

The illusion of separation can form, but it can never become an actuality. In the case of free will, it can be imagined that mind identification has volitional choice, but the actuality is that choice never becomes personal and remains as part of the unfolding of the totality of creation as a whole. These illusions are also part of this unfolding, but they result in suffering, and the direction of movement within this whole is clearly toward transcendence of this suffering by revealing the nature of these illusions.

A tree is not a simulation of something else. Of what would it be a simulation?

I agree that separation cannot become an actuality. But separation can be perfectly simulated which is almost the same thing from an experiential standpoint. If that is true, then there is no reason why free will cannot exist in a mind state. If consciousness allows it, what cannot be? It would seem you are placing unnecessary restrictions on the possibilities of creation.

And I did not mean to imply that a tree was a simulation of something other than a tree. When I say simulation, I mean any apparent or experiencable reality. It could be what appears as a bunch of separate mechanical objects, or it could be what appears as any distinction whatsoever. Are not all distinctions, or limitations, focused into being by consciousness? I would call those simulations. But then, I can see that perhaps that is a poor word choice. Instead, lets just call it a virtual construct in consciousness.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

why would you do that?

Because I'm a psychopath, obviously.

Just kidding. I probably wouldn't do that, it was a thought experiment that shows some of the absurdities of thinking we do not have free will.

The amount of free will you have is in direct proportion to how aware you are.

If you aren't very aware, you don't have much free will. If you are very aware, you have more free will. You can't make a choice you are unaware of.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

it wouldn't be an accident - there would have been a build up of conditioning that led you to that experience.

and you would be responsible for the actions. society is part of conditioning and trains the masses. so is nature. nature is basically harmony and the more nature you have in your conditioning the less prone you are to being anti life.

I agree with you Wolfgang. However many people in this thread do not agree with us, unfortunately.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

yeah damn the belief word, manor of speaking.

As a thought experiment...

If you think you have free will the ultimate way to test this is to choose you do not have free will.

Either way you don't have free will.

If you can't choose this, then you don't have free will.

If you can choose this, you don't have free will.

Free will applies to one's own volitional actions and doesn't imply ultimate control.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

why would you do that?

He obviously has some sort of an issue with kids. Hehe.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

I agree that separation cannot become an actuality. But separation can be perfectly simulated which is almost the same thing from an experiential standpoint. If that is true, then there is no reason why free will cannot exist in a mind state. If consciousness allows it, what cannot be? It would seem you are placing unnecessary restrictions on the possibilities of creation.

Consciousness cannot "allow" actual separation. All it can do is form appearances. Almost everybody believes in separation, and therefore experiences it, but it reamains an illusion. God doesn't have the power to not be God.

Just kidding. I probably wouldn't do that, it was a thought experiment that shows some of the absurdities of thinking we do not have free will.

So do you feel like you showed that?
The question was to point out that it's not in your conditioning to do such a thing (unless of course it is) and so you won't do it. Being a murderer is no more an act of free will than not being one.

The amount of free will you have is in direct proportion to how aware you are.

If you aren't very aware, you don't have much free will. If you are very aware, you have more free will. You can't make a choice you are unaware of.

Look a bit more closely.

I agree with you Wolfgang. However many people in this thread do not agree with us, unfortunately.

I suspect I'm included in those "people". However, I also agree with him. Society WILL hold you responsible, which seems rather obvious.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Consciousness cannot "allow" actual separation. All it can do is form appearances. Almost everybody believes in separation, and therefore experiences it, but it reamains an illusion. God doesn't have the power to not be God.

You're missing the point entirely.

Free will is the ability to freely choose, based on whatever criteria one uses to discriminate among choices.

The perfect virtual "appearance" of separation does not make God not God. It's just a covering, for a deeper reality. Its like a dream. When you wake up from a dream, you acknowledge that it didn't really happen, it was just a virtual reality in your mind that temporarily existed.

Similarly, the perfect appearance of separation would behave as separation within the dream context, but when the consciousness focusing that context into existence stops focusing it into being, the covering disappears.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

So do you feel like you showed that?
The question was to point out that it's not in your conditioning to do such a thing (unless of course it is) and so you won't do it. Being a murderer is no more an act of free will than not being one.

Jack walks into a room and sees John. Jack has a gun. Jack can choose to shoot John. Or he can choose not to shoot John.

You think past conditioning automatically makes that not a choice?

Do you believe people always follow conditioning?

What am I missing here? Be explicit, and dumb it WAY down, so slow people like me can understand it.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Look a bit more closely.

Okay, you too.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I suspect I'm included in those "people". However, I also agree with him. Society WILL hold you responsible, which seems rather obvious.

Yes, very obvious.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Being a murderer is no more an act of free will than not being one.

Why is always murder used in those free will thought experiments and never something more common like wiping your nose or tying your shoes? For drama?

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Reefs

Why is always murder used in those free will thought experiments and never something more common like wiping your nose or tying your shoes? For drama?

Yes.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Yes.

Really? Because one thing is seen as more severe and important than the other?

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Reefs

Really? Because one thing is seen as more severe and important than the other?

In society's eyes, yes, absolutely.

Whether someone lives or dies is generally seen to be a more important issue than the issue of whether you eat burgers or pizza for lunch.

You don't already know this?

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Whether someone lives or dies is generally seen to be a more important issue than the issue of whether you eat burgers or pizza for lunch.

Is it more important?

[Midnite]

The notions of predestiny and lack of free will gives rise to pre-determined suffering and pre-determined happiness. The complete and utter surrender to these notions would be to allow yourself to be puppeteered by whatever higher force your entire life.

I agree and completely support the notions of pre-destiny and lack of free will in some regards, however not all. I believe these concepts only apply to that which is considered spiritually important enough for our development. For anything that does not fall into such a spiritually important category, I believe its insignificance falls under the reign of free will. These small insignificant decisions do in fact collectively compound into slight changes in the world we live in, and these slight changes allow for an element of unpredictability for the future. This element may change the landscape you operate in, however the spiritual lessons remain the same.

On such terms it doesn't matter if you go and suddenly start killing people or not, it may always be argued that it was pre-destined within your life-pattern to do exactly that. It can also be argued that the future already happened, whether that entail rebellion, surrender or increased growth on your path to spirituality, learning a pre-determined lesson nonetheless.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Jack walks into a room and sees John. Jack has a gun. Jack can choose to shoot John. Or he can choose not to shoot John.
You think past conditioning automatically makes that not a choice?

Yes.

Do you believe people always follow conditioning?

Yes. There are no other horses in this race.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

He obviously has some sort of an issue with kids. Hehe.

Kids are the agony of anagogy?

[Arz Sra]

If you murder someone and say it was not your fault because you had no control over it, the the same applies to whatever punishment you get out of it. Nothing changes just because of the THOUGHT of absence of free will. The thought of absence of free will and actual absence of free will are being confused here. As a thought, absence of free will is just another tool one can use to justify ones act. Please do not confuse thought of no-free-will with actual phenomenon of no-free-will.