The Myth of Free Will

[Arcanum]

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?

Yeah, the hope is that we'll be shocked into our senses and see the light.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Yeah, the hope is that we'll be shocked into our senses and see the light.

Hah, no. I gave up that hope quite a ways back.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm having difficulty following the stories here. Anagogy seems to think the importance of the action in society's eyes has some kind of bearing on whether or not free will is true, and you you seem to have drawn a similar line between spiritually important matters and other matters.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I'm having difficulty following the stories here. Anagogy seems to think the importance of the action in society's eyes has some kind of bearing on whether or not free will is true...

Sorry, but that one is your story, not mine. Perhaps you got confused. That was simply your interpretation of what I wrote.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Sorry, but that one is your story, not mine. Perhaps you got confused. That was simply your interpretation of what I wrote.

Well, like I said, I'm having trouble following. You gave up hope of shocking us, and yet used the murder example for the drama effect, though it has no bearing on the truth/falsity of free will, but of course I'm the one who's confused and missing the point entirely.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Well, like I said, I'm having trouble following. You gave up hope of shocking us, and yet used the murder example for the drama effect, though it has no bearing on the truth/falsity of free will, but of course I'm the one who's confused and missing the point entirely.

It was never intended to have any bearing on the reality or unreality of free will. It is just often easier to see the truth with something that society is actually sensitive to. The truth that free will is a very real or non-illusory phenomenon.

And yes, you're right, you are missing the point. But that's okay.

I know, I know, I haven't convinced you... Well, you haven't convinced me either. Agree to disagree I suppose. It's just a discussion after-all.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

The truth that free will is a very real or non-illusory phenomenon.

All phenomenons are appearances only and therefore illusory.

[evolutionarypathways]

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?

This is great, exactly along the lines of my own questioning as well!

I think there are two general perspectives here that need to be taken into account when considering the question of free will. One perspective is the subjective one - the perspective of us as individuals. As Arcanum astutely pointed out, our individuation is the basis of our personal experience.

Then we have the objective (or universal) perspective which is free of individual experience.

We don't need to choose between these two perspectives of course, since we are both objective and subjective. We are all 'one' and we are all different. No contradiction here. Just various aspects of a totality, right?

From an objective/universal experience free will doesn't exist. Free will implies an individual existence. Heck, even the term 'freedom' implies individual existence (otherwise who is it that is trying to become free?).

So from a universal perspective the term 'free will' makes absolutely no sense. A 'free will' needs an individuated existence to operate through. Which brings us to the subjective perspective.

From a subjective perspective free will does exist. As individuated existences, we can pick and we can choose. We can decide. In fact, we can't not-decide. Being in individuated form puts us within an operating system where we are always choosing something. Within this system, even when we don't choose, we are choosing something. So within the subjective realm, choice is inevitable. 'Choice is inevitable'...good luck to us all trying to wrap our minds around that one

So...

From a subjective outlook free will is as real as anything - it exists. From a universal or objective outlook free will isn't real - it doesn't exist. So far so good. Where things start getting strange is when people try to make the argument that our free will as individuated existences isn't real (or essentially doesn't exist) just because free will is non-existent or inconsequential from a universal outlook. This is faulty logic.

At the end of the day what concerns me isn't whether free will exists or doesn't exist, because both are true. What I'm really interested in is what do we do with our conclusions, whatever those conclusions may be.

I mean, if you conclude that free will doesn't exist and you try to live your life that way - you are going to be off balance. Something is going to get fu**ed up. If you conclude that free will does exist and you start thinking that it matters from a universal/objective point of view - you are going to be off balance. Something is going to get fu**ed up.

So what of the conclusion that they both exist and that they are both equally true. Quite a paradox - can you hold it? Can you live it?

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Reefs

All phenomenons are appearances only and therefore illusory.

OK. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by evolutionarypathways

From a subjective outlook free will is as real as anything - it exists. From a universal or objective outlook free will isn't real - it doesn't exist. So far so good. Where things start getting strange is when people try to make the argument that our free will as individuated existences isn't real (or essentially doesn't exist) just because free will is non-existent or inconsequential from a universal outlook. This is faulty logic.

Yes. You see this far more clearly than 99% of the people on this thread.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by evolutionarypathways

...
So what of the conclusion that they both exist and that they are both equally true. Quite a paradox - can you hold it? Can you live it?

All very true. Free will feels real. It comes with the personal point of view. But that doesn't mean that it is real. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It does exist as an appearance. And so does the person that is convinced to have free will or no free will.

Conclusions are meaningless. They won't change a thing. Concluding means replacing one concept with another. That's the whole dilemma as a person. You cannot conclude yourself outside the conceptual realm where concepts like free will or no free will are suddenly irrelevant.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by 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.

Is it a coincidence your text is red and we're discussing murder? You sly devil you.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

It was never intended to have any bearing on the reality or unreality of free will. It is just often easier to see the truth with something that society is actually sensitive to. The truth that free will is a very real or non-illusory phenomenon.

If we were at all interested in what's actually true we could see that the purpose of the drama is to create a bias of social correctness to support the argument that there SHOULD be free will, insinuating that there IS free will. There isn't, however, any connection between what we think SHOULD be the case, and what actually IS the case. What's not clear is whether you think you're just manipulating my perspective or if you're actually manipulating your own.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I'm having difficulty following the stories here. Anagogy seems to think the importance of the action in society's eyes has some kind of bearing on whether or not free will is true, and you you seem to have drawn a similar line between spiritually important matters and other matters.

Well, it's kind of like the incredible hulk who only turns green and gets giant when he's angry. You only have free will when super duper serious things are involved. Kind of like the meditation anomaly where people notice they can watch their thoughts but once meditation is over they seamlessly believe they are the thoughts again.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by evolutionarypathways

We don't need to choose between these two perspectives of course, since we are both objective and subjective. We are all 'one' and we are all different. No contradiction here. Just various aspects of a totality, right?

Right, no contradiction between oneness and difference, but what is required for free will is actual separation, which IS in contradiction to oneness.

From an objective/universal experience free will doesn't exist. Free will implies an individual existence.

It implies separation, and the appearance of an individuation, or differences, is not separation.

From a subjective perspective free will does exist. As individuated existences, we can pick and we can choose. We can decide. In fact, we can't not-decide. Being in individuated form puts us within an operating system where we are always choosing something. Within this system, even when we don't choose, we are choosing something. So within the subjective realm, choice is inevitable. 'Choice is inevitable'...good luck to us all trying to wrap our minds around that one

Choosing clearly happens, but it hasn't been established that one has a choice about what choice is made. The declaration of a choice is actually the result of the belief in a chooser rather than evidence to support the idea that there actually is one. If you believe you are a volitional chooser, you will obviously declare choices and claim them as your own.

So...

From a subjective outlook free will is as real as anything - it exists. From a universal or objective outlook free will isn't real - it doesn't exist. So far so good. Where things start getting strange is when people try to make the argument that our free will as individuated existences isn't real (or essentially doesn't exist) just because free will is non-existent or inconsequential from a universal outlook. This is faulty logic.

Nobody has used that logic as far as I know. What's being said is that oneness is the truth and separation is an illusion. There isn't a separate entity that has the power to make a separate, volitional choice.

So what of the conclusion that they both exist and that they are both equally true. Quite a paradox - can you hold it? Can you live it?

I hope not. Paradox is mental confusion; the attempt to grasp one concept while refusing to let go of a contradicting idea. It's a way for mind to have it's cake and eat it too.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Yes. You see this far more clearly than 99% of the people on this thread.

I hope you're both happy to have knocked the stuffing out of your straw man.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I hope you're both happy to have knocked the stuffing out of your straw man.

I'm sure you remember how hard I railed against you Arcanum concerning something so simple that was being presented. I think I even said that you had a dissociative disorder at the time. I can't help but laugh at how every mind resists in almost the same exact way and almost surely tries to make something ridiculously simple into a giant complicated mess. I'm starting to think there's a movement to stick around in these arguments just to hear the stories about what would happen to someone if they stopped identifying as a person and didn't have free will. You could fill volumes of books with these stories.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Yes. You see this far more clearly than 99% of the people on this thread.

So far there are 12 participants in this thread, which means you and your straw man count for a whopping 16,7%. Even if you count yourself out from seeing clearly and your straw man is the only one who can see, he will still count for 8.3%. Which means the deluded ones (yourself included) make up for less than 91.7%.

Or do you count in the lurkers?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Well, it's kind of like the incredible hulk who only turns green and gets giant when he's angry. You only have free will when super duper serious things are involved. Kind of like the meditation anomaly where people notice they can watch their thoughts but once meditation is over they seamlessly believe they are the thoughts again.

I've noticed free will is the magic incredible hulk topic. Hehe. The stories get wild and wacky and folks go into a kind of trance.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

I'm sure you remember how hard I railed against you Arcanum concerning something so simple that was being presented. I think I even said that you had a dissociative disorder at the time. I can't help but laugh at how every mind resists in almost the same exact way and almost surely tries to make something ridiculously simple into a giant complicated mess. I'm starting to think there's a movement to stick around in these arguments just to hear the stories about what would happen to someone if they stopped identifying as a person and didn't have free will. You could fill volumes of books with these stories.

Zaklee. As Reefs has said, mind's patterns of resistance are highly predictable, though the detail of the stories is also very creative and interesting to watch.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I've noticed free will is the magic incredible hulk topic. Hehe. The stories get wild and wacky and folks go into a kind of trance.

You mean from one trance into another?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Reefs

You mean from one trance into another?

HA. Yeah, a deeper level of unconsciousness with lots of giraffe spotting, projection and diversion and very little comprehension. Not a personal attack on anybody, just how mind works.

[Arz Sra]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Is it a coincidence your text is red and we're discussing murder? You sly devil you.

[Arz Sra]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I've noticed free will is the magic incredible hulk topic. Hehe. The stories get wild and wacky and folks go into a kind of trance.

There is one topic that gets even more wackier that Free will topic. Guess what?..

[evolutionarypathways]

Straw men, tin men, men looking for a heart, men looking for a body...quite the wizard of Oz saga developing here

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Right, no contradiction between oneness and difference, but what is required for free will is actual separation, which IS in contradiction to oneness.

No contradiction. We are separate. We are also one. Paradox? Yes. Contradiction? No.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

It implies separation, and the appearance of an individuation, or differences, is not separation.

Individuation, separation...call it whatever you will. I mean them in the same way.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Choosing clearly happens, but it hasn't been established that one has a choice about what choice is made. The declaration of a choice is actually the result of the belief in a chooser rather than evidence to support the idea that there actually is one. If you believe you are a volitional chooser, you will obviously declare choices and claim them as your own.

I don't have to bring evidence to support the existence of a chooser. I made the point that within the subjective perspective, choice is inevitable. Who is making the choice? Who is the chooser? You are of course. And I don't mean this in a mysterious or esoteric kind of way. It must be you who is choosing since we have established that from a universal perspective choice or free will makes little sense.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Nobody has used that logic as far as I know. What's being said is that oneness is the truth and separation is an illusion. There isn't a separate entity that has the power to make a separate, volitional choice.

It's amazing how the person doing it is often the last one to realize that he is. The faulty logic I was referring to was the logic of using the objective/universal perspective (where we agree that free will doesn't exist) to 'disprove' the subjective reality where free will does indeed exist (and I am using the term 'exist' interchangeably with 'real' here). This is faulty because it is one-sided. It has an obvious universal/objective bend to it.

You say, "Nobody has used that logic as far as I know. What's being said is that oneness is the truth and separation is an illusion." If this is not a clear example of the faulty logic that I was referring to then I am not sure what is. Basically what you are doing here is using the universal/objective perspective to 'disprove' subjective truth.

I don't blame you though. I understand the struggle. It isn't easy to hold onto both sides of truth without falling into either extreme. But the predicament of our existence is exactly in this embrace. These truths are simultaneous. They aren't contradictions - they are a paradox.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I hope not. Paradox is mental confusion; the attempt to grasp one concept while refusing to let go of a contradicting idea. It's a way for mind to have it's cake and eat it too.

Paradox is the truth of totality.

I also agree that trying to embrace paradox can create a significant amount of 'mental confusion'. The mind has a very hard time with paradoxes.

It is a characteristic of the thinking mind to think in black and white - to see opposites as contradictions. Inside the mind - 'opposites' are contradictions - because the thinking mind is linear. It can't embrace both sides of what appear to be on opposing poles. It's not built that way.

This is why the 'middle way' is so difficult on the mind. The 'middle way' is the land of paradox, where two seemingly opposing things can actually co-exist. No need to call one an illusion and one the true reality - that wouldn't be very nice now would it. That wouldn't be getting along Both are true - equally. Now that's better - now we can live together in peace

This is not only true for embracing the truth of free will and the truth of 'no free will' - equally. It's also true of the whole 'ego' vs. 'no-ego' discussions. They are both true - they are both needed. Choose one-side and try to force your life to live by that one-sided perspective and you will be out of balance.

Which brings me back to my question. Can you hold the paradox? Can you live it?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

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.

lol. A psychopath is acting on what they are conditioned to do. I asked you "why would you do that?" as a thought experiment as well. You didn't really answer it. Why would a psychopath be violent, in other words?

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.

When you are very aware, what makes the choice be what it is? How does one end up deciding a certain thing?

Does being more aware allow one to have more control?

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

I am saying we are conditioned and are running around thinking we control things. Free will is control.

However, I also feel that the very question of if we have free will or not is based on assumptions that are not valid. Like Reef's lines about who is the free will for? Or the non free will too?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

You're missing the point entirely.

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

which choice wins out?

Do you believe people always follow conditioning?

yes, until there is another conditioning that starts to modify the behavior.

however there are some that let go of conditioning out of surrender. and yet, even that is probably a habit too. but they can be less stressed out and free to be in the flow - which is the opposite of thinking we control it all and have freedom to either make the flow or figure out which part of the flow to be in, or to try to go against the flow.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by 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.

the only place the idea of free will can be addressed is in thought.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by evolutionarypathways

Individuation, separation...call it whatever you will. I mean them in the same way.


I don't have to bring evidence to support the existence of a chooser. I made the point that within the subjective perspective, choice is inevitable. Who is making the choice? Who is the chooser? You are of course. And I don't mean this in a mysterious or esoteric kind of way. It must be you who is choosing since we have established that from a universal perspective choice or free will makes little sense.

Free will discussions remind me of the Serenity Prayer:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Now, if you have free will why is there somethings we have to know we can't change? Why can't we change everything? Why this line between what we control and that which we don't?

And, if there's no free will this prayer is bogus. perhaps. What makes one want to be better? Or follow a certain conditioning? Or go about wanting change? Or even being about to make change? It's mysterious. It shows up in your life. You take it on based on it fitting what you are about so far in your journey.

[evolutionarypathways]

Originally Posted by Reefs

All very true. Free will feels real. It comes with the personal point of view. But that doesn't mean that it is real. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It does exist as an appearance. And so does the person that is convinced to have free will or no free will.

It's real. It doesn't just feel real because it comes from a personal point of view. It's real because it comes from the personal point of view. I don't see the difference between 'real' and 'existing'. You seem to make a separation between the two. How can something 'exist' and not be 'real'?

If the answer is that it exists as an 'illusion' then isn't that just a clever and round about way of saying that it doesn't really exist. Existence and reality are one and the same are they not?