There is no afterlife!

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by InJoy

The human factor is where you lose me.

Right. Your argument is that the "human factor" is a magic factor of randomity that foils all the carefully laid plans o' mice and men. In essence, it's now come down to a faith-based argument: the ultimate justification for your position is "because I said so".

Originally Posted by InJoy

I can decide to change my mind in an infinite number of ways.

First off, no, you can't. Just try arguing against that. Or rather, prove that there are an infinite number of ways in which you can change your mind.

Second, no matter how many ways you can change your mind, there are an equal number of ways in which you can't change your mind.

Third, the idea that the human being is so utterly special that, for some subset of his actions, there exists no discernible reason for them, is the grand sum of arrogance.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I'm glad you also say, we probably won't know everything about people. But why is that irrelevent?

It's irrelevant because I put a time frame on something that shouldn't have one. Bad form on my part.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

It does seem like you are saying everything is like a bunch of billard balls bouncing off each other and there's some underlaying mechanics that are exact. And if we could know all the positions of all the parts and how they bounce, then everything will have a certain outcome that doesn't happen other than the way that is mechanically going to happen. The only reason your gf will like the gift is because parts of her are ready to bounce off each other in response to getting the gift - her mind and hardware has been programed and the program is going to fire a certain way. Is this close to your take on free will/determinism?

Yes.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Thinkers, scientists have for a long time been thinking we can just decompose and analise all the parts and eventually an equation will be able to represent the whole universe. That's reductionism.

It is not, however, my argument. I am not suggesting that it can be decomposed. I am suggesting that it can be predicted.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

There are ideas that we aren't just a mechanical device but that our thoughts and perceptions effect our cells and how our genes work.

What affects thoughts and perceptions in the first place?

Originally Posted by wolfgang

That there is a self conscious mind that is able to exert freewill that is different than all the programmed stuff.

Is a self-conscious mind programmed?

Originally Posted by wolfgang

All the programmed stuff is there and operating in the now, has no time frame.

Why?

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Only the thinking mind can have thoughts about time.

Also, why?

Incidentally, does anyone know anything about chaos theory or complexity theory? I'm not familiar enough with them to be sure, but there's probably some good points against my position in there.

[Lychee]

There is no proof that consciousness lies in the brain. The reason one may believe that consciousness lies in the brain is because of the connection between consciousness and the mind. But it's important to distinguish that the mind is not the brain.

Neuroscientists are often called as expert witnesses during crime trials to prove that a person was criminally insane at the time of a murder. Using advanced technology, they show that changes in certain parts of the brain result in the person's abnormal mental capability. That may be true, but the brain was not the cause. The cause is the Self, and the effect is manifested in the brain. All that is unseen, at the ethereal level, manifests itself into the denser, physical matter. As they say, everything originates as a thought. But can you see a thought? No. But you can see the manifestation of a thought in brain scans, in beliefs, and in action.

Yesterday I was watching Oprah's show on a woman who was being severely abused emotionally and physically by her husband. Watching the video tape of her abuse was horrifying. As I was watching, I realized that the discord which was present in her life and in the family is because of an aberration from what is Right. When I say what is Right I mean respect, kindness, love. Things are right in the universe - there are no rifts or gaps in time. There is only the ever present "now." Natural law is not going on and off like a light switch. So why would an aberration of law be permitted at the microscopic level but not the macroscopic level? There is a reason, and I believe one of these reasons proves the presence of the afterlife.

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Right. Your argument is that the "human factor" is a magic factor of randomity that foils all the carefully laid plans o' mice and men. In essence, it's now come down to a faith-based argument: the ultimate justification for your position is "because I said so".

Magic never entered my argument. (Nor my mind.) And, in regards to a faith-based argument, is not any argument that cannot be proved faith-based to some degree? If so, just about every discussion any of us have on these boards is faith-based.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

First off, no, you can't. Just try arguing against that. Or rather, prove that there are an infinite number of ways in which you can change your mind.

Ok, I'll agree that cannot be argued. Infinite anything (outside raw numbers) is difficult if not impossible to prove.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Second, no matter how many ways you can change your mind, there are an equal number of ways in which you can't change your mind.

I don't understand this.

Let's say I have a list of ten words.

• apple
• orange
• cat
• dog
• blue
• yellow
• pink
• table
• angry
• smile

You ask me to pick a word. I choose "cat", perhaps because I like them. I can choose to change my mind in at least nine different ways.

How can I not change my mind (decision: cat) nine different ways? If I don't change my mind, isn't my answer always cat?

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Third, the idea that the human being is so utterly special that, for some subset of his actions, there exists no discernible reason for them, is the grand sum of arrogance.

Having no first-hand experience being a dolphin or a mouse, I cannot speak to the existence or non-existence of free will that they may or may not experience. Heck, for all I know, trees have it too. I only speak from human terms because it is the only thing with which I have experience. I do not, however, dismiss the possibility that free will exists in other things.

[Michael Chui]

Alright, that last post of mine was pretty bad. Let me start over by asking you this:

Define "free will" and/or "choice".

[nosussbeliefs]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Actually your personality is an aspect of your conscious and no you don't lose that aspect when you die. Mystergal- You simply cannot prove that consciousness resides in the brain. It doesn't matter if science at large believes this because it is impossible to test. For example if you shut down a certain part of the brain, perhaps memory, then your behavior would change drastically. Such an experiment would however in no way implie that consciousness resides in the brain simply because it is equally possible that your consciousness uses your brain and when the brain is damaged your consciousness can't work within it properly.

So, you jump to a rather (in my opinion) ridiculous assumption that you are your brain. You see you can prove that consciousness is separate from the brain. You can go talk to Erin to find out how. So, let me ask why you don't believe in an afterlife?

Ridiclous assumption that consciousness stems from brain activity? Come on man give it up... And liver activity doesnt stem from your liver... it has a soul too. You heart pumps from a soul... Everything is magical and we are all going to live in eternal bliss as our consciousness's come together in a massive orgy....

I think you can prove that consiousness stems from the brain. Example one: the physical brain is dead, a conscious response from the body isnt going to occur.

[Lychee]

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

Ridiclous assumption that consciousness stems from brain activity? Come on man give it up... And liver activity doesnt stem from your liver... it has a soul too. You heart pumps from a soul... Everything is magical and we are all going to live in eternal bliss as our consciousness's come together in a massive orgy....

I think you can prove that consiousness stems from the brain. Example one: the physical brain is dead, a conscious response from the body isnt going to occur.

Loss of consciousness because of the cessation of brain activity does not mean that consciousness is tied to the brain. Death is not the same as the extinction of consciousness.

[nosussbeliefs]

Originally Posted by Lychee

There is no proof that consciousness lies in the brain. The reason one may believe that consciousness lies in the brain is because of the connection between consciousness and the mind. But it's important to distinguish that the mind is not the brain.

Neuroscientists are often called as expert witnesses during crime trials to prove that a person was criminally insane at the time of a murder. Using advanced technology, they show that changes in certain parts of the brain result in the person's abnormal mental capability. That may be true, but the brain was not the cause. The cause is the Self, and the effect is manifested in the brain. All that is unseen, at the ethereal level, manifests itself into the denser, physical matter. As they say, everything originates as a thought. But can you see a thought? No. But you can see the manifestation of a thought in brain scans, in beliefs, and in action.

Well its my belief that thought stems from physical activity... Belief forms differnt neural connections that execute different response. Those beliefs are formed by the brain absorbing and processing its environment.

I agree with what you said about the brain not being the cause in biological terms. But the environmental programming from birth is what effect that persons belief system(and neural connections), of whats right and wrong, what brings them contentment, what satisfies their ego.

I do believe in mind over matter, but ultimately to me thats(matter of the brain over matter of the rest of the body). The brain strengthens itself through perception and experience.

[nosussbeliefs]

Originally Posted by Lychee

Loss of consciousness because of the cessation of brain activity does not mean that consciousness is tied to the brain. Death is not the same as the extinction of consciousness.

Only to a belief system...

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui;

What affects thoughts and perceptions in the first place?

Thanks for asking clarifying questions- I must admit I'm being a parrot of listening to Bruce Liption stuff. Wish I coud just ask him.
But the idea, I think, is that the thoughts and perceptions are comming from the part of you that is consciousness itself. The part of you that isn't conditioned or habitual or that can be an observer of the conditioned part of your body. The thoughts and perceptions themselves can become habitual, but they become conditioned as the consciousness of you decides things and chooses this or that as how you think you want to or how you conclude based on your parent's responses to weather or not, for example, you should be scared to snakes. Your consciousness has to make a decicsion to be scared and then have thesubconsciousness habituate that snakes are to be scared of.

Is a self-conscious mind programmed?

A self conscious mind, I gather, is a definition of that part of you that isn't programmed into the subconsiousness. So that answer to : is a self-conscious mind programmed? would be no - kind of by it's definition.

Why?

That's the idea that our subconscious mind is allways operating for us in present tense. It dutifully carries out what we have as conditioned responses, as long as we chose to let those responsses run (which is most of the time). It's also the concept that we may have conditioned some behaviour into our subconsciousness when we were a different age, but that behaviour is still going to try to run in present time.

Also, why?

The thinking mind, or that part of us that is aware and flexible and not habitual and free will, is capable of conceptualizing and looking forward or remembering the past - this is a function of our awareness. The subconscious is not able to think like that - it's just programed responses.

I supposed it seemed like there can be a definition or drawning line for the subconscious and conscious parts of us, and that line is that only theconscious part is able to hold and imagine the concept of time. Anything that can't or doesn't have that ability is the subconscious.

Again, I'm mostly just kind of relaying what I absorbed from listening to Lipton's material. I dont think I scewed too much from what he says.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Thanks for asking clarifying questions- I must admit I'm being a parrot of listening to Bruce Liption stuff.

Questions are a good habit. Helps to keep you from being programmed by someone else.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

A self conscious mind, I gather, is a definition of that part of you that isn't programmed into the subconsiousness. So that answer to : is a self-conscious mind programmed? would be no - kind of by it's definition.

Instead of responding directly to this, I'd like ask whether or not you consider yourself a competent computer programmer. I'm not presuming that you are one at all, but that falls inside the parameters of the question.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

that line is that only theconscious part is able to hold and imagine the concept of time. Anything that can't or doesn't have that ability is the subconscious.

Near as I can tell, this definition does not make any kind of statement regarding programs. Awareness of time does not seem to suggest in inability to be "programmed": can you spell out the connection for me?

Originally Posted by wolfgang

The thinking mind, or that part of us that is aware and flexible and not habitual and free will, is capable of conceptualizing and looking forward or remembering the past - this is a function of our awareness. The subconscious is not able to think like that - it's just programed responses.

So, let me ask something: can you show that the "thinking mind" exists, within the frame of a history? (Speaking of which, have you ever read a biography or full-page obituary, such as can be found in The Economist?)

Also, I've mentioned economics in this thread before, but I just discovered this Wikipedia page, which might be of interest: Experimental economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (And this article is really, really shoddy by Wikipedia standards; I'm going to go hunting for how to flag an article as needing clean up.)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by mysterygal

Why do people believe in an afterlife? How could our consciousness survive after death? Our brain is what makes up our personality. For example, if a person suffers brain damage they will become a different person.

What about if you drink alcohol? Does one also become a different person? If so there is no survival of self from second to second, never mind an afterlife.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by mysterygal

Why do people believe in an afterlife? How could our consciousness survive after death? Our brain is what makes up our personality. For example, if a person suffers brain damage they will become a different person. They may not be able to talk, they may become delayed. So, which version of the person goes to heaven? The person prior to the accident, or the person after? You see we never stay they same person. We are constantly changing. There is NO possible way human beings so called "souls" could move on to the after life. No brain = no person. Once our brain dies, what is their to sustain our personalities? We are the sum of our personality. Once our personalities die, so do we. So, how could you go to the afterlife if you are no long you anymore. Exactly you can't. What makes me "me" is my personality. If you get rid of my personality what is left? Nothing. Can someone explain to me how they can believe they go on to the after life if their brains die.

It's quite simple. One would deny that the self is equivalent to ones personality. It's the materialist, or those who subscribe to a materialist based metaphysic (mental states follow brain states), who asserts that ones personality is ones self. So assuming this at the outset certainly rules out the survival hypothesis ("life after death") by definition. That is to say you are effectively begging the question.

And of course not only must one literally be a different self from, say, when you were 10 compared to now as an adult, but since our personality can change from one hour to the next (you might get in a bad mood for example) this will mean you are now literally a different self to what you were an hour ago. But if is so why plan for the future at all? Indeed why look forward to going out tonight since it won't literally be you experiencing the night out?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by AidanMatthews216

Why is it that memory, personality traits, and even facets of our consciousness can be lost due to brain damage? If those things reside outside of our brains, wouldn't they be immune to physical damage?

I would presume that people who subscribe to the survival hypothesis would deny they are lost. It is simply that the altered structure of the brain prohibits their access.

If our mentality were to be wholly immune to any physical change in the state of ones brain, then this means you're saying we shouldn't need brains at all if the brain does not produce consciousness?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Truefire

Thats exactly what I thought when I wrote it. Explaining just why you can remember biologically stored memory from a body that doesn't exist would require me to invent some kind of external memory, or spiritually bound entity where memory exists outside of my physical body. Unless memory actually isn't bound physically. I'm hoping neuroscience can help me out one day. I don't know.

It could be that memory as we know it changes as well, and we carry our lifetimes with us in forms like karma, but thats all useless speculation. I'll try to let you know when I get there.

I have no idea why you imagine memory must be biologically stored. Certainly I don't see how such a thesis is compatible with survival -- even reincarnation.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

Finally someone talking some sense. You can adopt the hocus pocus fantasies of what a soul is from the other posters above if that brings you contentment. But you know I am very content with not having a soul... Zen Buddhists are extremenly content not having a soul.

Excuse me but I suspect that's a strawman. If we are not literally souls but rather have souls which can be sold on ebay etc, then I think most people would agree that such a notion of a "soul" is absurd. But most believers in survival would deny we have souls -- rather we are souls.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Quote:

Instead of responding directly to this, I'd like ask whether or not you consider yourself a competent computer programmer. I'm not presuming that you are one at all, but that falls inside the parameters of the question.

Do I consider myself (or rather, my self conscious mind) to be a competent programer of my subconscious? By all means. I walk and I had to figure that out and get my subconscious to learn that. I don't think I could walk without the help of my programable subconscious. However some of my competency is lacking since I may have put somethings in my subconscious while I wasn't watching or wasn't thinking/evaluating a lot. I may have just looked at what my parents were doing for examples and then took their ways to be what I'll do. I have some limited beliefs or there are behaviour patterns that I could do without.

Near as I can tell, this definition does not make any kind of statement regarding programs. Awareness of time does not seem to suggest in inability to be "programmed": can you spell out the connection for me?

So you are thinking, it sounds like, that awareness is something that is programmed too. That would not be my statement. Awareness is the part of us that is not conditioned or programmed. I suppose I'm trying to say that the subconscious is kind of dumb - it's a behaviour response mechanism, it gets programmed by our awareness parts. Now this bussines of time - only our awareness can think of time, our subconscious doesn't think of time (it just wants to respond, as it has learned to respond, in the present tense). Now, you say, awareness of time doesn't mean it can't be programmed... that is a good question. Just because awareness is the only part of us that holds the time concept or is the only thinking part that is capable ot time concepts is not the reason that it's not programmable.

Our awareness is not programmable because we are built this way. (How's that for getting out of the hot seat on this?) We are able to directly have a say over a certain amount of information that comes through our senses, we get to choose what we pay attention to. That part of you that chooses what to pay attention to is flexiable and not part of the conditioned mind. The part about the time being the reason our awareness isn't programable - I'm not sure it is the reason behind this.

So, let me ask something: can you show that the "thinking mind" exists, within the frame of a history?

I'm not sure what the question is. Is it: Does awareness have a historical record of it's actions? If so, no. I think my awarenss isn't programmed. That's what the subconscious does, it takes all the choices your awareness has made and records them so you can respond again later in the same way without you having to be aware (like mostly driving a car is automatic or walking).

Now I'll get in trouble trying to figure out what a memory is. Maybe memories, I think, go like this - you, your awareness can ask the subconscious what time something happened and you can get an informational answer, meanwhile the subconscious doesn't use the time information for responding. hmmm... maybe I'm blowing up the whole idea of time not being part of the subconsious. Apperently it must remmeber for us and have related time info. I'll have to call Bruce Lipton soon if I continue this.

(Speaking of which, have you ever read a biography or full-page obituary, such as can be found in The Economist?)

No, but I'll have to check it out. What is the main point of relevance to these topics? That things can be analized (without reduction) and future results predicted? And this would also be possible (with assuming knowing everything about people) with humane behaviour and therefore there's no freewill or anythin not programmed and as such everything goes down the tubes when we die?

Also, I've mentioned economics in this thread before, but I just discovered this Wikipedia page, which might be of interest: Experimental economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (And this article is really, really shoddy by Wikipedia standards; I'm going to go hunting for how to flag an article as needing clean up.)

Interesting, but how is this like souls or free will?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Do I consider myself (or rather, my self conscious mind) to be a competent programer of my subconscious?

Um, no. I specifically asked about computers, and I've always thought the analogy between brains and computers to be nonsensical.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

So you are thinking, it sounds like, that awareness is something that is programmed too.

Actually, I was asking a question.

However, I'm quite certain that awareness can be manipulated. Programmed is such a strange term to use. Awareness of time can be messed with by taking away natural indicators, such as sunlight, seasonal shifts, calendars, and clocks. Check out what happens in unethical prison environments: the stories don't tell people who scratch lines in the wall to keep count for nothing.

Similarly, at the age of 9 months, children are generally no longer aware of sounds that are ignored in their primary language. I'll look up the study for you if you want. The Principal Investigator would be Patricia Kuhl.

Stage magic is a well-known method of manipulating awareness. "The hand is faster than the eye."

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Our awareness is not programmable because we are built this way. (How's that for getting out of the hot seat on this?)

A cop out. Who, or what, built it that way?

Originally Posted by wolfgang

That part of you that chooses what to pay attention to is flexiable and not part of the conditioned mind.

O RLY?
YouTube - Change blindness

Read the comments after you watch it for the first time. You're looking for a difference between the two shots. I can give you more examples if I find the videos. It's a fairly well-documented phenomenon.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I'm not sure what the question is. Is it: Does awareness have a historical record of it's actions?

Um, no. It was, taken verbatim from the original post, "Can you show that the thinking mind exists?"

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I'll have to call Bruce Lipton soon if I continue this.

Invite him to the forum. Because he either doesn't know the answer, or he's really bad at communicating it.

I'm not going to even pretend I know how the memory works, even though I have a far less mystical conception as explained by Jeff Hawkins. Perhaps the field you should look into isn't psychoanalysis, as fathered by Jung and Freud, but neuroscience. Or, if you want to stay inside psychology, take a look at The Lucifer Effect, which I'm currently reading.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

What is the main point of relevance to these topics? That things can be analized (without reduction) and future results predicted?

It's worthwhile to look at the art of the biographer. To look at a person's life and reconstruct their motives and influences so that one can understand their future actions in the larger context of who they had been molded into. There is no guarantee that they're right: that's why a lot of biographers differ on the same subjects. But it's very interesting.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Interesting, but how is this like souls or free will?

The proposition, at the moment, is that free will means that choice cannot be predicted. I'm disagreeing, mostly by first asserting that free will exists, defining it as the existence of choice regardless of prediction, and then by showing that choice can be predicted.

And for the record, I've never minded going off-topic.

[Lychee]

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

Only to a belief system...

The brain is formed after the formation of the heart during fetal development. If consciousness really resided in the brain itself, wouldn't it make more sense for the brain to develop before the rest of the organs? The central nervous system does not initiate the heart - it supports it. When performing CPR, the heart is pressed to resume beating, not the brain. During a heart transplant, connection with the brain is temporarily cut off. Yet the patient, while on external support methods, is still alive because the heart is still beating. The heart is the center.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

Ok, so to the ppl that believe in souls do other animals have souls? Do bacteria have souls? Or are humans special exceptions to the soul belief?

I think that the notion we human beings only are souls is extremely implausible. Obviously if we are souls then all other mammals are souls too. Bacteria? No idea. Is bacteria conscious?

[RallyMcnally]

the afterlife is dependent on what you believe in. It is created after your beliefs/thoughts.
Which makes them illusion. Heaven/Hell are just illusions also, they can only exist within duality.. without the battle between dark & light, they would both cease to exist.

When you die go into your heart, enter your sacred heart thats where I'm going. That's the way out of this matrix.

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Alright, that last post of mine was pretty bad. Let me start over by asking you this:

Define "free will" and/or "choice".

Holy cow. Do you ever ask an easy question?? Jeesh!

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

And for the record, I've never minded going off-topic.

I'm a big lover of tangents myself. However, this is Mysterygal's thread on the existence or nonexistence of an afterlife, and it would probably behoove us to allow it to continue as such. I've opened up another thread here for this discussion. (And attempted to answer your question as well!)

[nosussbeliefs]

Originally Posted by Lychee

The brain is formed after the formation of the heart during fetal development. If consciousness really resided in the brain itself, wouldn't it make more sense for the brain to develop before the rest of the organs? The central nervous system does not initiate the heart - it supports it. When performing CPR, the heart is pressed to resume beating, not the brain. During a heart transplant, connection with the brain is temporarily cut off. Yet the patient, while on external support methods, is still alive because the heart is still beating. The heart is the center.

I dont see how this means anything at all, why does it make more sense? Doesnt phase me at all that the brain would develop afterwards. Maybe the complexity of the brain is not needed in the early stages when the life is supported by the host.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by AidanMatthews216

Because most people (except Buddhists I suppose) don't believe that we are conscious before we become alive. So why believe we remain conscious after death?

That's true. If we did not have any conscious experiences before our present bodies came into being, then it seems implausible to suppose we will continue to have conscious experiences after our present bodies die. However this simply begs the question of why people don't believe in "life before conception". There is a great deal of compelling evidence for reincarnation collected by Ian Stevenson for example (who sadly died 3 months ago).

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

This is well-known as the problem of free will in theology.

How is free will a problem in theology?

[infinitethoughts]

For anyone that is arguing that we don't have free will.
As Injoy sez, an awareness can change it's mind an infinite (or a massively huge) number of ways.

It actually does become an uncountable number (infinite) because at all intervals of existence try and count the number of choices we make.

To argue that there is no free will in our minds is complete and total BS !
~smiling~

[nosussbeliefs]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

That's true. If we did not have any conscious experiences before our present bodies came into being, then it seems implausible to suppose we will continue to have conscious experiences after our present bodies die. However this simply begs the question of why people don't believe in "life before conception". There is a great deal of compelling evidence for reincarnation collected by Ian Stevenson for example (who sadly died 3 months ago).

Wouldnt it make sense in satisfying your ego? Put yourself in selfish mode? Why the heck would u giving a flying heve-ho what u did in a past life when your focus is to provide u contentment now? That contentment (in form of a fantasy) is going to be what happens after you die.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

How is free will a problem in theology?

The Puritans believed in predestination; that is, that God has already chosen an elect to ascend to heaven and everyone else can go to hell. However, if God has already discerned the good from the wicked, what choice do we really have in being good or wicked people? Why should I bother being saintly when I'm probably not in the elect?

The modern take is that God has a Divine Plan and he knows everything that will happen. Thus, he already knows damn well if you're a naughty or nice, so there's still an elect.

I solved this problem a while back using a variant of determinism while I was a Christian. God is omniscient, so he already knows, and while he is omnipotent, that doesn't mean he exercises the power. Ergo, knowledge does not destroy choice, i.e. free will, so people still have free will. Unfortunately, my solution doesn't work with God as Creator, because it's his fault we started out that way in the first place.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I solved this problem a while back using a variant of determinism while I was a Christian. God is omniscient, so he already knows, and while he is omnipotent, that doesn't mean he exercises the power. Ergo, knowledge does not destroy choice, i.e. free will, so people still have free will.

I agree. Complete predictability of behaviour is certainly not in itself logically incompatible with the idea of free will. And until a year ago I had no problem thinking that our behaviour, in principle, could be completely predictable. But I changed my mind about a year ago when I heard and thought about Newcomb's paradox

Unfortunately, my solution doesn't work with God as Creator, because it's his fault we started out that way in the first place.

"God" could have created us but perhaps we self-determine our own essence.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Newcomb's paradox

Interesting. However, the paradox is interesting in that it posits that the Predictor is benevolent. That is, if the Predictor is 100% accurate, then the player always receives an amount of money. Only when the predictor is wrong is the player capable of walking away with nothing.

The article concludes the problem by explaining that people divide evenly on which strategy is optimal; what I see is that they don't explain what the basis of each camp is. I would suggest that this basis is faith.

If you believe in the Predictor's infallibility, then you always choose Box B. If you don't, then you choose both boxes. Belief can be established ahead of time, and you so return to 100% accuracy.

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

"God" could have created us but perhaps we self-determine our own essence.

Note that I'm not a Christian, and I'm not terribly interested in continuing the theological question. But I'm willing to discuss it.

My response would be: How do we self-determine our own essence?

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

My response would be: How do we self-determine our own essence?

By always having existed.
Consider that the older civilizations believed in cyclical time. A worldview where time has no beginning and no end.

Our present world view cannot fathom that, except for the symbol for infinity.



Now it could be we are simply in a system, as the pic above shows, where we are just going on and on in a loop ?

(This would answer the question "Is this universe inside of something.")

One has to ask, why that particular symbol for infinity?
The old "history always repeats itself" sort of thing.