Edvard

Capitalism is unfair, but often more productive. Communism is fair, but often less productive. Unless ego is dissolved altogether. In that case, one wouldn't care what system is, then really no system is needed, not even laws. I think most people, including me, will have a hard time not letting ego take over at least a little bit sometimes with the current system.

Yea. And well, the ego doesn't like this idea. And I think that says a lot...

By reality being whatever happens; thoughts, emotions, the ego as all kinds of different illusions.

It was not Einstein that made that statement true. Actually it was myself that convinced me. I began contemplating it when I was about 15, trying to break down reasons or causes for what we tend to regard as evil acts. There always seemed to be something other than the actor itself to blame. Like difficult childhood, past experiences. And then I remember the times when I was shamed for something I did as child, and that very often nobody understood me (or someone else), only I understood me, and if I was a «bad boy» I knew that there always was a more complicated answer to the cause than «I was evil»' Yet, I was beaten on quite a few occations for the way I behaved. The answer is always more complicated than «pure evil», and ultimately you see that there is always a reason, which is beyond the supposed soul's control. If I could rewind everything back to the moment I commited an «evil», what would make me choose differently, given that reality and the brain and past experiences are in the exact same state?

@Angelo John Gage Again though, you can do what you will, but not will what you will. Einstein said so too.

No one really knows what absolute infinity can contain. Probably everything that can exist. What is not possible can't. I.e, human civilization won't exist in a universe with different nature laws or where everything is random. There are certain logical laws that are not dependent on the conditions of the different universes, that can't be possible regardless, and one such thing is free will. The best of it that absolute infinity can create is the illusion of free will. (sorry for the weird structure and blurred lines. My mobile didn't allow me to unclick it)

You're right. Happy new year.

No one here are using scientific experiments as the main argument against free will, as I can see. I suggest you to read through what we actually are saying.

@Faceless (Can't delete the above «quote box» on mobile). @Leo Gurais it my phone or the site that's the problem? And I'm also curious to whether you regard these discussions as useful or wasteful, BTW... @SOUL Could you also read this (which I wrote right next to the quote you made fat)?: «However, I do have to clean away this assumption when inquiring. I'm not denying it's a concept that could turn into too much of a «belief».» Please don't take every excerpt of what I have said meant to be in a larger context literally, but try to see the essence in my posts. As children we assume we have free will, that's why we judge, moralize and demonize other people. Do you seriously think most people may not believe in free will? Would we then have the justice system we have today? By saying other people «confirmed» my thoughts my point was that it was easier to be honest about it when seeing that I was not alone in thinking free will ultimately is an illusion, which I very thourogly examined. When I never had heard the idea of free will not existing you could imagine it was hard for the ego to accept it in the beginning. It was a gradual shift, and given that so few talk about it I was extremely careful in concluding so fast, like I do with anything. I'm always open. I'm not closed to going back to believing in free will, I'm just extremely sure it won't happen. I don't merely hold this as a belief, I also experience not having free will. I don't know what to think, do or say next, and thoughts determine action. In my view, you cling to free will religiously. It is no logical (nor illogical) way for it to exist. Did you even watch Eckhart Tolle's video? Are you even interested in adressing his and my points instead of nit picking certain sentences I wrote? I contradict myself by saying nothing is true?? Do you even know the distinction between relative and absolute? In the absolute there is no one to even think about the question of free will. I suggested we keep it on the relative pragmatic level, based on the theme of this post. Actually, the question of free will is the only topic I've ever been so sure about that I speak of it with such certainty. But even that I haven't done until recently, because I question everything, and I always look for ways in which I could be wrong. I don't mean to brag, I'm just responding to the assumption you make about me. You ask «how we can decide anything if we have no choice». What was that? An argument? It depends on how you define «choose». We can also define «free will» differently and by that say it exists, that's why I said «what most people think of free will». Anyway, it doesn't seem anyone can convince you whatever is said. You have to discover whatever is true on your own. It's good that you don't blindly accept it, but you seem biased, cuz you're not adressing the core of my arguments.

I actually started my way to this position by pure contemplation before I even heard the idea. Then later I heard others talk about it, confirming what I already thought and suspected, making it easier to accept. However, I do have to clean away this assumption when inquiring. I'm not denying it's a concept that could turn into too much of a «belief». I would however say that taking the position of believing in free will goes in the direction of dualism and is an assumption most of us grow up to believe without investigation of the matter. There is no doubt that the way most people think of free will is wrong, in what most of us set as definition of free will. Wanna create the strawman saying it's «just a belief» as well? Well, the notion that you have a face is a belief, if that's the way you wanna talk about this. And I'm more certain that free will is an illusion than me having a face. We have to decide whether we are gonna talk ultimately/absolutely or relatively here. The topic starter has by the claim «there is free will» invited to a discussion of this theme as a concept. Ultimately, of course nothing is true, and there are no one to even think about it...

Lol, if you watch the video I linked to by Eckhart he explains why it's the exact opposite, the belief in free will in the ultimate sense, like most are talking about is to think in terms of separateness. You are consciousness. Belief in free will is dualism. Of course the ego doesn't like to think it has no control.

@SOUL In the way most people think of free will you either have it or you don't. The answer is, you don't.

@Angelo John Gage https://www.eckharttollenow.com/new-home-video/default.aspx?shortcode=vx6itm

Nice work. This is like hearimg my self. Late physical development, meditated for about 8 months, 21 yo, college(uni) holiday. Was planning to do a 3-5 day retreat next week. And I'm also swimming, although gonna start training more again...

@Angelo John Gage Firstly, the notion of having free will or not is a thought, which means it is false, or at least not the ultimate reality. However, if the real you is solely consciousness, and ultimately nothing, where is the freedom of thought and action, except for it being an illusion? Btw, even if it was true that the self was real, I think free will would always have to be an illusion. The reason is that every thought has a reason - or non-reason. The first explanation tells us that whatever you do is determined, the latter tells us that whatever you do is random. This is all that can be. No one is--ultimately--responsible for anything. How could that be? Reality just is, by being, there's noone to choose anything. You are consciousness, including thoughts that just appear in consciousness, but these are what we tend to identify with. Whether you act on those thoughts is also determined by thoughts. Thoughts aren't solely conceptual words that you decide to act on or not, for a start it's also images, self, reality, and other deeply subconscious taken for granted ideas that you are not conscious of. Consciousness work could however make you conscious of this. Although I think that in addition to no free will in experience, I find it utterly logical also conceptually, although as I said it is a belief that you don't think of by being Truth. By saying free will exists you are basically saying that some souls are inherently good, and some inherently bad, because they decide to do things, but what do they base their decisions on? A universal set of values? No, it's based on nothing, and from nothing is where ideas emerge. But if the decisions arise from nothing, what makes one soul choose anything, except for giving it a set of values and interensts in which to act from? But no values was there in the beginning, only nothing, and yet you want to make distinctions between the different «nothings» that you claim to have responsibility for what happens in nothing.

Of course it is, but do you need a lisence to use the word God? I'm not thinking of it as a belief. I just use that word. I've been on the side of Dawkins, and gone «full circle» on it. Sort of.

Yeah yeah.. pleasant if consciousness. But why do you fall back to the exact same type of illusion if you drop your consciousness again?

Can you refer to an other source that uses the same retoric as you about the brain? I don't deny that it's a dream, it really is kinda obvious. But if you get to the point where reality turns out to be nothing, why can't you recreate an other existence/illusion that is pleasant (what about fixing your brokeb leg or something), because you actually become God. Why do you fall back to the same existence with all its boundaries when you know it's a dream the the real you creates by layers of thoughts.

That's a belief though. It is what it is. But I am getting conscious enough to see that what is «percieved» as reality really is just layer upon layer of thoughts. When I get there my body/ego wrecks in discomfort, preventing me from getting even deeper. But I get further the more the practice has lasted.

I'm not really looking for «validation». I'm just curious to what I have missed, if anything at all. What do you want me to do here? Not contemplate? People I respect in many ways advice me not to join (not saying this is the main reason for this post. I'm at university now). We are discussing life purpose here, and you guys tell me military is a very, very unconscious thing, so you «shouldn't» join it. My point is that military is not less conscious than other parts of society, it's just that it's the arena where the unconscious nature of humanity is the most destructive. What I'm doing is contemplating, asking myself: «what is and what isn't an optional life purpose for me»? Cuz I haven't found it yet. Also, people on this site know more of my opinions now, hopefully putting this discussion in a more proper context.

I know about several wars, and I don't claim to be over average educated on them, nor do I need that to make this point (I have however completed one year mandatory service in Norway). Of course, with a military you have the power to do many horrific and unconscious things. You could debate whether joining lets say the US military makes sense in light of the way they have handled war through the decades. With that said, we just live in a world with a lesser and greater evil, which is to say lower and higher (less low) consciousness. We don't wanna go back. No country is at turquise, so by its very nature you will find more or less egoic behavior in any group of people, which makes military inevitably a dangerous thing. However, the only argmument for not having a military, in of itself, is to accept the greater evil to take over the values of the lesser evil and by that effect your life. It's about values. If you live in the US, Leo does, think about, what are you greatful for? Free speech? Equality for women? Democracy? The ability to love same sex without being punished for it? Not being burned at the stakes? These are values that are constently under pressure by countries lower in spiral dynamics, and would not have won its way today without past bloodshed. The North Korean state loves its totalitarian ideology. It would do any thing to spread that to the rest of the world. By dismantling the military you say that that is fine. Yet you're happy to enjoy all the goods that follows from being a citizen of the US, or whatever country. The funny thing is that here you wanna talk about the ultimate utopic sense, where death is a joke, and unconditional happiness, even though the very theme of life purpose in itself is relative. With North Korean values your alternatives for life purpose would look very different. With Nazi values, maybe you're fine with being a jew, if you so much suddenly wanna talk ultimately again. Ultimately, we might as well kill ourselves. It gets absurd. So what do you wanna talk about here? Ultimate or relative. Relatively speaking, the US with its allies is the lesser evil of the world, yet by its very nature also has to consist of evil, because ego hasn't vanished from any society. So by that, you can discuss, what horrible things, or what useful things are the US military doing? As said, I would need to research this a lot, and I don't know if you really have the big picture here either. Regardless, my point is that relatively speaking, given what we value, SOMEONE's gotta do it, being it that we are talking about a legitimate hostile nation attacking, if we wanna put that as a minimum requirement for the use of military power. «Someone's gotta do it», was Leo's argument in seeming to be one reason for a worthwhile life purpose. Anyway, for some reason he said it. Again, if Nazi Germany approches your cities with tanks (blitz krieg), let me guess which side your gonna root for...

@Leo Gura Remember this? If that was not opposition, I don't know what to call it. People here were on my case back then. Now, I don't know if "murdering people" is the correct definition of acting in self defence, which military not always is merely doing. But the principle of it, and that goes for many countries, is that it's for protecting the citizens and set of values for the country, which are just basic human needs. You and I live by conceptual values in nature. So goes for any purpose. You want to protect your purpose. You don't want to die before mission is completed. If someone tries to spoil your mission, you would go a long way in preventing them from doing it, or what? You believe that you need food in order to live, although you can't "know" that in the ultimate sense. You would kill people in self-defence, although in principle, death is a joke, right? Today, law and military has it's function. Maybe we won't "need" it in the future. I say "need", because indeed it is relative. You could dismantle the US military tomorrow (completely) and let Kim Jong Un take over and tell you what to do instead. No problem, I guess.

But does scientists actually claim to know what matter is? Any examples? And whether it's material or immaterial, consciousness is the only thing we can be certain is, and many scientists admit this, Sam Harris, i.e.. In many ways it could make sense to "conclude" this is immaterial, but I guess one could also notice that because everything is an illusion, one might just as well actually call it material - just because this is the "content" of the illusion. Illusions are per definition immaterial, but nevertheless the illusion appears material, in the same way we appear to exist. This is how God created this (first time I use the word God in this way, lol). Any concept or word becomes false in the ultimate sense, which we are indeed talking about, being it "material" or "immaterial". But it is useful and I agree, important, to get rid of the material paradigm as a position. I just wouldn't create a new paradigm which says it's immaterial. But I see it has it's purpose in a very material-minded world...