Awareness And Free Will

[DoctorDx]

Hey, I just saw the video on free will (Great video by the way), and I understand that we don't have control over our thoughts, our actions, etc..

But if you see yourself and define yourself as pure awareness, then you can say that you have control of yourself as an awareness, meaning you have control over what you are aware of in the present time.

If you are in control of your awareness, then it means that you are in control of yourself because everything gets processed by your awareness and as a result it influences you (For example, you can be aware of the person that's talking to you or you can be aware of your foot, either way your mind will process things differently)

Anyway, I will be glad to see what you think?

[Visitor]

Full awareness engages everything (sensed) at once. There is no need to focus on a particular. To focus at will on one thing is to disengage from full awareness.

[Gopackgo]

Look at experience really closely. Forget the extraneous concepts and loaded meanings of words like awareness, which have about 6 or 7 different meanings, most of which suggest that something is aware of something else. This creates a ton of space for the self to pick and choose which one suits is, but the word or meaning that one seems to attach to the meaning is missing what is being pointed to. It creates discussions that feel important, but generally devolve into people asserting whose meaning of awareness is correct. The reason the word is used is just to express what is absolutely indescribable.

Is it your experience that you control your thoughts? When you look at it, Do you honestly know what your next thought will be? 

If you look honestly, past the surface level. you will see that thoughts just pop up from absolute nothing. They appear. It may seem that they are willed, but generally they just appear when something needs to be explained or understood. They are mental interpretations that just happen to explain what is whether that is a problem, an emotion, or another thought. There is 0 control over what happens, and there is zero control over the mental interpretation that tries to make a conceptual model to explain what is happening. In my experience, when the feeling of control fell away when thoughts were watched, it was seen that if thoughts appear from nothing, then there cant be any free will, because the genesis of any intention or decision is an idea or thought, or at least I thought that. Really things just happen, but either way, its the same thing.

What does a decision look like for you? When does the decision happen, and when does the thinking happen. 

In my experience, Observation showed that although I originally thought that thinking preceded a thought, actually a more honest answer is that there would be a decision, and then thinking would happen in the form of rationalization. This means the mind would start creating stories to explain what was decided. First there would be a story that made sense to the self, then there would be stories created for other individuals. It is like the self making a story based on the model it has of other peoples models. It wants the perfect story to explain the decision so that it can deliver the right story to each person so that it might make sense of whats happening.

Then I thought, well, what about the times where it seems that I am thinking and then coming to a decision? But again, thoughts just appear. They do not belong to the self. So either way, there is a decision and thoughts which both arise from nothing. The order doesn't even matter. 

If mental activity just appears in the conscious mind, there is no meaningful choice. It's a complete and utter illusion The best saying that I have heard is: "A man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." I don't know how anyone can argue with that, because no one can control the thoughts that appear in consciousness. People will argue with it, because it's not a very happy thing for the self, or maybe it doesn't fit in with other concepts that are held, but the thing is that reality or what happens doesn't give a fuck about conceptual understanding or a self's attempt to project its thought onto what is. How could it? The thoughts are actually a part of reality, they occur inside of it, and they are abstract. Therefore thoughts themselves are not reality (no matter how much the self wishes that to be true). It is completely impersonal and totally intimate. This is why it is important to remember that a contradiction between what meaning is assigned to concept in ones mind vs. what is being pointed to does not mean that something is wrong. Reality is totally unknowable. It exists outside of concepts. It is only a thought (the self) that is trying to lock it down into the known that causes contradiction.

This is pretty simplistic as an explanation, and I'm not saying that conceptual understanding is bad, but just advising some caution. This is especially so when the subject is something as fundamental as free agency. Just look really closely and honestly at your experience. Reality and being is where some of the answers can be supplied.

[TJ Reeves]

From a spiritual POV: instructions for action come down from an infinite version of You (the entire universe) to play out through the seemingly limited form of you (what you conventionally grew up to think of as you but is instead a story). We could compare it to how Nathan Drake fires a gun when I hit the square button on my PS4 controller.

Pure awareness (the eternal soul that you actually are) technically does not take any actions -- it's only there to be aware of what's going on from the first person POV.

From The Bhagavad Gita for Modern Times: "People must realize that even while acting (involving the movement of body, mind, senses), the soul remains still - eternal. The sages recognize wisdom in a person who realizes this - for such wise people have had the fire of wisdom burn away the illusion that the Soul (the true person) is acting."  

From a materialistic/scientific POV: You form all actions and thoughts subconsciously before even realizing it. You are only aware of a story that justifies the action. The prefrontal cortex, superior colliculi, and reticular activation systems, which control your conscious awareness, respond automatically to the signals that fire together the most compared to other signals present. We could compare this to a teacher (PFCortex) who only gives attention to the kid who raises their hand highest in class  (other signals in brain). The algorithm for why some signals fire more than others is tucked away in an unbelievably fast, subconscious part of the brain - inaccessible to slow moving conscious thought. 

 

Edited May 29, 2017 by TJ Reeves

[Pure Imagination]

There is no "you" that has control over "your" awareness. Awareness is just there. It is pure existence. There are certain sensations that seem like there is a "you" controlling them, but this is ultimately an illusion.

Can you locate the "you" that is controlling experience? Or is there just experience? Take a close look

[Guest username]

@DoctorDx You don't understand what is being referred to as awareness yet. You'll have to study non-duality and start a practice for that.

I see it this way, humans have free will the same way toasters make toast. You make decisions and have a will, but that will is determined by countless physiological sub-processes that are determined by qualities of the physical system (which you may refer to as "you") and the environment (the whole of reality). For instance, every atom in the universe exerts a gravitational pull on every other atom in the universe, so every decision you make is being influenced to some degree by the position of every single atom in the universe.

Can the toaster make toast by itself, or does it also need toast, electricity, an operator, functional parts, a manufacturer, an environment that is conducive to toast making, etc. ?

Notice that the notion of a "you" that is somehow separate from the rest of reality a distinction, and all distinctions are projections of the human mind.

Edited May 29, 2017 by username

[Gopackgo]

You can watch videos and read about it. Lord knows I did, but I only sought the conceptual understanding after I saw it myself. Check it out in direct experience, and don't shy away because it scares you.It is super obvious. Not even your movements are willed by a self. It just happens. When you see it for real, it starts to fall away. In a lot of ways, control is what the whole illusion is about, and it is a big reason why there is never abiding happiness while there is a belief of control. It's nothing to be scared of, because its always been this way. You will notice that most "teachers" say exactly this. In fact I think I've never seen one that has said the opposite. It's all stories, but at least if someone wants to rely on beliefs of others to save their illusion, they should ask why they accept all the other dogmas of their practice, except this one. 

Edited May 29, 2017 by Gopackgo

[SOUL]

If you don't know you have free will, you probably don't have it.

Edited May 30, 2017 by SOUL

[Eastbranch]

Well, I'm not quite sure about the logic here, but I think at its root this is the age old question about free will vs. determinism. It's true that we can't control our thoughts and that thoughts simply arise rather than being produced at will. However, I don't think this fact gives weight to the idea of determinism.  As spiritually awaking individuals, we gravitate toward counter intuitive ideas that fly in the face of cultural convention to make our egos feel that we are more enlightened than the poor unwashed masses. But we need to be real here. Don't we all have the experience of having free will? Is it not obvious that we are presented with choices and choose one over the other? Of course we do. But we are choosing from an almost infinite set of possibilities that have already occurred. So in this sense we do not have free will. Everything has already happened and we chose to experience the part of everything that we desire. So we have free will and at the same time we do not. This is the conventional definition of duality, two opposites are both true, or one position can be true and untrue at the same time. Look closely and you will see that duality is the fundamental nature of the universe. For example, are we all one, or are we individuals? This answer is, we are both.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Eastbranch

[Gopackgo]

It doesn't need to be logical. There was no gravitation toward the idea that there is no control. It was actually a huge fear for me. When a person is raised to believe they have free will, of course they think that they have an experience of free will. Free will doesn't even make sense. It is essentially the same thing as saying that you could have chosen differently. That statement is not our reality. There is a decision that happens in an appearance in the conscious mind, and once it is made, it is never revisited. It is gone forever. I don't know about whether there are infinite possibilities, because what seems to happen is 1 continuous experience. There is no way to zoom out and see different "timelines" other than this one.  In fact, in my experience at least, time seems to be composed of thoughts about the future and past, both of which are abstract projections, and neither of which is actual concrete reality. In that way, the idea of infinite possibilities goes full circle and becomes absolutely useless because it is not direct experience, although it is a nice thought.

Maybe the way people think about  free will and determinism is heavily based on their interpretation of the concepts. I know that my interpretation at first was that if there was no free will, then everything that happens must be predetermined. The issue with that is that it presupposes time as a tangible thing. When I look at my experience, there is always right now. Things are flowing through it, but when they pass, they are gone. Anything that seems to come again isn't the same as the first time that it was experienced. Maybe reality doesn't care about the concepts we use to explain it. Ironically, the second you conceptualize being, it is and it isn't being. It is being because thoughts are part of being, and it isn't because the concepts or content in the thought are not actual reality, even though a person thinks that they are in fact reality. Really what it turns into is a big argument over which meaning supplied to a concept is actually correct. In my experience, seeming choices appear in thought, and then a decision appears from nothing. I cannot choose the final decision that actually happens. The more thought slows down, the more apparent this becomes. The decisions just seem to happen as they do. Even movement just seems to happen.

I understand the idea that we are both free will and determinism, however the understanding is only had by the self, which is also just something that is appearing in being. In many ways what the self is is just a concept composed of other concepts. Thoughts arising are being, but there is no reason why the content has to be connected to what it is trying to describe. On the level of being, things just happen. I am suggesting that choice happens outside of the conceptual self, and therefore outside of understanding. The need to understand conceptually can break down, and then being is as it is. It is frustrating for me not to be able to put it into words effectively, but being is content with frustration of the self.

[Eastbranch]

Gopackgo, you have obviously put a great deal of thought and observation into this topic. My hat's off to you. I actually agree with everything you say as a conceptual possibility, however my experience in these matters just happens to vary from yours. I completely agree that decisions just seem to happen. Thoughts arise from nothing. I love the exercise of staring at your outstretched index finger. Then you decide to bend it. However there is no thought preceding bending your finger. You simply observe yourself bending your finger. It would appear therefore that we have no free will and we simply observe every action we undertake. However I often have the experience of being guided. Sometimes I reject this guidance out of fear or selfishness. Other times I follow it completely. Even though I merely observe myself completing these actions, I am none the less an active participant in the process of choosing. I believe the concept of time plays a part here. I actually don't believe that time exists, but rather only space and movement. Through the expansion of the universe, rotation of our galaxy, solar system, earth, etc., we are moving at incredible speed to each next experience in life. The past, present, and future all exist simultaneously, but we are only sitting at the present, which I see as a location rather than an instance in time. The present is infinitely small and our objective is to direct ourselves to the future condition that we wish to experience, within the almost infinite range of future possibilities. The shift from present to future occurs so quickly that we cannot experience the process consciously. 

But that's just the explanation I've come up with after years of contemplation about this stuff. I would never say it's true. It's just how I deal with this mystery that we're living. I love your insights and you've given me some things to consider. Thank you

 

[DoctorDx]

@Gopackgo  Hey, I agree with you that we can't really control our thoughts or our decisions but we are aware of them and we are aware of our experience in this existence.

All I'm saying is, that we are aware of this reality and observe it, this "reality observation" is something that we control in the present moment (at-least that's what I feel) and through this sensory observation (or awareness) the mind will process things in a different way (For example, observing the sound of music In contrast to observing the feeling of air on your face).  Through this process you can direct yourself on different paths.

Anyway, what do you think about this?

 

On 5/29/2017 at 6:26 AM, Gopackgo said:

This means the mind would start creating stories to explain what was decided. First there would be a story that made sense to the self, then there would be stories created for other individuals. It is like the self making a story based on the model it has of other peoples models. It wants the perfect story to explain the decision so that it can deliver the right story to each person so that it might make sense of whats happening.

Great quote /\

[Gopackgo]

@Eastbranch  Sometimes my words come off as confrontational. Really, I'm under no delusion that I am talking to anyone but myself. What I mean is that the things you are saying are thoughts that I also had. I have come to a point really were thoughts just can't be trusted. It is almost like there are 2 realities, 1 reality is what actually physically seems to happen. This is the fundamental reality that appears as life and thats what I always refer to as "whats happening". The second reality is an abstract and conceptual reality. This is where most people in the world live. Conceptual reality is entirely dependent on whats happening, and this reality is the domain of self. It is just an interaction of models between seeming individuals that has created society. There is nothing wrong with this. It obviously has social utility and even seems to have led to this thing called enlightenment (or whatever this awakening is), however, this reality is the domain of suffering. It is the reality where meaning is attached to everything, even though in reality, things just happen as they do. The problem for me was that I thought everything was happening to me because I was living in this conceptual reality. So for me, as an extremely scientific and rational person, realizing that the meanings assigned to everything that was happening were totally and completely arbitrary was a life changing realization. People will say that they know science is only theories, but they don't really believe that. When it is really felt, it is absolutely unbelievable. This thing that is seemingly around us everyday is completely and totally unknowable. All we can do is throw models at it to try and manipulate it and understand it. The shocking thing for me was that there is a 2nd kind of knowing, wherein the mind isn't feverishly trying to understand. Its not conceptual, it is directly experiencing. Out of direct experience comes wisdom.

The reason I bring this up is because you are absolutely right in that there is a strong feeling of free will. The thing that is amazing for me is that the more and more that thoughts slow down, I realize that the feeling of that control seems to fade and the I falls away, but things keep happening exactly as they would if I was present in the form of a self. Before if I was asked a question, I would carefully think out the answer and respond. Now, there is only response coming from nothing. It seems to extend to movement as well. Say that I am sitting on a couch and I think I need to go study. No matter how many times I think that, at some point there will be getting up and studying. So what seems to be happening is that the blah blah thoughts are being replaced with silence, and then there is action whenever it happens. The illusion before is that thought was needed to proceed what was always going to happen. The question that always gets me is that when you move your finger, as in your example, the mind wants to say that it did that, but in my view, that is surface level. The real question is what made you respond to a question of free will in that way, (i.e. why does your brain create that response to answer a question) Is there really any control over how the mind tends to respond to a stimulus, or does it just happen? It's a really interesting question.

I'm only 28. My awakening happened abruptly, before I had any kind of knowledge that It was even possible. It was beyond conceptual knowledge, and it undermined everything I thought I knew in my arbitrary conceptual model. I have decided to let the need to understand conceptually subside a bit because I realize that the best model of reality is reality itself, and any conceptualization results in a loss in what is. All this to say that we are likely talking about the exact same experience, and just using different words to explain it. In the grand scheme of things, the free will debate is really useless because we actually don't have any control over whether we have free will or not, and whatever happens will just happen. It is fun to talk about though.

@DoctorDx I would say that all of that stuff is happening, but no one is doing it. It only seems to be so. That the amazing thing. It's a simple answer, because in my experience, the right question to ask is whether or not a self is needed to do all of the things that are perceived. For instance, could there even be a self without the space in which perception takes place, or is that the only thing separating the seeming observer from the perception itself? The idea of an I in between the seemingly separate phenomena of perceived and perceiver is less accurate than just saying that there is perception itself. Another way to think about it can be had if you look at the scientific model. This model is confusing because it seems to separate one from reality because it is so mechanical. However, when you really look at it, all of the sensory organs send electronic signals to the brain from an apparent outside world to the subconscious, where the information is rendered into the world that you are apparently walking around in. Every sensation is like this (even movement). It goes to the unconscious brain, and is rendered into a world, and then is shot into the conscious mind. 

Just take a second to think about that... You are literally walking around (seemingly) in a mind generated dream world even under the scientific model. That is outrageously amazing, and of course it means that everything that you see is a part of you, as you are the one rendering it. It is a field of pure subjectivity that thinks it is objective. In truth, science doesn't have a clue about consciousness for the same reason that seekers often have problems: You cannot study what we all are because you cannot get outside of it. For this reason, the best way to understand "awareness" is to see that you are not, and in doing so, to see more clearly what you are. Anything you are experiencing as an object or sensation therefore cannot be the field creating it (This is just a conceptual distinction to make my point). So if you look at your direct experience, and you have a sensation of self, or observer, then you can know that it is a construct of the mind, and is therefore not you.

I don't know if that helps at all. Sometimes I feel like I am all over the place, but this is what seems to come out, and when I start trying to think about it, I get confused. Look really closely at what you perceive as the perceiver. That might actually be a construct. In my experience that is the basic assumption on which all others sit. It goes hand in hand with the idea of having control over what is. It seems to me that this was seen through, and since then, things have been falling into place at a pace completely outside of my control. The central executive in the mind is a total construct.  

 

[SOUL]

On 5/28/2017 at 11:36 PM, Eastbranch said:

It's true that we can't control our thoughts and that thoughts simply arise rather than being produced at will.

I want you to think of a dog.... any dog you like, just think of a dog, picture this dog and see yourself petting that dog on the head in your mind. Ok.... were you able to do it? If you did do it you just controlled your thoughts, you produced that thought at will.

I know, I know.... what does that prove?

The same exact thing that is proven when somebody tells you to stop thinking anything, think of absolutely nothing, then if you can't stop the thoughts they use it as an example of how you cannot control your thoughts and thoughts simply arise without you willing them to.

It's not as clear cut as we can't or can control our thoughts, it's both and they simultaneously can be happening. At the same exact moment we can be willfully directing our thoughts and have thoughts arising without us intending for them to so have both streams of thought crisscrossing and blending in our mind.

With "free will" it's similar in that it isn't as clear cut as we do or don't in exclusivity, it's both and they can be simultaneously happening. In fact, in the same way with thoughts it's inevitable that we are experiencing the effect of both in our mind.

[sgn]

@SOUL My mind made associations between the word dog and automatically triggered images of dogs because of habit. And also because of habit my attention was triggered to go and focus in on those thoughts. I don't see how someone made a choice there. The first dog I thought about I realized was a similar dog that my sister owned. I tried thinking of another dog and a image of a dog I saw in a video couple of days ago popped up. It's all just happening spontaneously man

[SOUL]

@sgn Did you pet the dog in your mind? Does your mind dog bite?

[Gopackgo]

It is really interesting. The thing that gets me is that, when I think that I am willing a thought stream, I always think, Ok, but what is choosing to turn my attention to this subject right now. And that inquiry goes back a few levels, but ultimately ends up being that it just appears like everything else. Basically when you get to the point where you are asking why a decision came out the way it did, and you think "it just did", that is a strong indicator that it just appeared. 

What we can do with our seeming choice is to focus on the points immediately prior to a thought stream and immediately after and pinpoint the attached construct that "I" am doing this.  And this seeming ability to focus attention at will, that seems to point to choice, but the thing is that you don't control your interest in this subject. As most people here are aware, there are some people in our lives that just aren't interested in this subject. They cant force themselves to meditate. It is the same process as what happens in the meditator, but the response is the opposite result. Either way, the result they come to isnt in their control.

[sgn]

@SOUL Yes. No they were nice dogs. lol

[SOUL]

@Gopackgo This is why I acknowledge that it is inevitably a blend of conscious and unconscious, of intentional and incidental, it's rarely ever just conscious or just unconscious. It's both that presents itself as one united process but if we are awake, the distinction can be examined in our consciousness.

[SOUL]

@sgn So even though you were prompted to think of a dog by my request and then supplied with dogs through your mind's imagination by unconscious means you then directed the mind to imagine you petting them. Thus you have illustrated and example of how it is both conscious and unconscious that blends to create our thought process.

It's not just either one of that we can control or we can't control thoughts, just like it's not just either we have free will or we don't. It's a unified experience of will.