On Free Will

[Edvard]

@Angelo John Gage

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

 

 

 

14 hours ago, Angelo John Gage said:

@MarinM

[Cjaryo]

Free will vs. determinism is just a paradox, that we need to embrace and accept. Both sides are correct, and both sides are thought constructs, just paradigms and belief systems through which we see the world.

[SOUL]

1 hour ago, Cjaryo said:

Free will vs. determinism is just a paradox, that we need to embrace and accept. Both sides are correct, and both sides are thought constructs, just paradigms and belief systems through which we see the world.

Yup, and even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

[Edvard]

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

[SOUL]

16 minutes ago, Edvard said:

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

So you don't have any choice to tell others they don't have one either? You don't have any answers, you are a thought slave and dualism is your master.

[Edvard]

1 minute ago, SOUL said:

So you don't have any choice to tell others they don't have one either? You don't have any answers, you are a thought slave and dualism is your master.

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]

1 hour ago, Edvard said:

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.

I stand corrected, Tolle is your master and you worship at his thought temple with the dualism belief in the either-or of the will. It's fascinating the complexity of the story people create in their mind about it then tell others it also applies to them, who believe it and tell others who write books and make videos about it telling others it's their truth who believe it, too.

I accept what is and am at peace with being..... whatever you want to call it or believe about it.

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by SOUL

[Edvard]

47 minutes ago, SOUL said:

I stand corrected, Tolle is your master and you worship at his thought temple with the dualism belief in the either-or of the will. It's fascinating the complexity of the story people create in their mind about it then tell others it also applies to them, who believe it and tell others who write books and make videos about it telling others it's their truth who believe it, too.

I accept what is and be at peace with doing so..... whatever you want to call it or believe about it.

 

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...

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by Edvard

[Faceless]

Is the entity you call you seperate from thought? If you think so than what is this entity? 

[SOUL]

5 hours ago, Edvard said:

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...

 

So you are a slave to your thoughts especially when others confirm the bias you already have. If it  comes from the mind that's part of the  so-called illusion why would you even trust these thoughts? Wouldn't  that means they are false?

 You are so sure you know how most people think of what free will is why would you assume that? From your own mind's thoughts again? Plus you think they are wrong about them from your own assumptions?

How can we decide to do anything if we have no choice, we are just forced to do it by causes, right? Then you contradict yourself and say nothing is true but again it's only other people's ideas about free will that are wrong, the ones you assume they are having.

It appears you may consider revisiting these things in your contemplation, there remains some conflict in them.

 

[Edvard]

1 hour ago, SOUL said:

So you are a slave to your thoughts especially when others confirm the bias you already have. If it  comes from the mind that's part of the  so-called illusion why would you even trust these thoughts? Wouldn't  that means they are false?

 You are so sure you know how most people think of what free will is why would you assume that? From your own mind's thoughts again? Plus you think they are wrong about them from your own assumptions?

How can we decide to do anything if we have no choice, we are just forced to do it by causes, right? Then you contradict yourself and say nothing is true but again it's only other people's ideas about free will that are wrong, the ones you assume they are having.

It appears you may consider revisiting these things in your contemplation, there remains some conflict in them.

 

@Faceless

7 hours ago, Faceless said:

 

(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.

Edited December 30, 2017 by Edvard

[Angelo John Gage]

What is there to surrender if you don't have any will? In fact, isn't the claim that the suffering that we experience is caused, according to these teachings, by ourselves because we have not surrendered ourselves to the flow? Well then, doesn't this imply that you have decided to go against the flow? 

Another thing I realized the other day that I thinl is a fatal flaw with the argument against free will is that people refer to certain experiments that apparently prove their is no free will or claim that enlightenment shows that we have no free will; ironically both stating that our thoughts are not under our control.  However neither disprove free will. Even if our thoughts were not in our control, the choice to act upon such thoughts, is our choice. If you say choice is an illusion, because thoughts are an illusion, then you're literally refuting yourself and have no ground to claim what you're saying is true. Now I know the fundamental idea here at Actualized.org is that nothing is grounded; that we must accept paradoxes, yet to claim we have no free will is not accepting paradoxes, rather, it's making an absolute statement and picking one side. In other words, it is dual.

All of the experiments I have seen "proving" there is no free will prime the person to make a choice with a set of options; but this is precisely what I mean when I say we have 50% free will, because we can only choose from what we are given. I cannot play a poker hand that I am not dealt unless I choose to bluff and pretend I have that hand. I cannot choose from something that I am not perceiving; whether in reality or in my mind. Sam Harris argues that we cannot choose what we are choosing; that our thoughts are all causal...ok, but what about our focus? Again, I do not argue against the idea that the subconscious mind can influence our thinking and perception; I will even give you that EVERY thought is out of our control, but that does not mean that our decisions are not in our control just because they are interpreted into the language of audible self talk in the mind which you call a thought. That is why I say it's 50% free will because one who is able to see that they are not their thoughts, can step back and make decisions that are not knee-jerk reactions. You see, I believe there is the EGO, which gives you suggestions, and then there is you, the PERCEIVER, which is the real you. If the perceiver believes he is the ego, then of course he has no free will. Someone like Sam Harris, who believes everything is physical and is all the in brain, has no choice but to believe that we have no free will, lest contradict his naturalist reductionist position.

Now let's get into the argument that we would find here against free will: The experience of "oneness," whether via deep meditation, DMT or whatever, shows us shows there is no free will. Yet on the other hand, we are taught to surrender, focus, meditate, etc or people will discuss astral projection or lucid dreaming in which they decide to explore their experiences; sometimes even while tripping on DMT or whatever, but how can anyone of these people do any of this without making decisions?

Furthermore, there is one state of consciousness I think most of you have totally dismissed: What about the state of being totally knocked out, such as under anesthesia? I have had a few surgeries, and when you are under the knife, you have absolutely no recollection of any events; not even the fact you are knocked out cold. The only reason why you know you were drugged is because you return back to consciousness and remember what this was all about. How about the time before you were born? Do you remember where you were in 1800? No, because you didn't exist. In both cases, we can't even imagine that "nothingness," we can only compare our experience of being out of our body tripping, or knocked out with zero awareness or consciousness at all, because we return to what our normal state is; in this reality.

So I could argue that meditation and DMT trips are illusions due to altering our physiological chemistry and that real reality is literally nothing whatsoever; that there is no oneness and there is zero perception at all, or any after life, or anything metaphysical and agree with Sam Harris if I choose to use my position of being knocked out via anesthesia as my proof that I am correct. 

How can one state that there is no free will because they have gone to DMT land via psychedelics (drug), or a deep meditative state (altering our chemistry with focus and breathing), or absolute nothingness  under anesthesia (other drugs). In all cases, our chemistry is altered from the "normal" state of where we are now and how you are now as you are reading this. Notice, we ALWAYS return to this state regardless of which other states we experience temporarily; so who how can we argue that any other state is the real reality, so much so, that we claim we have no free will? 

It is obvious that under different states that it must be that we have no free will because our awareness is either super-heightened beyond ourselves; to include everything so it seems there is just ONE beyond the self, or that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever; not even existence at all, when we are knocked out before a surgery. For those of you who have not even been under the knife, think about being black-out drunk... you don't recall your actions or that you were even existing during that "missing time."

Yet many of those against the idea of free will disregard  our experience here that is "shared" reality in which we seem to have free will and say that we don't because of the DMT or meditation experiences or neuroscience. In other words, they are saying we have no free will because they have reached certain states where they surrender and have no free will. This is like saying that when you choose to go on a roller coaster, in which you have no control over, your choice to go on it never existed because the ride is fixed.

And lastly, if you claim there is no free will, then you are making an absolute statement that is not paradoxical; thus is dual in nature. What I am proposing is truly non-dual, in the sense that in different states we have free will and there are other states we do not.

 

Edited December 31, 2017 by Angelo John Gage
grammar

[Faceless]

 

What’s all this about flow and surrendering? 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2017 by Faceless

[SOUL]

@Angelo John Gage   In those experiments that some are suggesting prove no free will  all they are doing is measuring activity in areas of the brain. Then they are concluding from this that it is where the decision is being made but 't reside in what they consider the decision-making part of the brain so it's not free will.

Though they call it the hard problem of consciousness which is almost a complete mystery to them they're using their reductionist bias to make assumptions about something they admit that they don't understand. Yet if  anyone offers any other hypothesis it is shut down as having no  evidence to support it yet that is the same evidence less position they are  forming conclusions from.

Essentially they are claiming the evidence from the research proves there hypothesis with no other evidence to support it. They are also ignoring that the evidence from the research could be actually supporting another hypothesis that they refuse to acknowledge other than just dismiss it because of their bias.

 On the other hand the mystical minded are using their subjective experience from meditation or drug experimentation to form a capital T truth  Universal reality declaration. That's no different than every other religious individual claiming their's is the capital T truth as well.

I don't claim I don't claim to know the answer definitively but it sure does look like from the evidence that there is a range of freedom that potentially could be exercised. I also agree that the 100% either-or, black and white perspective it's just a dualism mindset whether one is for or against it.

Edited December 31, 2017 by SOUL

[Edvard]

29 minutes ago, SOUL said:

@Angelo John Gage   In those experiments that some are suggesting prove no free will  all they are doing is measuring activity in areas of the brain. Then they are concluding from this that it is where the decision is being made but 't reside in what they consider the decision-making part of the brain so it's not free will.

Though they call it the hard problem of consciousness which is almost a complete mystery to them they're using their reductionist bias to make assumptions about something they admit that they don't understand. Yet if  anyone offers any other hypothesis it is shut down as having no  evidence to support it yet that is the same evidence less position they are  forming conclusions from.

Essentially they are claiming the evidence from the research proves there hypothesis with no other evidence to support it. They are also ignoring that the evidence from the research could be actually supporting another hypothesis that they refuse to acknowledge other than just dismiss it because of their bias.

 On the other hand the mystical minded are using their subjective experience from meditation or drug experimentation to form a capital T truth  Universal reality declaration. That's no different than every other religious individual claiming their's is the capital T truth as well.

I don't claim I don't claim to know the answer definitively but it sure does look like from the evidence that there is a range of freedom that potentially could be exercised. I also agree that the 100% either-or, black and white perspective it's just a dualism mindset whether one is for or against it.

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.

[Angelo John Gage]

@Edvard I addressed both aurguments via the scientist and the enlightened person.

Sadhguru I believe takes the same position I have, but also goes as far as even there being a cosmic will. 

 

[Angelo John Gage]

@Edvard

What I get from this video is that we are basically puppets that God works through and we perceive the consequences of a will which is not ours. So this would be similar to putting a camcorder on a roller coaster and recording the ride we have no control over.

But at the same time, he tells you to find yourself and other things; actions which need agency. He then speaks of an awareness, which even that is an illusion of free will. 

As I have stated above, if God has a will, and we are God, then it is our will and it free because we are God; but it is limited in this form, memory, experiences,  to our environment, and the thoughts in which come into our minds. But as God perceiving this experience through our existence, we choose.

So even Tolle's answer does not disprove free will. 

[SOUL]

@Edvard  I suggest you stick to your own inner work because  it appears my words disturb you

[Edvard]

24 minutes ago, SOUL said:

@Edvard  I suggest you stick to your own inner work because  it appears my words disturb you

You're right. Happy new year.

[David_eh]

On December 23, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Faceless said:

Is “your” thought yours or just thought? Do you make decisions or are the decisions you make determined by your conditioning? 

I think it's a Middle Way/interdependence thing. Decisions are surly influenced by conditioning but conditioning depends on individual world views and what is done with the input.

When we are mindful of what we are doing our will is much more free than when we are simply reacting to stimulus without proper consideration. 

The idea that we have no free will seems to me to perpetuate a kind of irresponsibility.