On Free Will

[Faceless]

I’m sorry that’s the way you see it. To me seeing and understanding what is actual is being responsible. That means understanding thought and it’s conditioned nature. And is there such a thing as an individual if thought which is conditioned is a shared attribute of all human beings.  

By the way as I have said before are we free of desire? Doesn’t desire influence action one way or another? 

It’s not an idea if you really grasp this. It’s an obvious fact when gone into deeply 

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by Faceless

[Angelo John Gage]

The idea we have no free will is a thought that one brings back after they experience oneness and see that everything is "whole." but that is only on perspective in an absolute infinity, which also must include free will, which is what you experience at the self...

to claim there is only one or the other is dual and goes against everything this forum claims it is. 

I don't see why people are not seeing this obvious fatal flaw.

In order for a paradox to exist, BOTH things must be true and false at the same time. When you claim we have no free will, then you are making an asboluite statement which is not a paradox; thus saying that free will does not exist.

Again, I state that does exist in certain cases and does not in other. That is nondual. 

[Edvard]

4 hours ago, Angelo John Gage said:

The idea we have no free will is a thought that one brings back after they experience oneness and see that everything is "whole." but that is only on perspective in an absolute infinity, which also must include free will, which is what you experience at the self...

to claim there is only one or the other is dual and goes against everything this forum claims it is. 

I don't see why people are not seeing this obvious fatal flaw.

In order for a paradox to exist, BOTH things must be true and false at the same time. When you claim we have no free will, then you are making an asboluite statement which is not a paradox; thus saying that free will does not exist.

Again, I state that does exist in certain cases and does not in other. That is nondual. 

1. 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.  
2. (sorry for the weird structure and blurred lines. My mobile didn't allow me to unclick it)

[Pointer]

@Angelo John Gage Is what you mean that where there is free will, what is the cause for free will? That is, to account for a choice takes effort. On the existentialist account, free will is the spontaneity arising from nothing? On another account, free will is nothing. These are accounts of free will.

[Angelo John Gage]

@Edvard That is why no one can say that free will does not exist with 100% certainty, and the most honest position is that of 50/50, or an agnostic position on it since we do not know for sure.

But from our own direct experiences, we seem to have it and there is no reason other to believe don't other than achieving altered states of consciousness where it seems it's gone, or believing in scientific experiments which don't even disprove it totally.

When I go to sleep and have dreams, I will agree with you that I have no free will and I am watching some kind of mental story unfold; but when I wake up and plot my day, think about what I want to do, focus on certain things while ignoring others; despite various thoughts, sensations, and other inputs, I am willing my day to happen within my abilities to make it happen.

The big bang is not responsible for this reply, nor is responsible for your disagreement. In fact, at one point you may have believed you had free will, yet something convinced you otherwise. Thus the perceiver (you) decided to change your believes on the topic.

@Pointer My definition of free will is making conscious choices within certain situations; I believe it's 50/50 because all choices are limited within the certain situation. If there were only two doors in front of you to choose from, you could not will a third door to appear and choose it. I reject the notion that choice is an illusion and that this is all some kind of video being played in front of us and we have no control nor are we responsible for any of our actions.

 

[Edvard]

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

[Angelo John Gage]

@Edvard Einstein can say whatever he wants; he was also proven wrong in his theories. No one is an authority. Think about what convinced you that you don't have free will. It was not yourself was it? Did you just sit there in a normal state of mind and say "You know, I have no free will; I'm a machine at the mercy of physics and these fake thoughts," or was it the experiences I mentioned, or some other thing?

[Edvard]

21 minutes ago, Angelo John Gage said:

@Edvard Einstein can say whatever he wants; he was also proven wrong in his theories. No one is an authority. Think about what convinced you that you don't have free will. It was not yourself was it? Did you just sit there in a normal state of mind and say "You know, I have no free will; I'm a machine at the mercy of physics and these fake thoughts," or was it the experiences I mentioned, or some other thing?

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?

Edited January 2, 2018 by Edvard

[Angelo John Gage]

@Edvard If you were to go back in time with the knowledge of the experience and it's outcome, you would still have the ability to do evil irrespective of the consequences, or you may choose to not do evil because of the consequences. You see, we do irrational shit because we are not bound to instinct like animals are. Yet even even animals I think have choice; some totally robotic and instinctual, but some more aware and free: For example, what evolutionary purpose or reason or need does a dolphin have to risk its life to save a human from a shark attack?

Everything has a cause and effect, it seems at the macro level, but like quantum physics has shown, things can be random. So even if you believe everything is a chain events, you are not aware of all causes and effects which come forward in your thoughts, but you are aware of the different reasons as to why you chose to do whatever acts, but only in hindsight can you say you chose "right" or "wrong." At the time you made your decision based on the best possible information you had. No one chooses to make the wrong decision on purpose. Even someone who purposely wants to sabotage their life is making a choice to reach the goal of sabotaging their life, which is the correct decision if they want to sabotage their life. 

 

 

[Edvard]

8 minutes ago, Angelo John Gage said:

No one chooses to make the wrong decision on purpose

 

[Pointer]

@Angelo John Gage ”Making concious choices” means that consciousness is the same as making choices. Is this your view, conciousness as the base for all perception? 1) Conciousness as a base for all perceptions being contingent, free will is contingent. This is a materialist account.

Paraphrase that into “making mindful choices”, and it means that awareness is the same as making choices. 2) This is free will taking into account the effort as “turning-of -attention-to”. This is an existentialist account.

If I understand you correctly it is these two concepts that go into your 50/50 account of free will?

3) How about saying there is no free will,  on account of nothing?

4) Free will is wonderful

[David_eh]

Everyone seems to be missing the obvious. It is not a matter of free will or no ability to decide.

We have conditional will.

 

 

[Angelo John Gage]

@Edvard Because of their intention.

The missing component in all this is there is intention behind any action, not just cause and effect that regresses to the big bang.

 

[Angelo John Gage]

@Pointer A Blacked-out drunk person is unconscious has no free will; despite doing whatever they are doing in their inebriated  state of mind.

Sober person with intention and awareness, has free will. Even if every idea is not inserted by their will; the mixing, analyzing, focusing on, and acting upon is their will. 

[David_eh]

If free will were really free I could sprout wings and fly.

We can assert our will as long as the conditions allow.

We have conditional will.

[SOUL]

It must be a powerful master force that drives the conditional influence thought robot slaves to post again and again to convince others they are conditional influence thought robot slaves, too.

 

[Pointer]

@Angelo John Gage Yes, I understand. Free will is unconditionally free and a condition of conscious people by the making of choices. Free will is a paradox and without a better concept to replace free will it remains a paradox.

Another concept is to say that there are no choices that have not been made. There are only choices. Free will replaced by spontaneity and creativity. An unconscious person is uncreative. There is no 50/50, either you’re creative (self-actualized) or you’re a robot (ego driven). Here you (the ego) are the paradox, and upon self-inquiry the ego is replaced with a better concept...

It is all accounted for.

[Nahm]

@Angelo John Gage If you were going to make a universe and experience it not knowing who you actually are, how would you go about doing it? To start with, how would you ‘get there’ without revealing who you really are? 

[Angelo John Gage]

@Nahm

The idea of pandeism is that God blew himself up and became everything else, and ceased to be the god-head and can never fully know itself again for sure. 

In other words, he died for us... so we can exist.

IDK if I buy that idea however.

If I was God, I wouldn't need to explore the universe that I created. Why would need to do so if I know it as my creation. I would probably create other beings and allow them to exist freely in it to enjoy my creation.

[Nahm]

@Angelo John Gage What would you make them out of?