Interesting perspective on the illusion of free will

[Michael Paul]

If we examine ourselves closely, we see that in every moment we always have competing desires. We cannot choose these desires, because in order to choose our desires we would have to desire to have those desires. In other words, desire is inescapable, and it runs our lives. Whichever desire is the strongest at any given moment is what we act on, and we also cannot account for the strength of our desires or which one will ultimately win out. 

Libertarian free will (radical free will) is incoherent because every effect in our universe is caused, including all of our desires and their strength or weakness. It takes some introspection to realize the causal nature of our universe but when you do this becomes obvious. 
 

To have libertarian free will, this will would have to be entirely divorced from causality, including all of our memories and past experiences. We would have to act upon the world in such a way that is logically incoherent, separated from the determination of causes in the world and our own subjective lives. But if we closely examine ourselves in the moment making decisions, we realize that we always satisfy our strongest desire in the moment, and this desire results directly from causes which we are not in control of.

YouTuber bitbutter does a great job explaining this perspective in the following videos:

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Michael Paul

[Nahm]

What is desire? If one can desire to have desire, as you say, one would know what it is one is desiring, and therefore what the desire is.

[Synchronicity]

33 minutes ago, Nahm said:

What is desire? If one can desire to have desire, as you say, one would know what it is one is desiring, and therefore what the desire is.

He didn’t say that. He said we can’t choose our desires.
Seriously... this is not how we have intelligent and insightful discussions. We need to listen to each other instead of just eluding the points of an argument with circular questions like “what is x?” 
 

@Michael Paul Very good post. I agree with everything you said. True Free Will would require an endless chain of causal desires

[Michael Paul]

@Nahm We can know what our desires are. We just can’t choose them, because all choice is governed initially by desire (doesn’t matter if it’s conscious or unconscious). This would include any hypothetical choice of desire. If you were going to choose your desires, first comes the desire to have that specific desire. It doesn’t matter whether these desires are unconscious or consciously known, and most desire seems to be unconscious at face value.
 

@Synchronicity True free will, the way libertarians (the philosophical school, not political ideology) generally pose it to people, would require a will alien to us (as beings influenced by undeniable causes outside of our conscious control). This will would not even necessarily appear to us to be our own will... we would be acting against our desires for no reason. Even this description is hypothetical, because free will is a nonstarter that doesn’t actually exist, hence why there are numerous definitions of free will. It’s hard to define something that is not a real part of our experience and does not exist.

[Forestluv]

42 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

We need to listen to each other instead of just eluding the points of an argument with circular questions like “what is x?” 

It’s context dependent. “What is x?” is often a power pointer. It is the heart of self inquiry and can penetrate subconscious assumptions/attachments/identifications. Paradoxically, avoiding “what is x?” can be a form of eluding. There are multiple dynamics occurring. 
 

In this case, the argument is based upon a foundational assumption of a relative construct called “desire”. We can accept that assumption and do our best to interpret the the others persons’ construct as much as possible. Or we can deconstruct and examine the assumption itself. Both have a form of value. 

[Nahm]

13 minutes ago, Michael Paul said:

first comes the desire to have that specific desire

Where’d that desire come from?

[Synchronicity]

4 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

It’s context dependent. “What is x?” is often a power pointer. It is the heart of self inquiry and can penetrate subconscious assumptions/attachments/identifications. Paradoxically, avoiding “what is x?” can be a form of eluding. There are multiple dynamics occurring. 

Yes, it’s context dependent, but @Michael Paul already provides his definition of desire in his post and Nahm re-asked. That’s circular conversation 

[Nahm]

@Synchronicity But if I’m here, and your here, doesn’t that make it, our time? 

♥️

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

Yes, it’s context dependent, but @Michael Paul already provides his definition of desire in his post 

There is an underlying assumption of a construct of desire he is using as scaffolding. We can accept that assumption and do our best to interpret the the other person’s construct or question the assumption itself. Both have value. 

[Michael Paul]

@Nahm It came from the desire to desire the desire. This creates a regress of desire, which ultimately leads to “darkness” which is not in our conscious control. It very well may be all virtually unconscious. No matter how you spin it, this regress of desire continues forever and how can we be responsible for it?

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, Nahm said:

But if I’m here, and your here, doesn’t that make it, our time?

 

[Nahm]

@Michael Paul First see what it is. Then move on to the responsibility in question. 

[Michael Paul]

@Serotoninluv To define desire as our innate pursuit of our wants would probably cover the initial post.

[Forestluv]

@Michael Paul I think desire is a super interesting phenomena. So much explore and constructs to create with it. I thought I had it down, yet a few months ago realized I’ve barely scratched the surface. . . .Thanks for your thoughts ?. I wish Leo would do a video on desire.

[Nahm]

@Michael Paul Then I wouldn’t define it.  Regress is a write off btw. As a word, it’s definition veils the actuality of it. 

@Serotoninluv That’d be awesome. 

[Synchronicity]

6 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

There is an underlying assumption of a construct of desire he is using as scaffolding. We can accept that assumption and do our best to interpret the the other person’s construct or question the assumption itself. Both have value. 

Well then let me State for myself that I understood that he was saying desire is wanting which leads people to pursue certain passions. Further, he was stating these desires are caused by forces outside of our will. 
So I’m not really seeing why you think his post is unclear and furthermore, why I’m the one you’re correcting when I just want to have clear back and forth conversations 

[Michael Paul]

@Serotoninluv I love thinking about desire. It’s a fascinating phenomenon that’s for sure.

@Nahm perhaps regress wasn’t the right word. And my definition of desire doesn’t have to be taken as objective. Also what’s your opinion on desire in general? Do you think it runs our lives or that we can exert a non-causal control over our desires?

Edited October 17, 2019 by Michael Paul

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

Well then let me State for myself that I understood that he was saying desire is wanting which leads people to pursue certain passions. Further, he was stating these desires are caused by forces outside of our will. 
So I’m not really seeing why you think his post is unclear and furthermore, why I’m the one you’re correcting when I just want to have clear back and forth conversations 

That’s fine. You are in a particular relative realm. What you state is a construct of desire. That can be fun to explore. Yet there are other realms to explore as well. For example, we can deconstruct the construct you offered above and examine the more fundamental actuality. Or we can play with the construct you offer. Both is cool. You are free to have a conversation as you like with the OP.

It is as if we are building sandcastles and you have built a sandcastle and want to continue adding components. Perhaps you are adding a moat. Someone else comes along and says - how about deconstructing the sand castle and examine the fundamental actuality of the sand? Then we can create a new form of sandcastle. . . It’s all good. 

[Synchronicity]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

That’s fine. You are in a particular relative realm. What you state is a construct of desire. That can be fun to explore. Yet there are other realms to explore as well. For example, we can deconstruct the construct you offered above and examine the more fundamental actuality. Or we can play with the construct you offer. Both is cool. You are free to have a conversation as you like with the OP.

It is as if we are building sandcastles and you have built a sandcastle and want to continue adding components. Perhaps you are adding a moat. Someone else comes along and says - how about deconstructing the sand castle and examine the fundamental actuality of the sand? Then we can create a new form of sandcastle. . . It’s all good. 

I didn’t say it was my definition of desire. I said it was the definition that I’ve found within this particular conversation. Why do you assume that the part of Me that is you has explored more than this part? If you want to know me better , watch this video: 

 

[Inliytened1]

@Michael Paul yes and you ARE the universe.  Thus your free will ultimately collapses into Divine wiil.

It/You is/are One.

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Inliytened1