Free will - does it exist?

[Forestluv]

28 minutes ago, Someone here said:

That thoughts are naturally occurring without an agency (there is no thinker thinking them).  And this can be realized by observing thoughts and actions. When it's recognized there is no 'doer' and everything happens by itself.. The whole question falls away. 

Of course there is no thinker or doer . . .and thoughts / actions just happen by themselves. This is a major realization and expansion for most minds. Yet if we contract ourselves within an opposite domain, we will limit ourselves within one side of a duality and cut ourselves off from exploring the thinker, doer and that thoughts / actions don’t happen by themselves.

If we limit ourselves to one of two opposing facets of a diamond, we will be unaware that both facets exist and that there are hundreds of other facets of the diamond. 

[AdamR95]

26 minutes ago, Origins said:

@AdamR95 You're a very logically oriented person Adam, which is good, I won't say insightful but you're at least driven towards logic.

"Your pure awarness is free but you not control your awarness."

Let's dismantle your estimations step by step.

What makes you believe you have no influence over your awareness?

Let's take one of the classic determinists view regarding free will by asking you to say close your eyes and imagine a regular elephant. Now did you control the image that came into your mind? Absolutely not. But can you shift between darkness and the elephant back and fourth?

Next I want you to feel into your state. Ask yourself, what am I feeling?

Sad, angry, stimulated, depressed, happy, joyful? Leave the answers for yourself.

Now I want you to try and shift whatever state you have to a calm state with the same power of awareness you used to shift between the elephant and darkness.

Hold it for 30 seconds and notice how you feel afterwards. 

While you're doing so, notice whatever centres within your being begin to light up.

You might begin to notice a feeling in your heart, other areas around there and or just generally more awareness around your body.

Secondly, given this is a transmutational process you yourself have taught yourself if you haven't already you'll begin to notice those initial feelings you had begin to take shape. This is the process of alchemy I pointed out before and how free will is pivotal to having any sense of awareness or sentience at all and that this awareness is the power to perform physiological alchemy.

Pay attention to any other subtle behaviours you exhibit as well throughout this transmutational process, even a slight exhale is the relationship between your conscious awareness signalling to your subconscious mind to begin to change the shape of the emotional and energetic body. Even noticing yourself try to hone your mind to concentrate on the act of shifting your state is the process of augmenting your capacities for concentration as well as being a reflection of necessity of your conscious awareness here.

To throw away free will is to throw away awareness, conscious awareness, self awareness and sentience, all of which are largely synonymous in many ways and indicative of a power of the sorts rather than some fixed relational tie to human experience that most people inappropriately try to relate to peoples arguments for free will and therefore misinterpret the subject entirely. Free will is a power you have, with extremely deep philosophical ramifications as it concerns your relationship to reality, a relationship that if someone doesn't truly understand they will be comparatively extremely weakened in their capacity to make life changes. 

Now how shall we proceed exactly?

Are we going to proceed with you telling me that it wasn't you that had any ability to control your awareness and instead was just some mechanical process?

If this is the case, based on what kind of reasoning? Once you've explained this reasoning I'll work on the epistemic problems of that while first being open minded to a potential alternate view. You have to recall that I believe that the cause and effect materialistic paradigm is a bias of the human brain which is largely a huge flaw in the standard scientific interpretation of reality. If this is what you're standing on and you're not going to entertain the ability to question your assumptions there we won't be able to progress further in this discussion.

Complete the exercises as stated just to give me some hope that I'm not talking to someone that truly believes on a core level they're just a biological robot with automatic programming they're completely unable to transform, change, transmute, etc. 

Thank you, appreciation in advance if you follow suit here.

 

 

You can operate within materialistic paradigm or spiritual paradigm it doesnt matter. Free will doesnt work in any of these paradigms.

Every process wich is happining within a concissness is just happening without any input. The "no input"  is in anotherwords gods will. It happens for no reason. You can say it is in a sence free will but then what happens is that the ego try to take ownership of that. The ego manipulate that notion of no input as justification for free will.

And it doesnt matter if you think within determinism or randomness or anything else. These things are just conceptualizing of the same thing wich is gods will. Determinism and randomness means literaly the same thing. Its only our ignorance wich makes that distiction. And free will works the same, it is a concept wich colapses every time you look deep enough.

You gave me kind of a exersise wich i do all the time, its my passion. I love to look deep into myself and contemplating deeply. But the answers i get are so hard to put into words, i think  i almost reached a limit what i can express through words now. Try to contemplate for yourself what i have said if you want. I think i am done now.

Edited March 11, 2021 by AdamR95

[Origins]

@AdamR95 You are the input.

That is what I am saying. Not your identity. That pure awareness.

Why does God need to be added into this conversation? 

Like I said, just as you have the ability to flexibly move between the elephant and darkness, from whatever state you were in to calmness, this is the same ability that allows you to move from your present views to darkness and then a shift to whatever view you want, that you're being controlled by a vampire from Orions belt in Star Chapter 234 of Galactica 4.

You're doing the same thing with God, its just a different name, different phenomenological experience.

Can you tell me how it is different? Lastly, I am not an atheist, I know it just doesn't serve this conversation at all. 

You have to realise how deeply humans lack open mindedness to truly fathom the utility of entertaining views other than your own. I already have your view in my mind and have entertained it a thousand times in other ways, I just see my view as the one more aligned with truth. The accurate pairing I see between subjectivity and the abstract objective understanding I've generated about reality.

[Someone here]

12 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Of course there is no thinker or doer . . .and thoughts / actions just happen by themselves. This is a major realization and expansion for most minds. Yet if we contract ourselves in this domain, we will limit ourselves from exploring the thinker, doer and that thoughts / actions don’t happen by themselves. 

I agree. But there wasn't enough "evidence" supporting the other view. 

Let's say the brain thinks.. Neuroscience tells us that thoughts are resulting from neurons firing away. Now what causes neurons to fire? Not a soul or a magical you inside the body.. But other external or internal factor. Reality is a closed system of cause and effect. One thing leads to the other. At least that's how I see it specifically in relation to the topic of free will.

If you so do have a counter paradigm.. Go ahead and please tell  where is the doer and how does it create actions and thoughts "freely" and what does "free" even mean etc. 

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Someone here

[AdamR95]

6 minutes ago, Origins said:

Can you tell me how it is different?

Your texts imply that you can manipulate reality throught awarness but the error is that you dont own awarness. Your ego tricks you into thinking that you can use awarness to manipulate reality.

Edited March 11, 2021 by AdamR95

[Origins]

@AdamR95 Who owns it? 

I'm not going to go into a back and fourth with you about God.

Owning has nothing to do with the assessments made other than you affirming further that "well because you don't own it, you don't have free will because that would imply a freedom that being owned does not contain".

Correction sir, I am reality creating (not manipulating) reality, and so are you. That is why we have the powers that we do, invent a higher species and suddenly they have more ability. I am the awareness of reality. It's synonymous to a "god conjecture" but I see no utility in bridging to that communication. 

This is another assumption you've been making throughout this time.

Further, what do you mean by the term ego? People take it to mean so many different things these days.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Origins

[Origins]

@AdamR95 And its CREATING reality not MANIPULATING, that's such a low frequency.

Just had to add in a further comment there even though I put in the edit, for extra effect because such a damn important distinction.

Reality changes itself all the time and you play a part there just like anyone else in changing the circumstances relative to your abilities.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Origins

[Forestluv]

20 minutes ago, Someone here said:

I agree. But there wasn't enough "evidence" supporting the other view. 

Let's say the brain thinks.. Neuroscience tells us that thoughts are resulting from neurons firing away. Now what causes neurons to fire? Not a soul or a magical you inside the body.. But other external or internal factor. Reality is a closed system of cause and effect. One thing leads to the other. At least that's how I see it specifically in relation to the topic of free will.

If you so do have a counter paradigm.. Go ahead and please tell  where is the doer and how does it create actions and thoughts "freely" and what does "free" even mean etc. 

I’m not saying this construct is wrong. I’m saying that this construct is a component within a larger holism. One would need to let go of this component to see other components in the greater whole.

One cannot show a doer within a construct that lacks a doer. One cannot show the illusory nature of cause and effect within a construct of reality with cause and effect. 

I’m not saying any of these constructs are wrong. I’m saying they are each facets on a more expansive diamond. 

[AdamR95]

18 minutes ago, Origins said:

@AdamR95 

Correction sir, I am reality creating (not manipulating) reality, and so are you. That is why we have the powers.

@Origins Do you see it is your ego claming  that he has a power?

As long as you have form you act from an ego and ego is only a puppet of god.

Edited March 11, 2021 by AdamR95

[AdamR95]

@Origins

Now i think we are speaking the same thing only in different words.

But its possible to confuse awerness with an ego. Ego is sneaky and often claimes ownership of an awarness and use it for manipulation.

It looks to me like you still subtely identify with an ego and just dont know it. From the texts you posted here it looks that this is the case. But it could be my projection, i dont know you. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by AdamR95

[Origins]

@AdamR95

33 minutes ago, Origins said:

@AdamR95 Who owns it? 

I'm not going to go into a back and fourth with you about God.

Owning has nothing to do with the assessments made other than you affirming further that "well because you don't own it, you don't have free will because that would imply a freedom that being owned does not contain".

Correction sir, I am reality creating (not manipulating) reality, and so are you. That is why we have the powers that we do, invent a higher species and suddenly they have more ability. I am the awareness of reality. It's synonymous to a "god conjecture" but I see no utility in bridging to that communication. 

This is another assumption you've been making throughout this time.

Further, what do you mean by the term ego? People take it to mean so many different things these days.

As stated.

My only recommendation this time is to again try to see what assumptions you're making here including about myself before proceeding. I see your latest post just now and have cited it accordingly.

Monitor your thoughts, those inclinations to state your beliefs over and over. See if you have the ability to step outside of yourself and just observe what's happening.

Otherwise I'm still waiting for someone in this thread to demonstrate that they have more than a simplistic understanding of the notions they bring up to make their points. 

25 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

I’m not saying this construct is wrong. I’m saying that this construct is a component within a larger holism. One would need to let go of this component to see other components in the greater whole.

One cannot show a doer within a construct that lacks a doer. One cannot show the illusory nature of cause and effect within a construct of reality with cause and effect. 

I’m not saying any of these constructs are wrong. I’m saying they are each facets on a more expansive diamond. 

On cause and effect, you indeed can. It is merely up to the person to have the capacity to see through the illusion after having reflected upon the understanding. You have a model of x, you place pure awareness on x, where's the cause and effect in the pure awareness? Wakey, wakey anyone home?

I'm mentioning this in light of the fact that I've brought up the subject before in my earlier comments.

[Someone here]

37 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

I’m not saying this construct is wrong. I’m saying that this construct is a component within a larger holism. One would need to let go of this component to see other components in the greater whole.

One cannot show a doer within a construct that lacks a doer. One cannot show the illusory nature of cause and effect within a construct of reality with cause and effect. 

I’m not saying any of these constructs are wrong. I’m saying they are each facets on a more expansive diamond. 

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

Of course there is no thinker or doer . . .and thoughts / actions just happen by themselves. This is a major realization and expansion for most minds. Yet if we contract ourselves in this domain, we will limit ourselves from exploring the thinker, doer and that thoughts / actions don’t happen by themselves. 

I see. Thank you. 

[AdamR95]

46 minutes ago, Origins said:

@AdamR95

Monitor your thoughts, those inclinations to state your beliefs over and over. See if you have the ability to step outside of yourself and just observe what's happening.

@Origins That is another topic. I am aware i act from an ego but thats  a nature of engaging in discussions.

 

46 minutes ago, Origins said:

@AdamR95

Otherwise I'm still waiting for someone in this thread to demonstrate that they have more than a simplistic understanding of the notions they bring up to make their points. 

@Origins  if you use "free will" as synonym to "no input" then the free will exist. Is basicaly the same thing i am saying. But i think its missleading to state it that way because it can be easily abused by the ego. Because in my opinion its easier to let go of your ego if you realise that you have no control as an ego.

Edited March 11, 2021 by AdamR95

[Mason Riggle]

It can be recognized that there is no 'doing', only 'being'.  We are confused by language. 

Consider, your organism is growing hair right now, it's making red blood cells, etc.. and so we might say 'I am growing my hair', but notice that this is a mistake of language. 'You' are not 'growing your hair'.. if you were, you could stop, but you can't, because you're not 'doing it'.. growing hair is happening.  The same is true for 'thinking'.. you aren't 'thinking your thoughts'.. thinking is happening.  'Agency' is an illusion we trick ourselves into with language.

There really isn't any 'doing'.. only 'being'.  

We can imagine a volcano erupting, and think about the lava shooting out, and use language to say 'the volcano is spewing lava'.. but is there really a 'volcano' that's 'doing that'?  Show me the 'volcano' that's 'separate' from 'the spewing of lava'.  Is it the rocks? Is it the magma? Is the volcano the heat and pressure? The volcano is something that is 'happening'.. not something that 'does things'.   The same is true for your organism.  It's not 'doing anything' other than 'being how it is'.

Consider, how hard are you trying to 'be you' right now? Well, you're not trying at all. You are you 'effortlessly'. Can you stop 'being you'? You can't, because 'you' aren't 'doing' anything.

It's all 'happening', and no one is 'doing it'. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[AdamR95]

9 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

It can be recognized that there is no 'doing', only 'being'.  We are confused by language. 

Consider, your organism is growing hair right now, it's making red blood cells, etc.. and so we might say 'I am growing my hair', but notice that this is a mistake of language. 'You' are not 'growing your hair'.. if you were, you could stop, but you can't, because you're not 'doing it'.. growing hair is happening.  The same is true for 'thinking'.. you aren't 'thinking your thoughts'.. thinking is happening.  

There really isn't any 'doing'.. only 'being'.  

We can imagine a volcano erupting, and think about the lava shooting out, and use language to say 'the volcano is spewing lava'.. but is there really a 'volcano' that's 'doing that'?  Show me the 'volcano' that's 'separate' from 'the spewing of lava'.  Is it the rocks? Is it the magma? Is the volcano the heat and pressure? The volcano is something that is 'happening'.. not something that 'does things'.   The same is true for your organism.  It's not 'doing anything' other than 'being how it is'.

Consider, how hard are you trying to 'be you' right now? Well, you're not trying at all. You are you 'effortlessly'. Can you stop 'being you'? You can't, because 'you' aren't 'doing' anything.

It's all 'happening', and no one is 'doing it'. 

I 100% agree.

[illbeyourmirror]

@Moksha I like this explanation!

[Moksha]

@illbeyourmirror ? and welcome to the forum

[seriousman24]

3 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

It can be recognized that there is no 'doing', only 'being'.  We are confused by language. 

Consider, your organism is growing hair right now, it's making red blood cells, etc.. and so we might say 'I am growing my hair', but notice that this is a mistake of language. 'You' are not 'growing your hair'.. if you were, you could stop, but you can't, because you're not 'doing it'.. growing hair is happening.  The same is true for 'thinking'.. you aren't 'thinking your thoughts'.. thinking is happening.  'Agency' is an illusion we trick ourselves into with language.

There really isn't any 'doing'.. only 'being'.  

We can imagine a volcano erupting, and think about the lava shooting out, and use language to say 'the volcano is spewing lava'.. but is there really a 'volcano' that's 'doing that'?  Show me the 'volcano' that's 'separate' from 'the spewing of lava'.  Is it the rocks? Is it the magma? Is the volcano the heat and pressure? The volcano is something that is 'happening'.. not something that 'does things'.   The same is true for your organism.  It's not 'doing anything' other than 'being how it is'.

Consider, how hard are you trying to 'be you' right now? Well, you're not trying at all. You are you 'effortlessly'. Can you stop 'being you'? You can't, because 'you' aren't 'doing' anything.

It's all 'happening', and no one is 'doing it'. 

I disagree!

[Mason Riggle]

28 minutes ago, seriousman24 said:

I disagree!

Then simply choose to agree with me. You should be able to, if you're correct and I'm wrong.

[Origins]

@AdamR95 I don't want to have to continue quoting myself, it feels ridiculous. Surely you've now seen that you've overlooked, once again, something important? Aka, define ego from your perspective.

When I ask a question: I mean for it to be answered. It's not just there to derail the conversation.