Free will - does it exist?

[AdamR95]

7 minutes ago, Origins said:

@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.

@Origins ok. 

I used ego as one "form" or "content" of awareness with no strict definiton. Its not that improtant though. The important thing is it is a content. No content has power over awareness. Strict definition is not needed in this context. When for example vizualization (with or without an ego) is happening to manifest something in reality, this is already content of awarness. The vizualization has no power over situation. The only thing that has power is that nothingness. But i already said that and i think we agreed on that. The disagreement is probably only in words we use.

But i still stand behind the statement that it can be missleading to people saying they have free will, because they are mostly identifying themself with their ego.

[Hulia]

@illbeyourmirror Free will exists! You have free will to stay illusioned about its existence or to see that there is no decision making. In every given moment of time and under given sircumstances there is always only one possible option. But the time is flowing and the circumstances are changing. Flow with it. 

[Mason Riggle]

4 minutes ago, Hulia said:

Flow with it.

'Flowing with it' is always the case. 

Any attempt to change how things are occurring is just more 'how things are occurring'. 
 

[Hanna Luna]

I'd like to understand why we speak on this topic, to begin with. If we have no free will, okay, we have no free will. Why even discuss it? Why talk about it? It's like stating the sky is blue... There isn't anything that can be done to change that, therefore, why bring that up? In the case of discussing free will and its existence, I believe all it behaves as is a waste of time, but maybe that's just my ego trying to keep from coming in contact with death. I kind of wish I could un-know that free will doesn't exist because now I'm just being mind-fucked and I'm struggling to think about anything other than this fact or possibility. 

[Moksha]

8 minutes ago, Hanna Luna said:

I'd like to understand why we speak on this topic, to begin with.

I agree. My first thread on this forum was about free will. The question itself is a trap. It implies individuality. When considered from the ultimate perspective, there is only free will, expressing itself infinitely.

[Mason Riggle]

4 minutes ago, Hanna Luna said:

I'd like to understand why we speak on this topic, to begin with. If we have no free will, okay, we have no free will. Why even discuss it? Why talk about it? It's like stating the sky is blue... There isn't anything that can be done to change that, therefore, why bring that up? 

There are implications to realizing that we have no free will. 

For one, it renders ideas of retribution absurd. When it's realized that no one has free will, it can be understood that people are how they are the way volcanos are how they are. It makes no sense to 'get back at' a volcano for destroying a village.  It's worthwhile to note that pragmatism remains, and we can still behave pragmatically, without acting retributively. 

 

[Mason Riggle]

@Moksha the realization of no free will can be a stepping stone to realizing oneness. 

[Moksha]

1 minute ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Moksha the realization of no free will can be a stepping stone to realizing oneness. 

No free will for the "individual" since the "individual" only exists in relative reality. Ultimately, it is all about Consciousness, expressing itself freely and infinitely.

[Mason Riggle]

@Moksha ?

[Origins]

@AdamR95

5 hours ago, AdamR95 said:

@Origins ok. 

I used ego as one "form" or "content" of awareness with no strict definiton. Its not that improtant though. The important thing is it is a content. No content has power over awareness. Strict definition is not needed in this context. When for example vizualization (with or without an ego) is happening to manifest something in reality, this is already content of awarness. The vizualization has no power over situation. The only thing that has power is that nothingness. But i already said that and i think we agreed on that. The disagreement is probably only in words we use.

But i still stand behind the statement that it can be missleading to people saying they have free will, because they are mostly identifying themself with their ego.

Well you’re from Czech right so I have some leniency there. It’s important to discriminate clearly about mental content, you shouldn’t make the assumption that all mental content is isomorphic nor isomorphic with ego especially when it hasn’t been clearly identified in our conversation yet. It just seems to me that you’re running from logical connection to logical connection rather than actually thinking deeply about the thoughts you’re producing. You’re intrinsically linked to the rest of reality because you are reality, so you shouldn’t make the assumption that somehow all your thoughts are just ego and don’t affect reality in some way. You have an energetic field, which gets created inside the thoughts and feelings you experience along with other consciousness states. For you to impose the idea that this is “all just ego” is quite frankly ridiculous. All you seem to know about visualisation is that you have an image in your head and maybe a desire and those two just equal ego and that’s that. This is an incredibly shallow understanding without a concrete intelligent view on what ego actually constitutes.

But as it concerns “the majority of people”, I wouldn’t know but I could assume as much because we do have a lot of misguided people on the planet.

[PureRogueQ]

1 hour ago, Hanna Luna said:

I'd like to understand why we speak on this topic, to begin with. If we have no free will, okay, we have no free will. Why even discuss it? Why talk about it? It's like stating the sky is blue... There isn't anything that can be done to change that, therefore, why bring that up? In the case of discussing free will and its existence, I believe all it behaves as is a waste of time, but maybe that's just my ego trying to keep from coming in contact with death. I kind of wish I could un-know that free will doesn't exist because now I'm just being mind-fucked and I'm struggling to think about anything other than this fact or possibility. 

You are smarter that everyone else here!

The asking wrong questions, instead of trying to prove free will they trying to prove that there are no free will and that them proving or not proving something is already predetermined anyway. Idk what someone can acquire from debating this and even worse  if he actually believes in it. 

There can be many theories  of how free will is manifested, you have not actually questioned anything, you just see one thing and think you are done. 

 

 

[AdamR95]

9 hours ago, Hanna Luna said:

I'd like to understand why we speak on this topic, to begin with. If we have no free will, okay, we have no free will. Why even discuss it? Why talk about it? It's like stating the sky is blue... There isn't anything that can be done to change that, therefore, why bring that up? In the case of discussing free will and its existence, I believe all it behaves as is a waste of time, but maybe that's just my ego trying to keep from coming in contact with death. I kind of wish I could un-know that free will doesn't exist because now I'm just being mind-fucked and I'm struggling to think about anything other than this fact or possibility. 

@Hanna Luna @PureRogueQ Maybe because its fun?  At least i do it because of that :)

[AdamR95]

7 hours ago, Origins said:

@AdamR95

Well you’re from Czech right so I have some leniency there. It’s important to discriminate clearly about mental content, you shouldn’t make the assumption that all mental content is isomorphic nor isomorphic with ego especially when it hasn’t been clearly identified in our conversation yet. It just seems to me that you’re running from logical connection to logical connection rather than actually thinking deeply about the thoughts you’re producing. You’re intrinsically linked to the rest of reality because you are reality, so you shouldn’t make the assumption that somehow all your thoughts are just ego and don’t affect reality in some way. You have an energetic field, which gets created inside the thoughts and feelings you experience along with other consciousness states. For you to impose the idea that this is “all just ego” is quite frankly ridiculous. All you seem to know about visualisation is that you have an image in your head and maybe a desire and those two just equal ego and that’s that. This is an incredibly shallow understanding without a concrete intelligent view on what ego actually constitutes.

But as it concerns “the majority of people”, I wouldn’t know but I could assume as much because we do have a lot of misguided people on the planet.

@Origins It doesnt matter if its ego or not. Its content, it doesnt matter if you call it energetic field  or something else its still the same thing.

You are making assumption about me all the time too. You assume that i am only logical. Yeah i am very logical but logic is not only tool i use. I am using all tools i know are available. I am open to spiritual stuff like energetic fields etc. But realise its still dualistic thinking. There is only one thing wich is in control and this thing is "nothing" or "god" or "Absolute". Maybe you cant get over the fact that every attempt to gain free wil is dualistic thinking. From god perspective Free will doesnt even make sence. It demolishes your pet theories wich can have some truth in it, but cant give you free will. I can fantasize about all sorts of spiritual stuff too but i am aware of the fact that it is dualistic.

I try to understand your point, but it seems to me like you are stuck in content. This is what it looks like from my perspective, i can be wrong.

 

[AdamR95]

@Origins 

Maybe you are not operating here within nondualistic paradigm and i can understand that. If that is the case then we are operation from completely different epistemic foundations and we will keep disagreeing with each other.

If i assume that reality isnt nondual then free will can make sence but it goes against everything i experience in my life. It isnt aligned with truth from my experiences.

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by AdamR95

[Someone here]

10 hours ago, Hanna Luna said:

I'd like to understand why we speak on this topic, to begin with. If we have no free will, okay, we have no free will. Why even  discuss it? 

 

Because we have no free will 

[Mason Riggle]

14 hours ago, Hanna Luna said:

 It's like stating the sky is blue... There isn't anything that can be done to change that, therefore, why bring that up?

What if the sky wasn't blue, though, but you thought it was, or it was blue and you thought it wasn't?   Would it be worth bringing up the color of the sky then?  
 

 

14 hours ago, Moksha said:

I agree [with Hanna]. My first thread on this forum was about free will. The question itself is a trap. It implies individuality.

 

I always find these types of comments here rather silly.  @Moksha begins the comment 'I agree', and then continues to comment as if the 'I' who agrees isn't already in 'the trap' of implied individuality.

'I' implies individuality. 

'My first thread..' implies individuality. 

As long as it seems there is a 'me' who is writing this comment, and a you who is reading it, 'we' are already in the trap.  

We could ask, 'why bring anything up?'.  @Leo Gura might answer this way: 'Why don't you tell me?' (since there's only you.)  The answer to 'why anything?' (why is there suffering?, why do I pee so often?, why are there sheep?) will always be, 'because You (big You) want to'. 
 

14 hours ago, Moksha said:

Ultimately, it is all about Consciousness, expressing itself freely and infinitely.

And from this 'ultimate perspective', this is exactly what's always occurring. When someone asks about 'free will' on a forum, and a conversation about it begins, that's 'Consciousness, expressing itself freely and infinitely.'   When you are confused about this idea of 'Consciousness, expressing itself freely and infinitely', that's Consciousness, expressing itself freely and infinitely.  When you understand it, that's Consciousness, expressing itself freely and infinitely.  When I say something you don't agree with, that's Consciousness, expressing itself freely and infinitely. If I'm looking at a Sunset, that's Consciousness, expressing itself freely and infinitely. When I'm experiencing (reading or writing) this comment right now, that's Consciousness, expressing itself freely and infinitely.  

If you understand this, then it's rather silly to ask, 'why bring anything up?', because you must know the answer. 

It's like dreaming that you are asking someone in your dream, 'why are you dressed like that?'. If you know you're just dreaming, then you know the answer (because I'm dreaming you to be dressed like that).. but if you are explaining to the character in you dream that they are just a character in your dream, and wondering why they would ask such a silly question... then you are lost in the dream. 

 

[PureRogueQ]

4 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

What if the sky wasn't blue, though, but you thought it was, or it was blue and you thought it wasn't?   Would it be worth bringing up the color of the sky then?  
 

 

I always find these types of comments here rather silly.  @Moksha begins the comment 'I agree', and then continues to comment as if the 'I' who agrees isn't already in 'the trap' of implied individuality.

'I' implies individuality. 

'My first thread..' implies individuality. 

As long as it seems there is a 'me' who is writing this comment, and a you who is reading it, 'we' are already in the trap.  

We could ask, 'why bring anything up?'.  @Leo Gura might answer this way: 'Why don't you tell me?' (since there's only you.)  The answer to 'why anything?' (why is there suffering?, why do I pee so often?, why are there sheep?) will always be, 'because You (big You) want to'. 
 

And from this 'ultimate perspective', this is exactly what's always occurring. When someone asks about 'free will' on a forum, and a conversation about it begins, that's 'Consciousness, expressing itself freely and infinitely.'   When you are confused about this idea of 'Consciousness, expressing itself freely and infinitely', that's Consciousness, expressing itself freely and infinitely.  When you understand it, that's Consciousness, expressing itself freely and infinitely.  When I say something you don't agree with, that's Consciousness, expressing itself freely and infinitely. If I'm looking at a Sunset, that's Consciousness, expressing itself freely and infinitely. When I'm experiencing (reading or writing) this comment right now, that's Consciousness, expressing itself freely and infinitely.  

If you understand this, then it's rather silly to ask, 'why bring anything up?', because you must know the answer. 

It's like dreaming that you are asking someone in your dream, 'why are you dressed like that?'. If you know you're just dreaming, then you know the answer (because I'm dreaming you to be dressed like that).. but if you are explaining to the character in you dream that they are just a character in your dream, and wondering why they would ask such a silly question... then you are lost in the dream. 

 

And why are you dreaming this up , your comment sound just as silly as your logic. LOGIC!!!

Edited March 12, 2021 by PureRogueQ

[Mason Riggle]

@PureRogueQ obviously it's because I want to. THIS is exactly what Consciousness, expressing itself freely and infinitely looks like. 

[PureRogueQ]

1 minute ago, Mason Riggle said:

@PureRogueQ obviously it's because I want to. THIS is exactly what Consciousness, expressing itself freely and infinitely looks like. 

And how do you know it, that it is what it wants? 

Edited March 12, 2021 by PureRogueQ

[Mason Riggle]

@PureRogueQ because it's happening.