Free Will Is An Illusion

[LadyMay]

I believe free will and determinism are two sides of the same coin. It makes sense from a nondualistic point of view. Intellectually it's a paradox sure but spiritually it's not.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by ScarlettHayden

I believe free will and determinism are two sides of the same coin. It makes sense from a nondualistic point of view. Intellectually it's a paradox sure but spiritually it's not.

Sounds like no particular view is being expressed, but then 'spiritually' is used as some kind of consolidation of a view.

[LadyMay]

Originally Posted by Gem

Sounds like no particular view is being expressed, but then 'spiritually' is used as some kind of consolidation of a view.

I'm not here to prove my claim. There's no way I actually can in three dimensional language. I was merely expressing my opinion on the matter.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by ScarlettHayden

I'm not here to prove my claim. There's no way I actually can in three dimensional language. I was merely expressing my opinion on the matter.

As opposed to other dimensional languages?

I don't have a view myself, and both sides are interesting even though neither hold much water. It's like a law that when something is catagorised, context dictates opposing views.

[LadyMay]

Originally Posted by Gem

As opposed to other dimensional languages?

I don't have a view myself, and both sides are interesting even though neither hold much water. It's like a law that when something is catagorised, context dictates opposing views.

Yes and no. I've seen you're more logical than the rest here so I'll put it this way: I have spent so many years building up theories on these things in my mind that when a conclusion is reached the entire theory condenses into a readily accessed single image for storage which isn't easily translatable in words. Trying to explain it would mean deconstruction of the entire image which is made up of years of philosophical 'code', if you like. I am naturally philosophically minded and I believe I do it well but if I were to write out why I believe what I do it would probably span an entire thesis. Which for obvious reasons is impracticable unless I'm writing an actual thesis. The information is too large to be so easily decompressed. It takes time.

Saying that I realize these are constructions of my mind and so I can take it with a pinch of salt knowing that they may or may not be reality.. they're just the ones that makes the most sense to me, personally. I think everyone has to find their own truth. Whether there is one truth seen from different angles or whether the truth is subjective in every case has yet to be seen. I'm more inclined to believe the former. But being non-attached to labels and contexts is always a good thing. It enables a wider (and perhaps more realistic) view and the ability to hold multiple theories in hand all at one time without dissonance between any of them.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by ScarlettHayden

Yes and no. I've seen you're more logical than the rest here so I'll put it this way: I have spent so many years building up theories on these things in my mind that when a conclusion is reached the entire theory condenses into a readily accessed single image for storage which isn't easily translatable in words. Trying to explain it would mean deconstruction of the entire image which is made up of years of philosophical 'code', if you like. I am naturally philosophically minded and I believe I do it well but if I were to write out why I believe what I do it would probably span an entire thesis. Which for obvious reasons is impracticable unless I'm writing an actual thesis. The information is too large to be so easily decompressed. It takes time.

Sure, I have a simpler operating system.

Saying that I realize these are constructions of my mind and so I can take it with a pinch of salt knowing that they may or may not be reality.. they're just the ones that makes the most sense to me, personally. I think everyone has to find their own truth. Whether there is one truth seen from different angles or whether the truth is subjective in every case has yet to be seen. I'm more inclined to believe the former. But being non-attached to labels and contexts is always a good thing. It enables a wider (and perhaps more realistic) view and the ability to hold multiple theories in hand all at one time without dissonance of either one.

It's really a thing about how context works, and fundamentally, it reduces to dualistic contrast, and ends in paradox, and that's purely mechanical, and not at all spiritual.

The mistake is that one's experience proves an answer, or even that knowledge consists of answers, so... the experience of choosing is universal, but it doesn't prove that there's free will. There's a whole ton of influences upon any choice, and thus it is determined.

The basic error is supposing that the observation that there is choice implies the existence of free will, but this is also a deeper question. It really asks if there is a self that is author of it's own thoughts, and if so, does that self determine exactly what that thought will be? Other wise do thought merely occur to a self that's a passive observer (or a reactive one)? Or is the self a thought that rises and falls withing consciousness along with other thoughts? And, do all thoughts preexist and are selectively paid attention to, or meandered upon?

That's the end game innit, more questions, and the fallacious supposition that our experences will provide answers to them.

[LadyMay]

Originally Posted by Gem

Sure, I have a simpler operating system.

Lol. It's actually fairly simple inside my mind Mind to mind transfer or some sort of telepathy would do the trick just fine, probably. If that existed. But the thing about paradoxes you wrote below that.. over the years I have come to the conclusion that duality is in fact the cause of paradox and that to see things from a clearer view one has to transcend paradox all together. Something which I have a knack for, more or less. But being able to explain such views is not so easily achieved (due to the dualistic nature of context, as you said).

Experience and knowledge are misleading, you're right. These things are based in the mind and are not accurate. I know that part of becoming more aware is to drop the 'story' which our minds tell us and to just see every moment for how it is instead. Something I am slowly working on. As for free will and determinism in relation to this.. well.. I'll work with what you wrote. You're proposing that life is determined because it has the most probability of happening due to external influences, correct? So it's almost like a backwards approach in that what happened is the only thing that could have ever happened because it did actually happen instead of something else happening. Thus it is (or was) determined.

About the nature of the self.. without thoughts there is no perceived self. So 'self' is merely a cluster of thoughts. If there are no thoughts then there can be no influences, don't you think? An influence requires something to latch itself on to. Without that then there can be no determination of choice because there is no 'probability'.. only infinite possibility. So perhaps free will exists in the unmanifested possibility of everything and nothing. But as soon as there are thoughts and influences its path becomes determined into a manifestation. As soon as there is movement, there is direction, even though the direction is unknown, because the future still exists as a possibility, as its thoughts and influences and appearance hasn't come into manifestation yet. And directing ourselves towards a particular manifestation is perceived as free will, even though when the manifestation has passed it can also be perceived as predeterminded. But this suggests that directing ourselves towards a particular manifestation means we have control over our influences, at least in part. If the influences can't always affect us because we are in the process of creating new ones then does this mean that also we are in control of our thoughts? But how can we be when self is just a bunch of thoughts? Do we have the illusion of control or are we the thoughts creating as we go? We determine our own manifestations perhaps without realizing due to the extensive amount of thoughts a person actually holds. I'm sure a person isn't aware of all their thoughts, but are their thoughts aware of themselves? If their thoughts are aware of themselves then perhaps they are predetermining a persons manifestations which the person believes is their own free choice? But if thoughts are not aware of themselves then.. perhaps a person is just being driven from infinite possibility of free choice into predetermination instead of the other way round? And I think I just lost my train of thought..

You could run around in circles all day like this and never get an answer. I suppose that's true philosophy for you though. Transcending paradox and duality is much easier, imo. Although in this mind probably still liable to the same fallacies of illusion, so it's not really an answer. But maybe that's it- there really is no answer. Just predetermined probabilities and infinite possibilities.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Damian

Free will is an illusion. Here's why. Either determinism is true or it is not. If it is true, then every choice we make could not have been otherwise. If it is not true, then indeterminism is true by default and the only reason why we could have chosen otherwise must ultimately be attributed to pure chance or randomness.

It might sound somewhat paradoxical. But realizing this truth is liberating.

How exactly a that liberating for you?

Originally Posted by elisi

as i said on another thread, 'if you don't believe in free will, you haven't watched a 2 year old.' :)

That's horrid reasoning.

I'd say that determinism is pretty evident, there's not much to argue against it. Even though it's still technically "us" making decisions those decisions are not conscious. My only concern is the ability to be self aware. Our self awareness may allow for a "veto", but even if that is true the "veto" may be deterministic.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by ScarlettHayden

Lol. It's actually fairly simple inside my mind Mind to mind transfer or some sort of telepathy would do the trick just fine, probably. If that existed. But the thing about paradoxes you wrote below that.. over the years I have come to the conclusion that duality is in fact the cause of paradox and that to see things from a clearer view one has to transcend paradox all together. Something which I have a knack for, more or less. But being able to explain such views is not so easily achieved (due to the dualistic nature of context, as you said).

Exactly. Either viewpoint has some evidence but the notion 'free will' is entirely conceptual. Transcending the paradox is simply seeing that 'free will' doesn't exist in that it is an assumption based on the memory of the experience of choosing.

Experience and knowledge are misleading, you're right. These things are based in the mind and are not accurate. I know that part of becoming more aware is to drop the 'story' which our minds tell us and to just see every moment for how it is instead. Something I am slowly working on. As for free will and determinism in relation to this.. well.. I'll work with what you wrote. You're proposing that life is determined because it has the most probability of happening due to external influences, correct? So it's almost like a backwards approach in that what happened is the only thing that could have ever happened because it did actually happen instead of something else happening. Thus it is (or was) determined.

It's more like a minute alteration in initial conditions, that being a person's affect on the environment, produces a butterfly effect that drastically affects outcomes. That outcome is still determined, but the outcome could be any one of millions of possibilities. Maybe the possibility one focuses on the most influences those probabilities.

A simpler thing is, born and therefore die, cause and effect, but when and where and how one dies... that's not easy to predict.

About the nature of the self.. without thoughts there is no perceived self. So 'self' is merely a cluster of thoughts. If there are no thoughts then there can be no influences, don't you think? An influence requires something to latch itself on to. Without that then there can be no determination of choice because there is no 'probability'.. only infinite possibility. So perhaps free will exists in the unmanifested possibility of everything and nothing. But as soon as there are thoughts and influences its path becomes determined into a manifestation. As soon as there is movement, there is direction, even though the direction is unknown, because the future still exists as a possibility, as its thoughts and influences and appearance hasn't come into manifestation yet. And directing ourselves towards a particular manifestation is perceived as free will, even though when the manifestation has passed it can also be perceived as predeterminded. But this suggests that directing ourselves towards a particular manifestation means we have control over our influences, at least in part. If the influences can't always affect us because we are in the process of creating new ones then does this mean that also we are in control of our thoughts? But how can we be when self is just a bunch of thoughts? Do we have the illusion of control or are we the thoughts creating as we go? We determine our own manifestations perhaps without realizing due to the extensive amount of thoughts a person actually holds. I'm sure a person isn't aware of all their thoughts, but are their thoughts aware of themselves? If their thoughts are aware of themselves then perhaps they are predetermining a persons manifestations which the person believes is their own free choice? But if thoughts are not aware of themselves then.. perhaps a person is just being driven from infinite possibility of free choice into predetermination instead of the other way round? And I think I just lost my train of thought..

You could run around in circles all day like this and never get an answer. I suppose that's true philosophy for you though. Transcending paradox and duality is much easier, imo. Although in this mind probably still liable to the same fallacies of illusion, so it's not really an answer. But maybe that's it- there really is no answer. Just predetermined probabilities and infinite possibilities.

There isn't really an answer because the fact that choices are made, and everyone is aware of that, doesn't actually validate the concept of free will.

Free will implies that there is chooser who makes choices, a willful entity apart from thought, but I suggest there is a willing (not willful) entity apart from thought that has no ability to control anything. That brings me back to death, as one really must receive death willingly, not willfully.