this goes back to the neurological origin of rational decision making...the prefrontal cortex. a flower does not have it. in fact, no other organism aside from h. sapiens has it.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Stephen Hawking claims a belief of heaven or an after life is a "fairy story"
- Thread starter Dreamwalker
- Start date
Saiden said:
I agree and yet, whether we are utilizing reason or intuitive insight to arrive at this ideological plateau, we are NEVER able to know if what we perceive is founded in 'delusion' or 'truth'. This is the basic measuring rod of philosophy. Still, what you suggest implies that in a conscious effort to be aware of the present moment, the now, and exist without the fixation of our accumulation of subjective conditioning. such a conception by which the freedom to make a way beyond illusion is not only a possibility... it is a reality. Yes? For some it seems so but every hypothesis has it's adherents and every perspective is equally rooted in myriad possibilities. :idea:
I too, have found that when we are drawn into a still, clear focus, we do awaken to a new horizon line. So, are we are indeed able to have spontaneous awareness? I believe so but I cannot prove it to anyone but myself (and I could well be mistaken). I have come to believe that we are assuredly able to come into such inspired moments of no mind. So how does this headset effect the inevitable laws of the universe? I suggest that the opposite is true.
As you imply, an empty mind and an open heart are in accordance with said laws. There is much freedom in the infinite present. IMO, this eternal moment DOES allow for genuine choices to be made, purely on the level of soul-existentialism. Still this remains within the parameters of either our individual personal choice or the natural effect of the logical unfolding of quantum mechanics, within the parameters of probability.
OK... so what's the difference between what you offer and the supposedly opposite perspective? Perhaps it is that such knowledge which offers the option to embrace the transcendental immersion, is born from the cessation of habitual modality and thought process. And yeah, we are not able to prove nor can any evidence be presented to those who do not have the "Oneness" experience. It's always been this way. So should we curl up into a small dried-up ball and shut our mouths, and in so doing, let the pragmatists squash any possibility of the concept of spiritual freedom into dust? I am not that susceptible to such an overt agenda, neither are you. Kudos Brother (or Sister). I suspect that many of our fellowship also accept the possibility of rebirth and a new, open perspective.
gibran2 said:
Sure, with or without the idea of free will or the chance at making decisions based on anything else but cold, hard, mechanical process... we all face the moment of physical death; self extinction and all that goes with it. In this way we are united in our mortality. Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche used to coin a phrase, "spiritual materialism" (this Tibetan Buddhist poet/drunkard/priest/philosopher was the spiritual patriarch of the Naropa Institute, in Boulder, Colorado). This concept suggests that to enshrine the level of no mind is just as entrapping as to enshrine empirical reason.
We are at best, speculative entities. We struggle with the limited spectrum of data which our 5 senses and our 6th sense, intuition, can grasp. Obviously, this is a tiny fraction of the whole. So given these relative fragments of universal consciousness, how is it that the indomitable will of inquiry rises within human kind without gap? Yes, it is assuredly ego, this spiritual materialism. No argument there.
Yes, it is flawed in it's depth of understanding, for it is culled by the reception of a relative nature. What individualized ideology isn't? And... I am in total agreement, there is little difference between the extreme polarities in perceptual philosophy, as they are all incomplete references. In an honest and most direct response to you friendly challenge, I suspect that at the moment of death, whichever stance we have about any of these philosophical gymnastics, would be quite moot... in the face of Infinity. :shock:
benzime said:
Hmmm... well, a flower does not need it. We, however, cannot escape it. We humanoids fall somewhere between instinct, reason and self-effacing inquiry, for we are a unique beast.
endlessness said:
It would seem that we are at a point in this heady discussion, where we continue to split hairs ad infinitum. Now if we behave ourselves and refrain from antagonism... this kind of dynamic tension may well open a fusion of sorts? I may be naive but I am hopeful we can join our intelligence into a greater knowledge. I might be mutually beneficial to do so with dignity and some loving intentions? After all, if it's not child's play... it's often times sublimated warfare. Might we joyfully pass the peace pipe around the circle? We who share the flight of the psychonaut. Or is this too fluffy for consideration? Whatever the case, I honor the light within you all. Ain't we got fun? Or would that be yet another philosophical debate? :lol:
Peace. love & light
Dark Matter
Rising Star
Saidin said:
But the path leading you to the knowledge of these factor are a part of the cause, and therefore, the choices you make to apply changes upon yourself are consequential. Also, I doubt that you, or anyone else for that matter, can truly seize the whole chaos of interlinked possibilities that led to your present state of mind. Of course in the "now" you are free of external influences. If you can truly be entirely in the now, that is...but that would mean separating oneself from all external stimuli and being unnable to act. As Gibran said, I doubt there is any will in that state. As soon as you would accept outside interference again you would be back to a state where memory, physical needs and other stimuli are causes of actions.
Saidin said:
Are you telling me that you can have control over your physical body entirely?
Don't you see that our experiential NEEDS are part of that process of causes and effects?
I will agree with you that you can create new versions of yourself anytime you choose, but I would say that you would choose in a way that depends on some pre-determined factors and previous events.
The Logical:
Either something causes a choice to be made, in which case the choice isn’t free, or nothing causes the choice to be made, in which case the choice isn’t free. This is a logical tautology and is always true.
Other than the logical arguments that prove free will is a contradiction (if free will is defined in a way that relates it to choice), I find the concept objectionable on the grounds I mentioned in my previous post.
The Spiritual:
Everything we think and everything we do is always in perfect accordance with the “eternal unfolding” because we are a part of it. It’s not possible to do otherwise. Even our current conversation is a part of this. How could it be otherwise?
And to suggest otherwise is to deny that one is a part of the “eternal unfolding” – to cling to the illusion of individuality and opposition.
The Scientific:
@ benzyme – if you acknowledge that free will is a product of human neurological activity, and if you can accept the possibility that, in theory, it is possible to precisely emulate human neurological activity in a computer, then you must accept that, at least in theory, it is possible to design a machine that has free will.
The Semantic:
Of course, whether or not free will exists depends on how we define free will. The onus of definition and proof is not on those who claim something doesn’t exist, but rather on those who claim it does. I have yet to see a definition from those who believe free will is a valid concept.
Either something causes a choice to be made, in which case the choice isn’t free, or nothing causes the choice to be made, in which case the choice isn’t free. This is a logical tautology and is always true.
Other than the logical arguments that prove free will is a contradiction (if free will is defined in a way that relates it to choice), I find the concept objectionable on the grounds I mentioned in my previous post.
The Spiritual:
Everything we think and everything we do is always in perfect accordance with the “eternal unfolding” because we are a part of it. It’s not possible to do otherwise. Even our current conversation is a part of this. How could it be otherwise?
And to suggest otherwise is to deny that one is a part of the “eternal unfolding” – to cling to the illusion of individuality and opposition.
The Scientific:
@ benzyme – if you acknowledge that free will is a product of human neurological activity, and if you can accept the possibility that, in theory, it is possible to precisely emulate human neurological activity in a computer, then you must accept that, at least in theory, it is possible to design a machine that has free will.
The Semantic:
Of course, whether or not free will exists depends on how we define free will. The onus of definition and proof is not on those who claim something doesn’t exist, but rather on those who claim it does. I have yet to see a definition from those who believe free will is a valid concept.
The timing of a radioactive decay event is not predictable, but we can be assured it will happen at some time in the future based on the quantum mechanical state of the nucleus... that sounds like determinism to me. Can you come up with any other example of a "lawful" but non-deterministic system?gibran2 said:
I'm trying to understand how you can deny an exclusive link between the absence of free will and determinism by using a non-deterministic system as an example. Presumably you are trying to run a LEM (Law of the Excluded Middle) type argument by showing that both deterministic and non-deterministic systems can be lawful and since lawfulness is cause->effect everything we do (the effect) has a cause and is therefore deterministic. But that can't be true because a non-deterministic system is not, by definition, deterministic.
AFAICT, it goes back to your statement that:
which was then repeated...
...so I assume the second "isn't" wasn't a typo...
I don't believe that is a tautology. You are simply stating that: A->B or ~A->B, but it is not at all clear that the truth value of ~A->B is true (which is what would be required for it to be a tautology). Even if you were to reword the statement so that: (A->B) or ~(A->B), which would create a tautology, it is trivial and you would need to do something with it (e.g., run an argument showing that both cases give the same result). The question you need to answer to fix the logical problem is:
If a choice is made without cause, how is that not a choice freely made?
Tsehakla said:
That's not determinism. It's a random event occurring at a certain probability. That is DEFINITELY settled regarding quantum mechanics. As far as I know, quantum events are the only true "random" events that occur in nature (or the lab). Of course, you can CALL things random, like coin tosses, but the outcome is precisely determined by the conditions of the toss. As far as anyone knows, there is no "determinate cause" that makes a nucleus spontaneously decay. It can only be said that some nuclei are more likely to decay within a certain time period than other nuclei.
Actually, there is a determinate cause--an imbalance between the strong nuclear force (attractive) and the electrostatic force (repulsive) between protons, also, any nucleus with more than 83 protons is unstable. If radioactivity was a truly random event it should happen with all nuclei, as it is though, it doesn't, and the only thing random about it is the timing.SWIMfriend said:
Excellent thread thats giving the brain cells a good work-out:lol:
I think Gibran2 makes some excellent points.Free will, or the concept of free will, is invariably subject to certain realities by which it is constrained, hence making this freedom less than absolute.Better minds than mine here at the Nexus Im sure can explain the physics of gravity, but this seems to be a clear example of a limiter of free will.
I believe we have 'free' will to make intentions only; IMO, the intention takes precedence over the exercise of this limited 'ability to will'.What is the source of this intention?That is a key question I think.
What exists does so because it is in accord with whatever 'laws' govern the whole.IMO, which is theistic, true Free Will is an attribute of the 'Highest Power' and we are subservient to this.
I imagine it all as being akin to a river; the surface may have eddies and turbulence but the actual direction of flow below the surface is unidirectional, leading ultimately to the sea inspite of the appearance on the surface of randomness and I suppose a degree of chaos.
I think Gibran2 makes some excellent points.Free will, or the concept of free will, is invariably subject to certain realities by which it is constrained, hence making this freedom less than absolute.Better minds than mine here at the Nexus Im sure can explain the physics of gravity, but this seems to be a clear example of a limiter of free will.
I believe we have 'free' will to make intentions only; IMO, the intention takes precedence over the exercise of this limited 'ability to will'.What is the source of this intention?That is a key question I think.
What exists does so because it is in accord with whatever 'laws' govern the whole.IMO, which is theistic, true Free Will is an attribute of the 'Highest Power' and we are subservient to this.
I imagine it all as being akin to a river; the surface may have eddies and turbulence but the actual direction of flow below the surface is unidirectional, leading ultimately to the sea inspite of the appearance on the surface of randomness and I suppose a degree of chaos.
benzyme said:
I understand what you're saying. We have decision-making capabilities, and we make our decisions freely and willingly... but to me that does not constitute "free will".
I'm pretty much of a mind with gibran on the issue of free will. Whether our universe is one of determinism, quantum indeterminism, or some other unidentified principle is not terribly relevant. If you accept that decision-making processes have a neuronal basis, and you accept that neuronal activity is constrained by the laws of physics, then "free will" seems to go out the window. Of course we all still make decisions, exercise our volition, etc... and it feels as though that we are free to act upon our individual will. But all of our decision-making and action has its root in the physics of our neurons, which have their root in the physics of their previous activities and the environment (input) to which we have been exposed.
Does this absence of true free will rob us of our responsibility? I would say no. We can still consider the consequences of our possible actions and choose among them accordingly. Just because our consideration of the consequences as well as the actions themselves are determined by physical laws (and it is important to note that this is the case under both deterministic and indeterministic paradigms) is of little importance. It may add a layer to moral considerations in the realm of how to best punish or reform detrimental behavior (murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc.), but it doesn't truly rob us of our individuality or our volition.
But I think the disagreement between you and gibran (and DarkMatter) is more a question of definition (as disagreements so often are). You see that we have volition, and regard this as free will; they see that our volition has its roots in the physics of the system (reality in general, and the brain/CNS in particular) and regard this as a negation of free will. Both perspectives are correct, but rely on different definitions of free will.
Entropymancer said:
"Responsibility" is a social construct. As such, it's just another "input." People having to take "responsibility" serves as an input that should (if things work as they're intended) cause the "responsibility" to be effective in making the person conform to the desired activities. Just because there really is no "free will" doesn't mean it's useless to hold people "responsible" because, as I said, the "responsibility" just serves as an input to get them to do what's desired (not trying to imply that you're saying anything different--just want to clarify).
Free will can be had if one accepts that the mind and brain are seperate.
When a person learns to watch his thoughts via meditation it becomes apparent that the brains job is to continiously serve up new ideas. There is also a witness that is distinct from the brain.... When one acts from this witness it is free will. When one acts based on habit then they are just following the neural cascade and are not thinking freely even though they may think so. Most of us are freely tossed around by habit ,but all of us have experienced times of incredible lucidness where we have acted from the witness with free will.
Btw to aknowledge the awesomeness of creation and deny that the ceator could give free will is a pretty bold statement to make...
When a person learns to watch his thoughts via meditation it becomes apparent that the brains job is to continiously serve up new ideas. There is also a witness that is distinct from the brain.... When one acts from this witness it is free will. When one acts based on habit then they are just following the neural cascade and are not thinking freely even though they may think so. Most of us are freely tossed around by habit ,but all of us have experienced times of incredible lucidness where we have acted from the witness with free will.
Btw to aknowledge the awesomeness of creation and deny that the ceator could give free will is a pretty bold statement to make...
If we accept your conclusion that quantum indeterminacy is in fact a form of determinism (contrary to what every physicist tells us), then that just makes it easier to show that there is no free will. If we accept your conclusion, then the universe is deterministic and free will is an illusion. Easy!Tsehakla said:
The “in which case the choice isn’t free” clauses are my conclusions, but not part of the tautology. The tautology could be written more explicitly as “Either something causes a choice to be made, or nothing causes the choice to be made.”
The only example of “nothing” causing a choice to be made is a choice made at random. I do not consider a choice made at random (quantum random, not coin-flip random) to be a free choice. I suppose you could define it that way, but why? Why equate freedom with randomness?
I accept that the mind and brain are separate, yet this doesn’t sway my understanding that there is no free will. Not only doesn’t the creator give free will, the creator (regardless of how we define the creator) doesn’t have free will either. Even the creator can’t have something that can’t possibly exist.joedirt said:
If the mind or consciousness is separate from the body – separate from the physical realm – then it must “occupy” some other realm. Let’s call it “the realm of consciousness”. The realm of consciousness is a non-physical realm, so physical laws as we understand them do not apply.
I. If the realm of consciousness is a “realm of being”, where volition is not possible, then there is obviously no free will in such a realm.
II. If the realm of consciousness is a “realm of doing”, then there are two possibilities:
... A. Cause is not bound to effect, in which case there can be no free will. (For free will to exist, desire must be bound to that which is desired.)
... B. Cause is bound to effect. If cause is bound to effect, then the realm is lawful. One cannot choose which causes are bound to which effects. Every choice is the effect of some bound cause. There is no choice that doesn’t have a cause, so there can’t be free will.
gibran2 said:
Very bold assertions with nothing backing them. You speak as they you know these words to be truth, but in reality you are little more than a character in a video game making postulations about the nature of the world inhabited by the video game creator. You, nor I, nor anyone else can make any statement about a reality we can't even prove exists. How can you claim there is no free will for a mind that inhabits a world that you can't directly observe? Have can you make statements about the nauture of god and his free will or lack there of? Have you met god?
Seems to me your are trying to force unverified realities into the limits of the reality you currently exsist in. Seems much more prudent to me to make the most honest statement a person can make. You don't know. I don't know. Benzyme doesn't know...and likewise non of us actually knows.
The assertions are logical assertions, and we can make certain kinds of statements about realities we know nothing about.joedirt said:
If we define a mathematical system where 1 + 1 = 2, then it doesn’t matter where we are – by definition 1 + 1 = 2 everywhere.
A logical tautology, by definition, is always true. It’s true here on Earth, it’s true out in space, it’s true in any and all immaterial realms. So when I say “either something causes a choice to be made, or nothing causes the choice to be made”, I’m expressing a logical tautology. It’s true everywhere.
Keep in mind that a tautology doesn’t contain any “knowledge”. The statement “either X is true OR ~X is true” makes no claim regarding the truthfulness of “X” or “not X”. It simply says that, logically, one of the statements must be true.
So I’m not claiming to know if choices have causes or not in other unknown realms. But IF choices can be made in another realm, then it is true that “either something causes a choice to be made, or nothing causes the choice to be made”.
gibran2 said:
So you can't admit that you don't know? You keep trying to force rules from this reality on other realities. Math may very well not be the same. Physical laws may be different. Nothing that you say, think, or even prove is likely to be relevant in a world that is by definition beyond this world of physical reality. Of course I'm now applying definitions to something i also can't prove exists.
Tell me this. Are you so sure of your beliefs that you would like to see it taught as fact in a school text book?
Logic is already taught in school.joedirt said:
As I’ve said, a tautology is a tautology by definition, and a tautology is always true everywhere. If it isn’t true sometimes, or isn’t true in some places, then, by definition, it isn’t a tautology. Let’s make a tautological statement relevant to the original topic of the thread:
“Either an afterlife as envisioned by Christian Fundamentalists exists, or an afterlife as envisioned by Christian Fundamentalists does not exist.”
The above statement is true, and it makes no claims about the existence or non-existence of an afterlife. So even though we don’t know and can’t prove if an afterlife exists, we can make true statements that refer to an afterlife.
Having said all of that, the following statement is always true everywhere where choices can be made:
“Either something causes a choice to be made, or nothing causes the choice to be made.”
Do you disagree with the statement?
Do you find it unusual that I can claim with certainty that it’s true?
Do I claim to know whether or not choices have causes?
Yes, but you are trying to use logic to prove that free will can't exist in any dimension, in any reality, in any way, shape or form...Hell you even said it's logically impossible that God, If there is one, could have free will. Stop banging your head against the wall. You don't know and you can't know. Just admit it.
gibran2 said:
Prove that without invoking any sort of circular argument.
Yes it does. Can you start using a number system based on quaternions for everything? No. Is it possible that 1+1!=2 in a different dimension...I say yes, you say no. Prove it...and no you can't push it back on me to prove. You are the one asserting that with your lack of free will you have determined the rules of engagement for all dimensions and realities. Not trying to be harsh just trying to shed a larger light on the conversation. BTW I can prove that a system of quaternions can't be used to describe everything, but as it turns out they are far better at describing some phenomena then the decimal system.
Prove that? No don't link me to the wiki...I know what it say's. Prove that a tautology can even exist....without a circular argument? If you try and extend the definition of tautology beyond this reality then the concept of a tautology may very well be meaningless...and unless you can prove that it holds in other dimensions then you have to allow for the possibility that the tautological statement is neither wrong nor right, but irrelevant.
Then by your own admission a tautology has no use what-so-ever. From the wiki on tautologoy: "Tautology (logic), a technical notion in formal logic, universal unconditioned truth, always valid." Show me any tautology that is in existence and then show me the mathematical proof behind said tautology....and even if you do my response will be that you can't prove that your system of math is relevant in another dimension. All I'm aiming for here is for you to openly admit that you don't know. I think this conversation, all 12 pages of it, would have gone differently if from the outset everyone admitted that they don't know the answer....myself included. It's ok to have theories and hypothesis, but some of your arguments have come across sorta matter-of-factly...even if that wasn't your intention.
So based on this last statement you have essentially admitted what I was looking for. Free will could exist, but it could also not exist. We, meaning, you, me, SwinfFRIEND, Rising Spirt, Benzyme, etc, etc, don't have enough data to make a definitive statement one way or the other and this is one of the reasons this is still the most hotly debated issue in logic.
BTW I'm not attacking you. Just trying to get everyone to step back and be honest with themselves. None of us know the answers to these questions. Not hawking, not me, and not you.
@ joedirt – Rather than quote a huge block of text, I’ll respond to some of your comments directly.
You say that somewhere else, 1 + 1 = 2 might be false. That’s true only if we define “1” and/or “+” and/or “=” and/or “2” differently somewhere else. If the definitions of all the terms remain the same, then the statement remains true. If the definitions are changed, then it isn’t the same statement. For example, in binary 1 + 1 = 10, but “10” in binary is not defined in the same way as “10” in base10.
The game of chess has explicitly defined rules. If we change the rules, then we can’t call the game chess. If it’s possible to “play chess in hyperspace”, then the rules of chess are exactly the same “there” as they are here. If the rules are different, then the game isn’t chess.
A tautology is always true because it encompasses the totality of possibility: all that is and all that isn’t (a ˅ ~a). As you said, a tautology by itself has little use, but if we examine the components of a tautology, we can often learn something.
The tautology “either something causes a choice to be made, or nothing causes the choice to be made” by itself says nothing other than “true”. But let’s break it down:
Either:
A. Something causes a choice to be made. If this is true (and we don’t know if it is), then free will is not possible because all choices have causes.
OR
B. Nothing causes a choice to be made. If this is true (and we don’t know if it is), then choices don’t have causes, which means you can’t claim that you caused the choice, which means free will is not possible.
We don’t know which case is true, but we know one of them is true. And as you can see, it doesn’t matter which one is true – free will is not possible in either case. The tautology encompasses all that is possible, so there are no other cases to consider. Free will cannot exist. It is a logical impossibility.
Here are a few beliefs and over-generalizations:
I find it surprising that people who have had deep DMT experiences – who have become one with the unity of all, who have merged with the Godhead – can still cling to a belief in free will. Free will is tightly associated with individuality. There are people who acknowledge that individuality is an illusion – who find it easy to let go of the idea of self, yet find it so hard to let go of the illusion of free will. I believe that it isn’t possible to let go of the illusion of self without also letting go of the illusion of free will.
As I’ve said before, I believe that creation is an eternal “unfolding”, proceeding precisely as it must. I see this mindless, selfless unfolding as incredibly beautiful. And to realize that I’m a part of it all fills me with… love and gratitude. Every aspect of “self” is a part of the eternal unfolding: my thoughts, my feelings, my history, my present, and my future are all a part of the unfolding. There is no part of “me” that isn’t a part of the eternal.
To believe in free will is to believe that one is separate from and outside of the eternal unfolding. To believe in free will is to believe that one would want to behave in a way that is contrary to the eternal unfolding.
You say that somewhere else, 1 + 1 = 2 might be false. That’s true only if we define “1” and/or “+” and/or “=” and/or “2” differently somewhere else. If the definitions of all the terms remain the same, then the statement remains true. If the definitions are changed, then it isn’t the same statement. For example, in binary 1 + 1 = 10, but “10” in binary is not defined in the same way as “10” in base10.
The game of chess has explicitly defined rules. If we change the rules, then we can’t call the game chess. If it’s possible to “play chess in hyperspace”, then the rules of chess are exactly the same “there” as they are here. If the rules are different, then the game isn’t chess.
A tautology is always true because it encompasses the totality of possibility: all that is and all that isn’t (a ˅ ~a). As you said, a tautology by itself has little use, but if we examine the components of a tautology, we can often learn something.
The tautology “either something causes a choice to be made, or nothing causes the choice to be made” by itself says nothing other than “true”. But let’s break it down:
Either:
A. Something causes a choice to be made. If this is true (and we don’t know if it is), then free will is not possible because all choices have causes.
OR
B. Nothing causes a choice to be made. If this is true (and we don’t know if it is), then choices don’t have causes, which means you can’t claim that you caused the choice, which means free will is not possible.
We don’t know which case is true, but we know one of them is true. And as you can see, it doesn’t matter which one is true – free will is not possible in either case. The tautology encompasses all that is possible, so there are no other cases to consider. Free will cannot exist. It is a logical impossibility.
Here are a few beliefs and over-generalizations:
I find it surprising that people who have had deep DMT experiences – who have become one with the unity of all, who have merged with the Godhead – can still cling to a belief in free will. Free will is tightly associated with individuality. There are people who acknowledge that individuality is an illusion – who find it easy to let go of the idea of self, yet find it so hard to let go of the illusion of free will. I believe that it isn’t possible to let go of the illusion of self without also letting go of the illusion of free will.
As I’ve said before, I believe that creation is an eternal “unfolding”, proceeding precisely as it must. I see this mindless, selfless unfolding as incredibly beautiful. And to realize that I’m a part of it all fills me with… love and gratitude. Every aspect of “self” is a part of the eternal unfolding: my thoughts, my feelings, my history, my present, and my future are all a part of the unfolding. There is no part of “me” that isn’t a part of the eternal.
To believe in free will is to believe that one is separate from and outside of the eternal unfolding. To believe in free will is to believe that one would want to behave in a way that is contrary to the eternal unfolding.