The origin of your will is beyond your body

[embracethevoid]

There often seems to be this raging debate. Lots of XOR dilemmas, false ones at that. What came first: qualia OR neurotransmitters? Do we have free will OR are we deterministic robots? Is there spirit OR is life inherently meaningless?


But let's consider that your consciousness is emergent from the brain. Does this matter? I say it doesn't. You almost got hit by a car. The resultant fear and shock correlates with a surge in adrenaline & cortisol levels. What came first?

The answer is neither. The big bang singularity came first.

Therefore in considering the essence of our free will it is futile to entertain the notion of the human brain as an independent causative agent. Doing so runs into egoic separation and creates paradoxes of identity, paradoxes of God, paradoxes of mind and many other similar illusions.


If we consider this existence and all happenings occuring in a given volume of space as a sequence of discrete events that lead to each other i.e. cause & effect then the only logical origin for all phenomena including "my will", "my spirit", "my consciousness" is inherently the big bang singularity itself, the first cause.


Then Theseus's ship paradox dissolves. It is observed that there can be no distinct identities, just the singular all-encompassing identity of This. You cannot step into the same river twice because both the river and your human body are part of a singular river of energy. In this context this dilemma dissolves. A dilemma that never truly existed, but only appeared to do so under the illusory conceptual framework of "3D objects moving through time". We move through time no more or less than a circle's circumference moves through its x & y axes.

Rather it may be better to concieve of the many-worlds multiverse and look at the ever expanding set of possibilities; each signifying a different pathway but in itself each representing an entire 4 dimensional shape projected from the beginning to the now.



Consequently it becomes fully apparent that all of my decisions are purely a choice in how I want the next domino to fall, the next domino in a very very long line of dominos. For an individual domino to delude itself into thinking it is the origin of the chain of falling dominos succeeding it, when it itself was caused by the toppling of many before it is laughable.

Thusly the seat of your awareness is not at (Longitude, Latitude, Today's date). It's always at (0,0,0,0).


- Brahman

 

[Orion]

Another post like some of my own which are always unpopular here at the nexus, and tend not to generate much discussion because it defeats all wishy washy notions with which to use to form a debate. There is no two ways about it as far as is proven. Know that I'm with you on this! Of course there is no such thing as free will, the very concept is absolutely ridiculous.

It's fun to ride the wave and be the wave, is it not?

 

[EmptyHand]

It's always at (0,0,0,0).

You may be interested in the writings of Wei Wu Wei. His original name was Terrance Gray and he also used the pseudonym "0.0.0".

Another post like some of my own which are always unpopular here at the nexus, and tend not to generate much discussion because it defeats all wishy washy notions with which to use to form a debate. There is no two ways about it as far as is proven. Know that I'm with you on this! Of course there is no such thing as free will, the very concept is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm surprised to hear of the unpopularity. Count me among those of you who regard the notion of "free will" as unsupportable. (BTW, this doesn't mean that I don't experience the dilemmas of deciding between, say, pizza and tacos for dinner.)

eH

 

[embracethevoid]

Yeah most debates are like looking at the top of the tree. A back and forth exchange: "that leaf looks really cool" - "no dude, you're totally wrong and I'm totally right, that other leaf over there looks much cooler, in fact it is the coolest, look how colourful it is" - "what makes you think the colour of a leaf correlates with how cool it is?" - etc, etc, etc...

I have an uncanny knack for /threading a lot of things, no idea if I'm that bad at communicating or if it ends any thread of debate but this has been a recurring theme :lol:

 

[daedaloops]

The big bang made me write this. jfdghstredyrefhsgdjsreystjusfhdgdncgfhsdsrtjudtrfyseryst. That might seem like alot of nonsense but from the perspective of the big bang it makes perfect sense.

The big bang is a big old bully who doesn't let people do what they want, it only gives them the illusion of it.. which is a whole lot better than just watching the whole thing on playback I suppose. But having too much (pseudo-)awareness of the whole process can cause your mind to short-circuit which is no fun. It's much more fun to pretend and play along, which was the original point.

And btw, noone should give a single f about whether their threads or posts are taken seriously or not, we all do the things we do because it's the most optimal solution at the time based on everything that has happened before the now. And you can abstract that from threads and posts to applying to your whole life. Sure sometimes it's hard to remember, which is like a watermolecule trying to go uphill, but basically all you really have to do is hold on and enjoy the ride.

 

[olympus mon]

There often seems to be this raging debate. Lots of XOR dilemmas, false ones at that. What came first: qualia OR neurotransmitters? Do we have free will OR are we deterministic robots? Is there spirit OR is life inherently meaningless?


But let's consider that your consciousness is emergent from the brain. Does this matter? I say it doesn't.
The answer is neither. The big bang singularity came first.

Therefore in considering the essence of our free will it is futile to entertain the notion of the human brain as an independent causative agent.

I feel that if a persons perspective is that of a theist then no, free will is indeed a joke and not at all possible if your beliefs are that God has an effect in our reality and created us.

I also agree where consciousness is doesn't have much bearing on what it is or why. I do feel understanding consciousness is important so in that regard it does matter to know if consciousness lays within us or outside of our beings and were just swimming in it.

 

[Ice House]

life creates the universe

 

[jamie]

The big bang is a theory. It is not proven fact. It is an interesting theory..

Not that that matters. Everything has origion in something..but we continure to assume that beyond our subjective experience the cosmos follows something like a linear time frame..which to me does not make sense..how many singularities are postulated to be out in the cosmos again????

Even if we can assume for a moment that the big bang is a fact, and that it is our origion..we have to then ask..is it REALLY? What about before the big bang? The big bang is not any more of an origion than that night your parents banged really

It's just another reference point along the way. Can we even extrapolate from our ideas of the big bang and apply that to whatever "fundamental" level of reality might lay beyond that?

In terms of will..I dont believe in free will. The idea does not make much sense to me. I believe in will and our freedom to exercise our will..but that does not mean I can will anything I want freely. What if I decide I want to will myself to neptune? Can I do that? Maybe I can. Maybe I have to work at it to get there..

 

[EmptyHand]

I don't think the original poster meant to literally focus on the big bang in his refutation of free will, but maybe I'm wrong and he'll correct me. It doesn't seem to me to be the main point of the thread. That said, let us try to be as scientifically accurate as possible:

The big bang is a theory. It is not proven fact. It is an interesting theory..

It IS a theory but it is more than "interesting." It is well-supported by scientific evidence.

...we continure to assume that beyond our subjective experience the cosmos follows something like a linear time frame..

Physicists certainly do not assume this.

What about before the big bang?

From the perspective of general relativity, the foundation for cosmological theories including the big bang, this question doesn't make sense. In general relativity there is no absolute time and the big bang is best understood as a singularity, a concept from differential geometry ( Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia ).

In terms of will..I dont believe in free will. The idea does not make much sense to me.

Totally agree.


eH

 

[Parshvik Chintan]

The big bang is a theory.

just like gravity.. and the shape of the earth.. and evolution.. and the theory of relativity

for all we know, GPS units won't work.

 

[olympus mon]

The big bang is a theory. It is not proven fact. It is an interesting theory..


Even if we can assume for a moment that the big bang is a fact, and that it is our origion..we have to then ask..is it REALLY? What about before the big bang? The big bang is not any more of an origion than that night your parents banged really

Your using the word theory as meaning hypothesis or the casual non scientific term of a proposed idea as far too many people that dont understand the scientific meaning of the word like to do. The same bogus claims are used with the theory of evolution as well. "Its just a theory".


In science a theory is the highest achievement a hypothesis can hope to become. there is no such thing as the fact of general relativity, its the theory of general relativity.
Facts are observations and idependently confirmed data that either support or oppose a theory and in the case of the theory of the big bang all the facts in all the sciences point to the same thing in supporting this theory to be true.

There is no debate. The only debate are from those that either do not understand or simply refuse the vast and overwhelming amount of data/facts, such as fringe pseudo scientists and religious biasis. All the research and observations, aka facts, in all the sciences, cosmology, physics, astro, theoretical physics and chemistry for example, all point to the same conclusion. The Big Bang most undoubtedly happened. Period.

The theory of the Big bang makes NO assertions nor even addresses what there was or was not before the rapid expansion of our universe. That is a different field of research called Abiogenisis and as of yet there is no one hypothesis supported by facts. Its all still postulations and hypothesis at this point unlike the big bang which is widely accepted by the entire scientific world as what you would call fact.

 

[EmptyHand]

...all the facts in all the sciences point to the same thing in supporting this theory to be true.

This overstates the case a bit. Three problems:

Big Bang - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[olympus mon]

...all the facts in all the sciences point to the same thing in supporting this theory to be true.

This overstates the case a bit. Three problems:

Big Bang - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You are correct, I shouldn't use the wording all, but instead the vast majority. Indeed there are still things our current understanding of physics can't explain such as the expansion in the first second of the big bang happening faster then the speed of light which is why its still being studied such as the research taking place at CERN but as in other theories such as evolution its not claimed to be fully understood.

However the current theory is still accepted as "fact" by the scientific community despite these 3 examples you posted . A few not yet understood aspects of the theory could never discount the enormous amount of data that is known therefore making the theory just a hypothesis. That is why I respect science so much because the community will easily admit without shame or embarrassment that not everything is fully understood. That certainly doesn't mean it won't ever be though.

Thank you for pointing out my wording spoke with certainty that isn't accurate.

 

[jamie]

its really awkward when people get overly defensive about these things. For real..I said it was a theory and it was interesting..thats all. I never said it was a baseless hypothesis. It actaully IS a theory..and there is no full concensus in relation to certain parts of that theory within the scientific community.

When did I ever state how I was using the term theory?

Evolution has no relevence here. Evolution is something that has been observed over and over again objectivly. The big bang has not been objectivly observed and until someone can explain the whole theory without having problems attached to it that are not explained, all it is is a theory.

I never said anything about the big bang theory stating that there was nothing "before" it. People reference it as some kind of origional origion, which is a statement that has some serious limits..and many people do assume everything has a linear trajectory. I was not talking about trained physicists.

 

[Ice House]

Conciousness came first then the big bang.

All is a product of conciousness.

Biocentrism

 

[InfiniteFacticity]

There often seems to be this raging debate. Lots of XOR dilemmas, false ones at that. What came first: qualia OR neurotransmitters? Do we have free will OR are we deterministic robots? Is there spirit OR is life inherently meaningless?

But let's consider that your consciousness is emergent from the brain. Does this matter? I say it doesn't. You almost got hit by a car. The resultant fear and shock correlates with a surge in adrenaline & cortisol levels. What came first?

The answer is neither. The big bang singularity came first.

Why should the answer be neither? Fear and shock as we know them (qualia if you wish) are materially causally dependent upon the human organism existing and interacting with the environment as it does. The big bang may have come first, but bracketed within the causal framework of the big bang exist causal relations with functional significance. Let's certainly dissolve these false dilemmas, but let us not disregard biological determination of emotions, sensations, and other qualia in the process.

Conciousness came first then the big bang.

All is a product of conciousness.

Biocentrism

Could you please elaborate on your views? Biocentrism is clearly a contentious hypothesis, and I am interested in why you maintain such a view.

The structure of the universe is probably one of the best arguments for biocentrism. If you think about it there’s a long list of traits that make it seem as if everything, from atoms to stars, was tailor-made for humans.

http://blog.chron.com//sciguy/2009/08/book-spotlight-biocentrism/
:?:
This is a very suspicious statement to me, since it makes more sense reversed: "Humans were tailor-made for the structure of the universe." Even that is not quite right. More proper to say that humans are a part of the structure of the universe, as has been elucidated in this thread. (Big bang came first)

He is making a huge claim based on a basic mistake as far as I can see. The claim is that life/consciousness creates the world, i.e. that the world couldn't exist without consciousness. The mistake is assuming that because the world is experienced/described a certain way by human beings, if you took away the human beings (actually all perceivers) then there would be no world. There's no reason to assume that, and every reason (for science) to assume that there would still be a world without perceivers.

Dr. Lanza is a genius in practical biology, doing groundbreaking work with stem cells. So maybe I'm really missing something...can anyone help?

 

[olympus mon]

Evolution has no relevence here. Evolution is something that has been observed over and over again objectivly. The big bang has not been objectivly observed and until someone can explain the whole theory without having problems attached to it that are not explained, all it is is a theory.

Come again? How do you come to this conclusion that the big bang hasn't been objectively observed? Its one of the most studied fields of science.

I used evolution, and relativity just as others did as well as you have above. As an example to make a point.

The relevance is obvious. there are still aspects of all these theories, including gravity that are not fully understood. Why you feel this is acceptable with evolution and Id assume gravity, but not with the B.B. doesnt make much sense to me. These are incredibly complex fields and to expect them to not have problems attached is un realistic.

"and until someone can explain the whole theory without having problems attached to it that are not explained, all it is is a theory. ... "

This is exactly why I wrote your mis using or not understanding the term theory in the way science does. Even if, as you stated "all he problems attached were to be explained", it would still be a theory. So no you never stated how you used the term because you didn't have to. When people say things like "its just a theory" it shows they don't understand what a scientific theory is. Its not a defensive thing its an attempt to clarify.

Hypothetically speaking, every single question and mystery of any theory, such as the ones we have discussed here, could be completely understood, fully explained, and backed with nothing but confirming data...but even then it would never stop being a theory. Theories don't graduate to facts once all is known. They just become complete.

I understand that a lot of people don't trust science often but I don't understand why. I don't understand how, (not saying this is you btw), people will just write off the facts, data and research of thousands of the most specialized and educated men and woman over decades of brilliant careers, but are so quick to accept unconfirmed claims of other tiny minorities.

Thats where my frustration comes from. It's not as if I am angry and going to loose sleep over any of this, but yea it gets frustrating when the entire world scientific communities accepted theories and work is just dismissed. Even stranger are those that somehow feel they know more than those that have spent lifetimes understanding. Again not directing this to you. No science as a whole isn't always correct, and there are a small number of cases of fraud from special interests, but as a whole when mistakes are realized they are admitted and corrected.

Science is not perfect but it is and will always be the best method we have to understanding our world non esoterically.

So to answer your original question, I think this is where defensiveness comes from but i don't think it overly defensive IMO.

 

[Citta]

Keep it up, olympus mon! Good posts, and now I don't have to post the same xD

 

[Orion]

Conciousness came first then the big bang.

All is a product of conciousness.

Biocentrism

Seems a bit ego based, since we seem to be the only beings in this vast universe that have any knowledge of consciousness (so far).

2 days of no replies and I highlight that fact, then healthy discussion ensues!
Anyway I eat my words.

But seriously now, consciousness as the origin, how ? What is consciousness? Pure abstraction ? Does anyone remember the time before their body existed ? Spiritual amnesia?

(Is this topic more scientific than philosophical ?)

 

[spinCycle]

Please explain something to me.

People claim that the big bang somehow points to a negation of free will, as if every interaction that has ever taken place since is absolutely pre-ordained from the original conditions. But I have never seen anyone convincingly explain why this must be so. From my limited understanding, the current of modern physics points toward quantum interactions to be essentially a combination of chaotic processes interacting with mathematical probabilities, so why assume the big bang removes chaos and chance or conscious intent from the equation? Isn't that part of the old 'billiard ball' model of matter that we have moved away from?