The Illusion of Free Will?

The title explains itself. Do you believe in free will? Or is the only thing that cannot be predicted is the velocity and position of subatomic particles, and that is the only source of input for the outcome of the universe? Post your thoughts below. :D

[ Post made via iPad ] Image

There are so many uncertainties in this universe it becomes mind boggling. The human race is one of the factors for some of the uncertainties, our will and imagination etc are some of the factors for the creation of the future.

Do I think we have free will? No. We live in a universe of cause and effect. Determinism rules regardless of quantum mechanics. In fact, even a random framework at such level of reality (not to mention superdeterminism) could not guarantee an incoherent concept such as free will. Neither would a soul for that matter!

We do not pick our genome, our gender, our parents, our life circumstances and we cannot help the emotions that arise in our minds and influence our thoughts.

Free will does not exist. Just look at Scott Adams's Dilbert regarding free will. He illustrates my point very well. I would also recommend Sam Harris's thesis on this topic. 8-)

I agree mostly with what you say, but I still think we have degrees of freedom. I believe in cause in effect,

A caused the events to lead to B, us.

From B, I believe we are the cause of the next letter C, or rather, we choose the next letter subject to constraints. So we can choose from the set {C,D,E} for instance. Its just my view of how the universe is expanding and such.

Can you honestly tell me you can predict what you are going to be thinking in the next moment let alone tomorrow? There is no room for free will period. You have the illusion of choice and freedom but the truth is that your will isn't free, it is determined by unconscious causes.

If you wake up in the morning and feel like having coffee instead of tea it is because you happen to have a particular brain state that dictates your urges, how you feel, and ultimately influences how you think. You do not choose your brain chemistry any more than you control how your kidneys work.

If you still think we have a degree of freedom that warrants free will, I invite you to provide an example...

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Well I could have chosen not to reply to you. Before I clicked on the reply button I truly saw two choice, reply or don't reply. For me, in some present moments I see a range of choices that are bounded by restraints. I define myself in this instance as a component of the causal factors that influence the following events.

As for predicting my next thought, that's an easy one. I will simply tell myself to think of something, and when the time comes, I will think of it.

As for predicting an arbitrary thought on some day, that is tough because I can't control events that far. That doesn't mean I don't have any degree of freedom though.

Jack Reacher wrote: Well I could have chosen not to reply to you.

Yes you could but you didn't because you did not have the right brain state at that particular time to decide not to reply to my post. The fact that we have no free will even reflects in our day-to-day language when we say things like, "It didn't occur to me..." Primarily, unconscious processes in your physiology take place. It is also important to remember that you wouldn't even have the apparent choice of replying to me if I hadn't posted in the first place. The fact that I did has influenced your neurophysiology. My post has been your environmental stimulus.

Again, I do not see an instance of free will here. I only see directed will which is very much guided by emotional urges and thinking arising in the brain - both of which you could not help and did not author. It is true that, if you went back in time, having the knowledge that you have now, you probably would have done things differently. But the truth is that, the past version of yourself, the one that decided to reply, couldn't. Why? Because it was constrained by a particular brain state. Likewise, your present self has a particular brain state that dictates a strong temptation to not reply (just to prove a point! :mrgreen: ) if it were to travel back in time a few hours.

Jack Reacher wrote: Before I clicked on the reply button I truly saw two choice, reply or don't reply. For me, in ever present moment I see a range of choices that are bounded by restraints. I define myself in this instance as the causal factor.

Your logic still hinges on the fallacy of free will. You had the illusion of choice, nothing more. Did you know that scientists have measured activity, for instance, in the relevant cortical areas of the brain taking place before a person is even aware of deciding to move a limb? You will always feel more compelled to favour one choice over another and you often can't explain it other than one urge being stronger than the other. Just like you also cannot help what you remember - your brain happens upon it! Again, I do not see free will... :ugeek:

Jack Reacher wrote: As for predicting my next thought, that's an easy one. I will simply tell myself to think of something, and when the time comes, I will think of it.

You may tell yourself that (in this instance because I influenced such plan in you) but you cannot guarantee it. What if you forget the plan? Sure, setting external reminders, such as an alarm clock, will help. But planning ahead isn't an instance of free will, it is a clear example of an urge, a desire brought about by brain chemistry which subsequently influences behaviour. If someone urged you to take a potent drag of a marijuana joint before your plan came to fruition, you might become so euphoric to the point of forgetting about it as you feel compelled to revel in your newfound sensation.

Here is an important clincher: you may decide what you decide but you cannot decide what you will decide. The latter depends upon both external factors and unconscious internal mechanisms. The conscious self is not the author or anything, it is merely a witness. The self is like a supermarket selling fairtrade products with its own logo on the packaging. It takes the credit for the products it sells, but the truth is that the goods have been harvested abroad, a process which takes place beyond their control and awareness... :shock:

Jack Reacher wrote: As for predicting an arbitrary thought on some day, that is tough because I can't control events that far. That doesn't mean I don't have any degree of freedom though.

You don't control events in the first place, they control you. And arbitrary thoughts emerge willy-nilly like all others because you do not have a say in what happens at the level of the brain. And when it comes to making decisions, it could go either way and you don't know. But because conscious awareness is akin to a spotlight illuminating stage events, it typically claims authorship of the spotlight content without knowing what's gone on behind the scenes. In this way, the individual lives under the illusion of free will. But there cannot be free will in a world of cause and effect. You may get a sense of freedom in what you do, but your ego is moved by unconscious quicksands, and, ultimately determinism dictates that there is no such thing as objective freedom. And the compatibilist notion that a puppet is free as long as he loves his strings does not wash with me. :mrgreen:

Thank you for playing devil's advocate. You are, aren't you? There is no free will, it is an incoherent concept that posits a self that is uncaused and capable of violating the chemistry that undergirds it in the first place. :twisted:

Summerlander wrote:

Jack Reacher wrote:Well I could have chosen not to reply to you.

Yes you could but you didn't because you did not have the right brain state at that particular time to decide not to reply to my post.

Right, because I chose the brain state that let me reply. If I didn't want to reply, I would have entered a different brain state. In that moment I truly saw two choices. Are you really telling me you have no control over anything you do in your life?

Regardless of you seeing two choices, one won over the other in a cerebral arena where urges compete and conflict is constant.

You do not control what happens with your neurons unless you physically open your head and make such attempt at your peril.

You felt compelled to reply at the time despite seeing the other option. Something in you urged you to reply and won you over. The urge to not reply was simply too weak and all of this translates into cerebral activity that you had no control over. If you were to suggest to a neuroscientist, or even a neurologist, that you control what goes on in your noggin, you'd leave them in stitches.

Hence the reason why some people who want to quit smoking succeed and others don't. Hence the reason why some try and fail. Hence the reason why some quit after ten years rather than two, despite trying to quit earlier. They happened to finally succeed when their brains stumbled upon a favourable state.

Yes, you read me right. We don't really have any control over our lives but we may be lucky enough to have such illusion when things happen to go the way we want them to. Ultimately, nobody truly deserves merit for their actions, and, likewise, the wrongdoer is not truly culpable, he or she is just unfortunate in their physical make-up and their life's events.

As much as you love the sense of being in control, the truth is stranger than fiction. The judicial system is based on a very strong illusion. The truth may be counterintuitive but it is the only plausible scenario.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander wrote: Regardless of you seeing two choices, one won over the other in a cerebral arena where urges compete and conflict is constant.

Right, because I chose it to.

How do you figure that? (In the face of experiments like Libet's and extended versions where scientists can practically predict what their subjects will decide to do seconds before they become aware of decision.)

How can one decide upon a brain state that takes place prior to becoming aware of the decision that is begotten by it in the first place. And what is the mechanism behind deciding upon favourable brain states if I grant you such fallacious scenario?

You see how free will makes no sense? Are you going to tell me now that a soul hides behind the cerebral controls and is impervious to influence like in some Cartesian theatre?

What I'm saying is, what evidence do you bring to back your postulation other than a subjective sense of a certain degree of freedom?

[ Post made via Android ] Image

At first I did not know what to reply here. I still don't have anything scientific or evidence-based to say, but this thought just crossed my mind as I was waiting in line at the grocery store:

I believe that we have the free will to chose to believe that we do not have free will, and if we so choose, we will have the experience of not having free will, and everything we see will seem to support these views.

Just my two cents. ;)

I give up. As Christopher Hitchens once quipped: "I believe we have free will because we don't have a choice." :-D

EDIT:

Spinoza had already noted in the 17th century that people think they have free will because they are aware of their urges attracting them to what they presume is necessary while at the same time not really understanding why they feel the way they do. According to Spinoza's determinism, we seldom question why we want the things we want and why we do what we do. The illusion of free will, Spinoza reasoned, is reinforced by an indifference to natural prior causes. This is what I see happening in this debate on the side of those who argue for the existence of free will. Just look at this quote:

"Men are conscious of their desire and unaware of the causes by which their desires are determined."

• Benedict de Spinoza

And in his famous "Ethics" he writes:

"The infant believes that it is by free will that it seeks the breast; the angry boy believes that by free will he wishes vengeance; the timid man thinks it is with free will he seeks flight; the drunkard believes that by free command of his mind he speaks the things which when sober he wishes he had left unsaid. All believe that they speak by free command of the mind, whilst, in truth, they have no power to restrain the impulse which they have to speak."

@karin:

I couldn't resist replying to you... :mrgreen:

Karin wrote: I believe that we have the free will to chose to believe that we do not have free will, and if we so choose, we will have the experience of not having free will, and everything we see will seem to support these views.

It doesn't work like that. Even belief is subject to prior causes, i.e environmental exposure and physiological mechanisms. Also, you cannot just choose to believe in something. This is a fallacy. You either believe in something because the evidence is compelling to you, or you don't because you don't see any reason to. This is why Pascal's wager is for those pious people who don't truly believe, because, in order to subscribe to it, you must start from an agnostic point of view (or a "just in case" stance). ;)

Summerlander,

Thanks for your reply. I really appreciate this forum for being so open to different points of views, where we can all express our opinions in a respectful way. That's rare, and that's great! :)

Believe me (no pun intended), I understand your perspective. I have seen first hand for instance how things going on in the body (problems with the immune system, even just the GI tract flora) can heavily influence the brain, the mind, and states of consciousness. I KNOW it works this way. It does indeed make one think about free will. Even just think of all the people locked up in mental institutions, or the criminals in jail, are they really responsible? What if one day science will have progress enough that we can cure all mental illnesses and criminal behaviors? A part of me does see that.

On the other hand, I have chosen to look at things from a different perspective now, while I still see it from the other perspective AT THE SAME TIME. I know it does not make much sense, but I don't really know how to say it differently. As I said in another thread, I am aware that I might just have gone crazy, but it feels crazy good! Maybe I lost a marble and some of my logical reasoning got disabled! :D

I am still exploring though, looking at reality from different perspectives. Maybe I'll change my mind again.

I did not answer the poll because I could see reasons to answer YES, NO and I DON'T KNOW all at the same time.

That seems to me like a carefree, congenial way of looking at the subject without troubling yourself with scientific and philosophical implications. But you can only pick one option because each differ. You must do your homework as I did in order to get to the bottom of it. You are either a determinist (or necessitarian), a compatibilist, or a libertarian. You can't be all of them. And you should also voice your reasons. If you can't be bothered with homework, at least tell us which one seems more appealling to you... Please? :-D

[ Post made via Android ] Image

OK, because you used the magic word, the answer I prefer is YES. :)

Thanks. Vote "yes," then, to make things more interesting. I don't want people to be biased by the winning option so far. Let them all think for themselves. ;-)

[ Post made via Android ] Image

...

"I don't know" is certainly an option.

I debated with myself how to word this and what to say, and whether I should or not, but hey, I have no fee will anyway so let's let it rip!

I voted, YES, and was just going to leave it be without replying, letting Summerlander, who I know has no free will and is very interested in this subject, who can't control the urge to talk about it, to do the talking for me, as well as provide many examples from great thinkers such as Scott Adams. We are indeed "moist robots" as he said.

It seems like we have free will and choice, but that's why it's called an illusion. We also think that time exists, and perhaps it does mathematically, but not subjectively. Our past are memories and our future is imagination, and the present is never experienced. And in fact, we imagine our memories don't we? (Unless you have a photographic one that is).

I believe even my self-identity is an illusion, created by my organic machine, the moist robot that "I" reside in. Why am I me and not you? Your automaton could say the same about me. So what is "I" but just an idea in our heads?

This sort of thing can blow your mind, and even make some depressed. I know. I had a hard time trying to swallow the truth pill, but it makes you stronger and wiser when you overcome it. I don't live everyday thinking this and learned to stop questioning and simply enjoy life. But it was a tough road. You can know a lot, but still dismiss it and enjoy things. It's called denial, and evolution has made us good at it.

The next time you eat ice cream, don't question it. Just enjoy it! :D

Good reply, Hagart. And the truth pill certainly makes you stronger and wiser. I wouldn't want to live under the veil of illusion and wishful thinking. I want the truth however cold-hearted it is, because, it is the truth, at the end of the day, that will help us get somewhere. Lying to oneself is never good.

Facing up to the fact that there is no free will will help us to get closer to real justice as we are forced to deal with human infractions another way. Instead of punishing the truly blameless psychopath (who cannot help but be afflicted with "evil") in order to give the innocent a sense of retribution, we can simply strive for a future where a greater understanding of the human genome has been attained and tinkering with the embryonic stage might mean the extinction of serial killers.

As long as we fatuously subscribe to this free will nonsense, many of our problems will remain. I also think that many people mistake determinism for fatalism and that is why they find the truth cheerless. (I am yet to check out nesgirl's link.)

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Time for another debate. For those who believe in the illusion of free will then we agree that we are all "moist robots" and "organic machines". When a robot goes rogue do you change the programming or pull the plug?

In poetic terms, this has to do with justice, incarceration and the death penalty.... and has EVERYTHING to do with this free will topic. Very easy to ask, even harder to answer.

I couldn't help myself. I have no free will! I love hot topics. The hotter the better! :mrgreen:

I only ask because I think a lot and value all opinions and this robot of mine were "I" reside in, hasn't gone rogue on this forum. I'm still on topic! :ugeek:

Ideally, or in an ideal future I should say, we would change the programming of the rogue robot provided that we know what we are doing and understand the consequences.

But, scientifically, we are at a stage where we don't know enough about the robot and changing the programming is, therefore, risky. At this moment in time it appears that pulling the plug is the best solution. However, at the same time, capital punishment is a problem to the wrongly accused. (There is an ongoing debate about this.)

So what's the best remedy as a temporary solution? Incarceration? Is it enough of a deterrent. Maybe not but it is probably the best we can do at the moment.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

I'm going to let this sink in before replying myself. I have so much to say, but need to sleep on it.

Sleeping on it may be productive and add more to this interesting discourse. I have watched nesgirl's video about quantum mechanics, determinism, and free will, btw, and feel prompted to underline a point raised near the end - which somewhat salvages the reality that criminal minds are nothing but the product of poorly calibrated clockwork: unpredictability does not equate with free will. :|

As Sam Harris remarks in his "Free Will" thesis, the popular conception of free will comes from the erroneous impression that we could have conducted ourselves differently than we did in the past and that we author our thoughts and actions. Here are some interesting quotes: 8-)

"If the laws of nature do not strike most of us as incompatible with free will, that is because we have not imagined how human behaviour would appear if all cause-and-effect relationships were understood."

• Sam Harris

"There are more bacteria in your body than there are human cells. In fact, 90% of the cells in your body are microbes like E. coli (and 99% of the functional genes in your body belong to them). Many of these organisms perform necessary functions - they are "you" in some wider sense. Do you feel identical to them? If they misbehave, are you morally responsible?" -Sam Harris; Free Will

The hierarchical reductionist approach may be a cardinal step in attempting to fathom the workings of reality, but it is important to remember that this most vital approach is more likely to unearth alimentary answers pertinent to the immediate interactive environment of the microlevel it deals with than cater us with a complete picture of the whole. Because what we are looking at is multi-layered, examining parts won't necessarily reveal the links traversing all the way to the classical, deterministic "top." (And assumptions about the classical level of reality should not be made based on the level of reality that undergirds it, which is, by necessity, fundamentally different.) :geek:

Conclusively, quantum mechanical indeterminacy, as the argument for a free will support, holds no water because quantum effects are not biologically salient, and, even if they were, they still wouldn't guarantee free will (or make this one any more intelligible). It would only mean that the laws that govern quantum mechanics determine our behaviour and we are clueless about this as we go about our business. (And this is true to a minor extent as the following example illustrates: cosmic rays that bombard the Earth can strike living cells at the core and produce mutations which in turn influence evolution. Where is our free will hand in all of this, one might ask!) In a similar vein, classical cause and effect dictate eventuation, and, upon reflection, we are heard using statements such as this one: "I don't know what came over me." :roll:

As Donald Griffin once discovered, nature, through the slow process of evolution, devised a system of echolocation in bats long before humans came up with sonar and radar technology. In humans, a world war demanded better technology and thankfully enough we had already been naturally bestowed with great assets such as our complex, thinking brains. The bats found a way to adapt to the ever-changing environment and so did we. The forces of nature compelled us to become who we are today. Nature also had millions and millions of years to produce a biological system that generates consciousness and self-awareness. We've only begun to try to understand this in the last century or so and are still puzzled by how the phenomenon of consciousness could arise. We certainly have not managed to create a conscious robot, but even our most advanced computer systems can respond in unpredictable ways, and, at times, exude free will. But appearances, as we have learnt time and again, don't always constitute facts. A machine is non-living and non-conscious, but, like us, follows the rules of cause-and-effect.

Does all of this mean that, based on what's happened before, we have been endowed with more control? No. We have merely been guided by our urges to adapt and improve the quality of our lives. The goal to survive has always been our most basic instinct. It's primordial and inevitably leads us to generally seek pleasure instead of pain; happiness instead of suffering. We feel the need to live, thrive, and avoid self-destruction. A need is a concept which is central to necessitarianism, a form of compulsion, an urge. The need, in its subtlest form but always with the goal of comfort in mind, also begets wants. In this opus of falling dominoes there is no room for free will. :)

I like to use few words, and a little humor, to raise some questions in people about our whole concept of justice, and how we treat other animals as if they are just organic machines with no free will, yet we can't see ourselves that way.

If a dog were to break out of it's yard and bite a child, it's socially accepted that the dog should be terminated. If Luis Suarez were to break out of his cage and bite a child, it's socially accepted that he simply be scolded.

:lol: (I hope it makes people think!) :cry:

LOL! Yes. And the dog is guaranteed to never do it again. The same cannot be said for Luis Suarez. Even if he was to receive the same penalty as the dog, we can't guarantee that he won't reoffend. He might be a day-walking vampire. (Just Google-image him.) :-D

[ Post made via Android ] Image

I like the Meme with him wearing a dog cone. That's a perfect picture for what I was talking about. :lol:

It's fun to take a break and laugh. But seriously, why do people think they are divine and above all other animals when we are just sacks of goo bumbling around like automatons. We are no different than our ape cousins, fundamentally. Has anyone ever watched a Lady Bug crawling on their arm and realize that it's just a robot and so are we? I can't explain it, but I urge others to figure it out for themselves in their own way.

Going outside and looking at plants and ants going about their business, and questioning how the sense of self enters the equation is the most 'spiritual' I ever am. But it's actually pure logic and reasoning. Nothing mystic about it! It's a wake up call.

Summerlander wrote: How do you figure that?[/b][/size] Image

Because, back in Time when you asked me to provide an example of free will, I looked and thought, I could Reply to you, or simply not Reply to you.

I chose to Reply to you.

HAGART wrote: Going outside and looking at plants and ants going about their business, and questioning how the sense of self enters the equation is the most 'spiritual' I ever am. But it's actually pure logic and reasoning. Nothing mystic about it! It's a wake up call.

Same here (and I perfectly understand your usage of the word spiritual). The puzzle of consciousness is a great one that I hope we will one day suss out. I also love the topic of evolution very much. (So much so that I am currently reading "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.) :)

Jack Reacher wrote: I chose to Reply to you.

I think you are still missing the point, Jack Reacher. I could also ask you to think of a capital city beginning with "W." You might feel (biology/physiology/psychology behind this), because you're from New Zealand, you don't wish to be obvious and say Welling. So you say Washington. But, likewise, you might feel patriotic, or lazy, and say the obvious. Or you might be watching a program about WWII, narrating the moment when Germany invaded Poland, which prompts you to think, "Warsaw."

Whatever you choose, you think you chose out of free will. But there are underlying reasons which may not always be so obvious to you. The mention of capital cities here has already sparked a train of thought in you, thus robbing you of free will (as if you had any to begin with). A fervour may now tempt you to post a "W" option more obscure than the examples I mentioned, in a bid to prove to me that you are not biased by any precursor but it doesn't take a genius to see that, already, whatever urge you have has already been set in motion since the stimulus that occurred beyond your control.

To conclude and reiterate, despite your awareness of both options (a: reply; b: ignore), one was more appealing to you at the time for whatever reason, eg. your imagination predicted a better outcome for one of them which seemed, at the time, to be more emotionally gratifying. You could not have gone for the other option because your brain did not allow you to (perhaps you lacked the necessary masochism :mrgreen: ). The option of replying to me won. You needed to have your say. Need. Necessitarianism. Determinism. Brain states. Cause-and-effect. 8-)

@ everyone:

I'm going to stir the pot a little by posting a link in favour of the compatibilist view for those who think we should live as though there is free will and may feel the urge to refute my deterministic position. (See, I'm such a good sport.) :mrgreen:

Take a look at this link where Daniel Dennett talks about free will: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGPIzSe5cAU

Dennett backs up his compatibilism with weak analogies such as the value of money being an illusion and baseballs going over the Green Monster wall in Fenway Park as not being real home runs. I disagree with many points made by Dennett (I'm entitled to even if I'm just an armchair philosopher :P ). Dennett basically propounds the idea that if something feels real, then it is real enough, and, if acting according to this philosophy works in some way that is all you need. But what about the ways in which the system could work by acknowledging what many deem to be the cold-hearted truth? If we delve into the possibilities that a system that recognises the inherence of determinism could generate, we will find better options (which admittedly need to be backed up by science and better technology).

From Dennett's point of view, if the illusion is strong enough, then it should always be deemed as fact. If the puppet is happy with his strings, then it is free. He highlights the difference between voluntary and involuntary action but such distinctions arise from our biased perception and such distinctions can still co-exist with determinism. He also attempts to reinforce his moral certainty on this topic by somewhat redefining the term "free will" which I think is a cheap move and unwittingly misrepresents libertarians.

I also don't see how morality is incompatible with determinism. We know, in the least, what we need. We have an idea, however vague, of what's good for us and we hope that our urges, as a collective (we feel empathy and recognise that altruism can aid survival), will propel us towards happiness and a society that we perceive to work well. Unless, of course, we are hardwired to fail in the end. But we still feel like making the effort. It is in our nature to make some sort of effort. We would find it impossible, and tedious as a choice, to simply do nothing. Also, our urges, which we do not author (otherwise they wouldn't be urges in the first place), still get us to move and avoid trouble if we can. The dominoes will fall with or without free will. Free will is not required for the universe to work in the way that it does just as the theory of how the universe began does not require a divine creator. :twisted:

Dennett once dared to criticise Harris's "Free Will." Here's what happened: Dennett wrote: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/reflections-on-free-will Sam Harris replied: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-marionettes-lament I rest my case for now... :mrgreen:

I will take it one level deeper and say that the person writing this msg is in a lot of ways a puppet controlled by other selves and so to think that we have free will is at the same level as believing there is color outside of our minds.

Indeed. And most people really believe colours are out there, as part of nature, and that we see the world exactly as it is. Can I say I've just decided to have a cup of coffee right now? Of course I can and I really feel like I have authored such decision. But it only takes a moment to realise that I fancy it. I feel like having it. I feel like it. I'm compelled by an urge to have coffee. I'm perfectly okay with the deterministic nature of the universe.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Awesome, enjoy the coffee and it may have been driven by free will at another level so we are almost at the start again :D

Thanks! It was delicious. If I had run out of coffee I'd hurting right now as I would be unable to decide not to want coffee. Saying "I don't want it" would be lying to myself. By the way, don't forget to vote, Peter! :-D

[ Post made via Android ] Image

I think a huge part of this is breaking down identity. I think human beings have free will in the sense that they are a causal component of future events. The psychological/conscious component that Peter nodded towards is really just a puppet of the human being, it is a tool that we use. So when that part makes decisions, I agree it is really just being stringed along.

This is where it gets hard for me to illustrate my point in free will, because I still don't have a good grasp on what we truly are as human beings at an existential point. I sorta believe that we are always in a subconscious state, being guided by the vibrations of our body or our soul/spirit/ true human form.

Something I once did that I regret was look into a strangers eye as I walked past them and try to calculate exactly what they were experiencing at the time, and pinpoint it inside their head that I was staring at. It was like seeing spinning disks inside their eyes, disturbing stuff won't be doing that again.

Looking into a strangers eye, I try to feel people and judge their bodies energy as a talk or meeting proceeds and it is one of the most powerful tools for negotiations in a business setting.

There is always discomfort when you start a deep process like that and that is a bias at the level of daily reality that is a major barrier to overcome but there is no reason to not overcome.

I think that our SC is no more or no less that an organic computer and will by nature respond to impute so the more pure (without bias) the information going in the better the output in the form of intuition and the more ofter leaps in understanding will occur.

Nothing mystical in the SC it has no agenda and will do its work with what it gets from our senses and tempered with our positive and negative bias. Both are as bad as each other.

I felt like rambling... but hey... I have no free will anyway, so why should I worry? 8-)

Peter wrote: I think that our SC is no more or no less that an organic computer and will by nature respond to impute so the more pure (without bias) the information going in the better the output in the form of intuition and the more ofter leaps in understanding will occur.

We can put it in so many words, and I tried many times, but basically that's the way I see it too. It's what I believe.

It can be tough when you realize that your ego sense of self is a mere illusion, and the 'you' that you think you are, with all its emotions (what are emotions anyway? How are they quantified?), is just a small slice of the pie of the entire thing. Perhaps constructed out of evolutionary necessity. That's why I love listening to dream characters stemming from my subconscious self. They speak frankly, and just state the facts. (most of the time). To me, that is my 'higher self', and worth listening to. It has no bias, no reason to lie, love, or hate. It just, is. It would be nice to let that other part of you, and me, take over for a while during times of stress when you need it. (And it does during car accidents, natural disasters, and buildings on fire when people shut off and just act, often forgetting what they did, being in 'robot mode'). It might be the Amygdala Stress Response, but I don't know. I just feel it's true in my heart.

I sound like a spiritualist, with a lack of science, and you would hear the same words from a Californian Guru with a long beard, selling tickets to his Yoga Class. ;) But it's actually very logical when you think about it. Don't buy into the B.S. surrounding all this. Self discovery is free.

We are indeed much like robots, who only feel they are making choices, when in actuality it can all be predicted just like the weather. Why are forecasters always wrong, you may ask? It's because there are so many variables. Just because there are too many for our meager monkey minds to understand, doesn't mean all the variables aren't there. They are! Absolutely EVERYTHING is predictable given the variables.

That's why free will is an illusion.

About Jack Reacher's experience staring into a stranger's eye: Sometimes I'll be in a public place, and just start to wonder what everyone else is thinking and it can almost lead to a panic attack! It's too much to take in. Not exactly the same as looking at someone in the eyes and wondering how their 'gears are turning', but I feel I can relate. I think too much sometimes.

Jack Reacher wrote: This is where it gets hard for me to illustrate my point in free will, because I still don't have a good grasp on what we truly are as human beings at an existential point. I sorta believe that we are always in a subconscious state, being guided by the vibrations of our body or our soul/spirit/ true human form.

I agree with this statement, Jack Reacher. It resonates with me.

Another thought (the following is not a scientific statement or any evidence-based reasoning, just some brainstorming):

Let's assume as a hypothesis and as a very simplified symbolic picture, that our life is a non-lucid dream that our 'soul/spirit' is having, and that we are the main dream character is this dream. The dream character thinks it has free will, but in fact it does not because it is just a dream character. Now if the soul/spirit would become lucid in the dream, it would realize it is dreaming and it might start to control the reactions of the dream character. For example, instead of the dream character running away from recurrent challenges/problems/drama/monsters/fears/illnesses/accidents (which look like they exist outside of the dream character but in fact are just other aspects of the soul/spirit), the lucid dream character would realize it is dreaming, and start reacting differently to all this challenges, as if they are just reflections of its own soul/spirit unconscious fears, unconscious beliefs, etc... (just as in a dream) and maybe the dream (real life) would start changing for the better.

In other words, if the soul/spirit would become lucid in the life of the physical being (its dream), maybe it could start using its free will to transform the dream (improve everything from the body to the physical mind to the outer events).

To push this image further, maybe this life on Earth is some kind of shared dream. Maybe 8 billions spirit/souls are having a shared dream, each one having a slightly different dream but shared, at least shared with the people we are directly interacting with (the rest of the 8 billions that we hear of or see on TV might be just props).

And by the way, this shared dream is more like a gigantic nightmare. Maybe if more and more souls/spirits would start becoming lucid in this shared dream, the whole world could start changing for the better and there would be less need for all these wars, drama and diseases.

Given an illusion of choice in my head right now, beyond my free will, I want to say something, due to an urge: I want Jackson to chime in, one way or another. How can they just sit back, after starting this, and just watch us all bicker? :D

I think that's the most important question ever asked in this entire thread! 8-)

(Who's the real puppet master!) ;)

I very much agree with Hagart about the unknown variables. Imagine if we knew all of them. How would human behaviour then appear to us.

And here's just a clarification I would like to append to Karin's posted analogy: lucid dreaming does not equate with suddenly acquiring free will in dreams. To lucid dream is simply to be aware of the true nature (that of a dream) of one's surroundings. Such realisation, which is simply a mere modification of understanding what is being perceived, will then influence the emotions, thoughts, and feelings of the dreamer in a particular way. The stimulus of lucidity, depending on the physiology of the brain at the time, will then determine whether the lucid dreamer will feel like flying over the Himalayas or desire sexual intercourse with a Hollywood celebrity.

Where is free will?

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander, for example:

In a non-lucid recurrent nightmare, I keep running away from a monster, screaming and frightened. These are conditioned behaviors: I am not really exercising free-will when I run away, I can't help it because I am so afraid. However, if I become lucid in the dream, I can CHOOSE to REACT DIFFERENTLY: instead of running away screaming (which I can still choose if I want), I can also choose to go against the conditioning and instead of running away, I can face the monster and hug it. To me, this is exercising free will instead of conditioned reaction: I could choose to keep running away, or to face the monster.

Another example, in a recurrent nightmare I keep strangling that elderly lady because I hate her. I can't help it because I am so enraged, and after she's dead, I feel so guilty. If I could become lucid in the dream, I might choose differently, and hug her in spite of my rage, instead of killing her (or talk to her and ask her why I hate her so much, etc...).

To extend the analogy: in real life, every choice I make is conditioned by my brain chemistry (e.g. if my neurotransmitters are low I'll be depressed and react negatively to everything), and/or by social conditioning, how I was raised, things I believe in, etc... So even though it feels like I am exercising free will when I choose to react one way or another, in fact I react out of conditioned response based on my brain chemistry and my mind programming (brain wiring, whatever). Now in my hypothesis, if there is an unconscious source of us, beyond the brain and the mind, let's call it soul/spirit, that is outside of matter and thus not subject to brain wiring and mind conditioning constraints, and if that soul/spirit 'becomes lucid' in real life, the human being might take decisions from that part of himself that is beyond the brain and mind, from the soul/spirit part (which normally we are unconscious of, just like a DC normally has no clue it is being dreamed by a real self), and in this way it is BYPASSING all the conditioning, brain wiring, brain chemistry, etc...

For example: someone might get out of the vicious cycle of depression, by recognizing at a higher level that there are unconscious thoughts that keep perpetuating: I hate myself so much, I'll never get better, everything hurts, etc... and then being able to exercise free will and CHOOSE to short-circuit these thoughts and CHOOSE to give myself a chance, and love myself no matter what, and allow myself to know that can get better. And see what happens.

In other words: What is free will? Maybe the ability to make a choice from a perspective beyond the conditionings?

There's certainly WILL POWER, and it's a powerful thing to improve ones life, but it's not free will. If you take a step back and look at this question, one can see that every single choice you ever made was predictable given the myriad of variables.

I was daydreaming of a bumble bee today, and what choices it makes when deciding on a flower to land on or whether to zig left or zag right. It too makes choices, and can be predicted. Although a much simpler life form than us, it is still extremely complicated. They certainly seem robotic don't they in their behavior? We are no different, just more complex, and can't see the forest for the trees. You would have to literally think faster than your own thoughts to recognize it, which is a paradox.

Speaking of dreams I had a lucid one this morning. I saw a wall with shelves and many odd items on it, like a phone, fax machine, printer, and electronics like that all with a similar theme. I chose to look around and see what else was there, but I found nothing so I looked back. Now it was completely different! (Common for lucid dreams). Now it was filled with different food items, corn, raisins, apples, a package of cheese etc. (Still all with a common theme coincidentally, which is interesting for another topic).

I chose to turn my head and look elsewhere and back again, but I had no choice whatsoever what changed and filled those shelves so quickly. My sense of self identity and self awareness (lucid dreaming is like becoming self aware) made decisions, which I still think are coming subliminally under the radar so to speak, but after that experience it further reinforces my belief that our subconscious self is like a program with it's own agenda running in the background of our self aware selves.

Does your subconscious have free will? If not, why do you think 'you', a concept created by it, has free will either?

This can drive people nuts if they think about it too much. I don't live my life thinking I'm a robot, but only think about it from time to time when a question like this is posed and I'm in the mood. If we indeed have no free will, then just buckle up and enjoy the ride of life and feel confident about every decision you ever made without second guessing and putting yourself down! You can even change the program with positive thinking and make it a habit. Some good can come from this way of thinking, and improve everyone's lives :D

But that takes WILL POWER, not free will.

Hagart makes a good point, Karin, and indeed will power does not require free will. You either have will power or you don't and when you get it you don't pick when. :|

Lucidity is still a condition whilst dreaming which influences how the dreamer feels and subsequently behaves. There are occasions where the dreamer continues to run from the monster despite realising the true nature of what is perceived. In such DILDs, running away isn't much of a choice. It can even be argued that when one runs feeling threatened, one has no choice. (Or the individual feels like there is no choice but to run! Take your pick if you want to play with semantics.) However you describe it, it is still a conditioned behaviour stimulated by an extant irrational fear which can also exist in waking states and exert constraining power. In most oneiric cases, however, such fear which urges the dreamer to run is most prevalent before lucidity and during its incipience. With practice we may be able to mitigate the emergence of irrational fear in lucid dreams, and practice takes repetition! (Some oneironauts nail it quite quickly.)

The main point I'm making is that all behaviours are permissible insofar as the compatibility of the causal brain states manifests at the right time - something the sense of self does not control - in order to obtain a positive sensation and a strong illusion of free will. In other words, all behaviours are conditioned by feelings that can be described by the following adjectives which you cannot help but have (some desired, some unwanted): afraid; brave; happy; sad; angry; excited; euphoric etc.

The unknown can often incite fear in people. So can false belief, eg. you believe the dream to be really happening. But if you see through the illusion, then the reason for the illusion-based fear is likely to vanish because you have now stumbled upon a new perspective of clarity, i.e. you know you are dreaming and this causes you to feel playful. Knowledge influences behaviour and clarity is not control, it may only be conducive to the reinforcement of the illusion of such. Having attained lucidity in a dream, what you do next is then influenced by unconscious urges - just like any other state of consciousness - whether or not you happen to recall your plan of action that you devised before bedtime. All the scenarios presented here, so far, lack liberty propre. They merely spell out conditioned behaviours devoid of free will. The concept of free will can't even be defined coherently because it is so absurd.

If ordinary dreaming means NOT breathing, then lucid dreaming is breathing, and the latter, as you know, is a necessity (for there is only so far a person can inhale before feeling compelled to exhale). If you become lucid, turn around, and embrace the monstrous pursuer, it is only because the dream figure is observed in a different light which encourages a friendly approach. (Other areas of the brain are triggered.) But having done so, you may ask yourself why you didn't transform the monster into a delicious chocolate fountain. The answer is as follows: it didn't occur to you at the time. This reality is the source of quotidian exclamations such as, "Why didn't I do that," "I regret what I did," "I wish I had acted differently," "I lost a perfect opportunity."

The perceived freedom to ask a dream character why you feel hatred towards it (see, you don't even know where this comes from!) is an action which is also conditioned by a state of curiosity and concern preceded by a recurrent, stimulating nightmare of the non-lucid realm and of which you absolutely had no control over. This also reminds me: to say that dream characters don't have a clue about their origin (dreamed by us) is to imply that they are sentient beings, too. There is no evidence for this and observations that such mental forms transmute into inanimate objects strongly suggest the opposite. The dream world is merely representative of the mind and its information content. It is more likely that "dream matter" emulates things real and imagined.

Now, about your Cartesian hypothesis, Karin...

Sorry to break it to you but it has already been considered earlier in this thread. I did say that even the concept of a soul cannot salvage and coherently preserve free will. Presumably, a soul would also be swayed by feelings and thought processes whose origins would remain obscure and would beg the question of a metaphysical mechanism behind it. In other words, a soul would still perceive environmental events, feel something at the exposure, and subsequently act in influence. Anyway, I disbelieve in souls for the same reasons as Spinoza, Hobbes, Hume, and, ironically, the compatibilist Daniel Dennett. (One of the things I agree with Dennett is his view on consciousness derived from cognitive science.) But I won't go into my reasons rigorously so as to prevent divagation. I will only recommend Susan Blackmore's thesis on consciousness.

I wish to ram this home, though. Your hypothesis violates everything that has been observed so far in the field of neuroscience. Brain functionality, whether one likes it or not, dictates a person's conduct besides the presence or absence of consciousness and self-awareness. To reiterate, free choice is an illusion. You might egg yourself on to adopt a particular code of conduct "no matter what," but this is nothing but conditioned planning (whose success is measured by the strength of the urge and degree of motivation - do you feel motivated?) after having been exposed to unsatisfactory outcomes of the former behaviour that you were so accustomed to. Even resolutions based on learned lessons in life translate as conditioned behaviour, conduct influenced by memories and the mnemonic impact upon the rest of the cerebral cortices responsible for emotional states and caused intentionalities. Again, I pose the libertarian the question: Where is free will? 8-)

Yes you have free will, but you also have roughly 7.2 billion others with free will so your free will is outnumbered. Just because something is ineffectual doesn't preclude it's existence.

In the case of free will, if it's ineffectual, as you say, then it is not free. It is simply will determined by prior causation as well as present environmental influence. Therefore, the freedom part is automatically precluded and the term loses its definition (which wasn't coherent in the first place). But the reasons why free will is an illusion aren't the ones you mentioned. If you review this thread, you will find a number of irrefutable arguments against free will, and why determinism is true, which I will not bother to mention again to avoid being repetitive - but I will recommend this seminar which just about covers the essence of the argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk

Here's a little something from biology I would like to point out in addition. Free will is in violation of the blind mechanism behind genes and their effects. Free will cannot withstand the reality of phenotypes in living things. The fact that our DNA, which carries "instructions" for how an organism should develop (that we are mostly unaware of as we go about our day-to-day lives) and play their role in evolution beyond our control, is another demonstration of free will not fitting in. If free will could be demonstrated, Darwinism wouldn't even take off.

Our molecules are simply arranged in more complicated patterns than non-living things - but rest assured that we had non-living simple beginnings, too! We may be warm, we may appear to possess some sort of "living spark" inside us, we may display erratic behaviour, we may even feel capricious at times, we may be very different from rocks - but, in reality, we are simply bundles of complex matter set in motion by natural selection. We - with our cellular factories containing proteins, amino acids, chromosomes, genes, and all - are really analogous to digital machines with sets of instructions that we did not select. The relationship between RNA and DNA inside cells and how they effect the rest of the organism really isn't that much different from that of a computer. We are dictated by our insides as well as impacted upon by the external world.

Free will is a persistent myth. 8-)

Maybe I cannot tell you what my exact next thought is, but I can at least describe it within boundaries or confidence.

In fact, I can tell you with absolute certainty that I will either be alive tomorrow, or dead.

That is a very weak argument. First, how can you describe your next thought if you don't know what it is? Second, stating the obvious, or tautologies, isn't a sign of free will. They are either obviously true, or ambiguously true in your example, whether you like it or not. The puppet can be aware of what's obvious, and even if the puppet wasn't aware of such one moment, but became aware of the objective truisms the next, he still wouldn't have free will. It just dawned on him. It happened upon him. It was suddenly brought to his attention whether he welcomed the realisation or not. 8-)

Summerlander: Do you think that we really have Free Will in Lucid Dreaming?

It's already been answered and the answer is 'no'. Lucid dreaming is merely a different state from ordinary dreaming which begets different urges. It's the same as not having free will while you're awake. :-D

[ Post made via Android ] Image

I know, I noticed,Enra Traz. But since the thread is old, I returned to ask.The brain is not something binary, it is not an operating system that works based on programs to respond automatically to certain commands, it does not have scripts or addons. The brain is not limited, contrary to what one might imagine. However, it is true that much of what we see is just a real illusion, meaning that what we see is false generated by our unconscious, and here we question some of our actions as human beings. We are also influenced by humanity in all aspects from religion, politics, numerology, astrology, etc..etc ... but among the many details of our brain, there is one that gives us the freedom to be totally free, is the simulation of the future and to be to simulate the future we are creating a reality in our minds, the mere fact that imagination / creativity is already something that frees us from the mental prison, something that we can call individual freedom or free will.

Imagination or creativity are not examples of free will as they too have underlying causes of which we are not aware of. You may decide right now to think of a particular person but you won't know why it never occurred to you to pick someone else. Also, if we really had freedom with our imaginations, painters wouldn't draw blanks and writers wouldn't experience blocks when all they want is to be creative. :-D

Not all of humanity has this gift of uncontrolled mind, in fact, this is real. But this art called Concentration, better known as Raja-Yoga teaches us that this is possible. It is possible to control a machine called Brain by inner Power. So your theory that we do not control what we think is wrong, or what we think in two days or even in a year. Note that I'm not talking about religious theories, but facts belonging to a spirituality. Science calls the illusion of free will, spirituality calls it by the mental slavery.

Science isn't concerned with philosophical questions like free will and determinism. Science isn't concerned with anything. Science observes. Science impassively, disinterestedly notes the things that we can empirically test over and over again. Numbers, data. It doesn't ask, "Why do humans exist?" It asks, "What causal factors led to the existence of humans?"

We use reason and science and apply these tools to our philosophies to answer questions like "What is free will?" Scientific inquiry is humanity's best attempt at developing a flawless epistemology. Those who disparage science are either ignorant of terminology or intentionally deluding themselves.

Surely you must realize you're being incomprehensible, Z0rb. Citing esotericism without explanation is the exact opposite of debate: it's dogma. Hey, you know what? The ancient tradition of Yaba-yaba-yaba has led me to realize the true nature of human beings: we don't have free will!

See how this argument can be made without any effort or genuine attempt at conversation or revelation of the truth? What is this inner "Power"? Are you talking about willpower? Because willpower is a product of and subject to the whims of the brain, the machine. Not the other way around.

If you disagree with me, I would invite you to put a .50 caliber pistol in your mouth and allow a mere shard of metal to disrupt the delicate operations of your neural tissues. Willpower isn't going to do anything to keep you alive or conscious. When something happens to the brain, it changes who you are. Never mind a bullet passing between your cerebral hemispheres and vaporizing your cerebellum; something as small as a nutritional deficiency can radically alter your brain structure and, consequently, your personality, ambitions, thoughts, and perceptions.

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

Z0rb wrote: It is possible to control a machine called Brain by inner Power.

What made the choice to do that? ;)

I love the long reply and the terse one just the same! :-D

Zorb, if you had read the thread properly, you'd know why will power is not free will. Nobody is denying the 'will' part. We are denying the 'free'. 8-)

[ Post made via Android ] Image

I think you realized exactly what it meant by the term science. Well, you might be correct in your assessment, but also have in mind that Raja Yoga is an occult science. If I say you that it’s possible to read minds of others and feel what others feel, you'll say that this is something invalid, something related to dogmas and I can accept that, because there is no scientific evidence that could prove it. But if I tell you that telepathy is possible between brain and computer you have better accepted this concept? The brain is electrical and when an electron accelerates, emits electromagnetic radiation and this set of processes can be understood by computers. Therefore, a computer can now decipher the brain, not the mind, to create real images of our thoughts.

deschainXIX wrote: When something happens to the brain, it changes who you are. Never mind a bullet passing between your cerebral hemispheres and vaporizing your cerebellum; something as small as a nutritional deficiency can radically alter your brain structure and, consequently, your personality, ambitions, thoughts, and perceptions.Image

This is also true, we really depend on the brain to be normal human beings. It is also true that it has been proved that there is a part of the brain where memory dwells and this area is explored, some say that it is possible to implement memory in the human brain, as in the movie "Matrix" when Neo decides to learn arts martial, and in that respect, yes.. We can say that the "Free Will" is questionable and false. But my point here is that as a human being, with a totally perfect brain and without "failures" we have the power of choice. We are not robots, nor are programmed to react repeatedly the same way. We are rather influenced by marketing.

HAGART wrote:

Z0rb wrote: It is possible to control a machine called Brain by inner Power.

What made the choice to do that? ;)

To me, the thought is not part of brain, though often be influenced by it. The mind is a machine, all the conscious mind so binds to brain and science simply has methods to explore the brain and that to me is something great, because we understand more and more the puzzle.

Enra Traz wrote: [ Post made via Android ]

I read everything, and one of the reasons for not participating in more threads is for this reason. The forum is full of good information and this requires time to read all…

PS: After I answered I saw that you have spoken and have developed an opinion on the subject in others threads intelligently. I believe I am not adding anything new to you. I will just leave what had answered you.

Saying, "There's nothing wrong with my brain," is equivalent to saying, "There's nothing wrong with my cardiovascular system." There is no absolute health-sickness dichotomy, like a switch indicating you're either "broken" or "perfect," but rather a spectrum between the two. Even the healthiest people alive have something wrong with their bodies, or something that is not "optimal." The brain is a sponge of tissues, and simply having a "functional" one does not mean you are an autonomous individual who is free from the hegemony of physicality. You and I make different choices because we have different brains.

Parts of your brain are more developed than mine, and parts of mine yours. Can either of us be said to possess a "totally perfect brain"? What is the meaning of this phrase?

It would be erroneous to say that we both have "totally healthy brains"--the implication of which is that our brains are identical--and thus are independent of them, acting as our true "selves" would do if we were not limited by a defunct brain.

It's always good to supplement your intellectual diet with some ambiguity: [i]De omnibus dubitandum est[/i].

(I apologize for my abundant use of quotation marks in this post. So many absurd phrases being used! :lol: )

[size=75][b][i][ Post made via iPhone ][/i][/b][/size] [img]http://yoursite.com/phpBB3/images/mobile/iPhone.png[/img]

De omnibus dubitandum est 'everything must be doubted'. Christopher Hitchens made good use of this reasonable dictum in his Letters to a Young Contrarian. I am feeling nostalgic about that book. It was a good read, deschainXIX. We had some good discussions about it. :)

I've just been listening to the latest debate on free will between Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. (Free Will Revisited.) It's more sensible than their last exchange in written format. They actually agree more than they disagree.

Dennett agrees with Harris that the libertarian free will does not exist. But the issue arose from the fact that Dennett was defining free will in an unconventional way---different to what most people have in mind. (Bloody Dennett!)

Basically, Dennett said that a rock, as opposed to a human being, has no free will because it does not have the power to follow through with an action when presented with multiple-choice scenarios. A human has the potential or ability to move in many different ways; hence, Dennett argues, it is an organism with a higher degree of freedom---it has more leeway for action where an inanimate object has none.

Obviously, Sam Harris already knew this. But Harris would say that we are still constrained by our biochemistry which plays a role in unconscious decision making, and, needless to say, cannot act upon all scenarios available---we can only take one path whose determination is in the power of none other than the impersonal universe itself.

The conversation is constructive and educational for the listener. It is worth checking out. :-)

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/free-will-revisited

I didn't listen to that Podcast, but this happened to show up when viewing my posts, and I'm in a thinking mood.

Do ants have free will? I would say no. They are mere robots, influenced by pheromones. Ants are not a single being, but you must observe the entire colony to see the true life form. Does the queen ant (or queen bee or queen termite) have free will? That is an interesting thought. What influences them?

I regard my mind as a beehive of activity involving billions of cells. My brain is an ant colony if you will. It's also like a collection of neural impulses and looks like a lightning storm and nobody can predict where and when each strike will hit. It seems random and unfathomable to predict, but it's possible.

I think you can predict where every lightning strike will happen with the right technology, and one example is a clock tower in 1955 which was well documented in the 80's. But seriously, if you knew every single variable involved, you could predict everything, and that goes for our own behavior dictated by a lightning storm of ideas, and a single queen bee, perhaps the pituitary gland, controlling it all.

I bet a super computer could predict everything you will do in life, and some even speculate it's already happened and we are just "SIMS" in a virtual reality.

Food for thought.

Summerlander wrote: Well done for finding that!

Thanks! I might need a higher power reading glasses now :mrgreen:

What happened to Enra and Deschain (aka, squid)? Are they your personal friends? I realized at some point that Deschain is just a youngster. I wish that they would come back because they are a good community for you.

Maybe SleepyKitty has some simlarities to me. Kitty I saw is young too like Deschain, but likewise seems very mature.

Dane, you can come back from the abysss now. Are you allowed in your part of the world to BBQ pork over real wood/charcoal? What is your favorite cut?

Although i am a born dutchman, i currently live in Belgium with my wife, so yeah, we are "allowed" to BBQ pork. Although i must add, considering the amount of islamic refugee's, i don't know for how long :lol: naah, just joking. :P

I love most of the pork's delicious meat, but a big fat piece of tenderloin, you may wake me for that! :mrgreen:

:lol: :)

I like the ribs or shoulder/ butt steaks. If I start with the loin in aluminum foil to retain moisture, it can end up very good too.

Pilgrim wrote: I like the ribs or shoulder/ butt steaks. If I start with the loin in aluminum foil to retain moisture, it can end up very good too.

It can end even better. ;) i have never tries this on a BBQ, which i will now that i think of it, but you primarily use the oven. first get yourself a big single piece per person. rather a chubby piece then a streched one. shortly fry it in a pan so ALL sides get a good burn. now you slice a cut in the middle, all the way through. now stick a slice of cheese through the cut. maybe you want to add more to the festivall, i prefer to add bacon. 8-) wrap it in aluminiumfoil and place it in a preheated oven on 200 celcius.

once on your plate, Un autre exemple des triomphes culinaires.

and vegetarian's claim their plants are just as yummy as meat.... HAAAAH!! :lol: :lol:

it takes about 5minutes of effort, the oven does the rest. ;)

Pilgrim wrote: What happened to Enra and Deschain (aka, squid)?

Enra was my personal 'John Titor' alter ego. She was a he and a me as part of a time-traveling prank. She gone back to the future but she may return soon ... :mrgreen:

The squid has a mind of his own, a free will I do not possess for he is his own unpredictable person. Quantum statistics dictate, on Heisenberg's uncertainty, that he's converted to Mormonism.

Are they your personal friends? I realized at some point that Deschain is just a youngster. I wish that they would come back because they are a good community for you.

I miss the squid. It had plenty of ink to offer. 8-)

Maybe SleepyKitty has some simlarities to me. Kitty I saw is young too like Deschain, but likewise seems very mature.

I'd love to meet this cat. :-D

Dane, you can come back from the abysss now. Are you allowed in your part of the world to BBQ pork over real wood/charcoal? What is your favorite cut?[/quote]

I love pork. Dane, about the Muslims ... don't let them! ;-)

I will definitely try Dane's technique for the loin. Sounds good! :!:

I saw an article for a vegan dinner in my area recently. They make fake BBQ beef brisket, which, the thought of, makes me want to vomit. We need to make a fake broccoli stalk out of real meat instead.

Pilgrim wrote: I will definitely try Dane's technique for the loin. Sounds good! :!:

I saw an article for a vegan dinner in my area recently. They make fake BBQ beef brisket, which, the thought of, makes me want to vomit. We need to make a fake broccoli stalk out of real meat instead.

It will be wonderfull 8-) I have never read a single word of a vegan article before and i don't plan to do so either. :lol: Just the idea alone is just too much for me to handle! :lol:

Summerlander wrote: I love pork. Dane, about the Muslims ... don't let them! ;-)

Mwa i don't actually feel threathend by the whole situation. :P

Pilgrim wrote: What happened to Enra and Deschain (aka, squid)?

Enra was my personal 'John Titor' alter ego. She was a he and a me as part of a time-traveling prank. She gone back to the future but she may return soon ... :mrgreen:

The squid has a mind of his own, a free will I do not possess for he is his own unpredictable person. Quantum statistics dictate, on Heisenberg's uncertainty, that he's converted to Mormonism.

Are they your personal friends? I realized at some point that Deschain is just a youngster. I wish that they would come back because they are a good community for you.

I miss the squid. It had plenty of ink to offer. 8-)

Maybe SleepyKitty has some simlarities to me. Kitty I saw is young too like Deschain, but likewise seems very mature.

I'd love to meet this cat. :-D

Dane, you can come back from the abysss now. Are you allowed in your part of the world to BBQ pork over real wood/charcoal? What is your favorite cut?

I love pork. Dane, about the Muslims ... don't let them! ;-)

ISIS, as merely an example of the human condition, I would not hesitate for a second--it is evil. I would not hesitate to give the message that they should and must repent from their evil and would urge them to turn to accept my understanding of God and Christ.

So about Buddhism. My wife has a background in Buddhism as a child. She has thoroughly renounced such way in favor of the gospel of Christ. She argues convincingly to me against it. I believe her, although I am biased because she is attractive to me :D .

My personal conversation with a Buddhist follows. (Yes, I am aware that it does not necessarily represent all Buddhists.). The Buddhist did assuredly tell me that evil and the material world is an illusion. So, I said, the car sitting there is not real? She advised, if you believe it is not there, it is not. I said to her, a car driving towards you, you will be hit if you do not move. It does not matter, said I, what you believe. If the car is coming toward you, you must move or you will perish.

The belief that evil and reality are illusions is not what I believe is true. I am not a good candidate for Buddhism. It is definitely not wife approved.

I'm not Buddhist actually, and think even that train of thought is fraught with hypocricy. I'm a sick bastard who eats dead animals. I'm pure evil!

ISIS is sick and twisted, I won't deny that. However the bar can be moved, not set in stone. It's an illusion. I like to understand by examining everything in the polar extremes. Mad Max: Fury Road, was a great movie that was set in a post apocolypic world where rules are thrown out the car window. It made me think alot. It's a good movie.

I have to point to this message for now, just thinking.

One thing we need to work on is helping you put quotes in the same message, not separately. I can't explain the Universe and our emotions or beliefs, but I can help you with that. :D

I'd like to make a relevant distinction here. From the anthropic principle, the world is an illusion but it also exists. With this statement, I wish to emphasise the fact that an illusion is not something that doesn't exist. An illusion is simply something that isn't what it appears to be. The illusion, therefore, is something real which makes an appearance.

For instance, the couch appears to be solid. But this is an illusion. When I sit on it, I am actually hovering a few millimicrons above it due to repellent forces. The object, in actuality, is mostly empty space. To conclude, we should avoid oncoming cars that could potentially hit us because they are real---even if they, as material masses, are not how we perceive or believe them to be. Free will, on the other hand, is not even an illusion---it simply doesn't exist.

If we are to impugn modern Buddhism, I believe criticising their view that reality is an illusion simply won't do. They actually got that part right and it is the only religion I know which honestly addresses the nature of the human mind (at least from the foundational teachings of the Buddha). And if we address the world of perceptions, as its doctrine encourages us to do, we come to the conclusion that it's all we have. The world doesn't look like anything until it's observed.

The world's appearance depends on who or what is perceiving it. Congenital achromats might believe the world is devoid of colour (if they think there is nothing wrong with them) in contrast to a bumble bee who will perceive a multicoloured environment including ranges of ultraviolet light invisible to every human being.

As far as we're aware, we could be brains in a vat transcribing electrical impulses into a fake reality which are fed to us by evil scientists or A.I. (like in 'The Matrix'). Buddhists could choose to believe this without evidence (they don't necessarily, of course) and it would be no more preposterous than the belief that Jesus Christ was simultaneously the son of God and God incarnate here on Earth.

Yes, Hagart, I am in desperate need of your technical training. I would be so happy if you would email me or post in off topic.

So, as to "illusion," none of us have problem with realizing that "solid" objects are mostly empty space. My conversation concerned the belief that the mind can bend a spoon and such things. You know, like Matrix and Star Wars kind of powers.

As I said, Buddhists have a wide variety of beliefs. Most recently, my wife became intense again when a Buddhist monk approached one of her friends and began to prophesy that her friend is pregnant, will be a boy, and other pronouncements.

I have read certain literature that the Buddhists put out. I believe that one was What Buddhists Believe and the other was The Buddha and His Teachings.

My wife is of Asian background and has personal knowledge of Buddhism for religion and for culture. I believe her. As I said, I am biased. You are just not sexy enough, Summerlander.

Edited for grammar--your to you are. Added citation to second book.

Yes, sex appeal is paramount ... :lol:

Indeed! :mrgreen:

HAGART wrote: One thing we need to work on is helping you put quotes in the same message, not separately. I can't explain the Universe and our emotions or beliefs, but I can help you with that.

Pilgrim wrote: Yes, Hagart, I am in desperate need of your technical training. I would be so happy if you would email me or post in off topic.

First hit the reply button, then find the relevant text you want to address below the draft you are writing. It scrolls down to the last 10 messages. When you find the text, highlight it, and then hit the quotes button [ " ] at the top of the respective message. It will paste it in your message with the proper BBCode to quote it. Hitting the quote button on the original message will quote the entire message.

I think you knew that already, but what you may not realize is that you can then type below that quote before sending the message, and even repeat this process several times before sending. If you want to see what your message will look like, press PREVIEW before you SUBMIT.

Another way to quote is to press the QUOTE button above between UNDERLINE and CODE. You can also type out he BBCode and write (quote="NAME") message (/quote), where parenthesis ( ) are replaced by brackets [ ]. This is more advanced for expert quoters.

Example:

SexySummer wrote: Yes, sex appeal is paramount ...

Now I wonder what will happen if I quote within a quote! I have never done that before and let's see what happens.

ME wrote:

ME2 wrote: This is a quote within a quote. ME3 wrote: Oh yea, I remember doing this before. You can only have a maximum of 3 quotes in each other.

I hope you found this course in quoting helpful.

You're a genius, Hagart ... because you called me 'sexy'. :mrgreen:

Without reading through the comments (although I might sometime because I'm a sucker for these kind of topics), I voted no. My reason's seen from a socological perspective, that a person's will's been determined by the cause of other people's actions (also words) - your upbringing, surroundings, habit, culture etc.

You pretty much got the gist. The argument for determinism is obvious, really. If you wish to hone this argument further, I recommend Free Will by Sam Harris. You will love it! 8-)