Should you believe in free will?

[goldisheavy]

http://bigthink.com/ideas/38486

 

Not that I had any doubts, but this is still interesting, imo.

[Marblehead]

Yes, we all should believe in free will.

 

And we all should be gald they freed Willy.

[manitou]

http://bigthink.com/ideas/38486

 

Not that I had any doubts, but this is still interesting, imo.

 

 

This article was very interesting to me. The way I see it (which may not be correct at all, but it's just the way I see it), we manifest from the inside to the outside. The god-spirit (for lack of a better name) is what we are. The intention, the thought, manifests first, unknown to us. The research seems to bear that out - our brain 'prepares' itself before our own awareness kicks in. We apparently have a split second to modify our action or thought.

 

The god-spirit is not good or bad. It just Is. If we're conditioned through the years to be judgmental of, say, someone of another skin color, we have the choice of whether to indulge our judgment or to modify the thought as it manifests to us. I have a lot of pre-conditioning, so I do a lot of instant modifying. We are what we think.

 

The thing that keeps the god-spirit aligned with our physical self (nothing but a series of imposed conditions and judgments) is the inner cultivation. We have the free choice to get rid of the things inside us which warp the lens of our true vision.

[goldisheavy]

This article was very interesting to me. The way I see it (which may not be correct at all, but it's just the way I see it), we manifest from the inside to the outside. The god-spirit (for lack of a better name) is what we are. The intention, the thought, manifests first, unknown to us. The research seems to bear that out - our brain 'prepares' itself before our own awareness kicks in. We apparently have a split second to modify our action or thought.

 

I see it very similarly to you.

 

The god-spirit is not good or bad. It just Is. If we're conditioned through the years to be judgmental of, say, someone of another skin color, we have the choice of whether to indulge our judgment or to modify the thought as it manifests to us. I have a lot of pre-conditioning, so I do a lot of instant modifying. We are what we think.

 

The thing that keeps the god-spirit aligned with our physical self (nothing but a series of imposed conditions and judgments) is the inner cultivation. We have the free choice to get rid of the things inside us which warp the lens of our true vision.

 

 

I think our god-spirit and our body are always aligned whether we like it or not. The "problem" is that our god-spirit accepts anything unto itself. So it can accept contradicting and painful beliefs, which can manifest in a painful body. God-spirit is just fine with pain, it's equally as capable and as "happy" to manifest misery as it is to manifest bliss, well-being and contentment. So the alignment between the god-spirit and the body is always there, as I see it, but we tend to fill our god-spirit with junky beliefs on purpose or through neglect and then we expect fantastic results.

Edited May 23, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Birch]

This article was very interesting to me. The way I see it (which may not be correct at all, but it's just the way I see it), we manifest from the inside to the outside. The god-spirit (for lack of a better name) is what we are. The intention, the thought, manifests first, unknown to us. The research seems to bear that out - our brain 'prepares' itself before our own awareness kicks in. We apparently have a split second to modify our action or thought.

 

The god-spirit is not good or bad. It just Is. If we're conditioned through the years to be judgmental of, say, someone of another skin color, we have the choice of whether to indulge our judgment or to modify the thought as it manifests to us. I have a lot of pre-conditioning, so I do a lot of instant modifying. We are what we think.

 

The thing that keeps the god-spirit aligned with our physical self (nothing but a series of imposed conditions and judgments) is the inner cultivation. We have the free choice to get rid of the things inside us which warp the lens of our true vision.

 

Neat post! Something else that I've been mulling over is the idea that most of what we think/do has a real intelligence of purpose, couched in reality as we have experienced it till now. But at some juncture, there is a realization that this is pointless, that no prior experience can fully "jive" with whatever is going on right now. Nor can it continue to do so. This dashes our hopes and expectations (which I guess I kind of argue as being a good thing too). A "gap" ensues. Being in the gap feels pretty neat. Then I sometimes fall back into hope and expectations and, well, that feels terrible. There's nothing more painful than hope, IMO/IME.

[Marblehead]

There's nothing more painful than hope, IMO/IME.

 

Very interesting point of view.

 

May I have the liberty to add?

 

There's nothing more painful than having to rely on hope, IMO/IME.

 

This is not really side-tracking the thread, the concept is related to free will.

[Birch]

"May I have the liberty to add?"

 

It would seem that you do

[Marblehead]

"May I have the liberty to add?"

 

It would seem that you do

 

Hehehe. Well, I think it is only proper for me to ask before I force myself on someone. Hehehe. My bad.

 

Oh well.

[stan herman]

Yes, we all should believe in free will.

 

And we all should be gald they freed Willy.

 

Yep, I believe in free will--that we can make a choice.

And every choice we make is absolutely inevitable.

 

 

How can it be otherwise? Even if there's an homunculus inside

called Willhemena

[Marblehead]

Yep, I believe in free will--that we can make a choice.

And every choice we make is absolutely inevitable.

 

How can it be otherwise?

 

I'm still not totally comfortable with that thought. No, I have no logical reason to argue against it.

 

I have had this discussion on this forum before. Maybe one day I will feel more comfortable with it.

[doc benway]

Great research. I've been fascinated with this line of inquiry since first hearing about it on NPR a few years ago.

This new paper adds an interesting spin. I also agree with Manitou's perspective and it feels like our conscious apparatus is more about monitoring and recording what is going on. And using those recordings (memory) to make last minute modifications (that window of free will per se) based on previous experiences being projected toward possible outcomes.

[goldisheavy]

Very interesting point of view.

 

May I have the liberty to add?

 

There's nothing more painful than having to rely on hope, IMO/IME.

 

This is not really side-tracking the thread, the concept is related to free will.

 

Marble, you don't have to justify yourself like that as far as I am concerned. When I started this thread I had an idea that this thread will serve you and everyone else, and not the other way around. In other words, if you want to veer off a bit, that's perfectly OK as far as I am concerned. When I start threads they are simply departure points for explorations. They aren't rails that I expect people to stick to like good little trains. Maybe you have to apologize to others. But not to me. So I personally would enjoy it better if you said whatever you think was relevant or best even if it meant you had to take the thread into a different/new direction, and if you didn't apologize for it, but just took it for granted. Thanks. We have enough mental prisons as is. The last thing I want is for these threads here to serve as mental prisons and containers. Let's crush all the prison walls, but only after a good nap.

[manitou]

Very interesting point of view.

 

May I have the liberty to add?

 

There's nothing more painful than having to rely on hope, IMO/IME.

 

This is not really side-tracking the thread, the concept is related to free will.

 

Actually, I think hope is non-acceptance of the Dao nature of things. Things just are. To 'hope' is to have an intended outcome and confine the quantum nature of the Dao and the many possibility it contains.

[goldisheavy]

Actually, I think hope is non-acceptance of the Dao nature of things. Things just are. To 'hope' is to have an intended outcome and confine the quantum nature of the Dao and the many possibility it contains.

 

Hope just is. Intended outcomes just are. When intention manifests, that's just how it is. Everything just is. Not just your favorite bits.

[Marblehead]

Actually, I think hope is non-acceptance of the Dao nature of things. Things just are. To 'hope' is to have an intended outcome and confine the quantum nature of the Dao and the many possibility it contains.

 

Yep. When we hope we are wanting to change the natural processes. That can never happen. Just look at how many times man has tried to change the natural processes of the Mississippi River and what is happening now. The processes cannot be changed. It is only how we adapt and cooperate with the processes that can be changed.

 

And I agree, when we hope for something unnatural we are only applying our illusions and delusions to reality.

[Marblehead]

Hope just is. Intended outcomes just are. When intention manifests, that's just how it is. Everything just is. Not just your favorite bits.

 

Yep. But we still have the free will to select how we are going to interact with what is. We can't change what is. This is because by the time we realize what is it is already history and history is written in stone. But we have the choice as to how we are going to interact with what will be.

[manitou]

This is because by the time we realize what is it is already history and history is written in stone.

 

 

Is history written in stone? Or is that a matter of separate perception as well?

[wearydreamer]

If there is someone to believe in free will, he/she definitely will. But better question would be - is there someone?

[Marblehead]

Is history written in stone? Or is that a matter of separate perception as well?

 

Yes, it is written in stone. How we interpret it is what causes it to appear to be different by two or more individuals.

[manitou]

Yes, it is written in stone. How we interpret it is what causes it to appear to be different by two or more individuals.

 

I wonder. History is written by the victors. I actually think the only True History is that things deteriorate.

 

Also, when you throw the illusion of time into the equation (past, present, future being all One) that would be saying that the present and the future are written in stone as well. Geez, perhaps they are. In that case free will would be a truly moot point.

[doc benway]

Yes, it is written in stone. How we interpret it is what causes it to appear to be different by two or more individuals.

 

 

I wonder. History is written by the victors. I actually think the only True History is that things deteriorate.

 

Also, when you throw the illusion of time into the equation (past, present, future being all One) that would be saying that the present and the future are written in stone as well. Geez, perhaps they are. In that case free will would be a truly moot point.

Great points to think about. History is a funny thing. Not only is it written by the victors but it is rewritten by those in power at any given time. Furthermore, Marbles' point about interpretation is critical but it is because of this that history really isn't written in stone.

 

Just about any event in time is interpreted differently by everyone involved, even eyewitnesses (think - Rashomon). The Palestinians and Jews would have a different story for just about any occurence in the West Bank since 1967.

 

So what is history? It's mostly our documentation of our interpretation of events. And our perspectives change in time, so history, in fact, does change as our interpretation changes. We can be very concrete and say that the twin towers either collapsed or did not collapse but beyond the very basics, how much would everyone agree upon?

 

I really enjoyed the Alan Watts on Time videos:

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

I wonder. History is written by the victors. I actually think the only True History is that things deteriorate.

 

That's a different story, My Dear.

 

Also, when you throw the illusion of time into the equation (past, present, future being all One) that would be saying that the present and the future are written in stone as well. Geez, perhaps they are. In that case free will would be a truly moot point.

 

Nope. The future hasn't happened yet. It cannot yet be written. I like the saying, "Today is the first day of the rest of your life." Make it what you want it to be.

[Marblehead]

Great points to think about. History is a funny thing. Not only is it written by the victors but it is rewritten by those in power at any given time. Furthermore, Marbles' point about interpretation is critical but it is because of this that history really isn't written in stone.

 

No, no, no. You guys are talking about the interpretation of what is written is stone.

 

I am not talking about the writings of man. I am talking about the same water cannot pass under the same bridge twice.

 

There is a great difference, in most cases, between the past events and how these events are interpreted by man.

 

Now y'all stop that. I get confused easily.

[goldisheavy]

I really enjoyed the Alan Watts on Time videos:

 

Alan Watts has an astounding sagacity. That was brilliant. I see these videos for the first time.

 

Thank you Steve!

[stan herman]

No, no, no. You guys are talking about the interpretation of what is written is stone.

 

I am not talking about the writings of man. I am talking about the same water cannot pass under the same bridge twice.

 

There is a great difference, in most cases, between the past events and how these events are interpreted by man.

 

Now y'all stop that. I get confused easily.

 

Hmm, can't resist questioning that bit about the same water under the bridge... Considering the process of evaporation, cloud formation, and so on, maybe the same water can. Also a basic question to be asked, can there be an "event" unless it is interpreted by man, otherwise ain't it just undifferentiated action? Just to add a little more confusion.