Free Will/Choice?

[IntuitiveWanderer]

I did not. I never said I am a rock. I am a mentally functioning human.

 

What I said was that I can exist but still be brain dead therefore I would be having no experiences not would I be conscious. But there I am, stuck through with tubes that are keeping my body alive so others can view my death-like state.

 

Here you are.

[silent thunder]

For you, there may or may not be a floor in my house that my chair is sitting on. Without being able to observe it yourself you need to use a little common sense. (Wasn't it Mark Twain who said that common sense isn't as common as some suggest it to be?)

 

So if you grant that I am at home in my house we would ask: Do most houses in America have constructed floors? The answer would naturally be yes based on what we have observed in the past and what we have read from others.

 

Conclusion: Marblehead surely has a constructed floor in his house. And because the floor exists for Marblehead it would be here when you arrived as well. And it would still be here even if you got lost in space and never arrived.

 

 

Yes, these kinds of discussions require us to use logic in our thoughts before typing the words on the keyboard. And yes, my keyboard exists. I suppose the one you are using exists as well.

I agree. While my question has little real value, it's still a fun bone to chew.

 

If I don't exist, does the floor?

 

I'm working from the premise that, if I exist, that is dependent upon the complete conditions of the universe to bring humans about, since there is a seemingly identifiable me, I am one of the essential expressions of humanness and it was inevitable that I would exist, based on the conditions of the universe. Without the conditions which give rise to marblehead or me, do floors exist?

 

Meh, I'll stop taking us off topic, that just triggered a bit of curiosity in me over the co-dependent nature of interconnectedness.

 

Floors certainly do exist, perceptionally to me and many others anyway.

[dust]

I agree with his ideas about free will. He agrees with what I've believed for a while.

 

But I think he's missed the bigger picture.

[IntuitiveWanderer]

I agree with his ideas about free will. He agrees with what I've believed for a while.

 

But I think he's missed the bigger picture.

 

Who, me? Can you elaborate?

[dust]

Not you, the guy in the video sorry, I haven't been following the convo here and just jumped in with an undeveloped thought on the lecture. Not sure if I can elaborate very well. I just feel that he's missing things.

 

His thoughts seem limited to modern scientific principles, and he seems bent on having science overtake religion as the dominant way of thinking. Well, I have no problem with the idea of no theistic religions, but the idea that the removal of Christianity, Islam, etc will make people nicer and/or less destructive is fairly ridiculous (imo), and the idea that science can somehow "save" mankind... well..

Looking at his wikipedia entry, I see he is indeed in favour of "a scientific approach to normative morality"

 

He mentions "evil" and morality a lot. After doing such a good job at unmasking the essentially religious notion of free will -- an idea dependent on an agent (soul) independent of this plane of existence making free choices equally independent of the situation -- he seems to neglect to realise that the idea of morality is a product of the very same religious mode of thinking. Many people still believe that some things are good, and some evil, objectively -- independent of subjective reality. Many atheists believe this. But morality is nothing more than a tool, and personally, I don't think it's a very useful one.

[Marblehead]

A person who has no subjective experience/cosciousness cannot be subject to anything, he can only be an object in another's consciousnes experience. When you say that something is there, you say that you are having an experience of something, therefore if other people did not have an experience of that pod-person then they didn't.

I give you this one as I mixed up the concepts and misrepresented my understandings.

 

Yes, it requires a discerning mind to be able to have a subjective experience.

[IntuitiveWanderer]

I give you this one as I mixed up the concepts and misrepresented my understandings.

 

Yes, it requires a discerning mind to be able to have a subjective experience.

 

And what is being discerned is consciousness (experience consciousness).

 

But consciousness is neither subject to anything nor the object of anything, because it is all there is.

 

Lux Umbra Dei

Edited November 21, 2014 by IntuitiveWanderer

[Marblehead]

 

When we talk of objective reality, we are thinking and not experiencing reality. There is no such thing as objective reality, only consciousness which is neither objective nor subjective.

I still have to disagree with this. When there is no discerning mind then there are no subjective experiences. However, just because there is no one to see the tree doesn't mean that the tree does not exist. Let us not place too much importance on the human brain.

 

But you make a good point about the fact that a real object can get you hurt while a hallucination cannot. For example you hurt your nose while bumping in the tree, just as I flew on mars in a dream last night.

Exactly.

 

I didn't flew, it was just experience. Many patterns happened.

I understand.

 

It is like a fractal system, most likely. I don't have all the answers, a Taoist master would have known.

Oh, I doubt there is anyone who has all the answers. Myself, I have more questions than I have answers.

 

Also, as a side note, neither chairs nor rocks are beings.

Now you've got it!!!

[IntuitiveWanderer]

I still have to disagree with this. When there is no discerning mind then there are no subjective experiences. However, just because there is no one to see the tree doesn't mean that the tree does not exist. Let us not place too much importance on the human brain.

 

"It is there" is an idea. Reality is experience consciousness.

 

The entire thing is experience consciousness. There is no matter, it is all Maya. This is what I am saying.

 

 

These are lights.

Edited November 21, 2014 by IntuitiveWanderer

[Marblehead]

If I don't exist, does the floor?

We should not place too much importance on the human animal. Other things existed way before there were any humans. It is just that the way we evolved with our brain we are able to ask questions. Sometimes that's not such a good idea.

[Marblehead]

I agree with his ideas about free will. He agrees with what I've believed for a while.

 

But I think he's missed the bigger picture.

I oftentimes miss the bigger picture because my eyes are focused on the ladies, especially those in short skirts or bikinis.

[Marblehead]

And what is being discerned is consciousness (consciousness experience).

 

But consciousness is neither subject to anything nor the object of anything, because it is all there is.

 

Lux Umbra Dei

Hehehe. You have errored if you think that statement convinced me of anything.

 

But you are exercising your free will by holding to that thought.

 

I know. There are many who hold to that same thought - that consciousness exists as an object in and of itself. I don't.

[IntuitiveWanderer]

Hehehe. You have errored if you think that statement convinced me of anything.

 

But you are exercising your free will by holding to that thought.

 

I know. There are many who hold to that same thought - that consciousness exists as an object in and of itself. I don't.

 

 

Who is I ?

 

I is cosnciousness, was there ever any I other than cosnciousness? I can have absolute epistemological certainty that I is consciousness, since I know that I can not be anything other than consciousness..without consciousness experience there can be no I, consciousness experience is all that validates existence, this is very logical.

But your "ontological nihilism", on the other hand, is based on faith.

Edited November 21, 2014 by IntuitiveWanderer

[Marblehead]

Who is I ?

 

I is cosnciousness, was there ever any I other than cosnciousness? I can have absolute epistemological certainty that I is consciousness, since I know that I can not be anything other than consciousness..without consciousness experience there can be no I, consciousness experience is all that validates existence, this is very logical.

But your "ontological nihilism", on the other hand, is based on faith.

Hehehe. I have no faith. I'm a Materialist and an Atheist. We don't need faith.

 

Yep. You are of that school that puts "you" at the center of the universe.

 

And then, you would still be you when you are unconscious. That happened to me once when I drank too much Southern Comfort, consciously passed out but my body was still functioning by pure instinct. I even drove home from the party and regained consciousness after I had parked my car in its proper parking place. I had no conscious experience of leaving the party, driving home or parking the car. But it still happened.

[IntuitiveWanderer]

Hehehe. I have no faith. I'm a Materialist and an Atheist. We don't need faith.

 

Yep. You are of that school that puts "you" at the center of the universe.

 

There is no me, only consciousness.

 

 

And then, you would still be you when you are unconscious. That happened to me once when I drank too much Southern Comfort, consciously passed out but my body was still functioning by pure instinct. I even drove home from the party and regained consciousness after I had parked my car in its proper parking place. I had no conscious experience of leaving the party, driving home or parking the car. But it still happened.

 

Lol

 

So there was no consciousness? What was there then?

Edited November 21, 2014 by IntuitiveWanderer

[IntuitiveWanderer]

If you give me one logical argument which proves that consciousness is not existence, that existence is not consciousness, then I will believe you.

 

 

dahjfabdfbafhbaf ahbfakfnc cnbfanmsbd

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUuuuuummmmmmmmmm

Edited November 21, 2014 by IntuitiveWanderer

[IntuitiveWanderer]

One Note of Zen

 

After Kakua visited the emperor he disappeared and no one knew what became of him. He was the first Japanese to study Zen in China, but since he showed nothing of it, save one note, he is not remembered for having brought Zen into his country.

Kakua visited China and accepted the true teaching. He did not travel while he was there. Meditating constantly, he lived on a remote part of a mountain. Whenever people found him and asked him to preach he would say a few words and then move to another part of the mountain where he could be found less easily.

The emperor heard about Kakua when he returned to Japan and asked him to preach Zen for his edification and that of his subjects.

Kakua stood before the emperor in silence. He then produced a flute from the folds of his robe, and blew one short note. Bowing politely, he disappeared.

[IntuitiveWanderer]

The Stone Mind

 

Hogen, a Chinese Zen teacher, lived alone in a small temple in the country. One day four traveling monks appeared and asked if they might make a fire in his yard to warm themselves.

While they were building the fire, Hogen heard them arguing about subjectivity and objectivity. He joined them and said: "There is a big stone. Do you consider it to be inside or outside your mind?"

One of the monks replied: "From the Buddhist viewpoint everything is an objectification of mind, so I would say that the stone is inside my mind."

"Your head must feel very heavy," observed Hogen, "if you are carrying around a stone like that in your mind."

[IntuitiveWanderer]

A Parable

 

Buddha told a parable in sutra:

A man traveling across a field encountered a tiger. He fled, the tiger after him. Coming to a precipice, he caught hold of the root of a wild vine and swung himself down over the edge. The tiger sniffed at him from above. Trembling, the man looked down to where, far below, another tiger was waiting to eat him. Only the vine sustained him.

Two mice, one white and one black, little by little started to gnaw away the vine. The man saw a luscious strawberry near him. Grasping the vine with one hand, he plucked the strawberry with the other. How sweet it tasted!

[IntuitiveWanderer]

The Moon Cannot Be Stolen

 

Ryokan, a Zen master, lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut at the foot of a mountain. One evening a thief visited the hut only to discover there was nothing to steal.

Ryokan returned and caught him. "You have come a long way to visit me," he told the prowler, "and you should not return empty-handed. Please take my clothes as a gift."

The thief was bewildered. He took the clothes and slunk away.

Ryoken sat naked, watching the moon. "Poor fellow," he mused, "I wish I could have given him this beautiful moon."

[Marblehead]

There is no me, only consciousness.

Okay. Whatever "YOU" say.

 

Lol

 

So there was no consciousness? What was there then?

There was only me. Of course, you suggest that there was no me without consciousness. That still seems to be a contradiction in my mind.

[Marblehead]

If you give me one logical argument which proves that consciousness is not existence, that existence is not consciousness, then I will believe you.

 

 

dahjfabdfbafhbaf ahbfakfnc cnbfanmsbd

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUuuuuummmmmmmmmm

I have presented it many times.

 

The universe is 13.7 billion years old. Humans have existed for a maximum of 4 million years.

 

So from your point of view the 13.696 billion years don't count for anything. But I argue that those years mean an awful lot because without them there would have been no evolution and therefore no you or me.

[Marblehead]

One Note of Zen

Okay. After seeing those last four post I understand a little better from where you perspective is rooted.

 

I'm just a simple Philosophical Taoist.

[IntuitiveWanderer]

Okay. Whatever "YOU" say.

 

The body is not existence, the body is subject to existence; the brain is not existence, the brain is subject to existence; matter is not existence, matter is subject to existence. I is not subject to existence, I is existence.

 

All, neither subject nor object, consciousness is Existence.

 

I am I.

Edited November 21, 2014 by IntuitiveWanderer

[Marblehead]

Well, apparently that is your understanding but I still think you have a misunderstanding.

 

What is, is, always has been, always will be. "What" simply takes different form over time.

 

And yes, time and space exist too.