Why Follow Tao?

[Marblehead]

26 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

I read once that tests have shown that the brain "prepares" to make a decision several seconds before one is typically aware consciously that they are deciding. It was postulated that what we think of as "making" a decision is more like "being informed of" the decision we already (unconsciously) made!

 

That's food for thought!

 

Here's a link to a similar study.

 

https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html

 

 

This isn't a problem.  That's the way our brain works.  It still doesn't negate the fact that one can train their brain to make the choices that are preferred rather than choices that always get us in trouble.

[Marblehead]

1 minute ago, Stosh said:

Pick up your hand.

I decided to not do that.

 

[wandelaar]

Having no 'free will' doesn't mean being incapable of making your own decisions, it only means that your decision making process isn't independent of the laws of nature. And introspection does not suffice to determine whether or not your decision making process follows the laws of nature because the process is largely unconscious and one doesn't currently know all the laws of nature that could play a part. That's why arguments for free will never prove their point.

[Stosh]

8 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Having no 'free will' doesn't mean being incapable of making your own decisions, it only means that your decision making process isn't independent of the laws of nature. And introspection does not suffice to determine whether or not your decision making process follows the laws of nature because the process is largely unconscious and one doesn't currently know all the laws of nature that could play a part. That's why arguments for free will never prove their point.

The laws of nature are not so specific that they rule That you must do every deciscision you have ever made. You get to choose from a selection of possibilities.  Why would the rules be different for you than me? 

Edited April 20, 2018 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Making your own decisions is free will.  You made a choice.  You selected one over all the other natural possibilities.

 

But I do agree with you in that, while it is possible to make a choice that is not naturally possible to enact, we can still attempt to enact that choice.  We will fail, of course.

 

So it is invalid to state that just because we don't understand everything that is happening when we make a choice that this proves there is no free will.  At this very moment I can make a choice between remaining seated or standing up to give my butt a break.  I will remain seated.  Choice made.

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

1 minute ago, Marblehead said:

So it is invalid to state that just because we don't understand everything that is happening when we make a choice that this proves there is no free will.

 

Excellent point!

[wandelaar]

One cannot win a discussion with believers. Whatever experiments might be done, or whatever logical arguments might be brought forward. So I stop. There are more productive topics to discuss.

[dawei]

17 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Having no 'free will' doesn't mean being incapable of making your own decisions, it only means that your decision making process isn't independent of the laws of nature. And introspection does not suffice to determine whether or not your decision making process follows the laws of nature because the process is largely unconscious and one doesn't currently know all the laws of nature that could play a part. That's why arguments for free will never prove their point.

 

If I agree then there is something in the laws of nature that makes me agree... and if I disagree there is something in the laws of nature that makes me disagree...

 

Either I am willy-nilly or laws of nature are willy-nilly... or another 'choice' 

 

[Lost in Translation]

2 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

One cannot win a discussion with believers. Whatever experiments might be done, or whatever logical arguments might be brought forward.

 

True. This is why "I don't know" is an acceptable, indeed a preferable, answer. 

 

Also, the point of conversation need not be to convince the other party to change their point of view. Often simply illustrating how points of view differ is enough.

[Marblehead]

15 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

One cannot win a discussion with believers. Whatever experiments might be done, or whatever logical arguments might be brought forward. So I stop. There are more productive topics to discuss.

That the spirit!!!  Blame it on me for being a believer.

 

 

[Stosh]

6 minutes ago, dawei said:

 

If I agree then there is something in the laws of nature that makes me agree... and if I disagree there is something in the laws of nature that makes me disagree...

 

Either I am willy-nilly or laws of nature are willy-nilly... or another 'choice' 

 

Its just not functional to say that theres stuff we might not know that could be of impact. Its always claimable but dysfunctional. 

We have to move forward with whatever info we have, or we cannot proceed. 

It seems one controls their muscles.

It seems we make decisions. 

If we presume that one is powerless one cannot apply justice , create , have pride, etc. 

Its A fine Escape clause for one who wants to be some blameless victim , or one who deems themselves virtueless. .. but not for one who draws Reward in having meaning And significance.

[Marblehead]

15 minutes ago, dawei said:

 

If I agree then there is something in the laws of nature that makes me agree... and if I disagree there is something in the laws of nature that makes me disagree...

 

Either I am willy-nilly or laws of nature are willy-nilly... or another 'choice' 

 

I opt for a different choice but that doesn't matter.

 

[Marblehead]

All my Sages believed in free will.  I have no choice other than believing in free will else I would be denying my Sages.

 

[Lost in Translation]

1 minute ago, Marblehead said:

All my Sages believed in free will.  I have no choice other than believing in free will else I would be denying my Sages.

 

This is actually very important. Thank you. For an anarchist, you are alright! 

 

It seems there are two ways this whole 'free will' thing can go. 1) you got it, and 2) you don't. Now let's run through what that means practically.

 

1) You got free will. You can make choices, which means you can reap the rewards (positive and negative) of those choices. You can learn. You can grow.

 

2) You don't have free will. You can't make choices, which means that $#!& just happens to you, good or bad. That's just how life is. You can't actually learn. You don't really grow. You just observe life as it unfolds like a 3D movie all around you.

 

Which option would you choose (assuming you even could choose)? I tell you I prefer option 1. So even if I don't actually have free will, I choose to live my life as if I did have free will. So I guess that means I have free will...

[wandelaar]

10 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

True. This is why "I don't know" is an acceptable, indeed a preferable, answer. 

 

Also, the point of conversation need not be to convince the other party to change their point of view. Often simply illustrating how points of view differ is enough.

 

There are lots of discussions where "I don't know" would be preferable, but not here. There is not one argument for "free will" that has any substance beyond the mere feeling that you can choose whatever you like. But that doesn't prove anything as your liking and choosing are natural processes themselves. There is no substantial argument for free will to consider. But let's stop. Knowing when to stop can save us a lot of trouble, as Lao tse would say.

[Lost in Translation]

2 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

But let's stop. Knowing when to stop can save us a lot of trouble, as Lao tse would say.

 

Too true. But sometimes you just need to exhaust the desire to do something. Imagine a mountain lake on a windy day. The water is choppy and waves are splashing back and forth on the surface. You can't stop the waves by hitting them with a paddle. But just underneath the surface the water remains calm and cool.

 

Tao is a lot like that, as are Taoists.

[Marblehead]

Don't you be hitting me with your paddle.  That happened to me once when I was much younger.  Ain't gonna' happen again.

 

[Stosh]

41 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

There are lots of discussions where "I don't know" would be preferable, but not here. There is not one argument for "free will" that has any substance beyond the mere feeling that you can choose whatever you like. But that doesn't prove anything as your liking and choosing are natural processes themselves. There is no substantial argument for free will to consider. But let's stop. Knowing when to stop can save us a lot of trouble, as Lao tse would say.

What exactly would tell you that you had free will other than sensing it?

 

 

If nothing  comes to mind as acceptable proof, then you have preordained Your position by negating any potential evidence you have.

 

 

[Boundlesscostfairy]

So what is the relationship between the person and Tao?

 

Is a person using the Tao for example.. or are we made of Tao in your opinion?

 

Is a person Tao?

[Stosh]

5 hours ago, Boundlesscostfairy said:

So what is the relationship between the person and Tao?

 

Is a person using the Tao for example.. or are we made of Tao in your opinion?

 

Is a person Tao?

What are you calling a person?

[Boundlesscostfairy]

maybe a Tea Bird...or T Bill..

An object like no other...

 

But to pretend its not conscious is a mistake..

 

So we feel that Tao is consciousness then?

 

Well we would be satisfied with that approach in the least..

 

So we say we have found a maxim..That the Laws of physics are Tao.. And that people are Tao themselves..

 

So what can we conjecture then? Except the immediately and ultimately timely separation and identification of all things..

 

So we can see that each thing...even though it relates to the all..is in a different position than any other thing..

 

So we see the salience of each individual thing sorted within the unity(the wall) of the whole thing itself...

 

So its those things that have come from Tao..and thus we are objects to..That have been created from the Tao

[Marblehead]

I don't go so far as suggesting that I am Tao.  But I do agree that I am, just as you are, an aspect of Tao.

 

At any given point in time the essence of Tao is always perfect.  But then, within the perfect essence is much chaos.  Apparently the chaos doesn't matter to Tao.

 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

There is a misconception about the laws of nature predetermining everything that happens, with our seemingly free will being subject to them. However, this would only hold true in a Newtonian universe, conceptualized as some kind of big clockwork, in which any movement follows from another movement with necessity.

 

Personally, I prefer living in what you might term a quantum mechanical universe, in which future events are in kind of a state of flux and, at best, only the probability of an occurrence can be foretold. This has been rigorously proven for the 'decisions' made by particles, but in my view applies to the ones made by higher beings in a related fashion.

 

I actually like to visualize the centre of our individuality as some kind of point-like singularity. This symbolizes our innermost self, a transcendental bindu point not subject to any blind-acting 'forces of nature', while intimately linked to our decision-making faculty. Hence free will does exist in my book; options in a given situation may not be unlimited, but we are free to choose from those available, with some choices more probable (and more beneficient) than others.

 

And BTW, the Dao that Laotzu and Chuangtzu talk about is much closer to quantum mechanics than to the Newtonian universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

I don't go so far as suggesting that I am Tao.  But I do agree that I am, just as you are, an aspect of Tao.

 

At any given point in time the essence of Tao is always perfect.  But then, within the perfect essence is much chaos.  Apparently the chaos doesn't matter to Tao.

 

 

 

There is indeed chaos inherent to order, as there is order hidden in chaos.

 

Ultimately, both order (cosmos) and chaos are inseparable aspects of Dao, or the yang and the yin.

 

Everything ('the ten thousand things') exists in the tension field created by these two opposites.

 

Interestingly, the modern theory of Complexity treats what it calls 'emergence' in similar terms. In a manner of speaking, the ancient Daoists were conceptually way ahead of their time...

[Starjumper]

It seems to me that part of the problem here (the problem being six pages of undecisive writings =) is due to a common problem with the definition of Tao, because it has two (2) two definitions.  One definition is the Way, and the other is also the Way, got it?  OK, good.  Which one you chose to talk about also determines this question of free will.

 

One is the Way the universe works (you can quote me on that) and the other Way is the path that you can take to get to the 'first' Way.  Either way works. a person who is already at one with the Way, our ideal accomplished sage, like me for example  has no need to know anything about the Way (path) to get there because they are already there.  Then there's the other Way, the path that one takes to get to the Way, which is used by those who want an occasional reminder as to which direction to take to get to the Way, which is confusing, since it's everywhere in all directions.  Which direction do you take to get to everywhere?  HellifIknow.

 

Got it?  Simple, right?

Edited April 21, 2018 by Starjumper