Free will

[satricion]

stop using your imagination. nothing "magical" happens, it is a breaking away of the barriers of our ego so that cosmic consciousness can shine through our being and light our path.

Um alright well good luck wth that. Apparently cosmic consciousness tancends causality. I hope it works out for you...I mean I honestly believe that you think you're right and you're probably finding it awesome for your life.

I personally have no trouble accepting the laws of causality and enjoying life. So uh...good luck with your paradigm man.

 

[Medatripper Tates]

"Like a flash there is presented to his consciousness a clear conception (a vision) in outline of the meaning and drift of the universe...He sees and knows that the cosmos...is in fact...in very truth a living presence. He sees that instead of men being, as it were, patches of life scattered through an infinite sea of non-living substance, they are in reality specks of relative death in an infinite ocean of life. He sees that the life which is in man is as immortal as God is; that the universe is so built and ordered that without any peradventure all things work together for the good of each and all; that the foundation principle of the world is what we call love, and that the happiness of every individual is in the long run absolutely certain."

Apparently cosmic consciousness tancends causality.

what does this have to do with causality..........

i can accept the laws of causality but im not going to be run by them.

http://www.geocities.com/alex_sumner/419.htm#1

 

[satricion]

Um...

"I can accept the laws of causality but im not going to be run by them" is a contradiction in terms. They're the laws of causality. It's not like running a red light. Everything is run by them whether you like it or not.

I mean if you want to think you can meditate yourself out of them then that's fine. But it's not much of an argument. Good luck with it though...I don't want to seem patronising or anything, I'm sure it's working out well for you but your arguments still don't stand. Sorry!

 

[Medatripper Tates]

alright, lets step back a bit. Say there was nothing at all, just empty space, and we were just aware. Nothing surrounding us, no material, no mind, we were just completely conscious. How could causation exist, if nothing but our awareness exists? If we were to escape this unified perception and utilize the ego, causation could exist because now there is form, an other.

I am not against causation in any way. I am for making the most out of it… getting every last pennies worth… and meditation allows me to do this. There does come a better something through nothing.

 

[Pegasus]

Your awareness and conciousness wouldn't exist if it wasn't caused to exist. It is not plausible that nothing but our awareness could exist.

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan

 

[knight_marshall]

i believe i have my own free will because I don't know if I do. If I don't have free will, it was meant to be. If I do have free will... I might one day learn that I've been using it

I pity anyone who one day learns they have been a slave... and I hope I'm not.

 

[satricion]

alright, lets step back a bit. Say there was nothing at all, just empty space, and we were just aware. Nothing surrounding us, no material, no mind, we were just completely conscious. How could causation exist, if nothing but our awareness exists? If we were to escape this unified perception and utilize the ego, causation could exist because now there is form, an other.

I am not against causation in any way. I am for making the most out of it… getting every last pennies worth… and meditation allows me to do this. There does come a better something through nothing.

Okay well you contradict yourself in your second sentence...If we are aware then there isn't nothing at all...there's something...it's us and we're aware...you can't be made of nothing or you don't exist.

So hence if our consciousness exists it has to exist in some physical way...and hence is subject to the same restrictions as everything else. You can't escape causality man, it's just one of those things.

 

[satricion]

Your awareness and conciousness wouldn't exist if it wasn't caused to exist. It is not plausible that nothing but our awareness could exist.

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan

Indeed.

It's not plausible that nothing but our consciousness could exist, but it's possible. I mean, there's no logical contradiction to say that there exists a universe that contains nothing but some consciousness, unlikely scenario though it is.

But it wouldn't be an empty universe. It would contain something. Consciousness (in whatever form you gave it). Nothing that exists is outside the laws of causality.

 

[Dyno_oz]

Indeed.

It's not plausible that nothing but our consciousness could exist, but it's possible. I mean, there's no logical contradiction to say that there exists a universe that contains nothing but some consciousness, unlikely scenario though it is.

But it wouldn't be an empty universe. It would contain something. Consciousness (in whatever form you gave it). Nothing that exists is outside the laws of causality.

It's a clever paradox isn't it? An 'empty' universe that contains only consciousness.

Because the consciousness is not connected with anything it is outside the laws of causality %)

Void space does not follow any natural laws either .. why ?

All manifest things are limited - void space can be boundless. Also void space does not decay, as there is no manifest thing in it TO decay.

Where is time in void space if there is no clock to measure it ? :D

Cause and effect are also just as useless - as there is no action in void space.

Please humor us satricon, I'm sure you're well versed in the existing arguements - but nothing new is achieved by repeating the old ones over and over.

How about we put the old arguments aside (that free will is logically impossible) and play with these ideas about consciousness and see if we all can come up with a new line of thought independently.

You never know, we may come up with something worth publishing.

From a drug board, who would of thought ? :D

 

[satricion]

Um, it has to have some physical form to exist. What exactly does 'the consciousness is not connected to anything' mean? That it has no physical form?

If it has no physical form then it doesn't exist as anything more than a concept.

If it exists it has to have some sort of physical manifestation and hence follows the laws of causality.

You want to play with ideas about consciousness? Well alright...please provide an ontologically sound definition of consciousness that allows it to trancend causality. Please also keep in mind that if it doesn't have a physical manifestation then...well...it doesn't exist as anything more than a concept (and so for our intents and purposes may as well not exist, since if you want to claim that a concept caused our mental states and created free will...well...that's just stupid basically and doesn't "commend itself to the sober judgement of rational persons" as Sigwick would say".)

 

[satricion]

Ps: The reason I'm using the old arguments is (aside from the fact that I've read up on the issue) that they're basically completely watertight.

That's why they're so old...because this is actually a very simple issue. Once you're faced with the arguments you either agree or you can go into religion or mysticism or whatever. I mean...neither of these options actually contain any arguments against free will, but they're an option if you want to carry on believing in it...

 

[Dyno_oz]

um.

um?

Don't you mean OM ?

 

[Dyno_oz]

Um, it has to have some physical form to exist. What exactly does 'the consciousness is not connected to anything' mean? That it has no physical form?

If it has no physical form then it doesn't exist as anything more than a concept.

If it exists it has to have some sort of physical manifestation and hence follows the laws of causality.

OK. Assume consciousness is light - only not a visible frequency.

Light is manifest - but has a rest mass of zero.

Light travells at c. This doesn't seem like a big deal until you take relativity into consideration.

Travelling at that speed allows light to travel from one object to the next (relative to the light beam) in zero time.

At that speed, time has stopped also.

If consciousness could be seen as a form of light - it has grounds to act outside of causality.

anyone ?

_ _ _ _ _ _

The other consideration is that consciousness is void space.

You could say that we are mainly made up of void space - as there is 99.999+ % free space between atoms and electrons that make our body, but our ego-based perception 'fills in the gaps' so we appear solid.

Unless.... you're this guy:

The skin of his chest and neck looks see through. %)

 

[satricion]

Sigh.

Alright...I can't figure out if you don't understand the argument, or if you genuinely think that defining consciusness as light gets around it. Although I guess that's the same thing.

Firstly, defining consciousness as light seems to me pretty lame. I mean...light? How the hell can you say consciousness is made of light? I mean I'm not sure how to argue against this...to me it's like saying consciousness is made of water or sheep or whatever.

But okay, let's assume it's made of light and all that relativity stuff comes in to play.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. LIGHT STILL CONFORMS TO SOME SORT OF PHYSICAL LAWS.

So if you define consciousness as light, free will still fails.

But if light doesn't conform to physical laws then it's random.

And free will still fails.

You can't say "it conforms to some physical laws that we don't know or are very complicated so free will is true" because it doesn't matter what the laws are or whether or not we know them as long as they're there. And even if they're not, free will still fails.

 

[Dyno_oz]

Alright...I can't figure out if you don't understand the argument, or if you genuinely think that defining consciusness as light gets around it. Although I guess that's the same thing.

Oh no, I understand the arguement - just looking at the situation in different ways.

I'm playing with a few ideas - the structure comes later.

You can't say "it conforms to some physical laws that we don't know or are very complicated so free will is true" because it doesn't matter what the laws are or whether or not we know them as long as they're there. And even if they're not, free will still fails.

What happens if free will is one of 'the natural laws man opperates under' ? (referring to deterministic arguement)

Like, free will is logically impossible in a general sense - but actually true in specifics?

 

[satricion]

That doesn't make any sense at all. You can't have something that's logically impossible but just happens to be true anyway. That's what logically impossible means.

 

[Dyno_oz]

^ that depends on the wording and scope of the arguement.

Read this:

(1) Free will is one of the natural laws man is subject to.

(2) If man is subject to natural laws Determinism is true, hence free will is false.

Do you see a paradox here ?

See, it's conveinent to say it doesn't matter what laws man is subject to, if one of them disagrees with what you're trying to prove.

It's like sentence 2 is worded to hide free will.

I'm happy to play devil's advocate here.. logic links together like like a chain.. I'm looking for the bad link.

 

[satricion]

Look, you can't say that something logically impossible is a natural law.

It can't be a natural law. It's logically impossible. It's like saying that the ability to be a sheep and a cow at the same time is a natural law.

People have tried to use this argument for ages to disprove determinism. It doesn't work. You can't say that something that is logically impossible is a natural law.

(as an aside, man isn't supposed to be 'subject' to free will...he's supposed to create his own will, not be subject to it. That's kinda what free will is. But that's not really relevant to the crux of the argument here, which is that claiming that something logically impossible is a natural law makes no sense whatsoever.)

 

[Dyno_oz]

People have tried to use this argument for ages to disprove determinism. It doesn't work. You can't say that something that is logically impossible is a natural law.

Why not? Natural laws don't have to be logical. If philosophers think that what man (or the universe) opperate under must logically possible - they are fooling themselves.

Why can't natural laws be seen as arbitary?

I'm getting a better picture here.

Cleverly create a logical impossibility for free will - then it becomes assumed false.

From the hint you've given, in terms of thoughts and actions, maybe man does not opperate under any arbitary natural laws.

Whatever ones he is subject to, he creates for himself.

OK. Let's see of a logical impossibility can be created for determinism ...

 

[satricion]

Pfft, I resign from this argument with you. I can't be bothered anymore.

Natural laws don't have to be logically possible? The very first thing that something has to do to exist is to be logically possible mate, it's pretty much a given. If it's not logically possible then it can't exist.

Anyway good luck with your worldview, I can't be bothered arguing with you anymore.