Free will or lack of.......

[onetruth]

3 hours ago, the village idiot said:

 

I think I may well be mouthing off from a position a couple of rungs down the 'philosophical truth' ladder than you?

 

There's no such thing.  One idea can't be more true than another - it's either true or it isn't.  Any statement I can make, or any thought I can think, is confused.  Nothing can really be said of truth/reality because it can't be limited by properties (and certainly not by description).

 

My feeling is that it might be the last level from where there is any leverage for any form of effective positive guidance to appreciate logically how things are in the 'reality' 99.99% of us inhabit.

 

Not sure what you could mean by "the last level".  Science, logic, maths, philosophy - all have potential for helping us understand how things could be, but all are incomplete (ie. only work within their own framework, and are unable to address the inevitable problems/shortcomings of that framework).  The reality that you suggest we inhabit is not there - at all.  It is entirely subjective and impermanent.    

 

do you consider my efforts a futile exercise? If (as you suggest) ultimately nothing is in fact truly and persistently real, should we be making efforts to understand our own manifestations of reality?

 

Not futile in the least if it is of benefit, and I think exploring our own manifestations of reality (nice way of putting it) is the most beneficial thing we can do.  I don't think I said ultimately nothing is real - I do believe in a reality, because I don't believe that there is nothing.  The idea of there being nothing just doesn't work for me, either emotionally (the world is light and wondrous) or intellectually (the existence of nothing is the most vulgar contradiction I can imagine!).  I just don't think that reality can be comprehended (possibly it must/can be realised, but thought and language are far too crude to provide an explanation of the inexplicable).  

 

I'd also be really interested to hear how you came to hold the views that you do.

 

My mum was a yoga teacher, my dad was a geneticist.  They'd take me to a Buddhist monastery in the lake district for holidays when I was a kid.  I (briefly) attended a philosophy uni course about 20 years ago and ate some mushrooms.

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by onetruth
yukky format

[the village idiot]

20 minutes ago, onetruth said:

I think I may well be mouthing off from a position a couple of rungs down the 'philosophical truth' ladder than you?

 

There's no such thing.  One idea can't be more true than another - it's either true or it isn't.  Any statement I can make, or any thought I can think, is confused.  Nothing can really be said of truth/reality because it can't be limited by properties (and certainly not by description).

 

My feeling is that it might be the last level from where there is any leverage for any form of effective positive guidance to appreciate logically how things are in the 'reality' 99.99% of us inhabit.

 

Not sure what you could mean by "the last level".  Science, logic, maths, philosophy - all have potential for helping us understand how things could be, but all are incomplete (ie. only work within their own framework, and are unable to address the inevitable problems/shortcomings of that framework).  The reality that you suggest we inhabit is not there - at all.  It is entirely subjective and impermanent.    

 

do you consider my efforts a futile exercise? If (as you suggest) ultimately nothing is in fact truly and persistently real, should we be making efforts to understand our own manifestations of reality?

 

Not futile in the least if it is of benefit, and I think exploring our own manifestations of reality (nice way of putting it) is the most beneficial thing we can do.  I don't think I said ultimately nothing is real - I do believe in a reality, because I don't believe that there is nothing.  The idea of there being nothing just doesn't work for me, either emotionally (the world is light and wondrous) or intellectually (the existence of nothing is the most vulgar contradiction I can imagine!).  I just don't think that reality can be comprehended (possibly it must/can be realised, but thought and language are far too crude to provide an explanation of the inexplicable).  

 

I'd also be really interested to hear how you came to hold the views that you do.

 

My mum was a yoga teacher, my dad was a geneticist.  They'd take me to a Buddhist monastery in the lake district for holidays when I was a kid.  I (briefly) attended a philosophy uni course about 20 years ago and ate some mushrooms.

 

What a joy!!

 

Can I get back to you in about 6000 years when I've had adequate time to digest that properly?

 

In the meantime, I can see myself holding tightly (wisely or not) to the premise that "exploring our own manifestations of reality is the most beneficial thing we can do".

[TIMON]

I’ve been following this thread with equal amounts of interest and bemusement [emoji51]
My own worldview is that of Spirit filled Christianity. (I know, very unfashionable these days but it works well for me and millions of others)
This debate really reminds me of the one that has been active for centuries in Christian theology.
Ie. “Free will” or “predestination” Calvinism or Arminianism.
(If he exists) God knows the end from the beginning because he is transcendent from the linear time frame that we exist in. If everything is predestined to happen then how much ‘input’ do I really have through my own conscious decision making?
I had more than my fair share of mushrooms and psychedelics when I was younger too..I felt like these experiences were a bit like “kicking the back door in” to enter the spiritual realm of existence, while I was “in” these experiences I felt like I was receiving incredible revelation into the mysteries of the universe and life as we know it. When I “came down” all I retained from these “amazing revelations” was confusion.
I’ve never tried mindfulness but I did a bit of TM years ago.
Thanks for sharing.

[woodwizzard]

What a great thread and very interesting to get peoples take on things.

I personally don't think that there can be a right or wrong version, what feels right for me is right for me and so applies to you all.

 

I "believe" that we are spirit, just a ball of energy if you like and our bodies are just a vessel that we borrow for a short time to be able to experience the earth plane. The brain is just the control centre of the body, so plays no part in the "I" or Self. 

 

I feel that we are here to learn and grow and are able to choose to experience multiple lifetimes to develop our spiritual selves. There is no being better than someone else, just different states of awareness. We are all teachers and students to one-another, we trigger thoughts ,feelings, emotions, actions and reactions, what you do with these and how you use them for your spiritual growth is the purpose of life to me.

 

As for free will, I think we all have it. You can choose your actions and reactions, control your thoughts and feelings, master your own little bit of the world. What other people do with it is up to them, that is not your concern, that is their learning.

 

Just my little take on it. 

[Vespasian]

3 hours ago, the village idiot said:

If you are of a certain age and thinking about a brain automatically controlling a body, it would probably be a bit weird if you didn't think about the numskulls. They have certainly popped up in my deliberations but I don't find it at all spooky that it has occured to other people aswell.

 

Probability is all thats 'going on' here.

Yea, I get your point, but I can't ever remember the Numbsculls, if I ever came across them it must of been in some fleeting way...

 

My point was, I did see a slide of them last night late on, and not twenty four hrs later you brought up the same imaginary  on this forum..

 

Remember the story about thinking of an old friend and then some hrs later the friend turns up?....   well, this is the same thing..   

 

You could of brought up the numbsculls any number of times over the past couple of weeks, but only after I'd come across an image of them did you post on here something I had seen not a full day before....  I think there is more than chance at play here..   

 

What about that nightmare I had?... I was all set to post up a new thread about that but put it aside, as something told me a thread about dreams would be posted in the forum in due time....   I couldn't imagine the thread I was thinkin on was posted within two weeks of me letting the hands of fate take the reigns...  

 

I mean perhaps it is chance, but perhaps its not...  all I know is sometimes things look a little too fishy for my liking...

 

 

[onetruth]

19 minutes ago, TIMON said:

This debate really reminds me of the one that has been active for centuries in Christian theology.
Ie. “Free will” or “predestination” Calvinism or Arminianism.
(If he exists) God knows the end from the beginning because he is transcendent from the linear time frame that we exist in. If everything is predestined to happen then how much ‘input’ do I really have through my own conscious decision making?

Let's assume that the world (and therefore the ultimate fate of your soul) is predestined as Calvin would have it.  The point I would make is that God may know your destiny, but you don't.  So although you can not alter God's plan for you, you are still free to chose the path you wish to take.  It is just that your free choice has already been destined.

 

A misinterpretation of this would be to think "my destiny has already been determined, therefore it makes no difference how I behave".  It is your behaviour that is predestined, but as it has not been revealed to you, you still have the enjoyment and responsibility of free will.     

[TIMON]

Let's assume that the world (and therefore the ultimate fate of your soul) is predestined as Calvin would have it.  The point I would make is that God may know your destiny, but you don't.  So although you can not alter God's plan for you, you are still free to chose the path you wish to take.  It is just that your free choice has already been destined.
 
A misinterpretation of this would be to think "my destiny has already been determined, therefore it makes no difference how I behave".  It is your behaviour that is predestined, but as it has not been revealed to you, you still have the enjoyment and responsibility of free will.     

Very well put, that’s about where I stand in regard to it. [emoji106]

[aspenarb]

Surely temperament has to be a major player in the thought process, none of us are the same and we have little to no choice or control in the way our emotions affect us.

 

Eg. Man comes home unexpectedly to find wife with a lover , his predisposed temperament will play a major roll in his thought process and actions , he could be any of the below  

 

Man 1. Gets in a rage and stabs the pair of them to death.

Man 2. Turns a blind eye and pretends it never happened.

Man 3. Says nothing , sneaks off, torches the wiffy`s lovers car, dobs  romeo in to his wife and reveals all  .

Man 4.  Gets off on it and hides in the cupboard  while on the hand pump.

Man 5.  Gets suicidal and throws himself off a bridge.

Man 6. Runs off never to be seen again.

Man 7. Hits the booze.

Man 8. Turns gay.

Man 9. Buys a transit and chipper ............... Nah

[the village idiot]

1 hour ago, onetruth said:

Let's assume that the world (and therefore the ultimate fate of your soul) is predestined as Calvin would have it.  The point I would make is that God may know your destiny, but you don't.  So although you can not alter God's plan for you, you are still free to chose the path you wish to take.  It is just that your free choice has already been destined.

 

A misinterpretation of this would be to think "my destiny has already been determined, therefore it makes no difference how I behave".  It is your behaviour that is predestined, but as it has not been revealed to you, you still have the enjoyment and responsibility of free will.     

One issue with that from Ti's perspective (apologies for speaking for you Ti) is it makes a mockery of the idea of heaven and hell and what can be done to avoid either. (From my perspective an eternity spent anywhere would be hell). If Christianity, and your interpretation of the way things are, are both correct then God has already determined from birth whether an individual is destined for heaven or hell. Christianity cannot function under these conditions.

 

I appreciate it is a fog like topic to get a hold of, but I do think we need some kind of solid idea about the nature of this God. Why is there a need to infur the existence of one. If it can't be described, how can you get to a position of 'knowing' it exists.

 

Can you have a go at describing God, and explain why you attach that word to the phenomenon?

[Vespasian]

1 hour ago, onetruth said:

Let's assume that the world (and therefore the ultimate fate of your soul) is predestined as Calvin would have it.  The point I would make is that God may know your destiny, but you don't.  So although you can not alter God's plan for you, you are still free to chose the path you wish to take.  It is just that your free choice has already been destined.

 

A misinterpretation of this would be to think "my destiny has already been determined, therefore it makes no difference how I behave".  It is your behaviour that is predestined, but as it has not been revealed to you, you still have the enjoyment and responsibility of free will.     

I sense a problem...   God knows that six million souls will go down in a gas chamber...  yet does doesn't lift a finger, or, planned it in the first place..